unprecedented learning affordance [1-3]. Reportedbenefits from the immersive learning experiences enabled by VR and other XR technologiesinclude improving students’ learning attitude and effectiveness [4], transferring students’ self-perception [5], and increasing their identification with the STEM community [6-8]. XR alsofacilitates student-centered active learning to support students’ retention of information,engagement, skill training, and learning outcomes [9].Though the adoption of XR is growing, their applications still tend to focus on students usingready-made experiences, where students are the consumers, not the creators, of the XRexperience [10]. The adoption of XR has generally been constrained by the cost of tools andsoftware development as
507). CON252 focuses on the building design and construction process,ranging from excavation to material choice to various building systems. CEE 507 focuses oninfrastructure systems from the technical and environmental perspectives and examines theinterdependences between these infrastructures.III. Motivation and VisionIntroductory courses tend to be required for lower-division students and these courses act asprerequisites for upper-division courses that tend to be more discipline-specific and thus, may bemore engaging for students. Introductory courses provide fundamental information andknowledge needed for upper-division courses. This framework continues throughout anacademic course map, forming a linear advancement. Figure 1 shows this
Engineer- ing Management Journal and Quality Approaches in Higher Education. Prior to his academic career, he spent 14 years in industry where he held leadership positions focused on process improvement and organizational development. He was recently named a Fellow of the American Society for Engineering Management.Dr. Bryce E. Hughes, Montana State University Bryce E. Hughes is an Assistant Professor in Adult and Higher Education at Montana State University, and holds a Ph.D. in Higher Education and Organizational Change from the University of California, Los Angeles, as well as an M.A. in Student Development Administration from Seattle University and a B.S. in General Engineering from Gonzaga University. His
All and Nation of Makers. Andrew was also the lead author on the Maryland Access Task Force report to Maryland’s Governor Larry Hogan. His work has been recognized by Baltimore Business Journal, The Daily Record, Forbes Magazine, Baltimore Sun, Education Week, and K12 Magazine. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Scaling Informal Technology Education through Makerspaces1. IntroductionMaking refers to hands-on design, prototyping and fabrication activities conducted by amateurtechnologists, designers, and artists using consumer-grade technologies, such as 3D printers andlow-cost microcomputers and microcontrollers [1, 2]. Maker education models provide multiplepoints of entry for
Phenomena CourseDuring the Spring 2023 term, chemical engineering (CME) students at UD worked in a COILexperience to complete a four-week cross-cultural technical project with chemical engineeringstudents in Colombia, (Universidad Nacional, Manizales). The Transport Phenomena II course atUD is a required course for junior students in the chemical engineering program. In Colombia,students must also take a Transport Phenomena Course (4100932-1: Fenomenos de Transporte).Teams of four students (2 UD + 2 UNacional) had to solve a Transport Phenomena problemusing COMSOLTM multiphysics that the instructor had not solved or was not a traditional lectureexample. The project was an open-ended assignment. Students defined the problem, posed astep-by-step
were generally useful, but they failed students. Comparing whenand how these heuristics failed, we identified new domain-general patterns (e.g., theme 1:students conflate concepts that share perceptual features) that did not rely on domain-specificheuristics.Problem (each problem solved) includes a description of the overall strategies participants usedwhen solving each problem. For example, did the student analyze external and internalequilibrium or just external equilibrium? Did the student analyze the output separately fromanalyzing next-states?Translation (each new representation drawn) includes when a student uses information fromone representation to sketch another. This granularity identifies which translations studentsperformed so we
work together to decrease rampup time to competentperformance in the engineering workplace. Initial academic coalition members could includeengineering colleges of Boise State University and two or three engineering colleges from otheruniversities.1 The initial academic members would recruit industry members to the coalition.The coalition itself would work much like an engineering research center. Where existing centersengineer new, emerging technologies that transform technologies and the economy, the proposedcoalition would work to transform the transition that engineers make from the university to theworkplace. Proposed revenue streams would include monies from: Membership fees. Shared research in areas of mutual interest in
the pedagogical value of VADERs.4. ConclusionThis paper provides an overview of the VADERs project, supported by NSF. Over the first twoyears of the project, virtual educational modules, namely VADER-1 and VADER-2, weredeveloped to enhance first- and second-year students’ engagement in AE/C education. Thesemodules were deployed to 405 students across three institutions during the Fall semester of 2023,generating substantial data for quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the effects of VADERimplementations on students’ engagement and learning outcomes. In subsequent follow-upstudies, the data derived from the initial implementation will be systematically analyzed througha series of statistical analyses. This analysis will, in turn, offer
faculty advisor and graduate student surveys’ responses, thesame observations were noticed. Both faculty advisors and graduate students thought REUparticipants’ general research skills, including technical writing and presentation, were improvedmore in years 2, 3, and 4 compared to year 1.Since year 4 is the first year that all REU participants worked in group project settings, and year 1is the only year that all REU participants worked in individual project settings, the authorscompare the interview results of year 1 with year 4. The year 4 follow-up phone interviewsconducted by an external evaluator shows the following ten significant benefits of the REUproject emerged from a crosswalk of themes in REU participants’ responses to three of
considered for our framework included: (1)ideas are not fixed and absolute, but reiterative through experience and (2) learning should beconsidered a process where concepts are derived from, and continuously modified by,experience (Kolb, 1984). Consequently, any implementation of simulation could be consideredan attempt at providing experiential learning experiences. Implementing a learning simulationframework generally presumes individuals will differ in skill levels with differing needs forengaging in simulation (Harris, Eccles, Ward & Whyte, 2012). Furthermore, a simulationexperience should provide an environment that is interactive and learner-centered (Jeffries,Rodgers, & Adamson, 2015). Considering these parameters, a simulation was
course since 2011, first serving as a reader, and as part of the development committee for the exam since 2015, serving as higher ed co-chair since 2018. She has received more than $1M in NSF funding for her work in computing education. Active in the computing education community, she is currently the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education board treasurer (2016-2019) and has served as program co-chair in 2014 and symposium co- chair in 2015 to the SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.Dr. Briana Morrison, University of Nebraska Omaha Briana Morrison is an Assistant Professor at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Prior to joining the college of IS&T, Briana worked for IBM for 8
multiple disciplines learned principles andmethods of metals analysis and worked together on a wide range of trace metal research projects.The project was supported by the National Science Foundation Major Research Instrumentationgrant program. This paper both summarizes the projects conducted and describes the challengesand opportunities experienced over the course of the project with the intent of exchanging ideasand establishing successful approaches to collaborative interdisciplinary undergraduate research.In the process of conducting trace metals research, project outcomes were accomplished. 1. The project provided opportunities for faculty development and faculty development occurred; 2. The project integrated STEM and non-STEM
Australia and England. Assessment in Education 2(2), 146.Koorsse, M., Olivier, W., & Greyling, J. (2014). Self-regulated Mobile Learning and Assessment: An Evaluation of Assessment Interfaces, JITE IIP, 13.Kumar, A. N. (2015). The Effectiveness of Visualization for Learning Expression Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 362-367. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677301McMillan, J. H. & Hearn, J. (2008). Student Self-Assessment: The Key to Stronger Student Motivation and Higher Achievement, Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49.Naps, T. L., Rößling, G., Almstrum, V. , Dann, W., Fleischer, R., Hundhausen, C
remainingcohorts, a teacher with expertise in curriculum development was added to the project team toserve as the curriculum coach for the RET participants. Additionally, a key addition for the 2016and 2017 cohorts was a structured curriculum ideation session to help generate robust and highlyinnovative ideas for their lessons. These modifications to the curriculum development processresulted in lessons that were developed using the TeachEngineering Format. A total of 15 STEM curricular units were developed in three years. Year 1 and 2 units(10) are already piloted and the remaining five year 3 curricula are currently being piloted. Twocurricula are published in TeachEngineering website [13, 14] and one is currently beingedited/modified for
included problems that tested the students’ facility at makinglogical model-building decisions and interpreting results. An example from ChemicalEngineering Thermodynamics II is shown here: This problem concerns vapor-liquid equilibrium for a pair of compounds, identified as 1 and 2: You have five known VLE data points at 325 K. Your task is to generate the Pxy diagram describing all VLE mixtures of these compounds at 325 K, using phi-phi modeling and the Peng- Robinson equation. A) If the value of the binary interaction parameter is k12=0.1, determine the values of the Peng-Robinson parameters am and bm that you would use to model a vapor phase mixture composed of 65 mol% component 1
graduate student in the Department of Engineering and Science Education at Clemson University and teaches in the General Engineering Program as part of the first-year engineering curricu- lum. His research interests include choice and decision making, especially relating to first-year engineer- ing students’ major selection. He earned his BS from Virginia Tech and his MS from The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, both in chemical engineering.Rebecca B. Spilka, Clemson University Rebecca B. Spilka is an undergraduate student in the Industrial Engineering department in the College of Engineering, Computing, and Applied Sciences at Clemson University. During her time at Clemson, she has completed a co-op assignment with
- Department of Materials Science and Engineering c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Tracking Research Self-Efficacy of Participants in an NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates SiteIntroduction and BackgroundParticipation in research during undergraduate engineering and science programs has beenshown to increase the retention of students into both technical careers and graduate studies.1Significant funding to support undergraduate student research in engineering and science isprovided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) through its Research Experience forUndergraduates (REU) program. REU sites generally host between eight and ten students duringthe summer months to
senior level course, such as design, and isbeing assessed mostly for technical competence and as one of several other criteria underevaluation [11]. The lack of validated assessment methods for process safety thinking, coupledwith the general lack of authentic situations in which students can make these decisions presentsus with an opportunity to address both points. In this paper, we will discuss both the creation of avirtual process safety environment which attempts to address the authenticity issue, as well as thedevelopment of an assessment tool, the Engineering Process Safety Reasoning Instrument(EPSRI), which is based on previous work in assessing students’ moral and ethical reasoning inan engineering context.Project ObjectivesThis work
innovativedesign.Our specific objectives are:1) To assess the aspects of empathic innovation (i.e., empathy tendencies, empathy potency, framing/re-framing, innovation tendencies/potentials);2) To design workshops on empathy, re-framing, and design innovation;3) To produce research and evidence on student changes; and4) To develop a framework for empathic innovation.Assessing Aspects of Empathic InnovationAssessing empathic design tendencyMany well-established instruments exist to explore general empathic tendencies, beliefs,behaviors, but engineering provides a unique context. Empathy, a complex construct with manyrelated constructs, involves both cognitive and affective components as well as orientations thatcan be self-centered, other-centered, or
explanation sessions, and the StaticsConcept Inventory. To measure cognitive load, researchers used self-reported values of mentaleffort during the data collection sessions, which were designed to ensure that students needed toexplore content using the Adaptive Map or their regular textbook. Preliminary results indicatethat if students are given an opportunity to adapt to the radically different format of the AdaptiveMap, they prefer the Adaptive Map tool to their traditional paper textbook. The data also seemsto suggest that the students studying with the Adaptive Map tool tend to focus more onconceptual knowledge, where students studying with the traditional paper textbook tend to focusmore on procedural knowledge.1. Motivation:Within the
conductingsimulation analyses of completion rates, this aspect of Curricular Complexity is generally toounderdeveloped to be used as a theoretical framework on its own – despite some work by Waller[10], who used the concept of grade anomaly instead of course pass-rate as a proxy forinstructional complexity.Much more promising, however, is the idea of structural complexity. This construct has theresearcher examine the curriculum itself by using network analysis to measure sequencing andinterconnectedness in a plan of study. Two intrinsic measurements are associated with eachcourse in Curricular Analytics: (1) the blocking factor, which counts how many courses areinaccessible to a student upon failing a specific course, and (2) the delay factor, the
modules. However, the games are standalone units that can be reused in othereducational environments. Figure 3. Games and hardware conceptsThe usability testing involved the first two games. The games were played on a Digilent Artix-7FPGA. The researchers completed the game design, synthesis, implementation, and Bit-streamfile generation before the session. As part of the activity, the students uploaded the file in theFPGA and prepared the board according to the setting for the game (game one required a two-digit seven-segment display, and game two required a breadboard with LED lights). Since noprior knowledge was expected, the researchers delivered a short, interactive lecture on the topicsrequired for playing the
weekly study hall sessions withengineering, computer science, math and engineering faculty present. The length of time andspace was expanded as well; the study hall is now held in two classrooms as well as the BaxterInnovation lab, the campus makerspace.The Baxter Innovation lab, which has been open since 2018, was designed as a cornerstone forthe engineering program. The literature suggests that makerspaces/fab labs could increaseretention of students in STEM related fields and improve their confidence when solvingtechnical problems because they highlight the creative aspects of engineering and build acommunity of practice that increases students’ sense of belonging [1], [2]. Thus far, it hasprovided access to prototyping technology and
individual paces. Meanwhile, results from these generalengineering courses remind that one must be cautious when considering employing to studentswho do not have sufficient background in electric circuits. A. IntroductionAs part of a two year CCLI (TUES) project, this paper describes the continuing work of using aPortable Electronic Experiment Kit (PEEK, see references [1-4]) in two courses (ENGR 3014—CircuitAnalysis and ENGR 3050—Instrumentation and Controls) in a General Engineering program. In theproject, each student was given a set of PEEK, with which they were asked to prepare laboratoryassignments before lab times and complete unfinished hands-on work afterwards. The first year’sexperience has been reported in [1, 5], where the toolset was
to identify a suitable systematic process. Currentconcept map generation processes were found to be an insufficient guide as they are inherentlydesigned to limit the scope of the concept map to 15-25 concepts in order to avoid the difficultiesfound in interpreting large maps [7]. As such, the authors developed a new process for capturingthe knowledge of an expert for the creation of a course-wide concept map [29]: 1. Locate an expert. This is someone who is very familiar with the content and is an expert problem solver in the domain. 2. Use existing textbooks and course syllabi to brainstorm concepts that covered in the course. Record these concepts using either a concept mapping software, or by writing the
between the mentor and mentee during pair programming was helpful to both parties. • There was regular communication between the corporation liaison and the grant team. Student interview sessions with the grant team in the middle of the internship were utilized to gauge progress from the students perspective. General feedback to the company not directly tied to the student interview contents was provided back to the corporate liaison. • The interns met regularly with their engineer and the liaison.There was an intake process where interns rotated from engineer to engineer until they developeda strong connection with someone and their specific task. One exceptional intern was allowed tocode, rather than shadow their
to the engineering education community through research related to undergraduate research programs and navigational capital needed for graduate school.Mr. Dennis M Lee, Clemson University Dennis M. Lee is a doctoral candidate in the Engineering and Science Education Department at Clemson University. He received his BA and MS in bacteriology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Prior to his studies at Clemson University, he taught introductory biology at Tri-County Technical College in Pendleton, SC. His research interests include the development of researcher identity and epistemic cognition in undergraduate STEM students.Ms. Anne Marguerite McAlister, University of Virginia Anne McAlister is a research
systematic methods and tools for innovative design with a particular focus on concept generation and design-by-analogy. Her research seeks to understand designers’ cognitive processes with the goal of creating better tools and approaches to enhance engineering design. She has authored over 100 technical publications including twenty-three journal papers, five book chapters, and she holds two patents.Dr. Tracy Anne Hammond PhD, Texas A&M University Director of the Sketch Recognition Lab and Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engi- neering at Texas A&M University, Dr. Hammond is an international leader in sketch recognition, haptics, intelligent fabrics, SmartPhone development, and computer human
research activities. Many of the previous experiences with undergraduatesconducting research relate to highly structures programs, such as Research Experience forUndergraduates (REU) Programs sponsored by the National Science Foundation (e.g., Refs. 1, 2)Other similar devoted research efforts for groups of undergraduate students have been reportedwith funding from other sources, including an industry-sponsored program (e.g., Ref. 3) and astate-agency sponsored program (e.g., Ref. 4). These activities with devoted research programsare generally large in scope.Bringing research to the classroom also has been reported for K-12 classrooms (e.g., Refs. 5, 6).In addition, Research Experience for Teachers (RET) Programs (also sponsored by the
student. The research focused onfabricating and testing part of a simple “bionic” or human-like arm similar to those in Figure 1. The objectives of the summer research were to: 1) Fabricate an actuator that could produce high forces while utilizing the new flexible tendons, 2) Improve the range of motion (rotation) for the third generation bionic arm, and 3) Have a more human like muscle placement. Previously, students and faculty1 at TAMUK fabricated two simple bionic arms that used Page 25.625.2Rubber Muscle Actuators (RMAs), as shown in Figure 1. KA1, the left-hand arm was completedin only 2 weeks, and proved quite