graduate students in technicalfields, where teaching is often perceived to be secondary to working on research. In contrast, theparticipants described in much of the identity literature related to educator development comefrom fields where teaching is the main focus of preparation for future careers(e.g., 6, 9). A fewstudies have been done in engineering on teaching(e.g., 11), but the research is very limited.SummaryEducational researchers have taken multiple approaches to exploring student identitydevelopment. While most of the research methods have been qualitative in nature, few studies Page 24.652.3have adopted quantitative approaches. The
Engineering’s Leadership Minor at Purdue University. She also serves as the Executive Director of the International Institute for Engineering Education Assessment (i2e2a). She ob- tained a B.S. in mathematics from Spelman College, a M.S. in industrial engineering from the University of Alabama, and a Ph.D. in Leadership and Policy Studies from Peabody College of Vanderbilt Univer- sity. Her teaching interests relate to the professional development of graduate engineering students and to leadership, policy, and change in STEM education. Primary research projects explore the preparation of graduate students for diverse careers and the development of reliable and valid engineering education assessment tools. She is a NSF
Engineering Education, 2014 A Qualitative Pilot Study of an Online Accelerated Statics Course with Intensive Video DeliveryAlthough online learning is extremely popular with 67 million of students taking online classes,it has not been widely used for extremely technical courses such as those in the field ofengineering.1 In order for optimal learning and transformation to occur, both the student and theprofessor must learn to evaluate the learning process differently. For the professor, this meansexamining what has traditionally been done in the past and what can be done in the future toenhance learning for all students. The traditional behaviorist model, which focuses on grades asa reward and punishment system, is no
working outside of academia for five or moreyears. In the first phase of a three year NSF-funded study that aims to characterize the populationof returning engineering PhD students, explore the interactions of their previous workexperiences and their academic work, and investigate stakeholder views and institutional policiesrelated to returning PhD students, we developed the nationally distributed Graduate StudentExperiences and Motivations Survey (GSEMS) to compare experiences and perspectives ofreturners and direct-pathway students (those who progress through to the PhD without a 5 year ormore gap). The survey included, among other topics, questions relating to students’ relationshipswith their advisors.The advising relationship is a critical
Paper ID #8548Engineering Education Ph.D. Students: Where Are They Now And WhatWas The Job Search Process Like?Dr. Rachel Louis Kajfez, Ohio State University Dr. Rachel Louis Kajfez is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Engineering Education Innovation Center and the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geodetic Engineering at The Ohio State Univer- sity. She earned her B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from Ohio State and earned her Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Virginia Tech. Her research interests focus on the intersection between motivation and identity of undergraduate and graduate students
Page 24.190.9corresponding dimension.Second, by focusing on the Chinese students, this study facilitates our current understanding onsaid students’ learning experiences in U.S. engineering doctoral programs from an integratedperspective. Our preliminary results suggested that being exposed to U.S. engineering doctoraleducation has allowed said students to approach problems through multiple perspectives, whichpotentially have helped their development towards self-authorship. Considering the largerepresentation of international students in the U.S. engineering graduate programs, this workserves as a pilot study for applying self-authorship theory among other ethnical groups.Third, our findings also indicated that the three dimensions of self
Paper ID #10060The Development of an Instrument for Assessing Individual Ethical Decision-making in Project-based Design Teams: Integrating Quantitative and Quali-tative MethodsQin Zhu, Purdue University Qin Zhu is a PhD student in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. His main re- search interests include global/comparative/international engineering education, engineering education policy, and engineering ethics. He received his BS degree in material sciences and engineering and first PhD degree in philosophy of science and technology (engineering ethics) both from Dalian University of Technology
of Engineers per 10,000 inhabitants in some OECD Countries in 2011 .However, this scenario may change in a few more years due to the increasing numbers ofBrazilian engineering undergraduate students lately, where in 2012 this number had asignificantly percentage of growth probably due to recent Brazilian educational policieschanges46. And the number of masters‟ degrees and PhDs graduated in all field areas byBrazilian universities has more than quadrupled in the last 15 years, jumping from 13,219 in1996 to 55,047 in 201111. Figure 2 shows the evolution of doctoral and master‟s degrees inengineering from 2001 to 2011. Nevertheless, this growth was not enough to place Brazilamong countries with large contribution to engineering research yet
using a qualitative approach findings are able to emerge from the dataand not be restricted to pre-determined categories or themes. In this way we did not limit ourresearch analysis or findings to “fit” prior work conducted in different settings.MethodThis study is part of a larger project researching barriers to engineering as a career choice forAppalachian youth. The project used an exploratory qualitative methodology and employed in-person semi-structured interviews and maximum variation sampling32. In this section wedescribe the data collection, participant characteristics, and qualitative analysis (coding) used toanswer the research questions: What role(s) does interest play in engineering career choices ofAppalachian students? How do such
under preparation for a detailed discussionof these results.7 Summary of Findings to Date and Future WorkIn summary, PLP is an open project that adapts to the needs of computer engineering educationand is designed to actively engage students in the learning process. PLP was created to connectcore concepts learned in various computer engineering courses, and is aimed at improving thelearning experience for students. It is grounded in the theories of social constructionism andsituated cognition. Results from the pilot studies show that PLP is highly effective in engagingstudents and in helping them gain valuable skills. One clear advantage we are beginning to see isthat students, instructors, and teaching assistants all found it very convenient
Paper ID #8680Changes in Elementary Students’ Engineering Knowledge Over Two Yearsof Integrated Science Instruction (Research to Practice) Strand: Engineeringacross the K-12 curriculum: Integration with the Arts, Social Studies, Sci-ence, and the Common CoreMariana Tafur, Purdue University, West Lafayette Mariana Tafur is a Ph.D. candidate and a graduate assistant in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She has a M.S., education, Los Andes University, Bogota, Colombia; and a B.S., electrical engineering, Los Andes University, Bogota, Colombia. She is a 2010 Fulbright Fellow. Her research interests include
Science and Mechanics, an M.S. in Engineering Mechanics, and a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from Virginia Tech.Dr. Robin D. Anderson, James Madison University Robin Anderson is a Professor and the Academic Unit Head in the Department of Graduate Psychology at James Madison University. Prior to her current position, she served as the Associate Director of JMU’s Center for Assessment and Research Studies. Her research interests include Engineering Education and the assessment of student learning outcomes in higher education. Page 24.597.1 c American Society for Engineering Education
Page 24.674.5 Research 1 population but in a different year (2012). These students were provided with somewhat different prompts (see Instruments section) but the identical waste electronics article as the other two populations. However, students in this population were not required to use the article in their essays, but were given the freedom to draw on sources most appropriate to their argument as presented in the essay.In this pilot study, ten essays from each student population were randomly selected for analysis.A. Research QuestionsThree research questions were addressed in this pilot study.Research Question #1:What patterns of ethical literacy emerged in engineering student writing?This research question provides a
often focuseson engineering in isolation from the larger socio-technical context that holds those skills together.A focus for these efforts is the piloting of a course introducing first-year students to engineeringas a socio-technical mode of engagement. The new course, taught within the structure of arequired “Introduction to Engineering” framework, develops a socio-technical concept oftechnology as a system and engineering as a multi-faceted (not strictly technical) activity. Thisfollows from innovations in engineering pedagogy from decades of STS scholarship, and fromthe emerging field of engineering studies scholarship. This paper discusses the unique features ofthis effort at a small liberal arts college, and concludes that the pilot
alumni who graduated from programs that blend professional training withbroad studies in the liberal arts, we seldom hear students evaluate such integration-orientedprograms in their own terms: What do they expect from a more holistic model of engineeringeducation? In what ways do they find a more comprehensive learning experience empowering orconstraining? What do they appreciate the most about their programs? What changes do theywish to see? This paper looks into the “user experience” of educational initiatives that seek tobring together engineering and liberal learning.The analysis presented here draws partly upon my dissertation research, a cross-institutionalinvestigation of integrating engineering and liberal education. The dissertation
quite often a stumbling block for many students intheir learning. Many students are not prepared for college level classes, particularly inmathematics [1, 2, 3, 4]. Point in case, one study evaluated true college-level freshmen andsophomore students entering into STEM disciplines on their knowledge of high school mathbecause it was noticed that they struggle with basic mathematical concepts that are covered atthe high school level. Two major conclusions stemmed from the research: one, studentsspecifically struggle with seven particular high school topics [5], and two, students who takemore mathematics classes, whether at the high school or collegiate level, are apt to performbetter in math and engineering classes [2, 5]. Expounding upon the
the first year experience. A key course element was inviting practicing engineers to lecture ontheir experiences in the profession. Pre/Post surveys revealed that exposure to practicingengineers induced a statistically significant increase in student awareness of what practicingengineers do strongly correlated with a desire among students to remain within engineering. Herethat study is continued and extended with a longitudinal perspective. Beginning with the pilotstudy and continuing every semester for four years (Fall 2008 - Spring 2011), data wereconsistently acquired via the identical entrance/exit survey method. The same hypothesis fromthe one-year pilot study will be tested by evaluating the more extensive four year data set:educating
Century,” Corwin Press.6. Boss, S., Krauss, J., 2007, “Reinventing Project-Based Learning,” International Society for Technology inEducation, Eugene, OR.7. Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., Bogue, B., 2012, “Leaving Engineering: A Multi-Year SingleInstitutional Study,” Journal of Engineering Education, 101, pp. 6-27.8. Mena, I. B., Zappe, S. E., Litzinger, T. A., 2013, “Examining the Experiences and Perceptions of First-YearEngineering Students,” AC2013-6270, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA.9. Esmaeili, M., Eydgahi, A., 2013, “By the Students, for the students: A New Paradigm for Better Achieving theLearning Objectives,” AC2013-7138, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta
construct validity (i.e., whether items/response options werecomprehendible and appropriate), the instrument was pilot tested prior to sending it to sampleinstitutions.Data for this paper were collected via three different survey instruments: 1) a survey of pre-engineering students enrolled in community colleges; 2) a survey of currently enrolledengineering seniors and “super-seniors” in their fifth year of undergraduate study; and 3) asurvey of engineering graduates surveyed three years after earning their bachelor’s degrees.This analysis focuses on students’ self-reported pre-college characteristics, which tend to havehigh validity because they are less susceptible to differences in survey question interpretationthan other kinds of self-report
-learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educa- tion, and the implementation and assessment of games for engineering knowledge transfer.Ms. Sara E Branch, Purdue University, West Lafayette Sara E. Branch is a graduate student in the Department of Psychological Sciences. She studies motivation in the context of academic and career choices.Ms. Catherine G.P. Berdanier, Purdue University, West Lafayette Catherine G.P. Berdanier is a Ph.D. student in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She earned her B.S. in Chemistry from The University of South Dakota and her M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering from Purdue University. Her current research interests include
New Multidisciplinary Course in Sustainability using a Combination of Traditional Lecture and Self-Directed Study Modules, Proc. 120th ASEE Ann. Conf., Atlanta, GA, June 23-26, 2013.16. Y. Liao, L. Holloway, P. A. Dolloff, Development of a New Multidisciplinary Course: Smart Grid, Proc. 119th ASEE Ann. Conf., San Antonio, TX, June 10-13, 2012.17. M. J. Rust, S. G. Northup, Implementation of an International Health Assessment with a Multidisciplinary Team of Undergraduate Engineering and Science Students, Proc. 119th ASEE Ann. Conf., San Antonio, TX, June 10-13, 2012.18. R. E. Gerlick, Development and Testing of Assessment Instruments for Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Courses, 2010, ProQuest LLC
types of educational interactions and processes we believe are mostappropriate to achieving those outcomes within an overall reference framework. The educationof engineering graduates occurs through a series of experiences ranging from attending classes,working in laboratories, participating in co-curricular activities, being part of industry-sourcedpre-professional or professional experiences, to experiencing residence life on campus. It isproposed that the Innovation Competencies are best taught to and learned (by students andpracticing professionals) through a new and rebalanced combination of the teaching of contentand an expanded and defined set of experiences.A model-based systems engineering framework has been developed to explore the
results in a written report in the form of an engineering memorandum to a fictitious client.As part of a larger study on models and modeling, one of our objectives was to assess theeffectiveness of MEAs across various dimensions including improving conceptual learning andproblem solving abilities2,4,5. We have implemented and assessed MEAs in the classroom tostudy students’ problem solving, modeling and teamwork processes. When assessing theeffectiveness of MEAs in improving conceptual learning and problem solving we have usedthree assessment methods: pre and post concept inventories (CIs) to assess learning gain, anonline reflection tool to assess the problem solving process, and a rubric to assess the resultinggeneral model and specific
’ Success and Persistence. Journal of Engineering Education. October 2005, pp. 419-425.10. Zhang, G., Anderson, T., Ohland, M., and Thorndyke, B. Identifying Factors Influencing Student Graduation: A Longitudinal, Cross-Institutional Study. Journal of Engineering Education. October 2004, pp. 313-320.11. Seymour, E., Hewitt, N. (1997) Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press.12. Arnet, J. (2004). Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the Twenties. Oxford University Press.13. Frank, M., Lavy, I., and Elata, D., Implementing the Project-Based Learning Approach in an Academic Engineering Course. Journal of International Journal of Technology and Design
One uses arithmeticaland algebraic principles to understand sentences as equations with the parts of speech asvariables. Level Two focuses on more complex applications of “sentence algebra” to helpengineering writers troubleshoot common sentence-level errors and develop a clear, discipline-specific style. Level Three uses flowcharts as algorithms to teach the rhetoric behind effectivedocument structures. The system’s quantitative approach and bottom-up paradigm make it user-friendly for engineering students by guiding their ascent toward writing mastery using anapproach already encountered in the students’ studies of math, physics, chemistry, and otherSTEM disciplines. The author is encapsulating this new math-based approach for
engineering and business students prior to college matriculationand/or major declaration as well as after graduation to test how college contexts such as major Page 24.295.20may influence students.Along these lines, only a select number of contextual factors (supports from family and friends,contacts with mentors, and previous entrepreneurial and extra-curricular activities) wereexamined in this study. These factors showed relatively low correlations with students’entrepreneurial intent. Future studies ought to look into additional contextual factors andinvestigate how these factors may not only correlate with students’ entrepreneurial intent but
. First of all, starting in the 2006-2007 academic year, the ECE department adopted a newtwo-semester, six-hour capstone design sequence for both its electrical engineering and computerengineering Bachelors’ programs. This new structure for the ECE senior design sequence made itpossible for all projects involving ECE students to be coordinated by a single faculty coordinatorwho was could ensure that all design projects included realistic design constraints and sufficientdepth for a capstone design experience, and that when possible, the design projects could also bemade multidisciplinary in nature. After a few pilot projects, a sustainable, collaborative modelbegan to take shape. Further improving the opportunities for interdepartmental
realistic instead of just theoretical like usual. I learned to interpret and construct fatigue models and study the life of a mechanical component.” “One of the main lessons learned was to begin the project as if the knowledge of the project is minimal. Make no assumption that the knowledge is already in your mind.” “This project is essentially the first practical project we’ve had in our engineering education that has taught us something about what the real world of engineering is like.”Students learned to be more organized from the start of a project, to make decisions faster, and tocomplete tasks in a timely manner (i.e., time management). Examples of lessons learned aboutthe value of teamwork are given below
individual or much smaller lab group than the 3-5students pairing used this past term. Furthermore, majority of students (~80%) developed a specialinterest in the biomedical and micro manufacturing applications for this technology. Other applicationssuch as electronic cooling could be further discussed and emphasized to broaden the impact of thisexperiment.ConclusionImaging (both visible and infrared) of microfluidic devices can be used to study fluid flow and thermalphenomena in educational laboratories for undergraduate engineering courses. The experimentsdescribed here are representative of projects that combine microsystems, image processing, rapidprototyping, and instrumentation with various sensors in an integrated system. Microfluidic devices
Paper ID #10088Work-in-Progress: The Platform-Independent Remote Monitoring System(PIRMS) for Situating Users in the Field VirtuallyMr. Daniel S. Brogan, Virginia Tech Daniel S. Brogan is a PhD student in Engineering Education with BS and MS degrees in Electrical En- gineering. He has completed several graduate courses in engineering education pertinent to this research. He is the key developer of the PIRMS and leads the LEWAS lab development and implementation work. He has mentored two NSF/REU Site students in the LEWAS lab. He assisted in the development and implementation of curricula for introducing the LEWAS at VWCC