specific disciplinaryaudience. In this paper, we propose that explicit rhetorical genre instruction can bolster studentunderstanding of disciplinary reasoning patterns and assumptions of their specific sub-fields. Ourmodel’s attention to the specificity of different engineering discourses makes our methodapplicable in a wide range of engineering communication courses.II. Course Context and Theoretical FrameworkA. Engineering Communication Pedagogy“Preparation for Undergraduate Research” presents a weekly seminar on topics such as currentfaculty research, technical innovation in industry, entrepreneurship, and professionaldevelopment. Each semester, we communication instructors additionally teach students in aseries of three to four workshops in
Paper ID #30352Making Improvements: Pedagogical Iterations of Designing a Class Projectin a MakerspaceMs. Roxana Maria Carbonell, University of Texas at Austin Roxana Carbonell is a current doctoral student in mechanical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. Her primary research interests are prosthetics, additive manufacturing, makerspaces, and engi- neering education.Dr. Audrey Boklage, University of Texas at Austin Audrey Boklage is research assistant and director of the curriculum lab at Texas Inventionworks in the Cockrell School of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. She is particularly
Paper ID #33932Modeling Trajectories of Latent Classes to Understand the AcademicPerformance of Engineering StudentsHeather Lee Perkins, North Carolina State University Heather graduated from the Applied Social and Community Psychology program in the spring of 2021, after completing her Bachelor of Science in Psychology from the University of Cincinnati. She has par- ticipated in various research projects examining the interaction between stereotypes and science interest and confidence, their influence upon womens’ performance in school and the workplace, and their pres- ence in the media and consequences for viewers. Her
. Summary of participants profiles. Faculty pseudonym Area of design teaching experience Prof. Anderson Sophomore Human-centered design courses , entrepreneurship courses Prof. Brown Sophomore and graduate Robotics design courses Prof. Campbell Senior Mechanical and Electrical engineering design courses Table 2. Pilot study semi-structured interview protocol.- Can you tell me about classes you teach where you ask students to build artifacts?- What knowledge do you assume students bring to class to build prototypes?- Do you specify the level of detail you are expecting in prototypes?- In your classes, what do you consider students build as a prototype or final product?- Do you give
Expected Outcome Control Setting Academic Model Academic content Teacher-led Primarily a single Mixed model Product within Teacher – student Single or multiple constraints of collaboration classes, community academic requirements Entrepreneurship Model Product Student led School and CommunityTABLE II shows the features of entrepreneur-oriented education paradigm in comparisonwith other models [13]. POL distinguishes itself from project-based learning with thesefeatures: the
new minors in entrepreneurship or manufacturing design, and other interview protocols forstudents in various academic and co-curricular activities.Data collection was completed by fall 2008. Personal and group interviews were fullytranscribed and entered into Nvivo, a software program that supports the management andanalysis of qualitative data. Each team analyzed the data from the two case studies it conducted.Coding and preliminary analysis of data began when each team completed its visits. Case study Page 15.710.8reports were shared with key informants at each site to a) ensure accuracy in reporting, b) enablesubjects who requested the
(Henderson, 2005;Henderson & Dancy, 2005; Seymour, DeWelde, & Fry, 2011). Table 2 lists aspects of the role of facultythat are not considered early in calls for change and end up being considered as barriers for change. Table 2. Faculty attributes as conceived in the literature to be barriers to change. (Adapted from Besterfield‐Sacre et al., 2014). Faculty attributes that are cited as barriers to change • Expectations of content coverage • Limited instructor time • Lack of training • Departmental norms • Dealing with student resistance • Dealing with class size
served as Program Chair, Associate Chair or Major Chair. The alumnigraduation year ranged from 1971 to 2019. These alumni are currently participating in diversecareers, including entrepreneurship, as employees of engineering firms, academia, graduatestudies, business analysis and management consulting, pharmaceutical science and law.Data Collection and AnalysisData was collected through semi-structured interviews with faculty members and alumni. Thestudy protocol was approved by the appropriate university research ethics board. The interviewswere conducted on Zoom, due in part to the Covid-19 Pandemic, and were subsequentlytranscribed by the research team. The faculty interviews were analyzed using open coding; codeswere developed based on
Tau Beta Pi and is a Fellow of the ASEE, IEEE, and AAAS.Dr. Daniel M. Ferguson, Purdue University, West Lafayette Daniel M. Ferguson is CATME Managing Director and the recipient of several NSF awards for research in engineering education and a research associate at Purdue University. Prior to coming to Purdue he was Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at Ohio Northern University. Before assuming that position he was Associate Director of the Inter-Professional Studies Program [IPRO] and Senior Lecturer at Illinois Institute of Technology and involved in research in service learning, assessment processes and interven- tions aimed at improving learning objective attainment. Prior to his University assignments he
Foundation and the Sloan Foundation and his team received for the best paper published in the Journal of Engineering Education in 2008, 2011, and 2019 and from the IEEE Transactions on Education in 2011 and 2015. Dr. Ohland is an ABET Program Evaluator for ASEE. He was the 2002–2006 President of Tau Beta Pi and is a Fellow of the ASEE, IEEE, and AAAS.Dr. Daniel M. Ferguson, Purdue University at West Lafayette Daniel M. Ferguson is CATME Managing Director and the recipient of several NSF awards for research in engineering education and a research associate at Purdue University. Prior to coming to Purdue he was Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at Ohio Northern University. Before assuming that position he was
integrated into the undergraduateengineering curricula, e.g., systems thinking, computational thinking, innovation,entrepreneurship, and leadership. In response to these calls for action, most papers that addressthese issues tend to focus on the programming aspects of achieving the attributes (e.g., teachingpractices or co-curricular activities), rather than provide explicit, in-depth descriptions of howacquisition of one or more of these attributes would be recognized and/or evaluated.To address these issues, we again offer sample research questions: Why do most efforts to affect the undergraduate curriculum primarily focus on teaching practices, rather than student outcomes or assessment? What out of class learning outcomes can
students from allcolleges and departments across campus. It is an elective for most students who enroll, but is alsoa required course for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Innovation, Leadership andEngineering Entrepreneurship. Periodically the course is also offered as a 4-credit hour, 8-weeksummer course. In this format, the learning objectives and content remain the same. The coursehas been offered for more than a decade and, in the eight offerings from Spring 2018 to Spring2021, has had an average enrollment per class section of 34 students.The purpose of this course is to facilitate the development of students’ creativity, innovation, andvision skills. This is done through a framework of creativity as (1) having novel ideas and (2)bringing
of study participants.Most of the interviewed participants indicated a disinterest in their formal coursework, butenthusiastically spoke of their Formula team experience. When asked about their reason forjoining the Formula team students responded with: [Angelina]: And at that point, I was kind of tired of engineering, so I was like, I need something else to keep me motivated to do this…I think everybody should do [a design competition team]. It just teaches you a lot. And it’s a lot of fun. And even though I don’t want to maybe do engineering in the future, but I think like it just motivates you so much to do what you’re doing, keep doing it, and not just sit in classes and hate it. That’s it. I just really like it
recommended prerequisites for the course. Full details about the originalcourse structure and content are provided in Jablokow, Matson, and Velegol’s 2014 article8;additional details about the course relevant to the current investigation are provided next.2.3 Intelligent Fast Failure (IFF) and its Role in the CIC MOOCIntelligent Fast Failure was one of three main themes that formed the core of the CIC MOOC,along with Creative Diversity8 and CENTER (Character-Entrepreneurship-owNership-Tenacity-Excellence-Relationship)8, as illustrated by one MOOC student in Figure 1. By integrating thesethree themes, we aimed at developing change-focused mindsets for creativity and innovation in ourMOOC students: Creative Diversity to recognize that everyone is
and implement an innovative first year engineering program. Additional research in- terests include theory, philosophy, social science, workplace learning and performance, entrepreneurship, socialization, professional education, and organization studies. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Work-in-Progress: Novel Ethnographic Investigations of Engineering Work PracticesIntroductionThere remains a limited amount of research on professional engineering work practices [1]. Thisdeficiency is troubling because engineering education is organized and reorganized based onclaims and assumptions about what professional
from lower socioeconomic levels have a higher chance offacing cultural incongruences in a middle-class university environment, negatively impactingcollege persistence [13]. Little formal work has been found on this subject for either the hostinstitution student population or at the state level. A study by Miguel et Al. found that local low-income students had, in general, higher failure rates in portal courses, less participation inprograms with higher entrance requirements, higher attrition, and lower graduation rates inSTEM programs than non-low-income students [14]. Figueroa-Flores studied the effect of hybridcourses in local student attrition [15]. Statistics tracked by the local Education Council point to astate average graduation rate of
the NCIIA. Besterfield-Sacre’s current research focuses on three distinct but highly correlated areas pf innovative design, entrepreneurship, and modeling. She is an Associate Editor for the AEE Journal.Dr. Natasa S. Vidic, University of PittsburghDr. Karen M. Bursic, University of Pittsburgh Karen M. Bursic is an Assistant Professor and the Undergraduate Program Director for industrial en- gineering at the University of Pittsburgh. She received her B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in industrial engineering from the University of Pittsburgh. Prior to joining the department, she worked as a Senior Consultant for Ernst and Young and as an Industrial Engineer for General Motors Corporation. She teaches undergraduate
large measure onfurther development of STEM education, research, innovation, and entrepreneurship. “Tosucceed in today’s information-based and highly technological society, all students need todevelop their capabilities in STEM to levels much beyond what was considered acceptable in thepast” [1]. STEM education must provide emerging scientists and engineers with innovative talentsto energize the economic engines of the future.A critical juncture in the undergraduate STEM education pathway is that majority of attritionoccurs because students experience many academic challenges in gatekeeping courses [2]. Animportant factor to this failure is attributed to the lack of engaging pedagogy. The ingredients forsuccess in STEM disciplines are the
learn, despite physical distances. The Open University in the UK is a great example of this and has seen much success to date with over 100,000 students enrolled.The authors bring up these points to highlight that, unlike the video game industry, serious games(games targeted primarily for education rather than entertainment) have been far behind in termsof progress even until today. To illustrate this point, we may observe trends during the COVID19pandemic, where educators had to resort to Zoom for classes and even engineering labs. Platformssuch as Zoom are a largely 2D platform with very limited modes of interaction. Many studentseven felt comfortable turning on webcams, with educators having to awkwardly deliver lessons toa
learningobjectives for anything they wish they had known coming into the program as well as anythingthey felt was not covered well when they took the course. In the fall semesters of 2015 and 2016,the Intro to E-Lead course also incorporated a two-credit hour fundamentals of engineeringgraphics course. In holding with the teaching styles of other courses in the E-Lead program, theSIs are encouraged to not rely solely on lectures as their method of content delivery but toexplore other active learning techniques. As a result, the curriculum is continually evolving toaddress the perceived needs of incoming students while maintaining a few key elements.Course Instruction – Before each class period, the teaching team is required to develop a lessonplan. In the
use the information specified in the higherperformance levels of an analytic rubric as their goal, and then stop once it is achieved;accordingly, such specifications often only serve to constrain student potential to that which isspecified. Third, students can clearly see what the instructor’s expectations are, as now only theexpected performance standards are presented to the class. Fourth, the eye of the typical readerof an analytic rubric is naturally drawn to the left-most column, which can either be daunting (ifit presents above-standard performance information) or provides a false sense of security (if itpresents below-standard performance information). By removing this content, as well asremoving the other non-standard columns of
experiences of undergraduate en- gineering students and engineering educators. In addition to teaching undergraduate engineering courses and a graduate course on entrepreneurship, she also enjoys teaching qualitative research methods in the Engineering Education Systems and Design PhD program at ASU. Recently, she and her colleagues pub- lished a book, Transformative Teaching: A Collection of Stories of Engineering Faculty’s Pedagogical Journeys. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Understanding how Novice Indian Faculty Engage in Engineering Education ResearchAbstractUnlike engineering research, engineering education
cofounder and director of Lehigh University’s Masters of Engineering in Technical Entrepreneurship (www.lehigh.edu/innovate/). He joined the Lehigh faculty in 1979 as an assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering, was promoted to associate professor in 1983, and to full professor in 1990. He founded and directed of the Computer-Aided Design Labs in the Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics Department from 1980 to 2001. From 1996 to the present, he has directed the University’s Integrated Product Development (IPD) capstone program (www.lehigh.edu/ipd). The IPD and TE program bring together students from all three undergraduate colleges to work in multidisciplinary teams on industry-sponsored product development projects
University of Alabama. She has experi- ence working with many industries such as automotive, chemical distribution etc. on transportation and operations management projects. She works extensively with food banks and food pantries on supply chain management and logistics focused initiatives. Her graduate and undergraduate students are integral part of her service-learning based logistics classes. She teaches courses in strategic relationships among industrial distributors and distribution logistics. Her recent research focuses on engineering education and learning sciences with a focus on how to engage students better to prepare their minds for the future. Her other research interests include empirical studies to
wide. For example, Takahira et al.3 found that theprimary factors associated with persistence in an engineering statics course (a perceived gatekeeper for engineering success) were GPA and SAT-math scores. Another study reported apositive effect of an entrepreneurship program on GPA and retention. 4 Other researchers found Page 23.875.2scores from a non-technical, writing assignment was a predictor of academic success of freshmenengineering students as measured by cumulative grade point average after completion of the firsttwo semesters.5 Another study identified poor teaching and advising, curriculum difficulty, andlack of belonging as the
students, as well as the entrepreneurial efforts of innovators to change organiza- tions. Prior to GWU, Korte was at Colorado State University. Before that, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign he helped design and implement an innovative first year engineering program. Addi- tional research interests include theory, philosophy, social science, workplace learning and performance, entrepreneurship, socialization, professional education, and organization studies.Prof. Saniya LeBlanc, The George Washington University Dr. Saniya LeBlanc obtained a PhD in mechanical engineering with a minor in materials science at Stanford University. She earned her BS with highest honors from Georgia Institute of Technology and a
A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University (ASU). She is a qualitative researcher who primarily uses narrative research methods and is interested more broadly in interpretive research methods. In her research, Dr. Kellam is broadly interested in developing critical understandings of the culture of engineering education and, espe- cially, the experiences of underrepresented undergraduate engineering students and engineering educators. In addition to teaching undergraduate engineering courses and a graduate course on entrepreneurship, she also enjoys teaching qualitative research methods in engineering education in the Engineering Education Systems and Design PhD program at ASU. She is deputy
, leave engineering, or labor to pioneer new spaces. And, this process is also entrenched inthe history and process of engineering education that is raced, classed, and gendered.To add an additional layer of complexity, engineering is not a monolith with varying rates ofparticipation by race and gender across engineering disciplines. Each engineering discipline hasa unique culture and better understanding these differences can provide useful ways to changeengineering disciplines to be more inclusive. It is in this complex landscape that this researchbegins to investigate how latent diversity may be linked to students’ disciplinary pathways. First,we can identify opportunities to nurture ways of being, thinking, and knowing that wouldotherwise be
Paper ID #19109A Preliminary Exploration of the Role of Surveys In Student Reflection andBehaviorMs. Amber Dale Levine, Stanford University Amber Levine is pursuing her Bachelors degree in Engineering with a focus in Architectural Design and a minor in Dance at Stanford University. She is particularly interested in education and inclusiveness in engineering.Dr. Tua A. Bj¨orklund, Aalto University Design Factory Dr. Bj¨orklund focuses on supporting idea development efforts in product design, entrepreneurship and teaching in higher education. She has been a part of creating the Aalto University Design Factory, an
AC 2012-4220: MODELS AND MODELING IN UPPER DIVISION CLASS-ROOMS: IMPACTING CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND THE PRO-FESSIONAL SKILLSDr. Mary E. Besterfield-Sacre, University of Pittsburgh Mary Besterfield-Sacre is an Associate Professor and Fulton C. Noss Faculty Fellow in industrial engi- neering. She is the Director for the new Engineering Education Research Center (EERC) in the Swanson School of Engineering, and serves as a Center Associate for the Learning Research and Development Cen- ter at the University of Pittsburgh. Her principal research is in engineering assessment, which has been funded by the NSF, Department of Education, Sloan Foundation, Engineering Information Foundation, and the NCIIA