-3] and engage with teachers to identify methods that can be used toidentify elementary students’ funds of identity and current perceptions of engineering. Thisinformation can then be utilized by PLC members to develop place-based engineering-focusedinterventions for students.Research DesignThe research goals during this portion of the study were to a) develop and refine a photo novellaprompt that can be used to collect data on individual’s funds of knowledge related toengineering, and b) identify differences in the ways engineering and education professionals andstudents view engineering in their communities.Our FoI work relies heavily on the photo novella projects. There is a rich history of usingphotography in qualitative research [4] and
Paper ID #28270Addressing Gender Disparities in Computing Majors and Careers:Development and Effects of a Community Support StructureProf. Shaundra Bryant Daily, Duke University Shaundra B. Daily is an Associate Professor of Practice in Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science at Duke University. Previously she was an associate professor at the University of Florida in the Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering as well as an Associate Professor and Interim Co-Chair in the School of Computing at Clemson University. She received her masters and doctorate from MIT. Her work involves
time to answer requestsfor this information.I also identified the liaison librarian to Mechanical Engineering Technology from eachinstitution, by searching the institution’s library web site. Where an explicit MET liaison wasnot indicated, a likely candidate was identified (e.g., if there was only one STEM librarian in thelibrary), and as a last choice, the library director was identified as the point of contact. A surveywas distributed to the so-identified library representative of each institution, using the Qualtricssurvey program (see Appendix B). An email invitation to the survey was sent as well as onereminder.The information provided by MET departments varied in depth and type, so a systematicanalysis was challenging. Thus, the results
currently serves as an editorial advisory board member of Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, an editorial board editor of Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, an associate editor for the IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine (an international peer-reviewed journal), a handling editor for the Transportation Research Record and is a member of the Transportation Research Board’s Committee on Traffic Flow Theory and Characteristics (AHB 45), where he serves as a paper review coordinator. He has been recognized with multiple awards for his research and teach- ing activities, including the Dwight D. Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship, Gordon F. Newell Award for Excellence in
] P. G. Katona, “Biomedical engineering and the whitaker foundation: A thirty-year partnership,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 904–916, 2006.[16] Z. O. Abu-Faraj, “Bioengineering/biomedical engineering education and career development: Literature review, definitions, and constructive recommendations,” Int. J. 14 Eng. Educ., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 990–1011, 2008.[17] T. C. Pilkington, F. M. Long, R. Plonsey, J. G. Webster, and W. Welkowitz, “Status and Trends in Biomedical Engineering Education,” IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 9–17, 1989.[18] N. L. Ramo, A. Huang-Saad, and B. Belmont, “What is Biomedical
. Table 1: Treatment Group Test Matrix No. of No. of Group Activity Activity Grade Type of students sketches Course Instructor ID location frequency value students (n students) (n sketches) I-A Engineering Every Sophomore 16 91 A In class None Mechanics class - Senior II-B
. degrees in Applied Mechanics from Caltech. Dr. Krousgrill’s current research interests include the vibration, nonlinear dynamics, friction-induced oscillations, gear rattle vibrations, dynamics of clutch and brake systems and damage detection in rotor systems. Dr. Krousgrill is a member of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). He has received the H.L. Solberg Teaching Award (Purdue ME) seven times, A.A. Potter Teaching Award (Purdue Engineering) three times, the Charles B. Murphy Teaching Award (Purdue University), Purdue’s Help Students Learn Award, the Special Boilermaker Award (given here for contributions to undergraduate education) and is the 2011 recipient of the ASEE Mechanics Division’s Archie
these knowledge" Dutta A. et al., 2017 building a permanent technology library "provide a place to host the classes for students gained "technical entry-level India high school [23] the cyber classroom" employment" in a nearby city Hendrix B. et al., 2-hour library workshop "introduce students to 3-d printing, "workshop was a positive first USA (ID) high school 2017 [29] electronics, and programming" and experience with electronics and "provide a positive
-128,2016.[2] J. Leonard, A. Buss, A. Unertl and M. Mitchell, "USING ROBOTICS AND GAMEDESIGN TO PROMOTE PATHWAYS TO STEM", in Annual Meeting of the North AmericanChapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Tucson, AZ,2016, pp. 1487-1494.[3] A. Barco, R. Walsh, A. Block, K. Loveys, A. McDaid and E. Broadbent, "Teaching SocialRobotics to Motivate Women into Engineering and Robotics Careers", in 2019 14th[4] ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Korea(South), 2019, pp. 518-519.[4] B. Brand, M. Collver and M. Kasarda, "Motivating Students With Robotics", The ScienceTeacher, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 44-49, 2008.[5] E. M. Silk and C. D. Schunn, "Using robotics to teach mathematics
visualization skills.Training and testing were the focal point of numerous studies [12] – [16] and they cover multiplemethods to challenge students to visualize objects and patterns in various settings. All have beenproven to help the students improve their spatial skills but without one being universallyaccepted to be 100% effective. They all demonstrated various degrees of success depending onstudents’ background, gender, resources, socio-economic status, time spent on practicing, and, ofcourse, their level of interest. As a result, the more variety of methods is available, the morechoices the faculty and students will have to select the most appropriate method for theirparticular situation.BackgroundAbout a year after the publication of the “A, B
design for manufacturability.ResultsFrom project launch in Phase 1 to presentations in Phase 4, the students had about four and a halfweeks to design the Little Free Library for their community partner. Following the presentations,the community partners filled out a survey to gauge their experience and satisfaction with thestudent designs and, finally, to select the library they wanted built.Following the semester, the students had the option to help participate in building the Little FreeLibraries that were selected by each partner. The CAD screen captures below in Figure 1 providea glimpse into the student designs each partner selected. a. Metro Deaf b. Minnesota c. University of St. d. Big Brothers Big School
the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References 1. T.S. Popkewitz and L. Fendler, Critical Theories in Education: Changing Terrains of Knowledge and Politics. Psychology Press, 1999. 2. P. Layne, “Diversity by Numbers,” Leadership and Management in Engineering, vol 1 ed. (4), pp. 65-71. Oct, 2001. 3. D. Riley, A. Slaton, and A. L. Pawley, “Inclusion and Social Justice: Women and Minorities in Engineering.” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri and B. Olds, Ed., Cambridge University Press 2014. 4. B.M. Ferdman, “The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations,” in Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion, B. Ferdman and B. R
41 SEP group 15 CC group 12 Total number of components 913 Total number of relations between components 2,145 *12 topics repeat in all grade bandsAlmost all existing representations of NGSS content follow a tree-like, hierarchical model. Figure 1,for instance, shows a commonly found representation of two PEs (1-ESS1-1 and 1-ESS1-2), their 3Delements and their articulation across grade bands via three DCIs: PS2.A (grade 3), PS2.B (grade 5) andESS1.B (grade 5) [4]. Figure 1. Common display of NGSS Performance ExpectationsOne can find similar representations in on-line K-12 STEM
outcome.Faculty also provide a table for each course that shows a summary of the raw data for the directevidence that each assessment instrument generates. Let’s take CSET 4100 Server-SideProgramming as an example. An assessment on the need for continuous improvement couldinclude: a) Questions in two homework assignments involving Java web application anddeployment to reveal mastery of CAC and ETAC outcome 4; b) Two programming assignmentsinvolving Java server-side scripting designed to reveal mastery of CAC and ETAC outcome1. Figure 1: University of Toledo CSET Curriculum Computer Science & Engineering Technology Curriculum - Full Time (Effective Fall 2013
) (b) (c) Figure 1. Illustration of (a) sketch dimensions, (b) sketch constraints, and (c) engineering drawing dimensions and notes. Sketch and drawing created in CREO Parametric TM version 6. • geometric constraints to create relationships between the curves (e.g., make two line segments equal in size and parallel); • and, associative constraints to create relationships between dimensional constraints.Figure 1a shows an example of a sketch with dimensions and Figure 1b shows the geometricconstraints. The way in which curves are used and how dimensions and geometric constraintsare established between them gives purpose to the sketch. This
and even third year, these labelings have both false positives and falsenegatives. Our study which seeks to identify, using a data science approach, a consistent wayto label all students as either retained or not retained, enjoys the following advantages: a) It does not rely on the requirement of earning a degree in engineering, b) It is not based on enrollment at a fixed point in time, and c) It can be used as the data set continues to grow.Using a data science pipeline, we analyze student enrollment gaps to determine a reasonablelabeling of not-retained. In the following, we start by describing our methods, then presentour findings and finish with a discussion and conclusions.MethodsA Data-driven Pipeline for Retention
University of Michigan-DearbornAdvancement of Teaching and Learning Fund.Bibliography1. Maxim, B. R.; Decker, A.; and Yackley, J. J. (2019) “Student Engagement in Active Learning Software Engineering Courses”, Proceedings of 49th IEEE Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Cincinnati, OH, October 2019 (F3G1-F3G5).2. Branch R. (2010) Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach, Springer, 2010.3. Samavedham, L. and Ragupathi, K. (2012) “Facilitating 21st century skills in engineering students,” The Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. XXVI No. 1, 2012, pp.38-49.4. Promoting Active Learning (2016) https://utah.instructure.com/courses/148446/pages/active-learning, retrieved February 25, 2016.5. Prince, M., (2004
managerial discourse," Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 363-399, 1992.[20] E. Mayo, The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization, Boston: Harvard University, 1945.[21] A. H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper and Row, 1954.[22] B. J. Avolio, B. M. Bass and L. E. Atwater, "Antecedent Predictors of the "full range of leadership" and management styles," Army Research Institute in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Arlington, VA, 1994.[23] B. A. Bass, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, New York: Free Press, 1985.[24] D. Collinson, "Dialectics of Leadership," Human Relations, vol. 58, pp. 1419-1442, 2005.[25] S. J. Ashford and D. S. DeRue, "Who Will Lead and Who Will Follow? A Social Process of
facets amongst the same and similar information sources was compared. Thiscomparison led to the modification of codes for 23 of the 622 citations or 3.7%.The authors, one of which was the instructor for the course during the three year period, alsoevaluated the theory section of each report for completeness, accuracy, as well as clarity anddepth using a rubric (Appendix B). For each year and topic, the reports were divided into threegroupings based on the rubric assessment scores: top, middle, and bottom third. The division intothirds was done by the population, meaning that the scores that define each group may havevaried from year to year or report to report. Each group consisted of approximately 35 studentsover the three year period. Using
form of the mechanism, students are required to use one simulation software,such as ADAMS, to build a virtual prototype for simulating the mechanism model and theend trajectory. Fig. 5 gives some available options that students can refer to. Thus, the“handwriting robot” is embedded into the teaching process of theoretical curriculum. At thesame time, students are able to access to at least one engineering software, which can helpthem apply their engineering knowledge in practice. (a) (b) (c) Fig. 5 Mechanisms capable of linear motion. (a) slider crank mechanism (b) screw mechanism (c) rack and pinion mechanismMechanical DesignThis course generally covers
includedsimilar writing prompts (Appendix A and B) that requested students to review their learningjourney over the semester and discuss their challenges and successes. The Fall 2018 assignmentasked students to write a minimum of three paragraphs telling the story of their challenges andtriumphs during the semester. A separate prompt asked students to identify their most successfullearning and self-regulation strategies. The Fall 2019 assignment included two prompts for thestudents: narrate their learning journey for challenges and successes as modeled in the SkillfulLearning video series [15] and identify two learning strategies and one self-regulation strategythat were helpful.A sample of student reflections was selected for analysis. One author was
and rubric, collected in course evaluations, is perhaps the most useful for theindividual instructor’s professional development. The main objective of the work-in-progress(WIP) is to develop a methodology to: (a) automatically extract assertions of perceived quality ofteaching using machine learning techniques. (b) provide a mechanism to compare instructors basedon the extracted assertion/qualities. The contributions of the paper are (a) methodology to mineteaching evaluation and (b) an open-source tool to facilitate educational establishments executeempirical studies and students perform exploratory analytics on the teaching evaluations. The toolsupports a wide variety of data formats, does not require any domain knowledge for its
consistently resulted in end-of-semester grades less than a B. These non-thriving metricsare what the authors refer to as triggers. The course-wide Sakai gradebook data was analyzed forthe 2017 and 2018 fall semesters which have nearly-identical assignment topics and calendars tothe 2019 fall course. The authors sought to identify a trigger that was: (1) consistent from year toyear, (2) successful in identifying as many of the students with a final grade less than a B, (3) nottoo broad and therefore did not identify many students with a final grade greater-than-or-equal-toa B, and (4) located within the first four weeks of the semester. Identifying a trigger by the end ofthe first four weeks of the semester is much earlier than most previous works
academic conferences. Dr. Wang is the recipient of the 2019 International Education Award and the 2018 Harshini V de Silva Graduate Mentor Award at University of North Carolina at Charlotte in the United States. He received the 2008 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Distinguished Paper Award, 2009 Excellence in Research Award from the College of Education, 2010 Distinguished Research Award from the U.S. Academy of Educational Leadership, and the 2012 College of Education Excellence in Teaching Award. He served as the Editor-in-Chief of two peer-reviewed journals: (a) New Waves – Educational Research and Development; and (b) Journal of Applied Educational and Policy Research. He also served as the
responses being vehicle specific during SD2.In Cohort 1B (spring/fall enrollment), there were a total of 135 considerations analyzed in thestudent’s responses during SD1. Of those 135, 73 were vehicle specific considerations (53%)while context and stakeholder considerations were only mentioned 23 (17%) and 39 (28%),respectively. In SD2, Cohort 1 B considered more aspects of the design with a total of 147considerations. As observed before, these considerations were mostly vehicles specificconsiderations, with 91 of the considerations being vehicle specific (61%), while context wasconsidered significantly less, with only 12 (8%) considerations, in respect to other categories.Consideration for stakeholders was also low with only 44 of the 147
guidingprinciples for online learning, we can ensure a viable student experience.Transformation to online learningThe Nanotechnology CourseIntroduction to Nanotechnology course was designed as an undergraduate engineering elective toexpose students to the material opportunities offered at the nanometer scale. The course contentis divided into (a) fundamentals, (b) tools for synthesis and characterization, and (c) applicationsof nanomaterials within devices and more broadly technology. Principles of Nanotechnologycourse is a graduate level course that is combined with the undergraduate course. Graduatestudents complete additional assessments that go beyond the undergraduate level assignments.The lecture content, however, is identical between the
," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 187-219, 1999.[11] J. P. Gee, Social linguistics and literacies : ideology in discourses, 5th ed. New York: Routledge, 2015.[12] A.-F. Gilbert, "Disciplinary cultures in mechanical engineering and materials science: Gendered/gendering practices," Equal Opportunities International, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 24- 35, 2009.[13] B. M. Capobianco, B. F. French, and H. A. Diefes‐Du, "Engineering identity development among pre‐adolescent learners," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 698-716, 2012.[14] K. L. Meyers, M. W. Ohland, A. L. Pawley, S. E. Silliman, and K. A. Smith, "Factors relating to engineering identity," Global Journal
the net [2,3]) Table 1: Component Groups in a Bearing Puller Assembly Number Component Group Name Notation in Product 1 Cross Arm A 1 2 Beam Pairs B 3 3 Claw legs C 3 4 Forcing Screw D 1 5 Nuts and bolts (Fasteners) 6The assembly process starts with the first component, called the base component, onto
Paper ID #29698To Be, or Not to Be, a Professor: Views of Engineering PostdoctoralScholarsDr. Sylvia L. Mendez, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Dr. Sylvia Mendez is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Leadership, Research, and Foundations at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs. She earned a PhD in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies from the University of Kansas, a MS in Student Affairs in Higher Education from Colorado State University, and a BA in Economics from Washington State University. Dr. Mendez’s research centers on the educational attainment and schooling experiences
pursuit of degree attainment. This study proposes to answer thefollowing research question and sub-questions: (1) How do women who have persisted in undergraduate engineering programs, at an urban university, build engineering identity through their educational experiences? a. How do women describe secondary educational experiences that contributed to their decision to major in engineering? b. How do women describe post-secondary educational experiences that contributed to their persistence in an engineering major?Subjectivity Statement For qualitative studies, it is necessary to describe how the position of the researcher couldinfluence the data analysis and