and watching videos (Years 1-3). Incontrast, feedback from students in project reflections and post-course conversations indicatedthat many students believed they had learned about thermodynamics from the project.Consequently, we determined that an additional year of testing with a revised assignment waswarranted.Revisions were driven by several observations of student behavior. Specifically, the teams offour students employed during the original design (i.e. Years 1-3) allowed them to specialize,and we often observed one or two team members being responsible for the video filming andediting, while the others specialized in the thermodynamics. Further, each team only consideredone of the five important concepts that were the focus of the
10 feature should create a good foundation for modeling the rest of the object in an efficient manner. Orientation of initial sketch plane The initial sketch plane is important for establishing the viewing direction of the 10 model and also how the model will be oriented in the assembly. It is also critical for establishing the main symmetry plane for models. Best model origin As with the base/core feature, the location of the origin is flexible. It should, however, reflect the design intent of the model. For example, if an object has
toward meeting learning objectives 1 – 3 by practicing designing in theirprocess books through six prescribed assignments (“design experiences”). Additionally, studentsexplored their own interests and related them to the primary course content by creating a set ofsupplemental entries. The process of design was emphasized by distributing the process booksubmissions throughout the semester and encouraging students to reflect on and revise theirwork.In the remainder of this section, the six prescribed Fall 2013 assignments are described.Additional information regarding the supplemental entries is also discussed.Design experience 1In design experience 1, students scoped a problem and brainstormed. They were given the cutsheet provided by SKM Anthony
graded for effort only, aiming atproviding formative feedback to the student prior to the tiered assignment. Additionally, eachtiered assignment was accompanied by a brief, open-ended questionnaire aiming atunderstanding how students chose problems to solve in this context. Questions included were: • Why did you choose the problems that you solved? • How do you think the level of this assignment compares to the level expected of the class, as specified in the rubrics provided? Why? • Do you think the level of difficulty of the assignments is reflected correctly in the points assigned to each problem?ResultsOur main interest in this design was in the first question: “Why did you choose the problems thatyou solved?” Here
selected from the existing instruments previously noted. Studentswere asked to respond to the questions from the perspective of the class they were in (either theIDEAS course or Course X). The assessments were conducted online in the 2nd, ~6th, and finalweeks of the semester. The evaluations asked students to consider their feelings about the mostrecent course meeting of their IDEAS course and of Course X as they responded to thequestions. The results should therefore reflect students’ motivational and curiosity state on threedistinct days in the beginning, middle and ending of the semester. In addition, a questionnaire atthe end of the semester asked students to reflect on the extent to which, in their view, the sevenattributes of IDEAS courses
force or moment of inertia, while the right side of the equationincludes the sum of active loading factors (in the absence of active factors the right side of theequation equals zero). During the beginning of the analytical approach to solve a problem, theinvestigator, based on the information of the problem, should figure out the characteristics of theloading factors that are applied to the system. Obviously, insignificant loading factors could beignored. It should be emphasized that the results of the investigation depend upon the measure ofaccuracy that the differential equation reflects the working process of the system.The engineering programs do not offer a straightforward universal methodology of solving lineardifferential equations of
levels of transformation that form the objectives of this project; eachlayer supports the transformations above.In this paper, we provide evidence that SIIP has not only increased the use of RBIS, but is alsosustaining their use beyond the initial financial investments in the creation of those communities.Organizational Change TheoryEducational change efforts can be categorized along two axes (See Figure 2): the intendedoutcome of the change effort (prescribed vs. emergent) and the aspect of the system to bechanged (individuals vs. environments and structures)1,3. Change efforts in engineering educationhave historically focused on changing either individuals through dissemination, facultydevelopment (i.e., developing reflective teachers), or by
, and thus, suggest that learning styles may be a valuable lens through which to evaluateour methods for developing students as problem solvers. We used the Felder-Silverman modelspecifically because of its historical application in engineering, and its multidimensional natureallowing for two preferences in each of four dimensions (active/reflective, sensing/intuitive,visual/verbal, sequential/global) with subsequent strengths (strong, moderate, balanced) for eachpreference. This multi-dimensional model accounts for different facets of learning, andadditionally emphasizes that these preferences are not fixed characteristics but merely, as theyare called, preferences. Though not a specific aim of this work, we hypothesized that faculty dohave
Assurance (QA) course that integrates evidence from research andnew developments in software testing as well as engineering education. The specific goals are:1. To incorporate empirical studies in software engineering to supplement instruction in testing of all aspects, including safety, security, reliability, and performance.2. To increase focus on particular topics of high relevance such as formal testing of safety- critical systems and software inspection through targeted pedagogical interventions.3. To leverage existing instructional materials from the software engineering education community to create and explore blended learning models such as a flipped classroom.4. To integrate and promote inclusive and reflective teaching practices in
more of the teaching practices introducedand 3) developing a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) project based on experiences intheir revised course. The summer academy includes multiple evidence-based teaching practices(such as POGIL, Mental-Model-Building, and Project Based Learning), an introduction to SoTLand IRB processes, and time for reflection and cross-disciplinary discussion of potentialapplications of each practice into participant courses. Discussion on the progress of participantSoTL projects and classroom peer observations both within and outside participant programs arethe key components of the academic year FLC.May 2014 and academic year 2014-2015 witnessed the first offering of the SPARCT Program,which engaged 16 STEM
arts majors, aswell as between the liberal arts and the areas of study leading to a major or profession.Our findings suggest that the learning objectives and the pedagogical approaches used in thecourse are adequate for a broad range of non-computer majors. Performance on writing andcomputing assessments as well as final grades (75% of students obtained a grade of C or better)indicated that a vast majority of students successfully achieved the learning objectives. Theseresults were consistent with student perceptions as reflected in an end-of-course survey. There isalso evidence that students satisfactorily integrated creative writing and computer programmingto develop their video game prototypes, making in-depth interdisciplinary connections
student.Research • 6-page midterm report • end of first semester of projectProject (½ way) • 50-page thesis • end of second semester of project (project completion)For-Credit • 3-page Australian Development • before SummitCourse Context research report(EfaHC) • 1-page Humanitarian Engineering • before Summit Reflection • 3-page appropriate technology • before Summit workshop report • 4-page Design Concept Proposal • completed on Summit, submitted
& Engineering Literacy/Philosophy of Engineering These numbers provide evidence of a common interest in engineering communication, but theyalso reflect the fragmentation of the scholarly conversation. This paper reports on work inprogress toward the goal of establishing some coherence in the conversation while at the sametime highlighting the diversity of approaches and range of expertise that are relevant toresearching and teaching engineering communication. We have begun a qualitative analysisusing papers presented at the 2015 annual conference as our evidence base. Here we provide aquantitative overview of the papers, identify trends that we have observed in the papers
simplistic or uninformed view that they heldearlier. Integrative refers to how understanding a threshold concept allows students to makepreviously unseen connections between aspects of the course.IVL Overview. The IVLs were constructed based on this active learning pedagogy and directedtowards undergraduate thermodynamics students.1 In the IVLs, students are guided through a setof frames where they are asked to respond to questions that ask them to predict, calculate,manipulate, observe, or reflect on phenomena related to the specific concept.Figure 1 presents an example frame of the Work IVL, one of the six available IVLs. This frameincludes the three main parts of a typical IVL frame, (i) a box containing the molecularsimulation that students are
paperspresented at the ASEE conference.)Students viewed this use as a positive experienceii. Three in four students saw their practice withthe AD Board as relevant, reflecting course content, and reflecting real practice. Similarly, theyapproved of the opportunity to practice their content and noted that the hands-on use reflectedtheir learning needs.Table 1Student Perceptions of the Process of Use Instruction and Supplementary Materials* % Use was relevant to my academic area. 83 The AD board provided opportunities to practice content 80 The use of the AD board reflected course content 79 The use of the
self-developed survey, followed by focus group interviewsof the students to reflect students’ attitudes toward classroom attendance and their learningefficacy under this innovative self-regulated learning. Three rounds of surveys wereconducted to examine students’ changes in attitude and preferences as well as theirperceptions of their learning efficiency. Based on students’ self-reports, the average rate ofphysical classroom attendance was 26%. More than 60% of the students preferred this“soft classroom” learning. In addition, they reported on how efficient this course was inresponse to this new learning environment. The results from the three rounds of surveysand focus group interview provided evidence of the success of the current case
associated pedagogy A detailed list of the modules as well as all lecture notes, exercises, and assignments can 9be found online . The modules consist of 5 separate sections covering: (1) basic professional ethics; (2) the software engineering code of ethics; (3) legal issues and security concerns; (4) local and global impacts; and (5) professional development. The general pattern we use for each module is as follows. 1. Introduce basic ideas, terminology, background 2. Look at and discuss case studies (where appropriate) 3. Reflective exercises (individually and in small groups or pairs) 4. Discussion 5. Application exercises (where students apply ideas) 6. Individual writing assignments (tie
students and utilizing a new approach to teaching design based on blended learningpedagogy, will be introduced. Evaluation of the course and approach from the studentperspective will then be presented. The article concludes with reflections on the course includinglessons learned and challenges faced. i. Teaching in Blended Learning Environments“Neither the purpose, the methods, nor the population for whom education is intended today,bear any resemblance to those on which formal education is historically based”1Over the past decade it has become widely accepted that the context, technology, and students oftoday are different from those of past generations and those differences must be accounted for incurrent teaching practices.2 The learning
contribution ADHD students can make, they often struggle in traditionaleducational environments. Mainly, how the traditional educational setting functions does notcater to how students with ADHD achieve success, nor do teachers have sufficient training andunderstanding of how ADHD affects learning and academic performance.8 In current educationsystems, students with ADHD are less engaged during instruction, display more off-task anddisruptive behavior, and are less academically motivated. There is a direct association betweenacademic achievement and attention during instruction, indicating that students with ADHD canhave more negative academic outcomes.8 This idea is reflected throughout college. Collegestudents with ADHD maintain lower GPAs
from each other or the world. If students wereencouraged to see their choices in attending college, they might be able to see their ownautonomy of choice in the classroom, but it is often opaque to them as they try to maneuver thedemands of graded daily homework or project progress reports. Students could also see theprogression of their mastery of concepts if they could reflect on what they didn’t know threemonths ago or a year ago, but when they get a poor exam score they are more apt to feeldiscouraged. It is not to say that there haven’t been attempts to enhance intrinsic motivation withgreat success. Particularly pedagogies that allow students to contextualize learning have beensuccessful. This includes project based learning, service
environment. Overall, 110 students included theenvironment in defining sustainability. Although most definitions there generalized, numerousstudents (N = 42) defined environmental sustainability more specifically in terms of resourcepreservation and management.A small minority of students reflected on the social pillar of sustainability in their responses tothis short answer question. Responses tended to be generalized such as the following: “Sustainability is the ability to sustain any device, instrument, process or an idea for a long period of time with the minimal socioeconomic costs.” (Male, Asian)Most students who mentioned the social pillar of sustainability did so in a generalized context ofsocial equitability and well
interviewed twice to capture new experiences and changes in perspectivesafter switching job roles, or after graduating and starting their first full-time positions. Anothergroup of subjects is being asked to respond to a series of guided reflection prompts during theirinternship or co-op rotations, culminating with an exit interview. This work goes beyondinvestigating how early career engineers grapple with technical problems to more broadly studythe nature of their encounters with boundary spanning situations and challenges, in part viewedthrough the boundary spanning typology and themes identified during the first project phase.This paper offers additional details about the development and evolution of our ethnographicinterviewing protocol, as well
scaf-fold on prior learning and experiences, addressing a continuum of lower level to higher levelthinking and deep learning as appropriate for the curriculum. Reflection essays, class discussion,individual and group projects/products, peer review and feedback, or other types of activities willbe used to measure learner progress on the learning objectives, and to provide timely and rele-vant feedback to both the instructor and learner. This information will be used by both the in-structor and learner(s) to guide decision making and engagement in bio-inspired design. Rubricsor grading guidelines will be created for each formative assessment to ensure they align with theproject goals and learning objectives. Summative assessment will occur at
, the alumni participants in the NSBEstudy continued to give back to NSBE even after they graduated. Participants spoke of guidingyounger generations of NSBE members by returning as professionals to the leadershipconferences to train new chapter leaders, run programs, and give advice.Theme 3: Creating a family-like support systemEthnic student organizations create unique environments for students of color attending PWIcampuses to create family-like ties with others who share their cultural identity through spaceswhere these students feel accepted and supported.Central to the SHPE organization is the emphasis on cultivating a SHPE familia. Theorganizational culture of this SHPE familia reflects relationships among the members where
thestudents’ general sentiment towards the probabilistic assessments. Through formal and informalfeedback, many students reported that they did not appreciate losing points due to selecting theincorrect answer. This inherent consequence in the probabilistic MC method used in CE404 mayhave tainted some of the students’ views towards the assessment technique, which is reflected inthe student survey data.1. Increases the student’s level of critical thought throughout the courseAs seen in Figure 4, only 29% of the class felt as though probabilistic multiple choice questionsincreased their level of critical thought while 39% of the students felt the questions did notincrease their level of critical thought. However, comparing the end-of-semester
indicators. Students should use information by recognizing the need,using it effectively, evaluating it, using it ethically and legally, and recognizing its changingnature. Since freshman engineering students need to learn the same things, engaging the newlibrarians in teaching basic information literacy components to freshman engineering studentsseemed to be a good place to train them.The learning process included three significant steps: Observation, reflection (and input), andpractice. A key component was to maintain the novice librarian’s engagement at each stage ofthe learning process. The novice librarians first observed sections of the in-class component,taught by an experienced engineering librarian, with the knowledge that they would be
collected in the form of an online survey (via Qualtrics), a version of which was firstdeveloped and implemented by Casto et al.11. The survey used for this study consisted ofquestion topics ranging from identity and personality to authenticity and persistence. The BigFive Personality model was the main framework used to measure personality. More specifically,students were asked to reflect on their personality during two different contexts or situations -“non-academic settings” and “engineering academic settings”.The adjective checklist approach was used in the development of the survey, previouslygenerated and used by Casto et al., Table 111. This approach uses personality traits, words, orphrases for self-description and is stated to be simple
on the EWRAS andURRSA were observed. Data on the post-survey measures were obtained from 11 REUparticipants, reflecting an 85% post-survey completion rate.Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Post-Survey Measures Standard Minimum-Measure Mean Median Range α Deviation MaximumURSSA 180.42 176.50 18.27 60.00 153.00-213.00 .91EWRAS 15.83 16.00 2.44 7.00 13.00-20.00 .86Openness to collaborating 4.67 5.00 0.65 2.00 3.00
that included their decision justifications. The students, rather thanpassively taking in information from the instructor, became actively involved in theapprenticeship. As part of this transformed role, the students were encouraged to reflect onchanges in their problem solving approaches in the final progress report. The students’ reflectiveresponses were then qualitatively analyzed for insight into their problem solving processes. Astatistical comparison of the project scores was also done to assess improvement. Theinstructor’s assessment of the students’ use of his feedback and their problem solving approacheswas gathered via semi-structured interview and included as part of the overall evaluation.1. IntroductionEngineering education must
homework. Under this model, which was independently developed but bearssimilarities to one very recent work 14 , students submit homework twice: the initial submissionwhere there is no penalty for wrong but complete attempts, and a second submission after detailedsolutions are provided by the instructor where students grade and correct their own homework.The recorded grade they ultimately earn for the assignment is based on how well they grade andcorrect their homework, encouraging a self-reflective analysis of their own learning.The first question we attempt to verify in this study is how well students in engineering coursesgrade their own homework when a self-graded homework model is in place. This is a questionthat has been addressed previously