seen in Table 1, there wasn’t a statistically significant difference between the twogroups in 2012 suggesting that the UTAs didn’t have a negative impact in the course. The storyis much different in 2013 as there is a significant difference between the two groups where thosewho attended at least half of the SI sessions (80% of students) outscored their counterparts by 13points on a 150 point exam (P value of 0.0265 in an unpaired t-Test). At this time, it is unclearas to why there was a drop-off in final exam scores between 2012 and 2013, but work iscurrently being done to examine the students in each of the years more closely based on gradesin the pre-requisite course (General Chemistry 2) and time between the two courses. Table 1
(withdraws). To improve academic success, traditional SI programs provide voluntary, non-remedialweekly group sessions led by previously successful students known as SI Leaders, who aretrained to design and facilitate collaborative activities that combine application of difficultcontent and transferable study effectiveness skills, with opportunities for practice that requiresactive engagement of student attendees. The SI model was built upon theories including themediation of learning by social constructivism and interdependence [1, 2] so while developmentof content knowledge and study skills are intentional in sessions, there are often incidentalbenefits, such as developing interpersonal skills, teamwork and a sense of community andbelonging
(Jan 1, 2015 – Dec 31, 2018) with the goals of producing significant improvements infreshman and sophomore retention rates in Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering,Engineering Technology, Mathematics and Physics and increasing the number of female,Hispanic and African American students completing undergraduate degrees in these STEMfields.The funded NSF - IUSE project comprises the following strategies and supporting activities:1. Improve instruction by (a) establishing a STEM education active learning faculty summerinstitute and quarterly brown bag and (b) redesigning introductory CS courses.2. Establish early and motivating field-of-study and career explorations for students through a)Summer Orientation Sessions for first-year STEM
presents an overview of the guided approach as well as the outcomes and feedbackfrom the students that participated in the class. The plans for further modifications andimprovements to this approach will also be presented.IntroductionBeing able to effectively communicate technical information is a skill required of engineers;however, there can often be a limited focus on or interest in technical writing by engineeringstudents and faculty. It is not uncommon to encounter the thinking that “we are engineers, we arenot English majors.”1 Therefore, engineering students are often required to take a generalwriting course taught by English or Writing Departments to fulfill writing requirements
generation” of their device. Page 13.376.3 Fig. 1. Dym and Little design process steps3The class is taught in 1.5 hour lectures and one 1.5 hour recitation section each week, and staffedby one instructor from the Technical Communication program and one from an Engineeringdepartment (in this case, Chemical Engineering), plus one or two recitation instructors. Standardclass size is 96 students, divided into four recitation sections of 24, with six teams of 4 studentsin each section. One of the challenges in teaching Engineering 100 is the wide range of abilitiesand skills present in the student population. Whereas a student with
students to have improved technical communication skills hasbeen well documented, perhaps most clearly in the ABET criteria3. Teaching communication aspart of engineering curricula has been tried in many ways, a good overview of which is presentedin Ford and Riley4. Adding technical communication to the freshman curriculum was one of thecentral reasons for reforming the courses at ONU. Some of this work has resulted in previouspublications5,6. The first of these courses, Freshman Engineering 1, includes objectives related totechnical communication and exposing students to the engineering profession.As the model of a Scholar/Teacher was being discussed at the 2006 ASEE National ConferencePlenary Session2, Dr. Sheri Sheppard stated that the
common to all university students. Technicalcommunication is one of the most relevant and utilized across disciplines. Technical andprofessional communication genres and strategies are defined by their context and purpose in theworkplace (Hart-Davidson, 2001). Engineering students who understand how technicalcommunication works and deploy its strategies typically add three kinds of value to a technicalproject by effectively 1) designing documents that convey information in usable forms, 2)working with and refining collaborative practices to maximize collaborative output, and 3)recognizing patterns and structures across specific problems or projects as well as providingstrategic thinking that can productively impact large systems and data sets
of those sections, only women or minority panelists participated in those sections,respectively. Both male and female genders, and a range of engineering disciplines such aschemical engineering, electrical engineering, and biomedical engineering, were represented asmuch as scheduling would allow. Some panelists participated in as many as six panels, whileothers were involved in as few as one. Table 1 shows the gender and generational status of thestudent panelists.Every panel had a facilitator who lead the session and began by reading the following prompt: Welcome everyone and welcome to The University of Texas at Austin. We appreciate your participation in the student panel, and hope that today’s experience will be valuable
] Dabipi, I.K., Hartman, C.E., Burrows-McElwain, J.B.,"A Kite-Based Aerial Imaging as a Freshman Engineering Design Project ", 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Session M1C-1, 2009.[4] Dabipi, I.K., Burrows-McElwain, J.B., Hartman, C.E, "Low Cost Runway Incursion Detection System for General Aviation Airports", 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Session T1C-1, 2010.[5] Northouse, P. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, London. Pp. 69-79, 151-159, 2007.[6] Rothwell, W., Kazanas, H. Mastering the instructional design process: A systematic approach. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Pp. 67-68, 1998
background. In several activities, whereArduinos were already pre-programed and students were only asked to interface theboards to various sensors and actuators, the same students had difficulty wiring thecomponents together on their own.In order to engage the less technically experienced students, in 2016 we started exploringalternative devices and laboratory activities that can be engaging for students across allmajors, particularly the ones with very little electronic or programming background.This motivated us to design Aksense as a learning tool to replace Arduino, discretesensors, and breadboards in our Introduction to Engineering course. The purpose ofdeveloping Aksense was several-fold: (1) generating early interests in engineering, (2
MATLAB command requiring the students toexperiment with the variables of time and frequency. To minimize this confusion, in the ZOOMsession, the author displayed a 6-foot long spring, shaking it, which looked like a sine wave. Theauthor then identified the amplitude or ‘strength’ of the wave and the distance between peaks orcrests. These exercises and a MATLAB homework assignment provided a basis for the end ofsemester SHM experiment. Students were presented the sine function and lectures on MATLABvariables, arrays, vectors and plot commands. Fig. 2 displays the MATLAB code required by thestudents to generate sine waves. % define each musical note t = 0:0.01:1 % create 101 points in time up to 1 second total time a=sin(2*pi*440*t); % sine
design through the first year has remainedconstant.Description of the new programThe College of Engineering formed a taskforce in 2015 to identify areas of emphasis in the first-year engineering program to ensure the undergraduate students were receiving an education toprepare them to become engineers in modern-day society. Table 1 outlines the results of thistaskforce, and the areas of emphasis were used as a basis for the changes implemented in a newversion of ENGR 101, piloted in three sections during fall term of 2016 in which there were 110students.Table 1: First-year engineering laboratory course sequence areas of emphasis. Technical communication, organization and presentation
the Department of Chemical, Biological and Bioengineering at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021Work in Progress: Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Learning Methods, Personal Decisions, and University Experiences of First-Year Engineering StudentsAuthors: Monica B. Setien, Tobin Walton, Matthew McCullough, Stephen KnisleyIntroduction The rapid outbreak of COVID-19 as a highly contagious respiratory disease has impactedthe way every person lives day to day [1]. Specifically, this pandemic has caused educationalinstitutions all around the world to take immediate
attractingand retaining engineering talent with a range of specialties in narrowly defined fields. “Instead ofthe traditional engineering disciplines, these operations require engineering generalists with astrong theoretical background, broad knowledge in a range of areas, and specific skills inproblem solving to give them a sound but flexible base for managing and implementingtechnology change and operations.”1 East Carolina University initiated a bachelor’s degreeprogram in general engineering (BSE) to fill this requirement. The BSE curriculum isimplemented “through a concept and program identified as the Integrated CollaborativeEngineering Educational Environment, or ICE3 (pronounced “ice cube”). The ICE3 program…emphasizes a broad but highly
paper assesses theassignment, and reports the results of these student explorations.Specifically, this paper addresses the research questions: 1) Can students identify stakeholderconsiderations in the design of elements of the campus built environment? 2) What designelements of the campus built environment are students most likely to notice and discuss? 3)What human and non-human stakeholder groups are students most likely to notice and discuss?1.2 Course ContextThis assignment was given as part of the two-semester first-year general engineering program atVirginia Tech, which all engineering students must complete before selecting a specific major.This program serves over 2000 students each year, and feeds into 14 discipline majors. In thefirst
student bodies of differing demographicsand character: a regional university; a community college; and a technical college. Studies havepointed to the effect of the lack of belonging among the classrooms, majors, and the institution ingeneral on students’ retention rates and performance in future engineering classes. Sense ofbelonging has been identified as particularly important to the retention of underrepresentedminorities (URM) and women. In a multi-year study published in the 2012 ASEE conference [1]researchers at five institutions conducted an extensive research study of belonging among STEMstudents in four categories; belonging to the classroom, belonging to the major, belonging to theinstitution as a resource; and belonging to the
Paper ID #12465Pre-admission education for better adapt freshmenDr. Alexander Nikolaevich Solovyev, Moscow automobile and road construction state technical university(MADI) Graduated Moscow state University n.a. Lomonosov in1970, speciality mathematician. PhD in math. and physics since 1976. DrSc in pedagogy since 2012. Member of International Society for Engineering Ped- agogy (IGIP), member of IGIP International Monitoring Committee, general secretary of IGIP Russian Monitoring Committee.Prof. Larisa Petrova, MADIProf. Viatcheslav Prikhodko, Moscow State Automobile and Roal Tehnical University (MADI)Mrs. Ekaterina Makarenko
ended so as to not influence the student’s responses. A survey withspecific question would have given us concrete data however it would also have led the studentsto simply answer the questions and not tell us about other thoughts they may have. Experience hasshown us that the questions for “any additional comments” never get used. Page 26.769.8 The data we present next in Table 1 was generated by reading each paper and looking forphrases that specifically say they found the session useful to them. Some phrases and ourclassification are presented later in the paper. The values -1, 0, and 1 was given to each of twocategories, the presentation of
a practitioner develops and modifies this knowing-in-action, andreflection can only be done when paired with an action, and is separated into three types:reflection-before-action, reflection-in-action, and reflection-on-action. Reflection-on-action isthe only definition being employed in this case, as these students reflect on actions after theyhave already happened, ex post facto, in order to affect how they might act in the future. Kolb describes the process of learning from experience as a cycle (Figure 1), and citesreflection as the part of the learning process by which concrete experience is used to generate,validate, or otherwise affect conceptual frameworks or knowledge systems2. Reflection in thiscycle is a necessary step for
toimprove, and finally made presentations of good teams.1. Preparation for Fall 2014Fall 2014 was the first trial run with the teamwork skit, causing much more thought and planningto go into this process. Multiple meetings were held across several weeks and included four veryimportant steps that were critical to the success of the skit: building, brainstorming, planning,and testing. Throughout this entire process, the faculty member was involved, critiquing andchanging aspects of each step to make this skit a success. Each step of the process is described ingreater detail below.Step 1: BuildingIn order for a team to be successful, there must first be a group of people ready to work toward acommon goal; this skit was no different. The first step of
(%) Treatment B 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 >4 Lab Periods Student was Leader Figure 1: Laboratory Session LeadershipOver 50 % of Treatment B students never led a lab. Surprisingly, almost 25 % of Treatment Astudents also never led, indicating that this requirement should be emphasized more in the future.This was reflected in one of the focus groups for Treatment A in which students noted “We werenot as successful at sticking to just our roles
sessions in Fall 2019.Table 1. Student and Alumni Mentorship Session Participation Fall 2018 Fall 2019 Alumni Participants: 15* Alumni Participants: 25* Student Participants: 53 Student Participants: 99 Sessions Completed: 80** Sessions Completed: 123***Each alumnus met with several students in one-on-one meetings.**Some students elected to interview more than one alumnus.All other mentoring opportunities presented in Assignment #6 and Assignment #7 were availableto students through existing College of Engineering resources and therefore students arrangedthese independently.Research Questions & MethodsResearch
related to product development relevant to Universal Design and apply them to create value for diverse populations Expand the utility of a product so that it provides equitable use Incorporate insight from multiple perspectives to move forward with product design Perform quantitative analysis on engineering design problems using statistics and economic analysis Work effectively in problem-solving teams and carry out meaningful performance assessments of individual team members Develop technical communication skills in written, oral, and graphical formatsThe UD project was completed over the course of five weeks in a 15-week semester. Generally,the 75-minute class meeting was dedicated to a
. Through Kahoot, teachers create online quizzes or surveysand mirror the questions on a big screen or interactive whiteboard; it’s also possible toembed videos. Students respond to the quiz items on any Internet-connected device,including their smartphones. During this session, participants take Kahoot quizzes asstudents. Participants may also create Kahoot quizzes as teachers, share their quizzes withother participants, and analyze quizzes results. It’s worth to mention that the result ofevery quiz played over the platform can be saved for further analysis. When learners startplaying, they need to enter a nickname, which allows students to stay anonymous, andtheir recorded scores are saved in their profile. This unique feature makes Kahoot
sessions over a 12-weeksemester, performing the same experiments. On-campus students submitted lab reports at theend of each lab session for grading, whereas online students submitted their reports either atthe end of the residential school or at the end of semester. Lab reports were graded on a scalefrom one to ten. The lab component of the course contributed 20% to the overall grade. Theexam was 60%, and additional problem-based assignments contributed the remaining 20%. Ofinterest here is the relative academic performance in the lab component.Week 1: Day Topics Task Time Speaker TopicMonday Arrival 1 9:30-10:00 AM Registration
-year CurriculaOne of the central components of most Redshirt programs is the first-year course or seminar thatRedshirt students are required to complete. Some commonalities among programs include astudy skills course or seminar, math and science preparation courses, and supplemental tutoringor problem solving sessions. The first-year Redshirt curriculum prepares students to succeed inthe standard engineering curriculum on a level that is on-par with their peers.At CU-B, Redshirt students take a 1-credit course each semester focused on self-managementstrategies, leadership & professionalism, and introductions to departments and resources.Placement and math and science courses are determined during the Redshirt Summer BridgeProgram where
Paper ID #23690Work in Progress: Strategic, Translational Retention Initiatives to PromoteEngineering SuccessDr. Elizabeth Anne Stephan, Clemson University Dr. Elizabeth Stephan is the Director of Academics for the General Engineering Program at Clemson University. She holds a B.S. and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Akron. Since 2002, she has taught, developed, and and now coordinates the first-year curriculum. As the lead author of the ”Thinking Like an Engineer” textbook, currently in its 4th edition, she has been the primary author team–member in charge of the development of the
students that enrolled inthe university in the fall semester immediately following the FYSE.Table 1. Majors of students participating in the FYSE MajorCohort Engineering Letters & Sciences Total2012 37 2 392013 16 24 392014 9 31 402015 17 23 402016 16 42 582017 11 12 23Total 106 134 240 In addition to the tracking of longitudinal data, we conducted focus group sessions toassess the impact of the FYSE program on
1, 2, and 3 . This ability can be used as a prognostication factor for achievement andattainment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 4, 5 . It is well documentedthat 3D spatial skills can be developed through practice. Sorby has shown that a course aimed atdeveloping the 3D spatial skills of first-year engineering students has a positive impact on studentsuccess, especially for women 6 . The research team has developed a semester-long online, spatialskills workshop. The content incorporates online resources related to mental rotation, 2D and 3Dspatial visualization, and abstract reasoning. An experimental group of female first-yearengineering students will participate in the weekly online workshop. To assess
human factors and design is ‘easy to use.’ Yet, designing something easy to use for a three year old compared to an eighty five year old entails very different design specifications. Devices designed for three year olds might involve very little text and no small pieces that could become choking hazards. Devices designed for eightyfive year olds might need to involve low dexterity and large text. The table below describes the different rating levels with rating 1 general (nonspecific); rating 2 specific; and rating 3 specific and with justification