construction courses in auniversity in Mexico. We applied the framework in a group of 21 students. The results showedan improvement of 20% in students ESD learning outcomes. Moreover, the participants reporteda better understanding on sustainable development problems as well as higher commitment to getinvolved in social development projects.1.0 IntroductionEmerging trends on sustainable development and information technology such as BuildingInformation Modelling (BIM) are driving profound transformation within architecture,engineering and construction (AEC) education [1], [2]. Therefore, higher education inconstruction engineering has been striving on implementing effective strategies to instructcompetence on BIM [2] and sustainable development on
tomeasure the underlying network structure that leads to successful and impactful makerspacefunctioning. The proposed analyses will model the makerspace as a network of interactionsbetween tools and students. The resultant network-level understanding has the potential toempower educators to 1) identify and remove previously undiscovered hurdles for students whounderutilize the space, 2) design an effective space using limited resources, 3) understand theimpact of new tools or staff, and 4) create learning opportunities such workshops and curriculumintegration that increase student return rates.Makerspaces provide a multitude of opportunities to enhance the existing engineeringcurriculum, allow students to learn through pursuing their own passion
about computer science and get natural language responses. Maria wasdesigned to: (1) make students want to ask her questions, (2) answer student questions, and (3)provide emotional support to students. Maria's implementation focuses on achieving these goals.To make students want to ask questions, Maria is relatable and easy to access. To make sureMaria was able to answer questions, she was programmed with the answers to many commoncomputer science and general knowledge questions. She can also walk students through morecomplicated issues, like finding the cause of a NullPointerException. Finally, to provideemotional support to students, Maria will give students tips on how to improve their score onprogramming assignments and will congratulate
): 1. How do students participating in an intensive engineering apprenticeship program develop and/or exhibit their engineering skills? 2. In what ways do student participants develop and /or exhibit interpersonal relationships with their team members? Theoretical FrameworkThe EAP that served as the context for this study was designed to motivate students to pursueengineering careers, as well as develop professional skills related to teaming and intra-personalworking relationships in an engineering environment. In our conceptual framework, threeinterrelated concepts are thought to affect student outcomes in the EAP: the learningenvironment, student motivation, and team dynamics (Figure
effort for decades [1] However, many of these efforts have focused on support of aspecific underrepresented group, but do not necessarily address the independent behaviors orattitudes of all students, or the overall cultural influence of the department, school, or university.The development of a new generation of engineering graduates that is more conscientious of theneed for diverse thinking and teams is critical for retaining members of these underrepresentedpopulations outside of a university setting and developing a stronger and more effectiveengineering workforce.In order to work towards this goal, an NSF-funded multi-institutional project in its third year isdeveloping unique curriculum activities that highlight how the engineering
engineering. Week 4 introduces the first case studyin engineering ethics. Typically, for the class in question, the Bhopal disaster is the first casestudied in depth. Students will prepare case study reports, applying each ethical theory to the case.Students are then further asked to identify what could/should have been done differently. Studentsare encouraged to examine cases from all angles, as is common in ethical analysis.In Week 6, the students were given the creative writing assignment. This assignment is shown inFigure 1. This assignment was initially intimidating to students. However, all 18 students in theFall 2019 cohort scheduled a meeting with the faculty member in charge of the course within 1week of being given the assignment. There
as well as the institutional behaviors that enable unequal outcomes.Ultimately robust data analysis and communication will be the basis for new structures to sustaina productive and diverse faculty.Inclusion has been broadly defined as: “active, intentional and ongoing engagement indiversity—in the curriculum, in the co-curriculum, and in communities (intellectual, social,cultural, geographical) with which individuals might connect—in ways that increase awareness,content knowledge, cognitive sophistication and empathic understanding of the complex waysindividuals interact within systems and institutions” [1, para. 6].For academic institutions the goal of inclusion addresses recognition of individuals acrossmultiple identity factors (e.g
organizational communi- cation, new media, gender, and organizing. Within engineering contexts, Sean has examined career issues within the engineering discipline regarding (1) new faculty experiences throughout their on-boarding and (2) educational cultures that impact the professional formation of engineers, which was funded by the Na- tional Science Foundation. Both projects have been published in the Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education. He has also served as a series editor, contributed to trade publications, and facilitated workshops related to higher education administrators’ work experiences. Sean is also actively engaged within mentoring activities, and has served as an advisor to multiple
positively affectedparticipants’ spatial reasoning and, if so, which origami/CAD combination resulted in a greaterimprovement in skills. The Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests (PSVT) were used to assess spatialaptitude. This study examined the change in PSVT scores before, during, and after completion ofthe workshop modules. These scores were also evaluated in the context of the participants’ countryof origin, prior origami and/or CAD experience, as well as whether participants’ parents orguardians are engineers.Introduction and Related WorkThe mental steps for representing, analyzing, and outlining inferences from spatial relations arecalled spatial reasoning 1 . Previous research shows that well-developed spatial skills have asignificant
thoughtful andreasoned with respect to hydrodynamics. We believe that this approach of collaborative lectureswith small groups will be beneficial to others needing to teach high-level concepts to studentswho do not yet have the background knowledge required for more formal teaching.IntroductionIn a first-year engineering course at a large Midwestern research university, remotely operatedvehicles (ROVs) are used as a design project topic to teach fundamental engineering andcommunication skills. The course utilizes a design-build-test-communicate framework with theuse of peer mentors [1, 2] to coach students through what is often their first team-based course intheir post-secondary education [3, 4].In the design of ROVs, the science of hydrodynamics
, calculus and a strongunderstanding of anatomy and physiology. Most critically, is to develop a concrete knowledge of jointmovement, kinesiology and gait, as well as current technologies used to analyze human body motion [1].Students then must combine this knowledge with the comprehension of applied forces and musclemechanics to understand how the body generates power to create locomotion [2]. The literature issignificantly lacking opportunities to teach this content while also considering entrepreneurial mindset andapplied applications of biomechanics. Educators should move towards a course structure that requiresstudents to apply concepts to project-based learning and think innovatively in the field of biomechanics.Students will greatly benefit
Data: A More Deliberate Approach to Improving Student LearningIntroductionAn accredited undergraduate design technology program adopted an American Design DraftingAssociation (ADDA) certification exam [1] to help assess student learning in architecturalgraphics, a key component in architectural design technology. The exam has been administeredin a junior level architectural design technology course. All those enrolled in the course mustpast the exam in order to earn credit for the course. Almost all who don’t pass the exam duringtheir first sitting have retaken the exam before the end of the semester in which the course wasoffered and in which the exam was administered. There has been the very rare exception inwhich an exam taker will
littleattention to connecting the concept to reality. The paper focuses on two sets of examples: 1. Examples that are unrelated to time. These include (a) discontinuity in space, forexample water levels at different sides of the locks in Panama Canal, sharp change in elevationof sidewalks (known as curbs), length of unused paper towel or toilet paper, change in brightnesslevel from light to shadow and between intensity level of pixels in a digital image, (b) numericaldisplays, such as an abrupt change in the numerical display of an elevator’s floor, change indigital display of radio frequencies, (c) switch-based devices such as light switches, (d) audiofrequencies, such as audio frequencies of piano keys, and (e) cartoon-based and non
the students theopportunity to practice design, problem-solving, and professional skills such as teamwork andcommunication. The inclusion of introductory design courses in the engineering curriculum is afast-growing initiative that has been implemented in several universities across the US as part ofmultiple efforts to improve retention [1]. Still, current concerns about engineering retention andthe preparation that engineering students need, demand an examination of these courses. Oneway to examine these courses is by exploring how students use the content included inintroductory engineering design classes as they progress into successive phases of theirengineering education. In this paper, we are interested in examining what aspects of a
through the confirmatory factor analysis. The ultimate purpose of this work is toshed light on factors that influence science, engineering, and mathematics graduate studentmental health so that graduate students, faculty, and staff can use these results for both individualand programmatic change. This study will help do so by providing some direction and guidanceto those who wish to use the larger HMN survey in future analysis.IntroductionThere has been a rise in mental health problems reported among college-aged individuals andthese mental health concerns have been shown to have a lasting impact on students [1-3]. Studieshave shown that there are unique stressors to the graduate student experience and that thesemental health concerns (e.g
NSF to explore the experiences of women and women of color tenure-trackengineering faculty. The initial development procedure for the survey was previously reported[1]. This survey probes factors that may contribute to an individual’s experiences as theycontinue, or persist, as a faculty member in association with their intersecting social identities.PEAS consists of scale items and demographic questions. The scale items measure ten constructsidentified from the literature, such as organizational climate and motivation factors, that underpinan individual’s personal experiences as they persist in an academic engineering career (See Table1). The demographic items capture the respondent’s various intersecting socially constructedidentities
had three years of teaching experience, but thatteacher had worked in the industry for 23 years. Five of them taught in suburban schools;one taught in a rural school; none of them taught in urban schools. Only one teacher taughtin a Title 1 school. The subjects they taught included science, biology, anatomy, andhealthcare. A summary of participants’ information can be found in Table 1 and Table 2.Data Collection Murphy et al. (2013) used interviews to study how female students perceived theircompliant or non-compliant behaviors and how their interactions with teachers shape theirview on their behaviors. We similarly conducted our six interviews. When doing theinterview, we used a phenomenographic methodology, which allows us to get
, Industry 4.0 focus, and research targetedindustry. Introduction The rise of Industry 4.0 transforms the workplace [1]. New technology reducesproduction costs while increases the product quality with more efficient work processes[2]. While it is plausible that Industry 4.0 improves people’s overall life satisfaction, atthe meanwhile, this rapid change causes anxiety among employees because advancedtechnology may replace human workers, especially blue collar workers [1, 3]. Forexample, in a traditional warehouse, workers’ job, which includes operations of pickup,delivery, and bookkeeping are highly repetitive [4]. Even for those who stayed,cooperating with machines or using new technologies bears
studies are anticipated to serveas a guidepost for aligning educational strategies and developing effective training for futureethical practitioners. In our paper, we present an overview of the study (background andmethods), progress to date, and how we expect the results to inform engineering ethics educationand industry ethics training.IntroductionEngineering degree programs recognize that ethics is essential in preparing students forprofessional practice. However, current efforts in ethics education often “decontextualizes ethicspractice from the situated contexts in which ethical theories are ‘applied’” ([1], p. 667), and thusmay not adequately prepare engineers for the types of situated ethical issues they will likely facein practice. The
alreadyincorporated into engineering education. Four prominent virtues in undergraduate engineeringeducation are detailed in this paper: (1) critical thinking (an intellectual virtue), (2) empathy (amoral virtue), (3) service (a civic virtue), and (4) teamwork (a performance virtue). Byconducting a literature review of these four virtues, we gain insight into how engineeringeducators already infuse virtues into engineering education and identify the gaps andopportunities that exist to enrich undergraduate engineering education through a virtueframework. Although virtues are part of engineering education, our findings reveal that mostengineering educators do not explicitly describe these concepts as “virtues” and tend to treatthem instead as “skills.” While
of their partnerengineering students. Both groups reported gaining new perspectives from working ininterdisciplinary teams and seeing benefits for the fifth and sixth grade participants, includingexposing girls and students of color to engineering and computing.IntroductionIn addition to amassing expertise in their field, engineering students must learn to collaborateacross disciplinary lines if they are to successfully negotiate today’s complex challenges [1].Increasingly, engineering solutions must integrate knowledge and practices from multipledisciplines and engineers must be able to recognize when expertise from outside their field canenhance their perspective and ability to develop innovative solutions. Tomek [2] discussed
[1] [2] [3]. Such reward systems are incongruous with institutional missionsthat include teaching, service, and community engagement in addition to knowledge production.Moreover, such reward systems have been characterized as gendered, since theydisproportionately value activities typically or stereotypically dominated by men and undervalueactivities often undertaken by women [4] [5]. Other studies have found that ambiguities inpromotion systems disadvantage women more than men [6] [7]. Still others have identifiedgender biases in a range of data considered in faculty evaluation, including research quality andproductivity [8] [9], student ratings of instruction [10] [11], and review letters [12]. All of thesefactors no doubt contribute to
(often surface-level) similarities betweenindividuals. A good match can provide essential support, whereas a poor match can leave anindividual feeling continued (or increased) isolation. Because of differences in cultural capitalbetween various identity-defined populations, even the initial ability to access the support is apotential issue beyond the quality of the match itself [1]. There are fewer URMs in STEMcompared to other populations [2], and thus, limited individuals to serve in these capacities whenseeking demographics-based matches.In previous work, the authors developed a profile format for role models (STEM alumni of apredominantly white institution who identified as URMs) to communicate their personal andprofessional narratives to
motivation, and negative emotions on both student andprofessional teams can be linked to misunderstanding caused by communication errors,specifically differences in how individuals interpret language used by team members [1][2][3]. Asource of this problematic interpretation results from use of ambiguous terminology, oftenrelated to probability (i.e “probably”, “maybe”, “often”, “unlikely”) or time (i.e “ASAP”,“soon”, “right away”), but can also include other wording that is somewhat vague inunderstanding (“good”, “alright”, “bad”). Brewer and Holmes previously investigated ambiguousterminology and the variability of responses across both probability and time-based languageambiguity and whether a relationship existed across demographics (specifically
represent 38% of astudent’s time in the degree, the expected proportion of pre-construction students to allconstruction students is approximately 40% of the population. Figure 1 presents the program’senrollment trends over the last nine years, which shows the unexpectedly high proportion of pre-majors to matriculated majors.The pre-construction program was introduced when the degree was modified from an IndustrialTechnology major to an Engineering Technology/Construction Management major, it wasinitially implemented as a series of pre-requisites to take upper level courses. When the pre-construction program was modified to be a pre-major program in the Fall 2014 Catalog (so thatstudents enrolling in the Construction - Matriculated
whitepaper on the future of the Division. As part of hisstudy for the whitepaper the author responded [1] to nine comments in the Division’s fourthhandbook [2] on a previously published paper by him on “Why technological literacy and forwhom? [3]The principal axiom drawn from this analysis was that “the general aims or purposes ofprograms in engineering and technological literacy are far from clear, and in so far as they aredeclared or implicit, are a function of the audience to whom the course or program isdirected”.In order to better understand the problem a comparative study is made with an innovativecurriculum in liberal studies that took place in the UK, as they are roughly analogous. Itconfirms that any attempt to develop technological
study the experiences of students on teams that have the goal of participating in anational or international competition versus those of students on non-competition teams. Usingsurvey data from students in the project ecosystem, paired with institutional data on studentdemographics, we conduct an exploratory analysis to understand whom our projects ecosystem isserving.IntroductionProject-based learning is often used in engineering classes to allow students to practicecollaboration, communication, and teamwork. These skills are considered essential professionalskills in the field of engineering and are often emphasized in engineering education curriculums[1]. At the University of California, Irvine, (UCI) students in the Department of Mechanical
outlined in the present work provides positive experiences for students and potentiallymore fully prepares them for success beyond the classroom. Importantly, because assigning teamsmight be perceived as disempowering to students—at least initially—engineering educators shouldwork to be transparent in their team formation practices and explain to students the rationale forsuch approaches.1. Introduction As engineering students graduate and enter the workforce, they are expected to possess numerous skills necessary for long-term success in the field. Chief among them is the ability to work collaboratively in teams [1]. This is because modern engineering practice requires proper collaboration and communication. It is therefore not surprising
writing prompt: personal experiences with biasWhile discussions of bias and limitations in model-based reasoning appear in analytical problemsthroughout the course, the main intervention took place during an open-ended team project thatoccurred after the first midterm. As part of the intervention, students were asked to writereflections about their own experiences of bias. They were instructed to choose one of the twofollowing prompts: 1. Please describe a time when you, or someone you know, were personally impacted by bias in an engineering design. What was the value to society the design was intended to create? How did bias affect how the design worked for you (or the person you know)? How did this impact you (or the person you
these materials were investigated. During the concluding ceremony of theSAMS program, a mini-symposium-style final project presentation gave students the opportunityto share their results and educate their peers about their insights on the role of sustainableengineering in their respective domain.IntroductionThe development of pipelines for students to introduce them to STEM careers before college andto increase their confidence in STEM-related skills is the key for the students’ success [1-5]. In2001, the Summer Academy for Math and Science (SAMS) program at Carnegie MellonUniversity was established to provide opportunities for rising high school seniors fromunderrepresented communities (i.e., students that belong to one or more of the