, Ireland. Page 26.1776.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Writing and Implementing Successful S-STEM ProposalsAbstractFor over 10 years, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has been funding S-STEM proposals.The S-STEM program “makes grants to institutions of higher education to support scholarshipsfor academically talented students demonstrating financial need, enabling them to enter theSTEM workforce or STEM graduate school following completion of an associate, baccalaureate,or graduate-level degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics disciplines1.”Currently
Media at Polytechnic University (now NYU Polytechnic School of En- gineering), and her Ph.D. in Educational Communication and Technology at New York University. Her mixed methodology research, focusing on interdisciplinary studies, has been presented at numerous na- tional and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed book chapters and journal articles on varied topics such as technical writing, the future of science education, game design, virtual reality, and problem solving. Her book is entitled Cases on Interdisciplinary Research Trends in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Studies on Urban Classrooms (Information Science Reference, 2013).Dr. Candido Cabo, New York City College of
completing graduation requirements. · Assess and evaluate information for personal use.Together, the Mentors and Mentees had the following shared responsibilities: · Set the mentoring agenda (discussing clear expectations and boundaries). · Practice honest communication and interaction. · Accept the “take it or leave it” option without fear of diminishing the helping relationship.Over the summer, the Peer Mentors participated in group training sessions involving reading,writing and discussion-based assignments in order to prepare to be successful Peer Mentors.Training materials used for the Peer Mentors included: • Students Helping Students: A Guide for Peer Educators on Campuses, F. B. Newton, S
groups found them to be the most valuable aspects of the program.Pace. iFEAT was designed to be a multi-month program to allow time for writing of applicationmaterials, specifically cover letters, teaching statements, and research statements. Seminars orpanels were held approximately every three weeks, with peer-review groups convening betweenthe scheduled events. Programming began in late October, and the three aforementioneddocuments were to be drafted by mid-January, allowing approximately 2.5 months for draftingthese documents. The program structure dictated when certain application materials should bedone, although there was no particular reason that the seminars were to be done in the chosenorder. Applicants were asked to rank the pace
Paper ID #12741Help Seeking Among Undergraduate Men and Women in EngineeringDr. Joanna Wolfe, Carnegie Mellon UniversityJaime Allen Fawcett, Carnegie Mellon University Jaime Allen Fawcett recently completed her undergraduate studies at Carnegie Mellon University in De- cember 2014 where she received a degree in Professional Writing and an additional degree in Creative Writing. Her research interests include pedagogical practices, educational policy and cultural attitudes that influence learning and development for students with specific learning disabilities.Dr. Beth A Powell, Tennessee Technological University
teachingcommunication are geared towards small class sizes and are difficult to adjust for large groups ofstudents. Directly scaling this approach would require a large number of qualified instructors—i.e., to support and assess students' communication activities—at a significant cost. Someresearchers have addressed these problems by developing online writing centers, resources andtutorials for communication skills4-7 .Online peer tutoring has also been suggested as a potentialapproach8. However, these efforts are still new and further investigations are necessary.Despite the increasing efforts, a large scale survey by Reave9 found that there is still a “large gapbetween the workplace needs and graduating engineers’ communication skills.” Based onReave’s work
Paper ID #12057Reflections on Experiences of a Successful STEM Scholarship Program forUnderrepresented GroupsDr. Sedig Salem Agili, Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg Sedig S. Agili received his BS, MS, and Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Marquette University in 1986, 1989, and 1996, respectively. Currently he is a Professor of Electrical Engineer- ing teaching and conducting research in signal integrity of high-speed electrical interconnects, electronic communications, and fiber optic communications. He has authored numerous research articles which have been published in reputable peer refereed
year, members of the teams undergo a survey toassess their strengths and weaknesses. Through this survey, it was determined that a number ofinternational and domestic students had proficient technical skills, but lacked in the areas offormal technical and non-technical write-up reports and presentation skills. At the end of theschool year, another survey is conducted to assess the skills of the students. In the 2013-14academic school year, the EVP had 80 members. A majority of international students did nothave experience writing reports and giving presentations. The end of year survey of thesestudents revealed that they had improved on these skills. Via peer-led teams and constructivecriticism, international students developed skills working
with little design experience or understanding ofengineering practice. This paper provides suggestions on how these challenges can beovercome and, in particular, how self-assessment rubrics can help eliminate much of thetraditional design course assessment workload for teachers. This paper provides suggestionsfor preparing incremental self-assessment rubrics for a capstone design course. While bothself- and peer-assessment can provide significant assessment time-saving for tutors, self-assessment also promotes student learning, according to recent education research.Appropriately designed rubrics can also provide students with guidance on levels ofattainment required for design tasks and students also learn to assess design
student teams. Interrogating theinteractions African-American males experience within multiracial teams enhances ourunderstanding of how they experience engineering and what peer interactions reduce spotlightingand disconnection. Page 26.1545.2IntroductionTeam projects in undergraduate engineering programs are critical sites for professional skillsdevelopment. Designed to simulate engineering work, team projects allow students to try onprofessional roles as they interact with peers and faculty. Also, engaging in engineering activitiessuch as a team project can help students establish a sense of identity within their field, which inturn influences
). Page 26.1430.4 Table 1 – Coding scheme description and examples.Domain Category Description Example Refers to writing or presentation of the design “There are grammatical error[s] Communication work. throughout the paper.” Explicitly refers to one of the design concepts Design Concepts taught in class by using terminology taught in “The goal could [be] more specific.” class.Substance Refers
are at piquing the interest of the reviewer! In addition, the WISE@OUsenior STEM faculty offered to review individual URC proposals before they were submittedand provided individualized feedback on the organization, writing and content of the proposals.Following the well-attended workshop as well as the individualized proposal peer-review, thesuccess rate of all STEM assistant professor applicants jumped from 36% in 2012 to 67% in2013 and to 100% in 2014. The impact on women STEM assistant professors in particular washigh as a larger proportion of them had applied for the URC fellowship awards in 2012 yet hadsignificantly lower success rates than their male counterparts. While we realize that thesespecific examples of internal awards may not
with an interest in renewable energy or sustainability but, typically,little previous coursework in math or science. Each cohort had 8 student peer leaders orTAs, who were committed STEM majors and served as mentors and teaching assistants.The emphasis was on hands-on activities within small teams in a daily four hour labsetting. An important component was built-in time for tinkering and creativity aroundcontextualized assignments. Unlike most college experiences, the desired outcome was toprovoke interest rather than to impart a specific body of knowledge. Participation,exploration and fun were valued over the rigidity often found in STEM instruction. A widerange of approaches were used including; demonstrations, games, hands-on activities
. Page 26.1763.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Work-in-Progress: Conflict-Driven Cooperative-Learning in Engineering Courses Abstract Conflict and cooperation would seem to be ideas that are diametrically opposed to each other. But, in fact, classic work by Piaget on how children and adults learn shows that when learners engage with peers in critical discussion of ideas concerning which they have different understandings, that contributes very effectively to learners developing deep understanding of the concepts involved. At the same time, getting students in undergraduate engineering
equations, drawn on chalkboards or whiteboards. In capturing lectures on video however, these traditional props become liabilities: the presenter must turn away from the audience to write or draw on the board, and the presenter’s body often obscures the material. We developed the Lightboard to create visually compelling videotaped lectures, to avoid the liabilities of chalkboards, and furthermore to be able to produce upload-‐ready video segments with no post-‐production. The Lightboard is a glass board, carrying light internally from LED strips along its edges. A video camera captures the presenter and his/her writing by viewing through the
peer editing, targeted computing grant proposal writing and career-life balance discussions including remote call-ins from faculty role models at other institutions.A faculty member from the Department of Biomedical Engineering was funded by a Connect grant todevelop a peer mentoring network. This project included addressing the challenges raised by thereviewers of a declined grant submission, leading to resubmission of this proposal. This wasaccomplished using an external mentor who provided guidance on designing effective experiments.This process enabled the grantee to broaden mentorship to other experts in their research area andsupported their professional development by establishing their research lab and assisting with becomingknown as a
experiences for first year studentsa. By 1982, over 175 educators acrossthe country came together to discuss first-year seminars, and the following year the AnnualConference on the Freshman Year Experience was born. Today, an effective first-yearexperience has been identified as a high impact educational practice by the Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). Although these experiences differ significantlyfrom university to university, ranging anywhere from a single course specifically taken in themajor itself, through more involved practices including live-learn communities, Kuh emphasizesthe most influential points of a first-year experience include a “strong emphasis on criticalinquiry, frequent writing, information literacy
mitigate the problem. It was anticipated that the students would learnabout international business environment, cross cultural elements of engineering problems, andsustainable solutions. Students learning outcomes were evaluated using pre and post survey,focus group’s evaluation, and peer evaluation. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted tojustify effectiveness of new learning outcomes. All students agreed that the course projectincreased their knowledge and skills to solve engineering problems in global settings. About92% students responded that the project increased their interest about different cultures andmulti-perspective analysis, and 72% students, up 52% from pre-survey, said that the project washelpful understanding engineering and
. The reasons why they drop out is not well understood unless we review some of the potential causes [5]. According to the National Survey of Student Engagement from 2006, external obstacles for NT students have made it more difficult for them to develop peer relationships (study groups) at the university [10]. Professional barriers are typically found in the workplace and relate to lack of tuition reimbursement, time management, and/or lack of release time from work. Institutional barriers include lack of access to higher education, the high cost of tuition, and diminished affordability [2]. Furthermore, because adult learners also face the
., 2010, “Measuring engineering design self-efficacy,” Journal ofEngineering Education, 99, pp. 71-79. Page 26.1074.11 AppendixThe rubric used for peer evaluation to determine individual contributions is shown below. Peer Rating of Team Members: ENGR 350 In the table below, write down the names of the individual members of the group in which you worked for the project as part of ENGR 350 this semester. Rate your participation and the participation of each group member. You have to rate the degree to which each member fulfilled his
beyond graduate school. Such training must include multi-facetedprofessional development (e.g., grant writing, public speaking, and publishing research), as wellas social dynamics such as networking within the STEM community.10Logically, the challenges posed by the lack of financial resources and lack of peer and facultymentorship are cumulative from high school through graduate school and beyond. URM studentsare more likely to complete their baccalaureate educations with higher debt burdens than theirmajority peers, thus the prospect of a long slog to a STEM doctorate with the likely prospect offurther training at the postdoctoral level makes the alternative of a career in medicine or a STEMjob in industry more appealing. Meanwhile, the
activities of the module include the Values Affirmation Intervention as a writingexercise, and the Difference-Education Intervention in the form of a student panel.The Values Affirmation Intervention (VAI) was first pioneered by Cohen, et al. in 2006 tonarrow the academic achievement gap between racial and ethnic minority middle school students(Blacks and Hispanics) and their white peers. This writing activity has been proven to promoteself-integrity and self-worth, which can help with better performance on challenging tasks19. TheVAI contains a broad list of values not directly related to academic performance that have beenvalidated by past research20. To complete the activity, students are instructed to circle two orthree values from a list that
curriculum.2-5 Ingeneral, women and underrepresented minority students are less likely to persist in engineering.6Reports also indicate that the persistence of women and underrepresented minority students inengineering may be adversely affected to a greater degree by their experiences within theengineering climate than their majority male counterparts. Here “climate” indicates perceptions ofstudent belonging and interpersonal interactions between student peers, students and faculty (bothin and out of the classroom), and individual compatibility with pedagogical styles in theirclasses.2,7 An undesirable climate also has the greatest impact on student retention in the first yearsof engineering study.8 Most students who leave engineering do so within
in engineering and engineering technologyan opportunity to participate in a new approach to the recruitment, retention, education, andplacement of academically talented and financially needy students. The SPIRIT (ScholarshipInitiative via Recruitment, Innovation, and Transformation) Scholars program establishes atransformative learning environment that fosters the development of professional skills andincreased technical competency through interdisciplinary project-based learning (PBL),undergraduate research, peer-to-peer mentorship, and focused institutional support services.1-8WCU is classified as a regional comprehensive masters-granting university and was awarded theCarnegie Community Engagement classification in 2008.9
interest, whileexercising creativity and communication skills.The creative fiction assignment was conceived upon realizing that generating ethical dilemmaswith “grey areas” and no obvious “right answer” required a nuanced level of ethicalunderstanding. At that point, instructors turned the tables on the students and provided historicalcase studies for reflection during class sessions, but asked the students, in small groups, to createtheir own fictional “case studies” as a culminating assignment. Students were initiallyencouraged to write a 1500 word creative short story, but other genres were approved. Theassignment has been implemented with 95 students over two years.MethodsInstitution and Ethics CurriculumThe authors are both assistant
creative endeavors, partialknowledge students have about new content, and negotiation of social roles, responsibilities andpositions all present communication challenges as students engage in design projects8. Moreover,complications abound because the various contingencies are interdependent (e.g., knowledge ofcontent constrains solution options). Effective engineering design learning depends onstructuring a predictable environment in which students feel safe to explore and create withinbounded constraints. Incorporating classroom structures to facilitate productive peer-to-peercommunication is one part of creating such an environment.Research in learning and motivation presents multiple perspectives for educators and researchersto draw from as
electrical engineering, computer science and mathematics byapplying evidence-based teaching strategies—student-centered problem-based teaching(SC-PBT), example-based teaching, and just-in-time teaching (JITT); (3) incorporating classroom andlaboratory activities that require active student engagement, conceptual understanding, criticalthinking, and problem-solving; and (4) Employing model students to lead SupplementaryInstruction (SI) courses with evidence-based peer-to-peer learning strategies. The studentassessment data indicated the effectiveness of the evidence-based instructional practices, the SIpeer-to-peer learning strategies, as well as existing engagement challenges. In addition, positivefeedback was obtained from the student survey data
: first-year seminars and experiences,7-12 writing intensive courses,13collaborative assignments and projects,14, 15 undergraduate research,16, 17 diversity/globallearning,18, 19 and learning communities.20-22 In additions to these practices, some authors havereported other interventions designed to improve retention, including peer and facultymentoring,23, 24 bridge or college preparatory programs,24-26 and mandatory math tutoring.27In this study we explore the effectiveness of a variation of a learning community – namely aliving-learning community (LLC) of first-year engineering students that was started at ouruniversity in the fall of 2013 and is now in its second year. Loosely defined, an LLC is a groupof students who live together in a dorm
smiles upon receiving credibleinformation about this potential employee’s preparation for engineering professional work. Theinterviewer then focuses discussion on performances behind the graduate’s scores and on jobresponsibilities that either fit the individual or that may be particularly challenging for this prospectiveemployee. The interview concludes with both parties confident of the interview’s effectiveness and finaloutcome.What is different about this picture? What gives the employer and prospective employee confidence in thevalue of information on the score sheet? In this case, scores were based on evidence from multiplesources: instructor, peers, and outside evaluators. Scores were earned in a capstone design project thatsimulated
) line-by-line coding for cross-comparison, 3) identifying common experiencesfor initial themes, 4) supplementary review of transcripts for confirmation of themes anddevelopment of a proposed model/initial theory, and 5) memo-writing to acknowledge the ideasand thoughts related to the context of the experiences of the participants. While we have listedthe steps in grounded theory here, this was a non-linear process that involved comparingstatements within and between interviews and checking one’s ideas with the data.5Throughout the interviewing and analysis process, Julie and Stacey met regularly to discussinterpretations, salient themes and theoretical gaps in understanding. Periodic peer debriefingwith the Stephanie helped hone the wording of