easy as possible. • Learning and teaching II, acquiring, compiling, and gathering knowledge: In this section of the individual learning career, the student actually applies the abstract knowledge and gathers his or her own experiences. In order to limit the action and reflection possibilities, the learner interacts within a somewhat restricted, artificial environment, which is reduced in complexity and easy to control by the teacher. To provide feedback, the learning environment is designed to include relevant devices where students can deposit their interim products and teachers can inspect them. The emphasis in this model lies on the learning process of the student. Teachers try to help the
answers, whether correct or not. Logistically, the educator follows the guide sequence in general but often limits time forsense making or reflection. For instance, he frequently minimizes or skips sections of theactivities that require whole group discussion, writing, or reflection; thus each activity runs about15 to 20 minutes under the suggested time. He infrequently emphasizes the activity’s purposewith the whole group (Table 4). His use of questioning strategies with the small groups appearsto support development of engineering habits of mind and sense making. The educator often usesquality pedagogical strategies that support youth, such as open-ended questioning (Table 4).Overall the educator facilitates a youth-directed experience
. Companies that she has worked with renew their commitment to innovation. She also helps students an- swer these questions when she teaches some of these methods to engineering, design, business, medicine, and law students. Her courses use active storytelling and self-reflective observation as one form to help student and industry leaders traverse across the iterative stages of a project- from the early, inspirational stages to prototyping and then to delivery.Dr. Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University Sheri D. Sheppard, Ph.D., P.E., is professor of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University. Besides teaching both undergraduate and graduate design and education related classes at Stanford University, she conducts research
reflections. The cycle was augmented by Greenaway’s Active Reviewing Cycle,a model which provides a different way to examine experiential learning [19]. The keywordsfrom this cycle are shown within parentheses in Figure 1. FIGURE 1. KOLB EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING CYCLE WITH GREENWAY’S KEYWORDSThe concrete experience stage is used to engage students in performing some sort of activitywhere they apply their ideas and skills. Experiences from activities generate facts – the events,moments, and details associated with the activity. Next, the reflective observation stageencourages students to reflect on their experiences through mechanisms such as self-evaluation,peer discussion, and instructor feedback. Reflections generate feelings, an
- cation with specific emphasis on innovative pedagogical and curricular practices at the intersection with the issues of gender and diversity. With the goal of improving learning opportunities for all students and equipping faculty with the knowledge and skills necessary to create such opportunities, Dr. Zastavker’s re- cent work involves questions pertaining to students’ motivational attitudes and their learning journeys in a variety of educational environments. One of the founding faculty at Olin College, Dr. Zastavker has been engaged in development and implementation of project-based experiences in fields ranging from science to engineering and design to social sciences (e.g., Critical Reflective Writing; Teaching and
systems problems.In this paper, the hands-on activities were designed for the students to immerse themselves into asystem, participate in the system, and experience the behavior of an operating system first-hand.These activities are sometimes thought of as games; however, these games were connected to thefirst three of the learning objectives. The students led games and participated in games. The teamthat led the games was responsible for obtaining structured written feedback from theparticipants, developing their own reflective feedback and developing a full written report of thegame.Roadmap for Using Hands-on Discovery Activities (HODA) in a CST CourseIn 2017, Hands-on Discovery Activities (HODA) were incorporated into an existing CST
. Their plans, actions, policymaking,reflections, and frustrations all aim to explore possible reactions to the challenges brought bythese dominant images. 1It is worth noting that the idea of dominant images is not an empirical concept. In other words,the dominant image active learning in American engineering education does not necessarily inferthat most American engineering schools and programs have adopted or developed active learningwell. Rather, dominant images often have normative value. Engineering programs and facultymay have different feelings about active learning, but active learning as a social image is relevantto their educational
process, (d) teamwork and cooperative and collaborativelearning, (e) reflection on how and when these practices could be institutionalized in thecapstone course. Faculty participated in monthly group workshops followed by individualcoaching sessions with two members of the professional development leadership team. Thetwo-member coaching team was comprised of two “experts” – one in the EM and the other inpedagogical practices. The coaching sessions included open-ended questions for facultyreflection on implementation of EM and instructional teaching strategies.Coaching sessions were documented through a Google form, which captured coachingdiscussion details on the following: (i) pedagogy-related topics discussed during the coachingsession, (ii) EM
kind of formal curriculum education is notavailable in the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the general sense (Wang Xuyan et al,2018);participating in competitions is a good way to improve students' entrepreneurialability(Harrington, 2017); the number of graduates who choose to start their own businessescan reflect the output of the entrepreneurship ecosystem in a sense (Beyhan et al, 2017).Synergistic symbiosis mainly refers to the cooperation between organizations in universities.This paper divides synergistic symbiosis into two secondary indicators, namely, theuniversity-school synergy and the teacher-student synergy (Zheng Juan et al.,2017). At leastfor the time being, transforming teachers into entrepreneurs is not the most effective way
consulting with nonprofits, museums, and summer programs. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Creation of an Engineering Epistemic Frame for K-12 Students (Fundamental)AbstractIn implementation of K-12 engineering education standards, in addition to the professionaldevelopment teachers need to be trained to prepare students for future engineering careers,assessments must evolve to reflect the various aspects of engineering. A previous researchproject investigated documentation methods using a variety of media with rising high schooljuniors in a summer session of a college preparatory program [1]. That study revealed thatalthough students had design
several department-specific Comm Labs, 2)Brandeis’s centralized Comm Lab for their Division of Science, and 3) Rose-Hulman’sundergraduate-only centralized Comm Lab for students using a multidisciplinary, co-curricularspace. We then discuss these adaptations with a focus on how our different institutional profilesshape our Comm Lab design. Specifically, we draw connections between institutional data andthe disciplinary focus, scale, and institutional fit of each Comm Lab. We conclude by sharingdata about the Comm Labs’ success, reflecting on the importance of continued data collection,and considering the value of cross-institutional collaboration. Our conclusion reflects both thelimitations of our study and the need for ongoing research. These
. Section V provides a conclusion and implications.II. MethodsThis study was conducted by a combination of a survey of the faculty advisors/counselorscommunity within SWE, and through the analysis of written reflections provided by the authorsof the paper, all of whom are faculty advisors and/or counselors. In 2017, this group of eightadvisors and/or counselors identified factors that contribute to their level of involvement inrunning student organizations. Their individual experiences were shared with respect to their rolein the section’s long-term and short-term goals for the success and sustainability of studentorganizations.The survey was developed based on the goals of the study, with several rounds of review andrevision to ensure that the
: Numbers of papers mentioning "science technology and society” by year, with the emerging time period and the three time periods of high activity that we studied indicated In this study as in most other contexts, STS is a spectrum of concern and activity, not a clearlydelineated body of knowledge or activities. This spectrum is reflected within ASEE in thenumber of different divisions in which papers on STS have been presented. As Figure 2 2 illustrates, STS is taken up as a topic broadly across ASEE with greatest concentrations in (a)Technological Literacy and Technological and
your own business. The next set of 47 questions asked students to show their level ofagreement (on a 7-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) withstatements that measure three realms and eight dimensions (see Table 2 below for an explanationof each).Finally, students were asked about their experiences with volunteering and a set of demographicquestions (gender, engineering major, year in school, GPA, race or ethnicity, previous engineeringwork experience, first-generation status, religion, and age). The post-test additionally askedstudents to reflect on their experiences in the course and if they would be willing to do afollow-up interview. Table 2: EPRA Realms and Dimensions Realm
skills for our first-year engineering students. Although this skill can betaught and assessed, the results of past surveys show that engineering students are inadequatelyequipped to meet this need.This need is addressed by teaching and assessing the three pillars of engineering communication:written, oral and graphical through a series of lectures, activities and group assignments. Forinstance, a series of biweekly group assignments, designed to assess and improve the three pillarsof engineering communication are woven into the project-based curriculum, culminating with afinal project exhibition and written reflection. These assignments, not only assess thepresentation, graphical communication and writing skills of the teams but also their
● Room (e.g. BL 266A) ● Instructor (e.g. “Jack H”)In the application, these columns are renamed to standard titles and new columns are added. Theprogram has been written in a modular format to allow easy substitution of titles. The outputspreadsheet is shown in Figure 2. In addition to renaming the columns, a few basic calculationshave been made. This includes changing the time from AM/PM to military formats. The timedurations have been calculated. This requires some correction for academic practices such as 50minutes = 1 hour and a 3-hour laboratory might be 2 hours and 45 minutes. It is worth notingthat the durations of ECET 452 and EE 311 are not an even or half and the times for thesecourses will need to be adjusted. The weight reflects
post-activity reflection takes approximately 40-50 minutes to complete.Initial Implementation and Next StepsThis activity was completed with a class of 67 chemical engineering seniors in the Fall 2018academic term. During the activity, students seemed engaged with their groups, and each groupcompleted the tasks set before them successfully. The pre-class survey was completed by 66students, while the post-class survey was completed by all 67 students. The averaged results ofstudent self-evaluation of confidence in each area on an eight-point Likert scale (where 1 is leastconfident and 8 is most confident). In the initial run of the activity, data was collectedpredominantly to assess if students were appropriately engaging with and reflecting on
selected to gain a broadrepresentation of the engineering disciplines (bioengineering, computer science, chemicalengineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, and mechanicalengineering) and age (millennials with a mean age of 22.1 years). The social groups used toidentify the students reflected diversity in self-identified gender (15 female, 15 male, and 2transgender) and race/ethnicity (9 Asian, 9 White, 4 Black/African American, 7 Hispanic/Latino,and 3 multiracial students). As mentioned above, students were asked open ended questions onattributes of leaders and the findings presented in this paper focus specifically on 10 questionsrelated to prototypical attributes of leaders. Samples of these questions
-pre) in Likert scores across all participants for each theme.Error bars represent +/- standard deviation.Implications and ConclusionsStudents’ perceived level of understanding and confidence in the needs finding process increasedfrom the start to end of the summer internship. This may suggest that actively undergoing theneeds-finding process helps to solidify understanding and increase confidence in this early stageof the engineering design process, as similarly reported by other programs6. Informalconversations with participants indicated that participation in the BMEA was the first time theywere exposed to entrepreneurial/business concepts, which may be reflected in the reportedincrease in understanding and confidence in these areas at the
through March2018, the ultimate goal of the initiative was to change state licensure laws, such that a master’sdegree or equivalent would become the academic prerequisite for licensure as a professionalengineer in the U.S. [1]During this period, the RTB initiative made substantial progress, as reflected in the followingaccomplishments: • In 2004, ASCE published the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge (CE-BOK)—a landmark document that, for the first time ever, articulated the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for entry into the practice of civil engineering at the professional level [2]. • In 2008 [3] and 2019 [4], ASCE published CE-BOK updates that improved the document’s usability and addressed changes in
developed by the Internal Council on Systems Engineering is usedthroughout the course, and sustainable development reflected by a balanced appreciation forpeople, planet, and prosperity is utilized as a common theme.Course Delivery. This course includes: a blended format; a flipped classroom; mastery learning;and a buffet of optional summative assessments used to assign a final grade13. Briefly, contentdelivery via both online digital media and via face-to-face lecture is known as a ‘blendedformat’, and some of the benefits include accommodating diverse learning styles (i.e., listeningor reading) while improving student satisfaction with content delivery14,15. A ‘flippedclassroom’ enhances the opportunity to use inductive learning strategies (i.e
exam may not have been worthwhile, the exammay be largely viewed as a gatekeeping practice or milestone, rather than a pedagogical tool.Further research will seek to identify how CQ exams might be administered to provide additionalclarity of purpose and to be reflective of the research of the department and institutions of whichthey are a part.References[1] P. G. Altbach, “Doctoral education: Present realities and future trends,” College and University, vol. 80, no. 2. p. 3, 2004.[2] Y. F. de Valero, “Departmental factors affecting time-to-degree and completion rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution.,” J. Higher Educ., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 341–367, 2001.[3] A. Kelley, “Layers of consciousness: An
Engineering Education, 2019 Critical Thinking Skills in First Year Non-Calculus Ready StudentsIntroductionCritical thinking is defined as self-reflective thinking[1]. Critical thinking requires the use ofcertain skills and disposition to evaluate thoughts and ideas with the purpose of refining them [2,3]. Critical thinking involves an in depth evaluation of events, problems, ideas, and artifactsbefore accepting or framing a conclusion or opinion [4]. Engineers are trained to becomeproblem solvers and critical thinking is essential for problem solving. Many educators believethat critical thinking skills are important and should be promoted in schools and universities, butthey feel unequipped to teach those skills[5, 6].The purpose of this
of the previous year, we completedreflections on what impact we would like to achieve within our positions and the degree to whichwe believed we achieved this impact. We also reflected on strategic actions we took to achieveimpact. In this work, we leveraged the framework developed by London [8] that defines impacton the basis of scientific, contextual, and societal components.Using an emergent analysis approach, we identified impacts and strategic actions that werepresent across our positions and institutional contexts. We subsequently developed a quantitativesurvey instrument to more broadly investigate the impact and strategic actions of other earlycareer engineering education faculty. This also involved investigating influencers such as
veterans currently comprise 4% of Americancollege students [6]. ACE credit recommendations have changed to reflect these shifts inmilitary training and academic content. This paper discusses the extent to which changes inmilitary training, specifically that provided by the United States Army, have affected ACE’scredit recommendations at the undergraduate level.IntroductionThe American Council on Education (ACE) is based in Washington, DC. A contractor for theDepartment of Defense, ACE oversees academic evaluation of military courses. According totheir website: “ACE has provided a critical link between the U. S. Department of Defense and higher education and in this role helps our nation’s military members and veterans gain access
, Virginia Tech, Ateneo de Davao University Michelle Soledad is a PhD candidate in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. Her research interests include faculty development and data-informed reflective practice. Ms. Soledad has degrees in Electrical Engineering (BS, ME) from the Ateneo de Davao University (ADDU) in Davao City, Philippines, where she continues to be a faculty member of the Electrical Engineering Department. She also served as Department Chair and was a member of the University Research Council before pursuing doctoral studies. Prior to joining ADDU in 2008, Ms. Soledad was a Senior Team Lead for Accenture, where she worked on and managed systems maintenance and enhancement projects.Dr
, educators also applied cognitive indicator levels to eachcompetency. These levels on a scale of 1-8 reflect the level of complex thinking from simpleknowledge to decision making and problem solving. The ultimate goal is to refine the programcontent and appropriate cognitive indicator level of these competencies that industry expect fortheir manufacturing and production technician workforce.BackgroundThe Lumina Foundation has supported research and projects to improve the validity, clarity andimplementation of competency based post-secondary education for many years. Competency-based education can provide many benefits to technical education programs primarily byproviding students a platform for self-paced learning with facilitation by an educator
with the faculty engagement model proposed by Kathrin as well as the faculty feedback, allT&L Academy events have both academic and social emphasis. A typical agenda for SummerWorkshop includes one featured presentation or training session led by invited speakers that helpour faculty to gain new knowledge, skills or insight, plus multiple social activities that fosterconversation, reflection, and shared-learning among participants. The topics of the summerworkshop and the forums are solicited through a faculty survey to make sure that the contents ofT&L events are aligned with the faculty interest. In addition to face-to-face meetings, a Moodlesite for the T&L Academy has been established to share workshop and forum presentations
only way a particular level can be attained.Motivation for Assessing Outcomes in the Affective DomainThe 2006 ASCE Summit on The Future of Civil Engineering - 2025 [14] portrayed the engineerof the future to be knowledgeable, skillful, and one who embraces attitudes conducive toprofessional practice. While the first two attributes are conveniently measured in the cognitivedomain, attitudes most often are a reflection of one’s value system and, as such, outcomes relatedto attitude should be measured in the affective domain. Additionally, the U.S Department ofLabor’s Engineering Competency Model [15] describes the Tier I: Personal EffectivenessCompetencies in terms such as: shows sincere interest, maintains open communication, values aninclusive
accomplished by creating interesting research assignments that are short, yet appropriate to the topic under discussion.Reflection : Feedback helps towards thoughtful evaluation of the changes implemented. Only reflection can provide a tool for continuous improvement. Feedback must be scrutinized and summarized and used as part of continuous quality improvement. Most instructors do conduct an evaluation of the course at the end of the semester. Additional questions should be included to find out how the students react and reflect to the course delivery methodology.Nurture