.” [Online]. Available: https://learningassistantalliance.org/modules/about/about_laa.php.[29] V. Betihavas, H. Bridgman, R. Kornhaber, and M. Cross, “The evidence for ‘flipping out’: A systematic review of the flipped classroom in nursing education,” Nurse Educ. Today, vol. 38, pp. 15–21, 2016.[30] R. M. Felder and R. Brent, “Understanding Student Differences,” no. January, 2005.[31] R. M. Felder, “Learning Styles and Strategies,” North Carolina State University, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/styles.pdf.[32] D. Bye, D. Pushkar, and M. Conway, “Motivation, interest, and positive affect in traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students,” Adult Educ. Q., vol
Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 45(1), pp. 134-138, 2003.[2] T. Byers, T. Seelig, S. Sheppard, and P. Weilerstein, “Entrepreneurship: its role in engineering education,” The Bridge, vol. 43(2), pp. 35-4, 2013.[3] T. J. Kriewall and K. Mekemson, “Instilling the entrepreneurial mindset into engineering undergraduates,” The Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship, vol. 1(1), pp. 5-19, July 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.jeenonline.com/Vol1/Num1/Vol1No1P1.pdf [Accessed March 1, 2018].[4] E. Cao, S. Gilmartin, Q. Jin, C. Dungs, and S. Sheppard, “Business program participation and engineering innovation: an exploration of engineering students’ minors, certificates, and concentrations,” The Journal
year engineering students: Perceptions of engineers and engineering work amongst domestic and international students,” Int. J. First Year High. Educ., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 89–105, 2015.[12] L. Q. Prendergast, “Retention, Success, and Satisfaction of Engineering Students Based on the First-Year Experience,” The State University of New Jersey, 2013.[13] S. W. Tho, Y. Y. Yeung, R. Wei, K. W. Chan, and W. W. So, “A Systematic Review of Remote Laboratory Work in Science Education with the Support of Visualizing its Structure through the HistCite and CiteSpace Software,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1217–1236, 2017.[14] E. Fabregas, G. Farias, S. Dormido-Canto, S. Dormido, and F. Esquembre, “Developing a
Dr.Thomas’ initial visit to the class, he delivered a detailed lecture on the technologyinvolved in IVF. Being engineers, the students especially appreciated the technicalelements of his lecture, and they asked many questions about the workings of the devicesand processes he described. But his presence was insignificant to the ethics focus of thecourse. Indeed; the subject of ethics never came up, not in his lecture or in the Q & A.This changed, however, in subsequent years, when students left the classroom to travelacross town, to meet with Dr. Thomas inside of his IVF lab.It was there that the students passed by the waiting room for patients seeking help withreproduction, and then saw with their own eyes, the array of technology involved in
in Spring 2015, the ITD program created new class activitiesto help students understand the difference between their perceptions and experiences of aproblem, and those of the people actually affected by that problem.These activities include: ● Subject Matter Expert (SME) Talks: Experts present on various aspects of the problem, followed by a 20-minute Q&A session. ● User Empathy Experience: Re-creation of the problem context on class premises, where students execute project-relevant tasks. ● Stakeholder Engagement Experience: Students are sent off campus to observe and interact with users/stakeholders. ● A reflection assignment: Analysis of what they thought were problems for the users compared with what
Dysfunctional Cooperative Learning Teams Based on Students' Academic Achievement," J Eng Educ, vol. 99, (1), pp. 45-54, 2010.[16] M. C. Thomas and K. W. Phillips, "When What You Know Is Not Enough: Expertise and Gender Dynamics in Task Groups," Person. Soc. Psychol Bull., vol. 30, (12), pp. 15851598, 2004.[17] A. Joshi, "By Whom and When Is Women’s Expertise Recognized? The Interactive Effects of Gender and Education in Science and Engineering Teams," Adm. Sci. Q., vol. 59, (2), pp. 202-239, 2014.[18] H. Tajfel and J. C. Turner, The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. 2004.[19] L. U. Eric and G. L. Cohen, "Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination," Psychol. Sci., vol. 16, (6), pp. 474-480, 2005
12ReferencesAina, C., Baici, E., & Casalone, G. (2011). Time to degree: students' abilities, university characteristics orsomething else? Evidence from Italy. Education Economics, 19(3), 311-325.Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.Bensimon, E. M., & Bishop, R. (2012). Introduction: Why" critical"? The need for new ways of knowing. TheReview of Higher Education, 36(1), 1-7.Chen, X. (2013). STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields (NCES 2014-001). NationalCenter for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.Dika, S. L., Pando, M. A., Tempest, B. Q., & Allen, M. E. (2017). Examining the Cultural
students: Results of a longitudinal study,” Journal of Higher Education, vol. 69 no. 6, pp. 589-620, 1998.46. P. Q. Hall, Problems and solutions in the education, employment and personal choices of minority women in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1981.47. Datnow, A., & Cooper, R. (1997). Peer networks of African American students in independent schools: Affirming academic success and racial identity. The Journal of Negro Education, 66, 56–72.48. D. A. Guiffrida, “African American student organizations as agents of social integration,” Journal of College Student Development, vol. 44 no. 3, pp. 304–319, 2003.49. S. Hurtado, D. F. Carter, “Effects of college transition and
Studies, pp. 587-634, 2001.[14] E. Coyle, L. Jamieson, and W. Oakes, "EPICS: Engineering Projects in Community Service," International Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 139-150, 2005.[15] C. B. Zoltowski, W. C. Oakes, and M. E. Cardella, "Teaching Human-Centered Design with Service-Learning," in 2010 Annual Conference and Exposition, Louisville, KY, 2010, pp. 1-13: American Society for Engineering Education.[16] M. Q. Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc, 2002.[17] S. R. Daly, R. S. Adams, and G. M. Bodner, "What Does it Mean to Design? A Qualitative Investigation of Design Professionals’ Experiences," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101
Using nStudy Trace Data and the ICAP Framework. Paper presented at the LAL@ LAK.Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of educational psychology, 80(4), 514.Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological measurement, 53(3), 801-813.Pitterson, N. P., Brown, S., Pascoe, J., & Fisher, K. Q. (2016). Measuring cognitive engagement through interactive, constructive, active and passive learning activities. Paper presented at the Frontiers in
solutions, select & prototype concepts, and gather patient/clinical feedback on proposed solutions. Students presented their need, design process, and proposed solution in a video format. Experienced faculty, clinicians, local entrepreneurs, and design faculty from the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and from the School of Architecture were available to question the students about their ideas in an organic and realistic manner in the Q&A following the video presentation. Students were evaluated on 1) the quality and level of accomplishment in their designs, and 2) the quality of the video presentation and communication of the process and outcomes.Assessments in 2017 (both J-Term and
Society of Professional Engineers, Engineering Body of Knowledge, First Edition. Alexandria, VA: NSPE, 2013, 60 pp.[3] AIChE, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Body of Knowledge for Chemical Engineers, Release 1.0. New York, NY: AIChE, 2015, 116 pp.[4] ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future, Second Edition. Reston, VA: ASCE, 2008, 181 pp.[5] American Society for Engineering Education, ASEE. ASEE Papers on Engineering Education Repository, PEER. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/advanced_search?q=leadership+&q_in%5B%5D=title&q_in%5B%5D =conference_session_name&q_in%5B%5D=topics&q_in
on nonresponse in web surveys.Social Science Computer Review, 25(3), 372.[24] Zhu, J., Hu, Y., Liu, Q., & Cox, M. F. (2015). Validation of an instrument for Chineseengineering students’ epistemological development. International Journal of Chinese Education,4(2): 135-161.[25] National Academy of Engineering. (2005). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering inthe new century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
1424 O’Keefe, C. M., & Head, R. J. (2011). Application of logic models in a large scientific research program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 174–184. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.02.00825 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.26 Funnell, S. C., Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco: Wiley.27 Kelly, A. E. (2014). Design-based research in engineering education: Current state and next steps. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 497–418). New York: Cambridge University Press.28 Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A
prototypes, startingwith a “minimum viable prototype.” Compared to traditional approach, lean start-up favorsexperimentation over elaborate planning, customer feedback over intuition and iterative designover traditional “big design up front” development (Blank, 2013).Student DemographicsStudent participants for the STEM-Inc project were recruited through multiple efforts (Huang,2017). Recruiting flyers were created and distributed to the classes at the four participatingschools via STEM-Inc teacher participants when the school year started. Additionally, a STEM-Inc open house and live engineering/computer science project demonstration with Q&A sessionwas held at each one of the four schools, mostly during the lunch hours in September
lived experiences of faculty women ofcolor, including “surviving and thriving” strategies; 3) sessions on diversity research; 4) hands-on workshops focused on career development strategies; and 5) a screening of the documentary“Living Thinkers: An Autobiography of Black Women in the Ivory Tower” followed by a Q&Asession with the filmmaker. The conference was also designed to encourage networking andincluded a poster session, a breakout session where small groups brainstormed solutions to careerproblems, and an evening networking reception.The conference drew 181 attendees from more than 50 institutions across the US, includinguniversity faculty, administrators, post-doctoral fellows, and graduate students. While mostparticipants were from
American Educational Research Association, New York, 2018.[21] H. Boone and A. Kirn, “First Generation Students Identification with and Feelings of Belongingness in Engineering,” in Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2016.[22] S. Allie et al., “Learning as acquiring a discursive identity through participation in a community: Improving student learning in engineering education,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 359–367, 2009.[23] J. E. Stets and P. J. Burke, “Identity theory and social identity theory,” Soc. Psychol. Q., pp. 224–237, 2000.[24] R. Stevens, K. O’Connor, L. Garrison, A. Jocuns, and D. M. Amos, “Becoming an engineer: Toward a three dimensional view
by periodic impromptu concept presentations, plus groupand individual reflections on stakeholder needs, design criteria, etc. When the students reportedback to the PDE class, it consisted of a poster presentation with supporting evidence anddemonstration of a physical artefact. Through a rigorous Q&A session the visiting studentscommunicated and defended their design choices. Since the local students had not met as a classsince day one, the expectation was that the visitor presentations would help the local studentsprogress their own designs, and perhaps rethink their impressions of important contextual issues.The intensive investigation activities around the Jakarta project was interspersed with shorttechnical visits and workshops, one
Raton: CNC Press, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id=DiFMPmXSsLUC&pg=SA2- PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false [2] R. P. Feynman, “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom,” Science and Engineering, pp. 22–36, 1960. [Online]. Available: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/47/2/1960Bottom.pdf [3] M. Ruivenkamp and A. Rip, “Entanglement of Imaging and Imagining of Nanotechnology,” Nanoethics; Dordrecht, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 185–193, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://search-proquest- com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/docview/887465026/3ADDD4C0F5D0457BPQ/1?accountid=14779 [4] A. D. Derjaguin, B. V. and Titijevskaia, A. S. and Abricossova, I. I. and Malkina, “Investigations of the forces of interaction of
to think about the topic and assess their learning of thatconcept. In the second step, the students got the chance to communicate their findings or theconfusions with other students. Also, during the second step, the instructor joined the students'conversations, and it provided the opportunity for all of the students to interact with theirprofessor in the format of a discussion rather than a formal Q and A practiced in the standardlecture classes. The students were asked to explain their solutions or their approach to solving theproblems to each other so they would exchange ideas and get exposed to different ways ofsolving a problem. The instructor asked the students to find another student who came up with adifferent answer and challenge
contrarian view of accepted (i.e., typical) solutions. g. Identify an unexpected opportunity for your design. h. Create extraordinary value for a customer or stakeholder. i. Integrate information from many sources to gain insight. j. Assess and manage risk. k. Persist through failure. l. Apply creative thinking to ambiguous problems. m. Apply systems thinking to complex problems. n. Evaluate economic drivers. o. Examine a customer’s or stakeholder’s needs. p. Understand the motivations and perspectives of others. q. Convey engineering solutions in economic terms. r. Substantiate claims with data and facts.The answers were provided in five scales: 1. None at all 2. Slightly 3. On some occasions 4. Many times 5