Paper ID #33602Undergraduates’ Perspectives on Readiness, Writing Transfer, andEffectiveness of Writing Instructions in Engineering Lab Report WritingDr. Sean St. Clair, Oregon Institute of Technology Sean St.Clair is a Professor of Civil Engineering at Oregon Tech, where he teaches structural engineering courses and conducts research in engineering education. He is also a registered Professional Engineer.Dr. Dave Kim, Washington State University-Vancouver Dr. Dave Kim is Professor and Mechanical Engineering Program Coordinator in the School of Engineer- ing and Computer Science at Washington State University Vancouver. His
Paper ID #33981Near-Peer Mentoring and Early Exposure to Computer Science –Quantitative and Qualitative ResultsDavid Hartenstine, Western Washington University David Hartenstine is a Professor of Mathematics at Western Washington University. He earned his PhD at Temple University.Perry Fizzano, Western Washington University Perry Fizzano earned his BS degree in Computer Science from Widener University and his MS and PhD in Computer Science from Dartmouth College. He had stints in academia and industry prior to joining WWU in 2005. He served as department chair from 2012 - 2019. His research interests are in optimization
engineering laboratory courses. Dr. Kim and his collaborators attracted close to $1M research grants to study writing transfer of engineering undergraduates. For the technical research, he has a long-standing involvement in research concerned with manufacturing of advanced composite materials (CFRP/titanium stack, GFRP, nanocomposites, etc.) for automotive, marine, and aerospace applications. His recent research efforts have also included the fatigue behavior of manufactured products, with the focus of fatigue strength im- provement of aerospace, automotive, and rail structures. He has been the author or co-author of over 200 peer-reviewed papers in these areas.Dr. Matt Frye, Oregon Institute of Technology Matt Frye is
Paper ID #33605Differential Effects of Bridge Program Participation on PerceivedBelonging and Peer Support for STEM Degree Seekers during the COVID-19PandemicMs. Megan McSpedon, Rice University Megan McSpedon is a graduate student in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Rice University. Her research interests include the future of work, school to work transition, and learning throughout the lifes- pan.Dr. Margaret E. Beier, Rice University Margaret Beier is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Rice University in Houston, TX. She received her B.A. from Colby College, and her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the Georgia
who work cohesively towards the cohorts' success. A combination ofcurricular and co-curricular activities was selected according to evidence-based best practices [1-5] and implemented to support the academic development of CREATE scholars throughgraduation with an engineering degree. Curricular support includes tutoring, intrusive advising,regular progress reports from instructors, and peer and faculty mentoring. Co-curricular supportincludes community-building activities, a minimum of two mandatory theme seminars based onevidence-based best practices, and two required "choice" activities, including participation in joband internship information sessions, student clubs, engineer's week, K-12 outreach,undergraduate research, and study abroad
of ● Outline of metacognitive ● Implement yourLearning videos (Teaching possible student activity (logistics, metacognitive activityExperiences: Metacognition to Help responses and identify content) - brainstorm list ● Write short review at theHomework Students Own and metacognition in those of other possibilities; completion of yourBefore Next Improve their Learning: responses focused description of implementationWorkshop Parts 1 and 2) and ● Watch pre-workshop activity showing ● Complete peer complete the provided video on assessing alignment
(15.2%) compared to enrollment patterns in the general student population (21.7%). Disparitiesin enrollment are partnered with inequitable rates of course completion, with historicallyunderserved students completing 71% of these courses with a grade of C or better, compared toan 82% course success rate for their peers. These demographics mirror national demographictrends that indicate student access to degree and career opportunities in STEM offered by twoyear colleges disproportionately favors students who identify with hegemonic norms in STEM[2],[3]. The SEECRS project represents one institutions attempts at designing programming todismantle structures that reproduce these disparities.Beginning in 2018, Whatcom Community College started
specialties include water quality, water resources, remediation of contaminated soil and water, environmental sustainability, hydrology, hazardous waste management, and STEM ed- ucation. Dr. Clark has been blessed to have the opportunity to edit three books, produce nearly forty peer-reviewed publications, in addition to over fifty presentation to national and international audiences. He has also served as a reviewer for numerous technical journals and a panel reviewer for the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency nu- merous times. Dr. Clark’s research interests include combining chemical and environmental engineering techniques for hazardous waste handling
maximum of 8 semesters.Program HighlightsThe DuSTEM program is designed to improved retention of students in STEM. Support isbroken into three areas: financial, academic, and community [1]. These ideas are predicated onthe nine key principles advanced by the non-profit “Building Engineering and Science Talent”which identifies nine qualities of programs that are successful in nurturing well-qualified STEMgraduates [2]. These principles are • Institutional leadership • Personal attention • Bridging to the next level • Targeted recruitment • Peer support • Financial assistance • Engaged faculty • Enriched research opportunities • Continuous evaluationThe DuSTEM program is designed support
, Gabe has gained significant appreciation for the importance of clearly- defined, structured, and supported pathways for program participants. Gabe has a Bachelor’s degree from San Francisco State University in English; Creative Writing. He lives in the East Bay and enjoys exploring new rivers, lakes, and beaches in the area.Mr. David Gruber, Growth Sector American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Experiential Learning during COVID-19: A Systemic Approach for Increasing Diversity in Smart ManufacturingAbstractExperiential Learning is a key component in Engineering and Engineering TechnologyEducation. However, the current engineering an
students develop the skills and writing habits to complete doctorate degrees in engineering. Across all of her research avenues, Dr. Matusovich has been a PI/Co-PI on 12 funded research projects including the NSF CAREER Award with her share of funding being nearly $2.3 million. She has co-authored 2 book chapters, 21 journal publications and more than 70 conference papers. She has won several Virginia Tech awards including a Dean’s Award for Outstanding New Faculty, an Outstanding Teacher Award and a Faculty Fellow Award. She holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University, an M.S. in Materials Science from the University of Connecticut and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Purdue University.Dr. Gary R
demonstratedto improve collegiate graduates’ entry-level starting salaries, level of initial position, and jobresponsibilities [10] [11] [12]. The authors discuss the importance of experiential experiences inthe formation of professionalism in RS students [13]. To establish a reflective element withineach RS student experience, each fall the students come together for a one-hour seminar to talkand write about their journey and to continue learning about methods of growing their supportweb with university professors and staff [14].The RS students selected for this program implementation were typically residential applicantsof a low-socioeconomic status (SES) and that selected an under-represented minorityrace/ethnicity in their database entry. There was
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
student engagement and academic success measures (such as retention) hasbeen well-established in the literature (e.g.,[3]), the program was designed to create a smalllearning community experience for students who would be less likely to demonstrate highengagement with the university, the curriculum, their instructors, and their peers. There are manyreasons why low-income students might show low-engagement levels. One reason is that aschool and/or family obligation requires them to work a significant number of hours each week.It is difficult to attend football games or join a sorority when you are working 20-40 hours aweek off-campus. Engagement is a luxury that many low-income students simply cannot afford.The Endeavour Program was designed to
programs remain extremely low. The emphasis on conventionalpedagogical methods in engineering programs, coupled with a deficit-based approach that isfocused on the remediation of weaknesses, does little to foster the unique strengths ofneurodivergent students. In addition to the obstacles posed by traditional education system, thestigma related to a disability label leads many neurodivergent college students to neither discusstheir diagnosis with peers and professors nor obtain academic accommodations that may helpthem to persist in a challenging learning environment.To address these challenges and realize the potential contributions of neurodivergent individualsto engineering fields, a research project funded by the Engineering Education and
majors—Bioengineering,Computer Science, and Electrical Engineering. Each major represents a single case with whichwe will conduct within- and between-case analysis. We are using this methodology tosystematically examine how and why elective track choices become gendered duringundergraduate engineering education, and what the career implications might be for women. Inparticular, we are collecting multi-year, and multi-level (institutional, educator, and student)archival, survey, and interview data relevant to educational tracks and track selection as well ascareer attitudes and decisions during undergraduate engineering education. We are examininghow personal factors (e.g., interests and beliefs), relational factors (e.g., peer) and
research has appeared in peer-reviewed journals, such as the Journal of Counseling and Development, Professional School Counseling, The High School Journal, and Urban Education. Equally important, Dr. Hines is an ACA Fellow and received the Al Dye award for co-editing the special issue, Group Work with African Americans Children and Adolescents published in the Journal for Specialist in Group Work. Dr. Hines received his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, College Park in Counselor Education with a concentration in Urban School Counseling. Finally, he has worked as a counselor in various K-12 settings and for the Ronald E McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program.Dr. Ayesha Boyce, University of North Carolina
engineering leadership identity. Details of the findings from the quantitativestudies, including differences between engineering students and their peers in other fields, can befound in [4-9]. The results of those studies were then integrated with protocols found in theliterature from numerous qualitative studies of leadership and / or identity to develop thequalitative focus group protocols utilized with students. The qualitative protocols explored threedistinct areas of student perceptions: engineering identity, leadership identity, and engineeringleadership identity. Table 1 provides an example of the questions utilized in each of the threeprotocol areas.Table 1. Sample Protocol Questions by Area Topic Area Sample Question(s
more girls in STEM to make it the new norm. She has also architected SFAz’s enhanced Community College STEM Pathways Guide that has received the national STEMx seal of approval for STEM tools. She integrated the STEM Pathways Guide with the KickStarter processes for improving competitive proposal writing of Community College Hispanic Serving Institutions. Throughout her career, Ms. Pickering has written robotics software, diagnostic expert systems for space station, manufacturing equipment models, and architected complex IT systems for global collaboration that included engagement analytics. She holds a US Patent # 7904323, Multi-Team Immersive Integrated Collaboration Workspace awarded 3/8/2011. She also has
consists of “institutionalstructures, resources, and responsibilities that influence students’ identities within their academicinstitution and engineering as a career” [9, p. 2].The networking strand includes two elements ofnetworks, interpersonal and intertextual to support their personal, academic, and professionaldevelopment. Interpersonal networking consists of the present, past, and historical relationshipsbuilt with faculty, peers, and professionals that contribute to students; identity development andsuccess, while intertextual networking includes students’ accessing books, articles, andeducational technology to expand their knowledge and understanding of the field.ResultsWithin the research project’s lifespan, we have collected stories
in the junior/senior design clinic as well as teaches graduate-level engineering communication courses. Her research involves engineering commu- nication, technical communication pedagogy, and knowledge transfer. She has published and presented widely including work in the Journal of Engineering Education, the Journal of STEM Education: Innova- tions and Research, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, the Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, Technical Communication and Technical Communication Quarterly. Julie has a PhD in Rhetoric and Professional Communication from New Mexico State University, an MA in English with Technical Writing Emphasis from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte
. Kapon, M. Schvartzer, and T. Peer, “Forms of participation in an engineering maker-based inquiry in physics,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 249–281, 2021.[13] L. Atkins Elliott, K. Jaxon, and I. Salter, Composing science: A facilitator’s guide to writing in the science classroom. Teachers College Press, 2016.[14] I. Salter and L. Atkins, “Student-generated scientific inquiry for elementary education undergraduates: Course development, outcomes and implications,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 157–177, 2013.[15] N. R. Council et al., National science education standards. National Academies Press, 1996.[16] L. Atkins and I. Salter, “Engaging future teachers in having
this section, the sources of information and decisions, followedby the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the description of the data analysis process for the articles,are described. In total, 19 articles were the result of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Theprocedure used for including and excluding the papers was the four-phase flow diagram of thePRISMA Statement [12]. A recommended quality procedure is used widely in systematic literaturereviews.2.1 Data SourcesAcademic and peer-reviewed papers published in 2006 – 2020 on computational thinking in thecontext of CT assessment in higher education were retrieved. The articles reviewed were publishedin peer-reviewed journals, and three databases were used for this purpose: ERIC
. Additionally, researchpreparation skills, including research methods courses, presentation skills, abstract and researchproposal writing, and grant proposal seminars were incorporated. LSAMP scholars werementored and supported for opportunities to attend and to present their research, via poster ororal presentations, at conferences in local and national arenas.Many SUNY LSAMP Alliance institutions conducted Summer Research Institutes. Theseprograms were carefully planned to include both pre-freshman and undergraduates. Theundergraduate programs had a duration of six to ten weeks. These included research placementsand a variety of professional training, graduate school preparation, training for research,community building and service activities. In
both in and out of the classroom. In 2020, this activitywas conducted as a virtual webinar and student questions were asked in the Q&A feature whichwas monitored by the meeting host.After listening to the dean’s interview, students are asked to write a one-page reflection paper inwhich they are asked to describe what they learned from the interview: (1) what is needed to besuccessful in the engineering profession; (2) the expectations of, or norms for, engineeringstudents; and (3) the lessons learned from the examples provided regarding the differencebetween successful and unsuccessful engineering teams. These reflections play an important rolein helping students understand the importance of valuing diversity in engineering teams
thoroughly enjoyed the mentoring aspect of the program. . . my mentor for the last year . . . helped me in more ways than I could imagine.”In year 3 we continued with virtual professional development sessions, peer and facultymentoring, and one social event each semester. It is challenging to navigate communitybuilding during a pandemic, but we have found ways to get together. In fall 2020 we hadan outside bonfire and served dinner. In spring 2021, we had a star gazing party withbonfire and dinner. Mentoring sessions have continued either virtually or online (at thediscretion of the mentoring pair) and we look forward to reporting from Spring 2021.Finally, we ordered shirts for everyone with a design inspired by a
on measuring student engagement and evaluating teaching methods, such thatclassroom sessions can now be re-engineered to improve engagement. This is illustrated in Fig 1. Figure 1: Closing the engagement measurement loop in the classroom.In the past several years, much work has been accomplished to change the dynamics of theclassroom environment and of the delivery of course material, such as with flipped classrooms,team-based and peer-assisted learning, etc., in an effort to increase academic success,presumably by increasing engagement. In all of these scenarios, evaluation of the success of thenew method largely rests on the evaluation of instructor observation, student surveys, andacademic performance. Instructor observation
sustainability, and July focused on convertingproject course implementation to online formats (due to COVID-19).In order to facilitate effective sharing of information and peer learning, SUMMIT-P uses twoprotocols during project meetings that provide a format for effective and fruitful discussion. Thetwo protocols, Descriptive Consultancy protocol and Success Analysis with Reflective Questionsprotocol, have historically been applied in the K-12 education community [4]. The DescriptiveConsultancy protocol [5], originally developed by Nancy Mohr and revised by Connie Parrishand Susan Taylor in August 2013, was modified by McDonnough and Henschel [6] and has beenadapted for this project to help presenters think more expansively about a particular
sciences and engineering at VT during 2007-19. This site has 100+ alumni to date. He also led an NSF/Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) site on interdisciplinary water research during 2016-19 with 30+ alumni. He also led an NSF-funded cybersecurity education project and served as a co-PI on two International Research Experiences for Students (IRES) projects funded by the NSF. He has published over 90 papers in peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Dr. Landon Todd Marston, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityDr. Christopher P. Vanags, Vanderbilt UniversityDr. Kang Xia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Kang Xia received her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1997), M.S
University of Minnesota. Her research explores issues of professional development for K-12 science teachers, with a focus on beginning teachers and implementation of integrated STEM learning environments. She has received over $30 million in federal and state grants and published over 80 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. She is a former board member of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching and past president of the Association for Science Teacher Education.Dr. Christopher Barr, Rice University Rice University Office of Assessment and Evaluation of STEM Programs led by Dr. Barr is the Direc- tor of Assessment and Evaluation of STEM Programs at Rice University. He has been an evaluator and