participants with the program? 2. What was the impact of the program on theparticipants’ teaching knowledge, skills, attitudes, and practices? (To those measures might beadded their evaluations by students and peers.) and 3. What was the impact of the program on theparticipants’ students’ learning (knowledge, skills, and attitudes)?11The remainder of this paper presents the shadowing experiences of each of the five new full-timefaculty members including: ● personal background ● prior expectations, including motivation ● preparation for the program (clear expectations/requirements?) ● what happened - in program and out ● post-analysisComputer Engineering New Faculty CaseI spent three years working as a software consultant before
twice a month twice a month once per week once per week Peer As needed, at least As needed, at least As needed, at As needed, at As needed, at least Mentoring once per semester once per semester least once per least once per once per semester semester semesterStudents have specific training on time management, resume writing, job searching, andtransitioning from student life to employee life. In addition, since graduate research requiresstrong written and oral communication skills the students have specific skill developmentworkshops/seminars on oral communications, writing, presenting engineering work as a
recent version of the “Fake Paper”. Theseresults give us some confidence that the case-based approach to teaching and learning aboutreading academic papers has merit.1 IntroductionLearning to read an academic paper is not a formally taught subject, but is an essential skillneeded by senior undergraduates and graduate students as they arrive at the edges of curatedtextbooks and human knowledge, and begin to explore new ideas on the cutting-edge based onresearch and development. For those of us who continue in our respective fields and want tocontribute with our own peer-reviewed academic papers, the skill of reading papers is necessary,but the approaches to teaching students how to read academic papers mainly use ad-hocexperiential learning
and Cold, and Rate vs. Amount. Theweek following the misconception labs, students complete experiments focused onthermocouples and the refrigeration cycle along with completing a thermal analysis tutorial usingANSYS Mechanical. In Week 4, students complete experiments that take the entire lab time(Bomb Calorimeter, Conduction through a Tapered Rod, and Major/Minor Losses) and require amore traditional lab write-up. The following week they do peer review on their write-ups withsubmissions due the following week. This cycle repeats two more times for each of thelaboratory teams (which are different from the HT teams) to complete each of the mainexperiments. The students then complete a Cooking Lab where they cook a roast, apple, andpotato while
teaching the course on tiger team interactions with other teams, and informaldiscussions with tiger team members over the course of the semester. Finally an end-of-yeargroup meeting between project managers, system engineers, and the tiger team providedparticipant feedback and cross-checking on larger themes that had emerged.This work in progress paper reports on the impact of the tiger team to-date in the capstone designcourse. At the time of writing the course is approximately 95% complete so the full effect of thetiger team is mostly, but not fully known; updated results will be presented at the conference.However the results to date do suggest several ways that a peer tiger team can address‘stuckness’ as well as other issues not anticipated at
problems visual through report writing of the entiremultimedia representation, etc.) as application process and then presenting toclass activities, class assignment and Assessment the class while discussion theira multi stage class project Triangle Metacognition aspects as well.independently and in groups. (LO.1) Every student can easily apply the basic mechanics principles to a real world engineering problem; a 3- stage class
studentstraveled on in order to protect their anonymity.Data Source Data for this narrative analysis are written journal reflections completed by participantsduring the abroad portion of the global engineering program. Table 2 provides an overview ofthe reflection prompts given to students while abroad. In addition to these prompts, students wereasked to write daily reflections on their experiences abroad. Sampled journals range from 7-15pages in length.Data Analysis We conducted a narrative analysis on reflective journals from eight VT-NETSparticipants in the broader experiential global learning program. We employ narrative as amethod of analysis [24], [26], [27], focusing on the stories participants share in their journalreflections. Our
roles are critical to smooth team operation and engineers need to be proficient inperforming such process roles. Page 10.837.1 “Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”Engineering educators have overlooked team roles specific to engineering student project teams.These are roles related to the accomplishment of the assigned project and require specificfunctional skills such as design (Design Specialist), construction (Builder), report writing(Technical Writer), computational expertise (Computer
– Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program.Catherine G. P. Berdanier, Pennsylvania State University Catherine G.P. Berdanier is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University. She earned her B.S. in Chemistry from The University of South Dakota, her M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and her PhD in Engineering Education from Purdue University. Her research expertise lies in characterizing graduate-level attrition, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and methodological development. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Exploring Engineering Graduate Students’ Perceptions of
amicroaggression scale than their White peers (Forrest-Bank & Jenson, 2015). As these slightinsults may be intentional or unintentional, microaggressions likely have contributed to theracial/ethnic and gender disparities in the engineering field. Within the last decade, engineeringeducators have expressed interest microaggressions and how these interactions impact thelearning environment, later workplace. Table 1 Microaggression Taxonomy, Sue et al. (2007) and Lewis and Neville (2015) Microinsult Microinvalidation Microassault Ascription of Alien in own land Assumptions about Intelligence style & beauty
increase the likelihood of first-yearand second-year student retention for low-income STEM students as compared to theirincome/high school GPA-ACT (or SAT)/geography-matched peers within STEM? RuralArkansas has experienced economic hardships that have severely limited STEM education-relatedresources for K-12 students as school systems in these areas have continued to struggle financially[3]. Data have also shown that students from rural areas receive limited exposure to academicenrichment programs. This can lead to lower levels of confidence as well as the belief that theyare not prepared to be successful in STEM programs [4]-[11]. Secondly, can the PTG supportinitiatives significantly increase the average first-year and second-year GPA for low
report improved levels of satisfaction in studies of flipped classrooms [9],[23] andspecifically in engineering courses [4],[13]. Research has shown a student preference for theflipped class model relative to traditional models [9],[24]-[27]. Student engagement within theclassroom setting and with peers is also facilitated by the flipped class model [23]. Interestingly,some research suggests high-performing students benefit more than weaker-performing studentsfrom a flipped class [27]. In addition, flipped classrooms have been shown to be impactful forretaining people of color in STEM [28].1.3 Why did we attempt a flipped class?While the flipped classroom approach may not be appropriate or effective for all types ofcourses, instructors, or
Bucknell University’s professionalliterary arts center. Its mission is to foster in a wide and varied audience an appreciation for thediversity and richness of contemporary American poetry, and to provide support for professionalwriters. The Stadler Center’s programs include, among other offerings, an annual series ofreadings by visiting poets and writers, fellowships and residencies for emerging and establishedauthors, and a nationally circulated literary journal. The Center also serves as the seat of theEnglish Department’s Creative Writing program. Like many such university-based arts centers,the Stadler Center serves both an on-campus and an off-campus constituency, bridging the dividebetween the university and the wider literary culture. Its
and have strong existing ties to the land-grant universitythrough programs funded by Federal and private agencies. Each Alliance institution identifiednew initiatives for this project to complement those already in place, providing synergy towardthe overall project goal. These initiatives include focused and enhanced recruiting; developmentof detailed transfer guides; training for admissions personnel and academic advisors; studentenhancement programs such as student research opportunities, internships, math immersion, andalternative spring break; a focus on career counseling; formal and peer tutoring; andimplementation of improved student tracking. A particular focus of the KS-LSAMP isrecruitment and retention of military veterans in STEM
learninginclude that students dislike forced interaction, dislike the increased responsibility for their ownlearning, and prefer instruction solely from an expert perspective [7]. The distribution ofcriticisms of active learning techniques are adopted as identifying elements of their practice inthe corresponding three categories: ‘Increased Interaction’, ‘Increased Responsibility’ and‘Decreased Expertise’. Decreased expertise in this context involves removal of the professor asthe primary authority for information as presented from the peer-directed activity; their peers areviewed as having decreased expertise compared to the knowledge of the instructor. It is ofinterest if there is parity in the criticism of the presented active learning activities in
equality in the study of engineering. It is suggested [10] that women’s learning isbetter supported in an environment that is different from those in traditional education and from thosethat support men’s learning. The ‘chilly climate’ in engineering classrooms has been identified as themajor reason that leads to women’s inferior experiences to their male peers [9]. Through addressingsome commonly identified issues for female students in male dominated courses, Lewis [21]elaborates what is required for technical education to be gender inclusive. She pointed out three Page 12.779.2aspects that have been neglected in the construction of
college level, so the material is new formost of the students. For example, the physics course concentrates on special relativity;chemistry focuses on aspects of organic chemistry and molecular synthesis. Each course gives ahomework assignment every week, designed to be challenging enough to require collaborative Page 24.691.4effort to solve. No student is advanced enough in all areas of science to complete eachassignment independently. This forces gifted students who rarely encounter true academicchallenges to be pushed from their comfort zone. To succeed they must ask for and acceptassistance from their peers or teaching assistants. The
, and programming, (b) stark variations in the core interests of thestudents, and (c) cultural disparities between engineering departments regarding reasonablelevels of assignment difficulty and commensurate time investments. To help address some ofthese issues in a junior-level Introduction to Biomedical Engineering course, the author haschosen (for four recent Spring course offerings) to set aside two to three weeks of each 16-weekcourse for discretionary topics chosen by the students. Each student or student pair then takes onthe role of the instructor and teaches that topic to the rest of the students in the format of a 25-minute seminar. Students must assign homework to their peers and grade the results; thesegrades are then entered into
and oral presentations for eachteam alternates. When written updates are due, team leaders provide a summary progress reportwhich is also shared with the project sponsor. The other team members each write individualreports to demonstrate their efforts. The individual report has four main areas: activities from theprevious week (since the last progress report), significant accomplishments, problemsencountered, and immediate future actions. The team leader’s report also covers these four areasas well as the status of the project (schedule), and conclusion. On the due date, the team leadercollates and sends all reports to the faculty advisors.Throughout the semester, four peer reviews (one every four weeks) are completed by eachstudent. The form
across several engineering disciplines. Each project team was supervised by atleast a faculty advisor and a student peer mentor enrolled in the four-year university. Theresearch project outcomes of the internship, as well as the external evaluation results, haveshown that the summer research internship program delivered its objectives to have studentinterns gain valuable engineering research experience, strengthened their confidence in problemsolving, and reinforced their interest in pursuing an engineering degree. Furthermore, theprogram improved the students’ technical skillset, team collaboration, time management, andcommunication skills. The first-year development and implementation of the program, as well asits outcomes and lessons learned
to increase the annual enrollment of students in the B.S. and Area of Emphasis inCybersecurity at West Virginia University. Specifically, the enrollment has more than doubled inonly two years (from 2020 to 2022). Furthermore, the ACCESS scholarship recipients havegreater diversity than their peers enrolled in the cybersecurity field at West Virginia University.Over the last three years, the ACCESS program provided numerous co-curricular activities andstudent support services and has strengthen its partnerships with employers from the public andprivate sectors. Students’ feedback, which was provided via anonymous surveys and focusgroups discussions conducted by an external evaluation team, was overwhelmingly positive andhighlighted numerous
their preparation when eventualtransfer occurs [18], resulting in transfer students being considerably less competitive in comparison totheir peers when seeking coveted upper-division research opportunities [19].In recent years there has been a push to provide community college students with opportunities todevelop research skills through course-based undergraduate research experiences (CURES) or byconducting independent research projects [20, 21]. Due to the unexpected circumstances created by theCOVID-19 pandemic, however, the education system transitioned to a remote format that could notsupport many of these research opportunities. With fewer opportunities for community college STEMstudents to engage in undergraduate research, an open
both member- ships, the following Codes have been translated: ASME B31.3, ASME B31.8S, ASME B31Q and ASME BPV Sections I. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Paper ID #34131 While maintaining his industrial work active, his research activities have also been very active; Dr. Ayala has published 90 journal and peer-reviewed conference papers. His work has been presented in several international forums in Austria, the USA, Venezuela, Japan, France, Mexico, and Argentina. Dr. Ayala has an average citation per year of all his published work of
program.When designing the remote Transfer-to-Excellence program, the administrative team had severalpriorities: First, the team hoped to provide as many interns as possible with a research internship.They also sought to provide an experience as similar as possible to the planned in-personprogram. This required that interns felt a strong sense of community with their research lab andpeer interns. As the interns were all physically isolated from their peers, mentors, and facultyhosts, the administrative team sought to ensure interns felt well supported and as connected aspossible. However, they acknowledged that interns would not be able to spend excessive time onvideo calls, due to risk of zoom fatigue or boredom [9].Twelve faculty hosts unfortunately
three areas in which I believe graduate students will benefit most: developing coursematerials, in-classroom experience, and receiving feedback. For developing course materials, Ifound meeting with my faculty mentor before the semester began to discuss the syllabus and courseevolution was helpful for seeing how past experience can be used to continuously improve a course.Meetings with our supervising professor and graduate student peers were opportunities to brainstormand refine my ideas for in-class activities. Also as a result of our meetings and reflective writing, Iwas able to ensure that each activity could be mapped to the learning objectives. For example, thein-class worksheet for my instrumentation lecture was a tool for students to
educational research. Her research interests primarily involve creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship education.Dr. Stephanie Cutler, Pennsylvania State University Dr. Stephanie Cutler has degrees in Mechanical Engineering, Industrial and Systems Engineering, and a PhD in Engineering Education from Virginia Tech. She is an Assistant Research Professor and the As- sessment and Instructional Support Specialist in the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education at Penn State as well as a co-founder of Zappe and Cutler Educational Consulting, LLC. Her primary research interest include faculty development, the peer review process, the doctoral experience, and the adoption of evidence-based teaching
. For the team tosucceed, one or more students must develop mastery of each subject. Moreover, the team canprovide a learning environment and a social setting that promote peer instruction and offeropportunities to develop mastery.In this paper we describe a two-year program aimed at promoting self-efficacy amongundergraduate engineering students at Trinity College. The goal of this work was to develop andevaluate a new framework for developing mastery, to test and evaluate our framework, and tosuggest areas for further investigation. In our study, the independent variable is the teachingmethod, and the dependent variable is self-efficacy. As a method to address the self-efficacyissue, we propose individual or small group mastery projects that
space as well as at least eight engineering students who used themakerspace. Researchers specifically aimed to include women and individuals fromunderrepresented groups in the sample. Student participants were recruited via individualrequests, mandatory engineering courses and/or were recommended by the makerspacemanagement.Data analysisAfter interviews were conducted, they were transcribed and coded with recommendations fromSaldaña [10], which included: 1) utilizing broad codes for the preliminary coding stage, 2)repeating codes to find patterns in the data, 3) developing broader codes and categories, 4)writing analytic memos for insights that occur, and 5) reducing codes through code mapping(i.e., reorganizing and condensing codes to create a
unusually large population of students who were homeschooledwhen they graduated from high school (about 1/5 of students university wide and 1/4 of studentscurrently enrolled in the School of Engineering and Computer Science). In this paper, I investigatethe retention rate and calculus readiness for homeschooled students entering the School ofEngineering and Computer Science as compared with their non-homeschooled peers.In this study, I hypothesized that homeschooled students might have a different likelihood tosucceed in engineering school compared to their non-homeschooled peers. The results of the datastudy support this hypothesis and suggest that homeschooled students are more likely than othersto succeed in engineering school, with retention in
assessments intended for the public (which many are). Learning how peer review is done, and the role of critical feedback, is a critical piece of the standard process. This means both writing peer reviews and reading/ comprehending existing reviews.Study MethodThe research involved study over a 2 year period. We asked faculty who taught a full-semesterlife cycle assessment course that used our textbook as a resource to participate and eleven facultyat different institutions volunteered. These institutions included eight doctoral, highest researchlevel universities, and one each of doctoral - higher research, doctoral - moderate research, andmasters institutions. The courses included mostly courses for graduate students but