offered suggestions for implementing suchanalyses to forecast potential issues brought about by curricular change and other extensions tothe technique to simulate student movement through the curriculum. AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.EEC-1623067. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. References [1] Main, J. B., & Xu, X. R., & Dukes, A. M. (2018), Board 94: A Conceptual Model for Engineering Major Choice Paper presented at 2018
of the exam wrapper assignment. Additionally, to be eligible for participation inthe current study, students needed to complete all formal exams or assessments linked to theexam wrapper activities. These qualifications provided us with a total sample of 54 students, or71.05%, from the second cohort, compared to 78 students, or 85.71%, from the first cohort.Data CollectionThe specific pieces of student data collected for this study include all components of the examwrapper activity. These materials include several assignments associated with the first round ofexams (Exam Wrapper After-Action Review #1 Stage 1 [Appendix B], Stage 2 [Appendix C],and Stage 3&4 [Appendix D]), as well as the assignment associated with the second round ofexams
world in andbeyond the student’s educational journey, enhancing student’s affinity to the program, College,and University, and enabling a greater persistence toward graduation goals [6]–[8]. Due to theprevalence and diversity of formal and informal mentoring programs and practices atpostsecondary institutions, relevant theories and frameworks for effective mentoring have beendeveloped and tested over the years. Crisp, Baker, Griffin, et al. [9] provide an updated synthesisof the undergraduate mentoring scholarship to address four specific questions: a) to identify andunderstand how empirical knowledge and theory have advanced; b) to identify and provideclarity about the characteristics that serve to meaningfully distinguish mentoring
inproximity and relationship. The paper will seek to answer one main guiding research questionand two sub-questions: 1. Does the proximity and relationship with the community partner affect the manifestation of empathy in students on service-learning design projects? a. How is empathy manifesting on service-learning projects? b. What factors contribute to the manifestation of empathy in students working on service-learning design projects?ContextThe EPICS program engages students in long-term partnerships with local, regional and globalcommunity partners [6]. Undergraduate students from all engineering disciplines and othermajors across the university earn academic credit within their respective plans of study
. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020Introducing junto: a Web Tool to Build Project Teams based on a Bidding StrategyAbstractThis work presents a web application created to help instructors assign students to group projects,with an algorithm that optimizes student satisfaction, gives students the opportunity to select ateam member, and reduces time needed for an instructor to create teams. Our approach focuses ontwo main aspects: (a) it gives the student the ability to apply weights to their project choices(instead of just ranking them) and (b) it provides students with the opportunity to select aclassmate to be partnered with. We implemented a genetic algorithm that assigns students toprojects in
aerospace manufacturing sector, change wasidentified as an expectation, with one being “…ready to go to Plan B if Plan A is not available,and then move on to consider Plans C and D, and perhaps Plan E if circumstances dictate”[64]. In terms of Big Data and automation technologies in aircraft the need for the humans toadapt more fluidly are significant in the sense of changing and working through times of suddendisorder and uncertainty [65], [66]. Traditionally structured views of “the round peg goes intothe round hole… that there is only one answer to a question… these structures are moremalleable in modern operations. than we may want admit…ultimately the big data messinessconcept requires the human being to change in order to tap into and harness
Communication Skills in Engineering Students Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. https://peer.asee.org/200603. Erdil, N. O., & Harichandran, R. S., & Collura, M. A., & Nocito-Gobel, J., & Adams, D. J., & Simson, A. (2016, June), Preliminary Assessment of and Lessons Learned in PITCH: an Integrated Approach to Developing Technical Communication Skills in Engineers Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. 10.18260/p.259444. Randi, J., & Harichandran, R. S., & Levert, J. A., & Karimi, B. (2018, June), Improving Senior Design Proposals Through Revision by Responding to Reviewer Comments Paper presented at 2018
, Padova, Italy, p. 27-34.6. Amy, E. (2014) “Educational robotics theories and practice: Tips for how to do it right,” in Robotics: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, IGI Global: Hershey, PA, p. 193- 223.7. Mehul, B. (2014) “Reasoning about space, actions, and change: A paradigm for applications of spatial reasoning,” in Robotics: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, IGI Global: Hershey, PA, p. 315-349.8. Ortiz, A.M., et al., (2015) “The power of educational robotics as an integrated STEM learning experience in teacher preparation programs,” Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(5): p. 42- 47.9. Bers, M.U. and M. Portsmore, (2005) “Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and
Congress & Exposition (IMECE), Tampa, FL.5. Carey*, R., Carroll*, A., and Kuttolamadom, M. A., 2019, "Design Space Exploration of Parameters for Selective Laser Melting of WC-Co," 2019 Engineering Undergraduate Research Symposium, Texas A&M University.6 Richardson*, L., and Kuttolamadom, M. A., 2019, "Thermal Efffects on Selective Laser Sintering of Pharmaceuticals," 2019 Engineering Undergraduate Research Symposium, Texas A&M University.7. Dugas*, B., and Kuttolamadom, M. A., 2019, "Fabrication of a Direct Energy Deposition 3D Printer for Pharmaceuticals," 2019 Engineering Undergraduate Research Symposium, Texas A&M University.8. Huang, J., Miscles, E., Mellor, T., Kuttolamadom
] M. A. Supiano, J. T. Fitzgerald, K. E. Hall, and J. B. Halter, "A vertically integrated geriatric curriculum improves medical student knowledge and clinical skills," Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 1650-1655, Oct. 2007.[6] M. Wijnen-Meijer, O. ten Cate, M. van der Schaaf, and S. Harendza, "Graduates from vertically integrated curricula," The Clinical Teacher, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 155-159, Jun. 2013.[7] J. L. Schiano, "A Four-year Vertically Integrated Design Sequence in Electrical Engineering," presented at the 2012 ASEE Conference and Exposition, San Antonio, TX, Jun., 2012.[8] D. Kmiec, "Teaching Engineering Communication: A Novel Vertically-Integrated and Discipline
and F. Pearson, "Women's Perceptions of the Climate in Engineering Technology Programs," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 89, pp. 309-314, 2013.[11] J. D. Burns, R. J. Budreau, G. L. Harding, W. M. Pace, M. E. Prygoski and J. A. Piller, "A Redesigned Engagement and Recruitment Strategy for Engineering Technology Programs at a Regional Campus," in ASEE IL-IN Section Conference, West Lafayette, 2018.[12] R. L. Mott, G. P. Neff, M. J. Stratton and D. C. Summers, "Future directions for mechanical, manufacturing, and industrial engineering technology programs," Journal of Engineering Technology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 8-15, 2002.[13] S. Zakani, B. Frank, R. Turner and J. Kaupp, "Framework for the Transferability Between
Fall 2016 and Fall 2018 are presented below infigures 5a and 5b respectively. (a) Before Scaffolding (b) After Scaffolding Figure 4: Histogram of on-time submission ratios before and after scaffoldingWhen comparing the histograms in figure 5, the histogram shifts to the left, indicating a sharpdecrease in missing submissions after scaffolding. We also observe that over 70% of students hadmissed less than 10% of all submissions after scaffolding (Fall 2018).For in-depth analysis, we performed a test of the hypothesis (t-test) as well as Cohen’s effect size. (a) Before Scaffolding (b) After Scaffolding Figure 5: Histogram of missing submission
statics concept inventory,” Proc. 2004 Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Conf. Expo., 2004.[9] G. Gray, F. Costanzo, and D. Evans, “The dynamics concept inventory assessment test: A progress report and some results,” Am. Soc. Eng. Educ., 2005.[10] N. Jorion, B. D. Gane, K. James, L. Schroeder, L. V. Dibello, and J. W. Pellegrino, “An Analytic Framework for Evaluating the Validity of Concept Inventory Claims,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 454–496, 2015.[11] N. Stites et al., “Analyzing an abbreviated dynamics concept inventory and its role as an instrument for assessing emergent learning pedagogies,” ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc., vol. 2016-June, 2016.[12] R. Averill, S. Roccabianca, and G
’ mothers and 48% of their fathers have not earned a collegedegree.Figure 1 summarizes some of the demographics and academic characteristics of an averagechemical engineering graduate from our program. Graduates from our program are more likelyto have a high university GPA, transfer many science, math, and non-STEM credit requirementsfrom other colleges or universities, have an ACT score around the 78% percentile, attended apublic high school with an average B to B+ rating [13], and be a first generation college studentin their family.Figure 1: Characteristics of chemical engineering students who have graduated or will soongraduate with chemical engineering degrees from our program, examined among the cohort of2014 and 2015 first year chemical
NSF Advance-PLAN projectdesigned to address gender equity through policy change on a statewide level. The project isbased on the model of change that identifies effective change as a top-down policy drivenapproach through a central authority, in this case, a statewide board of regents that oversees allpublic universities. The model for top-down change is particularly suited to a small, rural statewhere a) n-values for gender related statistics at any institution may not be statisticallysignificant b) institutional relations allow for cross-state cooperation and c) size of theinstitutions allows for timely implementation and assessment of policies. In addition,intercollegiate cooperation allows for provosts of all six institutions to serve as
an offer to the selected candidate.For summers 2014-2019, we received an average of 200 completed applications per year. Wereceived fewer - 66 - in 2013, likely due to the compressed recruitment timeframe in the firstyear of our first REU Site award. Figure 1 shows selected demographics for our applicant poolsand participating students.Figure 1. Percentage of applicants (black bars) and participants (gray bars) who self-identified as(a) female or (b) underrepresented minority (African American/Black, Native American/NativeAlaskan, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, Hispanx/Latinx/Chicanx, and/or mixed raceincluding one or more of these demographics).Across all years, the applicant pools (means ± standard deviation) included 62.1% ± 2.7
Paper ID #29357Development of a MATLAB/ROS Interface to a Low-cost Robot ArmProf. Robert L. Avanzato, Pennsylvania State University, Abington Robert Avanzato is an associate professor of engineering at the Penn State Abington campus where he teaches courses in electrical and computer engineering, computer science, and robotics. His research interests are mobile robotics, computer vision, intelligent systems, collaborative virtual environments and innovative education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Development of a MATLAB/ROS Interface to a Low-cost Robot
determine construct grouping PRESCORE POSTSCORE DIFFSCORE CONSTRUCT Mean Group Mean Group Mean Group Affective Mentalizing (AM) 0.6786 A 0.7857 B C 0.1071 D Affective Response (AR) 0.7486 A 0.7657 B C 0.0171 D Emotion Regulation (ER) 0.6286 A 0.6571 B 0.0286 D Perspective Taking (PT) 0.6857 A 0.7943 C 0.1086 D Self-other Awareness (SOA) 0.6929 A 0.7929 C 0.1000 DThe Tukey tests show that none of the PRESCORE means are significantly different from eachother
. Scanlon, and M. Pruett, "They Choose to Attend Academic Summer Camps? A Mixed Methods Study Exploring the Impact of a NASA Academic Summer Pre-Engineering Camp On Middle School Students in a Latino Community," Journal of Pre- College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 22-30, 2018, doi: 10.7771/2157-9288.1196.[3] L. C. Carol, F. C. Alberto, and T. T. Patrick, "Learning Professional Confidence: Linking Teaching Practices, Students' Self-Perceptions, and Gender," vol. 24, ed: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, pp. 173-191.[4] D. B. Rosenthal, "Images of Scientists: A Comparison of Biology and Liberal Studies Majors," vol. 93, ed: School Science and Mathematics, 1993, pp. 212
Appendix B: Expectationsfor Working with Collaborators and Need Experts).Examples of Accessible Design ProjectsHere we describe three example projects: Climbing Higher, e-NABLE Device and Research, andWild Thing Challenge and show examples of student-built prototypes (Fig. 1). To supportprototyping and best practices, students have access to a makerspace and are mentored by facultyand an independent design consultant. • Climbing Higher. Accessible climbing wall for adults with cognitive disabilities, in collaboration with Outdoors for All, a national organization that provides accessible recreational activities [17]. The team designed thermochromatic holds that change color when held by a climber in order to track progress
Various Sizes,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 565–589, 2012.[10] S. W. Rogers and R. K. Goktas, “Exploring Engineering Graduate Student Research Proficiency with Student Surveys,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 263– 278, 2010.[11] J. P. Kotter, Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012.[12] J. A. Gambatese, A. A. Karakhan, and D. R. Simmons, “Development of a Workforce Sustainability Model for Construction,” The Center for Construction Research and Training, 2019.[13] T. M. Evans, L. Bira, J. B. Gastelum, L. T. Weiss, and N. L. Vanderford, “Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 282– 284, 2018
examination of volitional personality change,” Journal of Research in Personality, vol 85, 2020.[16] A. Hira, C. Beebe, K. R. Maxey, and M. M. Hynes, “ “But, what do you want me to teach?”: Best practices for teaching in educational makerspaces (RTP),” in Proceedings, 2018 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 2018, Salt Lake City, UT.[17] B. S. Robinson, N. Hawkins, J. Lewis, and J. C. Foreman, “Creation, development, and delivery of a new interactive first-year introduction to engineering course,” in Proceedings, 2019 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 2019, Tampa, FL.
] National Science Board. Revisiting the STEM Workforce. National Science Foundation. 2015.[8] National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, “Developing a National STEM Workforce Strategy,” Jul. 2016.[9] American Society of Civil Engineers, “The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025,” American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007.[10] M. D. Kirschenman and B. Brenner, “Civil Engineering Design as the Central Theme in Civil Engineering Education Curriculum,” Leadership and Management in Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 69–71, 2011.[11] D. B. Knight and B. J. Novoselich, “Curricular and Co-curricular Influences on Undergraduate Engineering Student Leadership,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 44–70
the identification and deconstruction ofmechanisms that hinder diverse pathways into engineering, promote a liberal approach toengineering education, and support individual diversity.References[1] J. B. Main, K. A. Smith, A. W. Fentiman, and K. L. Watson, “The next Morrill Act for the 21st century,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 152–155, 2019.[2] A. F. Mckenna, J. Froyd, and T. Litzinger, “The complexities of transforming engineering higher education: Preparing for next steps,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 188–192, 2014.[3] C. M. Campbell and K. A. O’Meara, “Faculty Agency: Departmental Contexts that Matter in Faculty Careers,” Res. High. Educ., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 49–74, 2014.[4] S. Billett
<= 0) { wallHeight = Get next input cin >> wallHeight; } For loop statement for i = 0; i < 5; i = i + 1 for (i = 0; i < 5; i = i + 1) { Put i to output cout << i; } And/or/not (a < b and a < c) or (not(a > d)) (a < b && a < c) || (!(a > d))The language features listed above eliminate many common errors by beginning programmers,and enable the Coral simulator to provide clear helpful feedback on syntax
(ASHRAE standards for example).4) The device must average the air velocity of the air in the duct with at least the number of points specified by ASHRAE standards.For this project, two teams of four students competed. To avoid replication, one requirement wasthat the physical principle of response of the device should be different. As a result, the projectshown in Figure 5-a was based on heat transfer and the prototype shown in Figure 5-b was basedon differential pressure. (a) (b)Fig. 5 Picture of Prototypes for the Duct Mounted Airflow Measurement System Project, (a)prototype based on heat transfer principles and (b) based on differential pressure.Project 2017
functions, b. Noting low-level functions, c. Noting system boundaries, and d. Noting system inputs and outputs. 3. Students functional modeling ability as measured by Question 4 would decrease each year following initial instruction during sophomore year.Figure 2: Rubric for assessing function-flow responses used to assess Questions 2 and 3 on the FunSkillinstrument.3.3 ScoringTo score the FunSkill instrument, three strategies were employed. For Question 1, responseswere scored simply as correct or incorrect as to whether the students correctly identified theresponse as a function or not. Question 1 was scored only by one rater, an undergraduate studentat the university where this study occurred. Correct and
: Cambridge University Press, 1959.[2] B. E. Seely, “Patterns in the history of education reform: A brief essay,” in Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Education to the New Century, National Academy of the Sciences, Ed. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005, pp. 114-130.[3] C. M. Vest, “Educating engineers for 2020 and beyond,” in Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Education to the New Century, National Academy of the Sciences, Ed. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2005, pp. 160-169.[4] J. J. Duderstadt, “Engineering for a changing world: A roadmap to the future of engineering practice, research, and education,” in The Millennium Project. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
-centered design charrettes for K-12 outreach,” interactions, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 74–77, 2018.[5] E. Rose, A. Davidson, E. Agapie, and K. Sobel, “Designing our future students: Introducing User Experience to teens through a UCD charette,” in Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, 2016, pp. 1–6.[6] A. T. Jeffers, A. G. Safferman, and S. I. Safferman, “Understanding K–12 engineering outreach programs,” Journal of professional issues in engineering education and practice, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 95–108, 2004.[7] G. S. Jakubowski, “Is there a role for ASEE in K-12 education?,” ASEE Prism, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 41, 2002.[8] B. Moskal and C. Skokan, “Supporting the k-12 classroom through
, respectively, as well as a “Comments/Suggestions” box for open endedrecommendations. These questions (together with the TA evaluation section) provide a holisticreview of all major aspects of a course, allowing the instructor to obtain broad and detailedstudent feedback to support future changes in the course delivery.The rating scale used in the questions of the course evaluation surveys is selected to match thescale of the rating system of each university. Thus, course evaluation surveys administered inUniversity A use a 6-point scale (A to F), whereas, course evaluation surveys administered inUniversity B use a 5-point scale (A to E). “University A” refers to the Department of Civil,Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of