together, with recognition of themultidisciplinarity of many problems. S2: it obviously needs to stand, and the, the structure needs to hold, that is the key, but it needs to, the impact it has is how people are going to see it and how people are going to interact with your structure, and that is going to be what reflects the success of your structure.But a sense of how to balance conflicting requirements is missing. In fact satisfying the needsof people is often seen to compromise “good science”: S6: that water is clean but - it is clean but it smells - they have to add some chemical to help it smell nice but as engineers they know that it is clean, it doesn't have to smell nice, it can look green but it is
-analysis andaligning one’s intent with positive micro-messaging, engineering educators may begin theirjourney towards creating positive classroom environments for women and other marginalizedgroups. By effectively using micro-affirmations, clearly delineating parameters of acceptablebehavior (e.g., rendering micro-inequities visible), and making a conscious effort to view theeducational environment through the eyes of non-privileged groups, engineering faculty andmentors will make a great impact for all students, especially women. The power and effect ofchanging one’s language and subtle behaviors cannot be emphasized enough.A further step would be to move beyond individual reflection and behavioral changes to begindiscussing issues of privilege
theengineering fields so our students are engaged and excited about their chosen field of study byseeing and discussing the end product of the industry‟s efforts.Collaborating with engineering success coursesIn reflecting on the Freshman Career Exploration Evening, it occurs to us that the event seems tohave taken place in a vacuum with little actual and deliberate ties to other experiences that our Page 22.768.10engineering freshmen encounter. With this in mind, the Engineering Career Center is developinga multifaceted freshman career exploration curriculum that will be plugged into the engineeringsuccess courses starting the fall of 2011. The Freshman
engineering, the non-FIG student population data yielded amoderately positive correlation between SAT Math scores and GPA, while FIG data showed anegative correlation, indicating that average first year cumulative grade point averages decreasedwith increased SAT Math scores. The FORCES cohort showed a strong negative correlationbetween the two variables.Assessment of the FORCES program performance in many cases supported or further informedthe retention and performance data analyses. Members of the cohort consistently identified theFIG component as a strength, and the data reflect that FIG participants in general were retainedat higher rates and performed better than non-FIG participants. Evaluation of elements relativeto calculus readiness and
clearlycommunicated. Data on the start date and total hours worked indicate that a significant numberof students did not use the software in the manner that we had intended. This is also reflected inthe numerous queries about how to use ALEKS that the Math Department received in the lastfew weeks of the summer. It appears that both better advising techniques and stronger incentiveswill be needed.New Actions: (1) Restructure orientation sessions as described in Section 1. The two day formatshould reduce the concentration of information flowing at students in the short advising windowcurrently available. It is also possible that students could use computer facilities on campus tobegin their ALEKS work under our supervision. (2) Track our success rate for
understand the limitations and sources of error incomputational and experimental approaches. Furthermore, the integration of all componentsthrough a technical report allows students to reflect on the interrelation between theoretical,computational and experimental components and their respective significance in engineeringanalysis, design and research. Page 22.184.104. Course AssessmentThe students were given three surveys during the semester in addition to the course evaluationthat was administered at the end of the semester. The surveys were given after each module ofthe project to evaluate the contribution of theoretical, finite element
retention rates from 1998 through 2007 are shown in Figure 2. The one-yearretention rate graph reveals no overall improvement. It should be noted that the 2007 cohortshows about the same retention as the 2002 cohort (the final year of the graduation rate study inwhich the graduation rate was 33%). The two-year retention rate is also relatively flat from 1998through 2005 at about 50%. The 2006 cohort however, shows a significant increase to 68%. Itwill be interesting to see if this is reflected in future graduation rates. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 1-year retention