through project-basedlearning and developed in collaboration with the coaches. One of the teachers reflected on an activitywhere students engaged in designing, creating and testing face masks: We're really proud of it...we decided to take on the engineering standards of our eighth-grade year at the beginning. We were really talking about human impact and environmental problems, and we were also looking at the pandemic. So we just decided to tie both ideas together as the engineering problem. (Science teacher, interview data).Discussion and Future WorkPreliminary results indicate that the coaching strategy creates a positive impact on teachers’understanding of concepts such as engineering and funds of knowledge. The
. Post-doctoral researchers were prioritized because of the potentialimpact on their careers and their immediate potential for joining review panels. Early careerfaculty and researchers and doctoral students within a year of completion were included as well.Participants came from a variety of training backgrounds including social sciences, multipleengineering disciplines, and engineering education. Because our training programs have anunderlying goal of building community within engineering education research, specialconsideration was given to individuals deemed “lone wolves” (as described by Donna Riley andJennifer Karlin et al., [7]) who are less connected to an EER network and diverse participantswho may not have been previously connected to
of the mean (SEM).Future Directions in Program DevelopmentAs Ignite begins its fourth year running in our local community in 2024, we are currently startingto implement engagement metrics throughout the duration of Ignite to give a more robust pictureof student development across the program. By introducing these metrics, we aim to better accountfor any external factors that may be affecting students’ scores, such as students becoming moreconfident in their abilities as a result of their formal schooling experiences that occur during theirtime with Ignite. Since we are collecting data on real individuals with lives beyond Ignite, it canbe challenging to separate the effects of these external influences from the program's impact, andwe hope
impact on student assumptions on what a first-year engineering learningenvironment would be like. By surveying students about their preconceived notions about whattheir peers and faculty would be like, before and after the first-year experience, the authors triedto see if these responses changed – and if so, how.The results show that the student perspectives on faculty, their peers, and engineering did changeas a result of going through the first-year engineering program at Northeastern University. Thesedata were roughly grouped based on similarity of responses, and were shown in the previoussection. When we begin to compare and contrast the before/after responses of students, it ispossible to see some intriguing findings, as summarized in the
manner • E) Health and safety benefits and/or negative impacts are equitably distributed within affected communities… the project does not disproportionately burden one community over another (e.g., social / environmental justice)” • QL3.1 Advance Equity and Social Justice [24, p. 48] • “Degree to which equity and social justice are included in stakeholder engagement, project team commitments, and decision making A) When projects impact, or potentially impact, indigenous communities, specific attention is given to developing a relationship of respect and mutual understanding that supports the autonomy, authority, and rights of these communities. F) …qualified
journey of joy: A caring college professor has a clear understanding of the value ofthe topics and course material that he/she teaches and their impact on the professional andpersonal development of students. As an example, if a teacher treats applied mechanics asan end in itself, he/she is not stimulating the students in putting the material in the mostmeaningful context. Although the material may eventually become “second nature” to thestudents, they may fail to appreciate and enjoy the subject because they did not perceiveits relevance and applications to their future course work and their career. This is amissed opportunity that the faculty member ought to capitalize on! And make the courseenjoyable irrespective of its standing in the overall
the capstone experience. Althoughthere is much written on senior design programs around the country, literature that solely focuseson technical writing within the capstone experience is somewhat limited [20-26]. Furthermore,the author has come across only very limited studies on engineering undergraduates writing to arange of audience prior to their capstone experience. In this paper the author focuses on literaturewhere engineering students write to an audience other than the course instructor outside of asenior capstone course. To meet the demands of the Silicon Valley employers, San Jose University College ofEngineering redesigned its technical communication course with the goal of developing writingand speaking skills that students
tutoring, group tutoring, drop-in tutoring clinics, and SupplementalInstruction. These peer-led academic resources provide increased student success withoutsignificant financial demands. Providing opportunities for students to engage in discussion andproblem solving outside of the class is helping to prepare these students for a future inengineering, where programs are increasingly asked to demonstrate competencies of working ingroups and being able to engage in problem solving [5]. “Just-in-time” tutoring techniques,utilized by the Engineering Clinic, focus on addressing student questions as they arise, in a drop-in style group setting. Clinics using this technique require fewer financial resources; however,there are few studies relating to the
Director of Research and Professional Development at the Center for CriticalThinking and Chair of the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, Dr. Richard Paulis an internationally recognized authority on critical thinking. Dr. Paul has written books forevery grade level and has done extensive experimentation with teaching tactics and strategies,and devising, among other things, novel ways to engage students in rigorous self-assessment.The author has largely benefited from the principles of Socratic Taxonomy outlined by RichardPaul. The author has utilized these principles in his previous ASEE conference presentations.The author has also incorporated several ideas from these outlines while he experimented withthe discovery approach
with the Office for Equal Opportunity to create adatabase and attend recruitment fairs for prospective minority faculty.Leadership Development ProgramsThe institution’s ADVANCE program sponsors a series of workshops and events to buildspecific leadership skills, including communication skills, resolving conflict, negotiation, powerand influence, and time management. These workshops utilize both on campus experts andoutside consultants. Leadership seminars for senior women faculty give them the opportunity tointeract with current leaders across the university and outside the institution, includingdepartment heads, associate deans, deans, research center directors, vice-presidents, andprovosts. In addition to seminars and workshops open to all
in change management between mature engineering firms and young organizationsusing capstone teams as an example and found that university students are inadequately preparedto identify, manage, propagate, and adapt to changes [42].The literature on capstone design experiences and research that studies those experiences tend tofocus on cognitive outcomes measured by assessing the goodness of design and the quality ofdeliverables that emerge from the design process [8]. Other studies, although fewer in number,have investigated what are traditionally called “soft” or non-technical skills such as teamworkand communication [9,10]. Still other studies have explored how skills that are supportive ofeffective engineering design, engineering decision
designcourses. The impact on student learning related to these topics was evaluated during the 2008-2009 academic year through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods.Introduction and BackgroundIn 2005, a new course for undergraduates, “Introduction to Engineering Research,” was createdas the first one-credit course in a research sequence at the University of Wisconsin – Madison(UW). Subsequently, supplemental materials were created to enhance this course and make theseresources widely available to other faculty and programs with similar goals for undergraduatestudents. These supplemental materials were then refined into a collection of learning objects,taking the form of short presentations by experts (videos/audio/slides), readings, and
design courses and are evaluated as graduate attributeoutcomes integral to the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) evaluationprocesses. Continual course improvement processes require reflection on the success oflearning activities, the tools used for teaching, and alignment of learning outcomes,activities, and assessment. Peer evaluation and feedback tools can encourage studentlearning and leadership development. The method of data collection, the type of feedbackand the contextual validity of the feedback may impact students’ development of useful teambehaviours and personal strategies for working in team environments. Mixed methodsuccessive case study analysis provides insights enabling targeted improvements to learningactivities
Johnson, R.T., “Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, 2005, pp.87-101.[10] Olds, B.M., and Miller, R.L., “The Effect of a First-Year Integrated Engineering Curriculum on GraduationRates and Student Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 93, No. 1, 2004,pp.23-35.[11] Hoit, M., and Ohland, M., “The Impact of a Discipline-Based Introduction to Engineering Course onImproving Retention,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 87, No. 1, 1998, pp.79-85.[12] Felder, R.M., Brent, R., “The Intellectual Development of Science and Engineering Students. Part 2:Teaching to Promote Growth,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 93, No. 4, 2004
game-based ethical interventions for use in undergraduate engineeringclassrooms (virtual or otherwise) that incorporate different mechanisms of play and timescales andprovide students with multiple opportunities and ways to engage course materials. Observationalstudies of the student play experiences within the context of engineering ethical reasoning will beundertaken to further explore student thought processes and approaches to ethical scenarios. Inaddition, these interventions will be paired with a mixed-method, within-groups, change-over-timeevaluation and assessment strategy for determining ethical awareness and reasoning ability andthe impact the interventions have on various learning outcomes. This paper provides an overviewof the
traditional classroom experience. Specifically, it supports theAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) Criterion 3 Program Outcomes addressingthe students ability to design a system to meet specific needs of a community, function as a member of amultidisciplinary team, identify and solve engineering problems, understand professional and ethicalresponsibilities, communicate despite the potential language barrier, understand the impact of the projectin a global and societal context, recognize the need to engage in life-long learning to allow them toaddress real problems outside of traditional discipline-based engineering challenges, and show knowledgeof the contemporary issues connecting community health and sustainable engineering
Spring 2020 course offering (offered with title“Technology Innovation: Engineering, Economics, Public Relations”), where 12 students aremajoring in engineering, seven students majoring in strategic communications and two studentsmajoring in economics. The specific case study involves the Impacts of the Implementation ofConnected and Automated Vehicles. By centering around a contemporary, complex, and open-ended problem, the learning experience relies on both technical and non-technical perspectivesfor feasible solutions. Therefore, students from all three areas of study offer necessarycontributions and have access to the skill sets, methods, and perspectives of their counterparts inthe other fields. They engage in a high-level synthesis whereby
’ responses to these questions. Question 5 explored the extent to which studentsperceived self-grading as a beneficial learning strategy. Approximately ninety percent of studentswere strongly agreed (60.5%) or agreed (27.9%) that self-grading provided them an opportunityto learn from their errors on homework assignments and apply those lessons to futureassessments, such as exams. Only a small percentage of students (11.6%) did not agree that self-grading was a beneficial learning strategy. No students strongly disagreed with the idea that self-grading could be a valuable learning tool. Questions 6 and 7 aimed to determine whether self-prepared equation sheets had a positive impact on student exam performance. Most students(83.8%) did not believe that
, participants work in a collaborativemanner around common themes or goals. They are shaped by a joint enterprise, or domain ofinterest (in our case this is mechanics education) and depend on mutual engagement to help buildrelationships in the community. Finally, the CoP typically develops a shared repertoire, whichmight consist of communal resources and tools, shared activities and ideas, or differentapproaches to teaching. A sustained involvement in a CoP centered around faculty developmentallows participants to develop a sense of community, attempt new teaching practices and discussimplementation with other colleagues, and share different teaching resources.One successful implementation of a community of practice built around developing a student
Spring 2020.In Fall 2020, instructors’ agreement increased from 60% to over 80% over the semester for self-directed activities. At the start of Fall 2020, there was less than 50% agreement for community-based activities during the Prep period and through to at least Week 2. In Spring 2021, agreementhovered between about 65% and 70% agreement until Week 10 and then increased to 85% by theend of the semester. 100% 100% Percent Engagement in at least one 90
’ conveyanceof what is known, as well as the deeper development of knowledge by students, a practice knownin the literature as ‘communication to learn.’ Therefore, isolating students’ learning professionalcommunication skills from the material they will need to communicate as professionals.As some of the most challenging and rewarding career opportunities for our students hinge onstudents’ abilities to critically apply and communicate the material they learn and to be able towork across geographic and field boundaries, we must work towards ways to engage them incourse material in richer ways. Interdisciplinary team teaching offers one promising approach foraccomplishing the integration of technical engineering skills development and communicationskills
education.Dr. Trina L. Fletcher, Florida International University Dr. Trina Fletcher is an Assistant Professor of Engineering and Computing Education at Florida International University and the founder of m3i Journey, a start-up focused on research-based, personalized, holistic, innovative, relevant, and engaging (PHIRE) financial literacy education. She serves as the Director of the READi Lab (readilab.com) where her research portfolio consists of equity, access, and inclusion within education for historically excluded individuals, with a particular focus on women in engineering and computing and STEM education at HBCUs. Additionally, Dr. Fletcher is researching economic equity, and the impact of finances on students
established knowledge retention strategies" [19]• Communication of MBSE aspects o "The contents of the Bootcamp were designed to provide a platform for audiences across the industry and academia with insight on the Why, What, Who, and How aspects of MBSE" [20]• Diversity and mission readiness planning o "Using the framework presented in this paper, more than 100 diverse students and faculty at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy - in a ground-breaking innovative first for the service - directly supported Coast Guard hurricane response operations" [21]• Workforce development framework o "This paper proposes a framework for systematically developing a diverse, mission-ready, and
Paper ID #34480A Semester Like No Other: Use of Natural Language Processing forNovice-Led Analysis on End-of-Semester Responses on Students’ Experienceof Changing Learning Environments Due to COVID-19Dr. Sreyoshi Bhaduri, McGraw Hill Dr. Sreyoshi Bhaduri is an Engineering Educator and People Researcher. She currently heads Global People Research and Analytics at McGraw Hill, where she leads research leveraging employee data to generate data-driven insights for decisions impacting organizational Culture and Talent. Her research interests include assessing the impact and effectiveness of inclusion initiatives as well as
even more adept at participating in the ethical reasoning process independently. TheseSIRA modules were designed to be delivered in a relatively asynchronous, online format.RESEARCH METHODSTo assess the efficacy of the SIRA framework, we examined the relationship between students’experiences in the online learning modules, specifically their development of moral reasoning andsatisfaction with ethics education. The fundamental questions addressed by this research are: Page 24.458.8(1) What is the impact of a SIRA approach on the development of students' moral reasoning, and their satisfaction and engagement with engineering ethics
department is always looking to improve how material relevant to major explorationis incorporated into its introductory course as it can have a significant impact on individualstudents as well as the retention and persistence statistics in the engineering majors.Over the years, the General Engineering department has implemented a variety of methods toencourage and/or require students to learn about the different engineering majors offered atClemson. For several years, students were required to complete a series of assignments as part ofan “Individual Reflection Portfolio.” These assignments required students to researchinformation about the different engineering disciplines then write reflections related toengineering ethics and future engineering
for program evolution based on lessons learned, it is clear fromthis research that students’ self-efficacy within and outside of the class, their feelings ofcommunity, and their desire to persist computing have been impacted.7 Acknowledgements We would like to thank Duke University, Aeris, CTC, Lineage, Salesforce, Zuora, andanonymous donors for their generous and ongoing support of the program.8 References[1] N. C. Chesler and M. A. Chesler, “Gender-Informed Mentoring Strategies for Women Engineering Scholars: On Establishing a Caring Community,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 49–55, 2002, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00672.x.[2] C. C. Healy and A. J. Welchert, “Mentoring Relations: A Definition to Advance Research and
conceptual understanding of university students about abstract physical concepts, specifically in the introductory and upper-division electromagnetism courses. She has published five peer-reviewed articles in high-impact journals indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus, and one peer-reviewed book chapter. She has partic- ipated in several international educational research conferences, resulting in five conference proceedings indexed in Web of Science. In 2018, she participated in the local organizing committee for the confer- ence of the International Research Group on Physics Teaching (GIREP, from its name in French) in San Sebastian, Spain. She was also part of the organizing committee of the annual meeting of the
areexpected to meet the challenges of integrating both CCSS (Common Core State Standards) andNGSS within their curriculum, they must ensure their students are engaged in analytical andstrategic thinking about major world issues in science, technology, society and theirenvironment. Participants are challenged to create a curriculum that promotes critical thinkingabout global issues, possible solutions, and improving designs. The curriculum plan must includeelements of the research that the teacher conducted over the summer with an emphasis on howthis research supports the goals of CCSS and NGSS. The specific objectives of the College ofEducation curriculum workshops are for participants to develop NGSS-aligned curriculumframeworks that integrate
requires a significant investment of time for the instructor toteach and for the student to learn and apply. This extra burden on students is minimized throughthe effective use of CBT tools that can adapt to the student's instructional needs. Theintroduction of CBT tools into the curriculum brought with it the ability to impact other aspectsof the course and student learning. The interactive movies, games, quizzes, virtual world, andother resources offered on the instructional web sites developed for each involved class focusedon course fundamentals that are problematic for students. The additional assistance that studentsreceive from these interactive tools can offset the cost of introducing engineering software intothe curriculum but more