provide insight into the relationship between studentengagement and achievement, and student background and demographic factors.References[1] B. Skromme and D. Robinson, “Addressing Barriers to Learning in Linear Circuit Analysis,” ASEE Annu. Conf. proc., Seattle, WA, June 14-17, 2015.[2] T. Berry, L. Cook, N. Hill, and K. Stevens. (2010). An exploratory analysis of textbook usage and study habits: Misperceptions and barriers to success. Coll. Teach. 59(1), pp. 31-39.[3] K. Baier, C. Hendricks, W. Gorden, J. E. Hendricks and L. Cochran. (2011). College students' textbook reading, or not. American Reading Forum. Yearbook 31, pp. 385-402.[4] M. A. Clump, H. Bauer, and C. Bradley. (2004). The extent to which
-criteria/criteria-for- accrediting-engineering-programs-2022-2023/[8] E. Wheeler and R. L. McDonald, “Writing in Engineering Courses,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 481–486, Oct. 2000, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00555.x.[9] J. Miller and R. Weinert, Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1998.[10] M. Demirezen, “The Recognition of Extended Simple Sentences as a Teaching Writing Problem,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 70, pp. 560–566, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.093.[11] P. Collins, “Clause Types,” in The Handbook of English Linguistics, 1st ed., B. Aarts, A. McMahon, and L. Hinrichs, Eds., Wiley, 2020, pp. 131–144. doi: 10.1002/9781119540618.ch8.[12
a more extensiveinvestigation of issues that might have been missing from prior research. The approach to thisinquiry should be that of an exploratory study. The research team is already committed tocontinuing the research in a longitudinal study.The implications for practice, in the words of the program director, include that: (a) it isdemonstrated how some undergraduate students may be at a level of maturity that can bechallenging when pursuing customer discovery - such students benefit less than those advancedstudents with a more mature view of innovations; (b) students entering the I-Corps Site programcome with different needs, and it could be beneficial to identify those needs before entering theprogram, and (c) the ecosystem where the
, G. L. Ramalho, and T. P. Falcão, "A systematic literature review on teaching and learning introductory programming in higher education," IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 77-90, May 2019, doi: 10.1109/te.2018.2864133[26] E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides, Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1994.[27] S. B. Merriam and E. J. Tisdell, Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, 4th ed. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 2016.[28] M. Q. Patton, Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications, 2014.
Paper ID #41332WIP: Assessment of Student Retention and Satisfaction in Computer ScienceService Courses When Using Competency-Based Grading and AssignmentChoiceMr. Robert Harold Lightfoot Jr., Texas A&M University Robert Lightfoot received his master’s degree in software engineering from Southern Methodist University and his bachelor’s degree in computer science from Texas A&M. Before joining Texas A&M, he worked at Ericsson (now Sony-Ericsson), then with DSC (Motorola) deploying Cellular network infrastructure. Now, a Professor of Practice, teaching Computer Science at Texas A&M University.Dr. Tracy Anne
and presentation. Next, the authors established major blocks of content to support the five course objectives.Within each block, lesson objectives were matched to the appropriate subject matter andsubsequent learning activities that appeal to varied learning styles.Block 1: Introduction & EnvironmentalTable 7: CE300X Block 1 Lesson ObjectivesLesson 1: Introduction to Infrastructure & Sustainable Development 1.A Define infrastructure. 1.B Define sustainable development. 1.C Explain the "triple bottom line" as it relates to sustainability. Discuss ASCE Policy Statement 418 and the Priciples of Sustainable Development (https://www.asce.org/communities/institutes-and-technical- 1.D groups/sustainability/asce
would comprise each program goal. Starting in 2022, the curriculum committeewas finally able to move the project off the back burner and work with more focus and purposeto build out the student proficiencies, which are the fine-grained skills that make up studentlearning objectives. At present, the curriculum committee has developed and documented the program goals, studentlearning objectives, and student proficiencies (see Appendix A). These have been mapped to theABET required student learning outcomes (see Appendix B).The set of drafted program goals, student learning objectives, and corresponding studentproficiencies were shared with the larger faculty body in the department in November 2023. Thecommittee facilitated discussion with the
ofinterpretation of standard terminology and sketches. Students are permitted to ask questions aboutthe problem statements to avoid errors due to misinterpretation of the problem. Experience showsthat very few students ask questions of clarification. 1. Calculate the reaction at A. (a) 2F 2. A homogeneous smooth (a) 50.0 lb (b) 6F round ball weighs 50 lb and (b) 57.7 lb F 3F
of specifications. The text below is the problem given to the students.Create overlying lines with a randomized slope and intercept following the specificationsbelow: (a) Use rand() in combination with the appropriate math to create a random decimal value between -5 and 5 and store it in the variable m. (b) Store a random integer between 0 and 4 and store it in the variable b (c) Create a range of 20 different values stored in x between -10 and 10. (d) Create the array y of the line (using the standard formula of y = mx + b) (e) Make a plot of x and y displayed with the color green if the slope is positive (greater than 0) and red if it is negative. (f) Repeat (a)-(e), overlaying each of the plots on top of each other as long
. These frameworks helped us identify where newly discoveredand unlisted interventions lie with the existing frameworks.III. MethodWe followed Cochrane's (1995) guidelines for a systematic review, striving to discern, evaluate,and combine relevant empirical evidence that meets specific eligibility criteria established toaddress a defined research question. Using this, the literature was collected based on a setcriterion, compiled into a database, summarized, and discussed. As one of the goals, theliterature collected was summarized and sorted by an established coding scheme primarilyfocusing on intervention category and subcategory. Appendices A and B summarize our findingsincluding a brief description of the intervention, outcomes, and
University of Puerto Rico,Mayagüez, a bilingual, public institution. Instructor B (Batista Abreu) teaches at Elizabethtown College,a small private institution. The study is based on analyzing results from a test question on vectorresultants during the Fall 2023 semester, whose basic form is as follows: A diagram is provided showing two or three vectors, with certain parameters (magnitudes and angles/slopes relative to a set of reference axes) symbolically labeled. A written preamble then specifies the values of the illustrated parameters, but in a manner such that their values do not necessarily correspond to the apparent proportions indicated in the figure. The instructions are then as follows: “(1
, we should specify the coefficients 𝑎𝑖 for 𝑖 = 0, 𝑚 based on some given dataset(𝑥0 , 𝑦0 ), (𝑥1 , 𝑦1 ), … , (𝑥𝑛 , 𝑦𝑛 ) (or sensor input/output pair) with 𝑛 ≥ 𝑚. To find a polynomialrelation between the output and inputs, we form a matrix and right-hand side vector based on thegiven dataset [33], 𝑦0 1 𝑥0 𝑥02 … 𝑥0𝑚 𝑦1 A = 1 𝑥1 𝑥12 … 𝑥1𝑚 , b = 𝑦2 , (4
-based learning and experiential and56 collaborative learning. However, it also distinguishes itself from these pedagogical approaches57 based on the three principles. In this project, the author aims to integrate PSS and EM into PBL to58 fulfill the evolving demands of the engineering profession.59 2. Introduction to Modeling of Engineering System Course Structure60 This course is currently offered to multidisciplinary engineers only during the Fall Semester with61 one or two sessions depending on the number of registered students. In this study, two sessions62 (Session A&B) were offered this semester. Session A had 15 students (6 Civil Engineering, 163 Mechanical Engineering, 6 General Engineering, and 2 Chemical
spring characteristic curve. This choice aimed to contextualize theconcept being taught, establishing a connection between the students and a familiar non-linear material. There were four types of elastic tubes that were provided to the students,each color can be associated to a specific level of resistance: a) The minimum resistance –yellow one b) Low-intermediate resistance – blue one c) Upper-intermediate resistance – redone, and d) The maximum resistance – black one, according to the manufacturer. Thepurposed activity can be divided into four stages: pre-class, during class, post-class, andstudent´s perception. The pre-class and post-class activities (equal for both phases) involveda quiz about elastic force and energy. This quiz included
will leave the students the choice of using their own SS or to use SS obtained online as a freeware. b) We will ask students to answer polls. The polls will be applied on-line using Google Forms, where they will be asked perception questions related to performance and learning comparing the possibility of use SS versus the restrictions on their use. These questions are: o Did you develop and program your own SS or use SS developed by others? o How deeply do you know the way the routines work inside the SS? o In the change of routine scenario, are you able to modify the SS process to apply change of variables, formulas, and concepts? o In a special design case, where you must go off-routine, do you
are amixed population representing all engineering majors. The 15 weeks of the semester are splitinto three modules, and instructors move round-robin through each of the three sections. Majortopics include (a) adoption of best practices for success in college and for studying engineeringspecifically, (b) examination of each sub-discipline within each major, and (c) cultivation ofskills required to be successful as a practicing engineer.After each of their three modules, students were surveyed regarding their understanding of theirchosen discipline, their awareness of adjacent disciplines, their confidence in their selection of atechnical major, and their enthusiasm for their chosen discipline. The evolution of the student’sattitudes across
<5 5-7ResultsValue of Personal PerspectiveThe personal perspective has three main components: psychological safety, teaminterdependence, and team satisfaction. The psychological safety survey was administered duringPeer Evaluation 1. Table 3 shows two examples of the student ratings on the psychologicalsafety of their teams. According to the CATME guideline, the students who receive peer ratingof less than 4.71, would need faculty’s attention. A common approach is to set up a one-on-onemeeting with the student, allow the students to explain the situation in detail, and makeappropriate suggestions to the students. For example, for Student B, choose “Slightly Inaccurate”in “People on this team reject others for
regarding their experience workingon their assigned projects.Referencesal Makmun, M. T., & Nuraeni, A. (2018). Community Projects to Enhance the Students’ English Learning Process of Access Class Site Surakarta, Indonesia. SHS Web of Conferences,Anwar, A. A., & Bahaj, A. (2003). Student project allocation using integer programming. IEEE Transactions on Education, 46(3), 359-367.Arantes do Amaral, J. A., & Lino dos Santos, R. J. R. (2018). Combining Project-Based Learning and Community-Based Research in a Research Methodology Course: The Lessons Learned. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 47-60.Bakar, N. I. A., Noordin, N., & Razali, A. B. (2019). Improving Oral Communicative Competence in
, individual CAD assignments, and individuallow stakes assignments on FDA pathways, ethics, and manufacturing methods.Focus Group EvaluationA focus group discussion (Appendix B) was conducted by a professional external evaluator at theend of spring 2022 with 8 of the 10 enrolled students. The discussion was audio-recorded andprofessionally transcribed, and a coding directory was created using the focus group questions.The transcript was coded to identify primary thematic areas, and the data were entered intoDedoose to facilitate thematic analysis [8]. The evaluation protocol was submitted to and grantedexempt status by the University of Delaware IRB. The themes that emerged from the qualitativedata are summarized below.Course Structure: Overwhelmingly
. Hammond and P. Taele, “Sketching cognition and creativity.” ACM, 6 2019, pp. 708–713.[Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3325480.3326552[4] M. B. Weaver, J. Buck, H. Merzdorf, D. Dorozhkin, K. Douglas, and J. Linsey, “Investigatingpriming effects of sketch evaluation instructions on idea generation productivity,” inInternational Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information inEngineering Conference, vol. 86267. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2022, p.V006T06A019.[5] L. C. Schmidt, N. V. Hernandez, and A. L. Ruocco, “Research on encouraging sketching inengineering design,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.cambridge.org/core.[6] Lawson,“Cad and creativity: does the computer really help?” 2002
to use handheld models[10].The course instructor employed a variety of methods to enhance visualization and hands-onexperiences, as shown in Figure 1, which highlights some approaches used over the past sixyears in this class. These methods included demonstrations with foam models, the use of real-world example pictures, applying augmented reality (AR) for 3D models, and engaging studentswith pool noodles to explore different types of loading and to predict stress, strain, or loadcapacity [11], [12]. (a) (b) (c) (d)Figure 1. Varity of methods using visualization a) real world example of tree under bending, b)wooden model to
After developing our protocol, we pilot tested the interview protocol with people whomet the study’s criteria for inclusion. We conducted pilot interviews with two students who menthe study inclusion criteria, that they identified as LGBTQ in some way and were in a STEMmajor. Pilot testing encompassed running the interview protocol with students, noting how theyrespond to the questions and if their responses a) focused on the content that our interviews weredesigned to focus on and b) reflected that they share a similar understanding of the question aswe do. We also invited pilot participants to reflect back to us their feedback on how questionswere asked as well as questions they expected to be asked based on the topic of the study. Now
for Education," SSRN, 2023.[4] I. Tuomi, Y. Punie, R. Vuorikari and M. Cabrera, "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Learning, Teaching, and Education: Policies for the Future," European Commission, 2018.[5] A. Bozkurt, J. Xiao, S. Lambert, A. Pazurek, H. Crompton, S. Koseoglu, R. Farrow, M. Bond, C. Nerantzi, S. Honeychurch, M. Bali, J. Dron, K. Mir, B. Stewart, E. Costello, J. Mason, C. M. Stracke, E. Romero-Hall, A. Koutropoulos, C. M. Toquero, L. Singh, A. Tlili, K. Lee, M. Nichols, E. Ossiannilsson, M. Brown, V. Irvine, J. E. Raffaghelli, G. Santos-Hermosa, O. Farrell, T. Adam, Y. L. Thong, S. Sani-Bozkurt, R. C. Sharma, S. Hrastinski and P. Jandrić, "Speculative Futures on ChatGPT and Generative Artificial
2(b) – was underway with the initial aim of having an integrated Soft PLCand I/O components lab console simulator (termed the PLC System Simulator) and to have aworking prototype in the shortest period of time possible to meet the immediate needs of thecoming semester. The plan was to build the software with four major components: Fig 2. (a) The Lab PLC and Components (b) The Lab Console Simulator i) The Soft PLC should be programmed in Ladder Diagram language (should support a subset of most commonly used instructions, but include advanced instructions available in modern PLCs, such as, log, exponential and trigonometric instructions) and should be able to execute the program. ii) The ladder diagram
to center the experiences of disabled women of color, we use this demographicgroup as our reference point. Data was analyzed using Stata and data visualizations were createdin Microsoft Power BI. To investigate salary discrepancies, a chi-square test (Appendix B) wasused to assess the relationship between salary and racial/ethnic identities for females who reportedat least a moderate level of physical disability. Here we found a significant relationship betweensalary and racial/ethnic identity [𝜒2(48, N = 4,108) = 174.64, p= 0.00].Figure 1Salaries of College Graduates by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Disability StatusNote: A bar chart displaying the salary of STEM professionals in three bars (base salary, nophysical disabilities salary, and has
experiences and the graduate student role in them,more studies need to be done focusing on the unique role of the graduate student as bridgementor within a mentoring triad. A better understanding of the role of graduate students as bridgementors can lead to better preparation for undergraduate research experiences and thereforebetter outcomes for all stakeholders.References[1] B. L. Montgomery and S. C. Page, Mentoring beyond hierarchies: Multi-Mentor Systems and Models, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/25568/Montgomery%20and%20Page%20- %20Mentoring.pdf (accessed Nov. 20, 2023).[2] Sobieraj, K. S., & Kajfez, R. L. (2020, June). Using Qualitative Techniques to Understand the Types of Undergraduate Research Mentorship. In 2020
’ class and course taking status. The next six questions were asked to understand thestudents’ perceptions and attitudes about the independent study/undergraduate research theyundertook during their undergraduate years. The last two questions were open-ended and askedto see what kind of transferable skills they gained, how the study will help them in their careerplans, and finally any comments/suggestions they might have. The independent study here reallymeans undergraduate research study as the participants involved in the survey wereundergraduate research students. Q.1. What was your student status (Junor or Senior) when you first took the independent study as undergraduate research (CE 4400)? a. Junior b
carelessness can serve as a foundation for future research into the adaptationof homework problems for enhanced learning outcomes.References:[1] W. C. Newstetter and M. D. Svinicki, “Learning Theories for Engineering Education Practice,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri and B. M. Olds, Eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 29–46. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139013451.005.[2] M. Waldrop, “Why we are teaching science wrong, and how to make it right,” Nature, vol. 523, pp. 272–4, Jul. 2015, doi: 10.1038/523272a.[3] E. Michor and M. Koretsky, “Students’ Approaches to Studying through a Situative Lens,” vol. 1, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.21061/see.3.[4] D. Jonassen, J. Strobel, and C. B
to c to simulateguessing on an item. In the CF condition, probability was simulated using the modified 4PL IRTmodel (equation 2), where i is item number. A linear decrease of 0.005 per item was used tosimulate the results found in the studies by Reyes [9] and Balart [16]. 1 𝑃4𝑃𝐿 (𝜃) = 𝑐 + (𝑑 − 𝑐) 1+𝑒 [−1.702𝑎(𝜃−𝑏)] (1) Table 1: Simulation Parameters Student Population Ability (ϴ) Normal: mean = 0, variance = 1 Gender Binomial: p = 0.5 URM Status Binomial: p = 0.2 Test Bank a Lognormal: mean = 1, variance = 0.12 b Normal: mean = 0, variance = 1 c
relates to field-effect transistors (FETs). The right response is “C” whichemphasizes how a transistor’s threshold voltage is affected by several variables, includingtemperature, manufacturing process, and the transistor’s physical dimensions (length and width). Figure 1: Three items related to semiconductor materialsOne kind of digital logic gate, the NAND gate, is the subject of Question 10. There are two inputs(A and B) and one output (Q) on a NAND gate. A NAND gate behaves as follows: it onlyproduces a 0 (LOW) output when both of its inputs are 1 (HIGH). Because the output of a NANDgate is only 0 when both inputs are 1, “A” is correct.3 ManufacturingTwo questions on the survey, as seen in Figure 3, focus on the