’ personalities and work habits. To beeffective, he argued that engineering leaders should have strong technical skills, be hands off,resolve conflict using logical reasoning, base personnel assessments on project outcomes, andinteract with engineers as equals. While Mallette’s proposed theory might indeed result ineffective engineering leaders, he did not test it with a group of engineers, nor did he test hisassumption that the majority of engineers are Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judgers (INTJMyers Briggs personality type). Wyrick similarly characterized engineers as a distinctive group,but he did so based on data he collected over ten years in four engineering management cohortsin the United States and Sweden [11]. Using Kolb’s Learning Style
. in Engineering Education, all from Purdue. Prior to this she was Co-Director of the EPICS Program at Purdue where she was responsible for developing curriculum and assessment tools and overseeing the research efforts within EPICS. Her academic and research interests include the profes- sional formation of engineers, diversity and inclusion in engineering, human-centered design, engineering ethics, leadership, service-learning, and accessibility and assistive-technology.Prof. Patrice Marie Buzzanell, University of South Florida Patrice M. Buzzanell is a Professor in the Brian Lamb School of Communication and the School of Engineering Education (courtesy) at Purdue University. Editor of three books and author of over
the central problem that youth were solving in thecurriculum. It had them think of a solution to provide relief to people affected by a disaster.Youth were asked follow-up questions based on their responses. All interviews were transcribedand coded by the research team. Youth responses to the engineering design challenge were codedto identify the design moves proposed by the youth, the evaluative criteria or constraints that theyouth used to assess the quality of their proposed solution, and the reasoning youth provided, ifany, to justify their design choices.Our session observation protocol focused on observing the degree to which youth were engagedin different activities, the degree to which youth were enacting various engineering
units each year. Each unit should be aligned to the research foci of the engineeringcenter, and be informed and inspired by the RET teachers’ lab experiences. The unit needs to bealigned to the NGSS, connect to real-life engineering problems, use a project-based learningpedagogical approach, and include embedded assessments of student learning. The teachers arealso encouraged to incorporate at least one engineering design challenge. Beginning with the 2014 cohort, Kristen Bergsman designed and facilitated a curriculumdesign workshop to support RET teachers in this task throughout the summer. Originally,teachers met for a weekly curriculum design session focused on the collaborative task ofdeveloping a new science curriculum unit linked to
create user stories, a class structure diagram, a sequencediagram for a system feature, or a statechart for a web application interface or to define thebehavior of a class. The case study questions that require a class decomposition have acomplexity in the range of 10 classes.The team and individual exercises vary in complexity and difficulty. Some are as simple as doinga screen shot to show that an online tool, such as a Trello planning board, has been setup. Othersrequire team discussion or individual programming activity. Most of the Before-Class individualexercises are completion of a small quiz assessing a minimal knowledge of the topic based onreading and viewing a subset of the resources provided on the topic page. Most exercises areworth
insights about the culture of engineering degree programs which may be ripe for cultivatingmoments of shame. 10Through the findings, we learn that engineering identity is complex. The study of engineering identity hasbeen an important trend in the literature on engineering marginalization and student experience.12,15Within this work, identity alignment is often discussed as a dimension of students’ experiences, and ameasure in which students can agree or disagree with on a survey. But the assessment of engineeringidentity is typically performed with the underlying assumption that achieving a strong identity will lead topositive outcomes within engineering degree programs (e.g., retention) and
doing. Recentresearch in these disciplines has suggested that these educational norms influence many aspectsof students’ experiences, feelings, and outcomes, including the identities that students form asstudents and as pre-professionals.The influence of Locke and the traditionalist view of education is evident in STEM fields, andengineering departments in particular: STEM subjects are known for support of meritocracy andfor grading practices based primarily on high-stakes assessments [2-4]. Foundational courses --the start of an unforgiving undergraduate workload -- serve to “weed out” students at an earlystage, and typically result in large numbers of D, F and W grades, which often leads students todrop the major [2-3; 5]. The curriculum in
interest in the context of this paper are thosewhose approach was based on the integration of stakeholder observations. Specific experienceswere described by students as having impacted their direction, and led them towards newexplicitly community-motivated problem frames in which the perception and ‘feel’ of a place,something that was only uncovered through iterative observation and repeated experience,became primary data, taking priority over earlier more preliminary external assessments (C).S2 We wanted to tell some sort of story that would link to [engineering] interests we have but then we broke itdown and ended up going in different directions from where we started. We did the sketch walk up and down everystreet and that that made a
assessed his performance to design better learning environments that pro- mote students’ conceptual understanding. In 2015, Ruben earned the M.S in Chemical Engineering at Universidad de los Andes in Colombia where he also received the title of Chemical Engineer in 2012. His research interests include students’ cognition and metacognition in the engineering curriculum.Kristina Maruyama Tank, Iowa State University Kristina M. Tank is an Assistant Professor of Science Education in the School of Education at Iowa State University. She currently teaches undergraduate courses in science education for elementary education majors. As a former elementary teacher, her research and teaching interests are centered around improv
students to mentor middle school youth.Dr. Olukemi Akintewe, University of South Florida Dr. Olukemi Akintewe is an instructor in the Department of Medical Engineering. She received a B.E. degree in chemical engineering from City College of New York, CUNY, a M.Sc in materials science & engineering from The Ohio State University and a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the University of South Florida. Dr. Akintewe has focused her research in service-learning in engineering education; engi- neering predictive assessment models that supports students’ learning, classroom management techniques and best teaching practices.Dr. Schinnel Kylan Small, University of South Florida Schinnel Small is an Instructor I and IT
; Exposition, 2018.[16] NCEES, “Using the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination as an outcomes assessment tool,” NCEES, Tech. Rep., 2014.[17] L. A. Riley and E. Conley, “Mechanical and industrial engineering: Multidisciplinary partners in the freshman design experience,” Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, vol. 6, p. 1, 2001.[18] G. Tryggvason, M. Thouless, D. Dutta, S. L. Ceccio, and D. M. Tilbury, “The new mechanical engineering curriculum at the University of Michigan,” Journal of Engineering
NASA project ahead of the SAE formula competition project. To that end, we considermotivation when investigating students’ selection of projects and the changes of motivationthroughout the year. Studies have shown a relation between student’s beliefs about themselvesregarding skills they possess in engineering and their future career decisions.9,10 To measuremotivation, we utilize the MSLQ.11,12 The MSLQ is a robust survey that has been used in varioustypes of learning contexts outside of engineering such as medicine.11 The instrument measuresfive major factors of motivation through self-assessment by the participants. The instrument usesa 7 point Likert scale where students self-identify their motivation level by rating between “nottrue to me
Transportation Engineering in the School of Civil and Construction Engineering at Oregon State University and is the Director of the OSU Driving and Bicycling Simulator Laboratory. Dr. Hurwitz conducts research in transportation engineering, in the areas of traffic operations and safety, and in engineering education, in the areas of conceptual assessment and curriculum adoption. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Factors Contributing to the Problem-Solving Heuristics of Civil Engineering StudentsIntroductionProblem solvers vary their approaches to solving problems depending on the context of theproblem, the requirements of the solution, and the ways in
help formulate future research assessing the development ofengineering identity (1) within specific engineering disciplines, and (2) over time throughout collegiatestudy. If commonalities can be found in past experiences, influencers, etc for students with strongengineering identities, it may become possible to tailor information sessions and activities for middle andhigh school students, to assist in the development and/or realization of stronger engineering identities atan earlier age.2. Literature/BackgroundEngineering identity has been identified as a way to improve recruitment, retention, and persistence inengineering programs [1-7]. Kendall, Choe, Denton, and Borrego created a table in their engineeringidentity paper, showing many
: An Empirical Look at the Impact of Academic Makerspaces,” in Proceedings of International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces, 2018.[10] M. Lagoudas, J. Froyd, J. Wilson, P. Hamilton, R. Boehm, and P. Enjeti, “Assessing Impact of Maker Space on Student Learning,” in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2016.[11] R. Morocz et al., “Relating Student Participation in University Maker Spaces to their Engineering Design Self-Efficacy,” in Proceedings of the 123rd Annual American Society for Engineering Education Conference, New Orleans, LA, 2016.[12] L. F. Rosenbaum and B. Hartmann, “Making Connections: Project Courses Improve Design Self-Efficacy and Interdisciplinary Awareness
-ranked programs (top 10 percentiles), mid-ranked programs (11th - 100thpercentiles), and not ranked programs—for each engineering discipline.1 To assess the role of postdoc training in engineering PhDs’ long-term career trajectory,we gather employment outcome information from the 1993-2013 National Science FoundationSurvey of Doctorate Recipients. The SDR is conducted every two to three years and providesdemographic, education, and career history information of a sample of U.S.-trained doctoralscientists and engineers. In many cases, survey respondents completed the SDR survey acrossmultiple time points from when they received their PhD until they reached the age of 75.Therefore, for a subset of the survey respondents, we have
and information sought. One well documented purpose of a scavenger huntmay be to build team comradery1. In academics, team-building scavenger hunts can be useful toacquaint students to one another and encourage healthy communication through an enjoyableactivity. Dyrud suggested that a scavenger hunt be used early in a course if the purpose is aimedat building teaming skills1. The process of participating in a scavenger hunt forces individuals tocommunicate their findings to others, encourages creativity, and provides an avenue for teamwork. Scavenger hunts can also be used to teach students or to assess their abilities. Hollar,Dahm, and Harris documented a scavenger hunt to teach lab safety within a short 15-minute timeperiod2. In this
the pre- and post-surveys, and there was a total of five 4-pointLikert scale questions and four short answer questions in both surveys. As an example, studentscould choose from the following Liker scale responses: “Very Useful” (1), “Useful” (2),“Somewhat Useful” (3), or “Not Useful” (4).The following two questions were used to assess students’ understanding and confidence in theirengineering identity: • Q1: Based upon your description of your field, how confident are you that an engineering professional would agree with your description? • Q5: How prepared are you to facilitate a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) outreach activity to younger students?The following three questions captured students’ sense of
andgraduate work. High level skills in scientific and academic argument and analysis requirestudents to make inferences from their data, relate their data to previously published results, anduse their data in order to justify their conclusions.5 Since lab reports typically require tasks suchas statistical data analysis, graphical presentation of results, and uncertainty analysis, theybecome an excellent medium to assess the development of these high level skills.A variety of methods have been employed to teach writing skills and related data analysis skills.The Science Writing Heuristic6 is a method of guided inquiry that leads students to reflect onwhat they are learning and ask a series of standard questions about their data and observations.This
order to evaluate the effectivenessof CONSIDER on actual learning in comparison to existing tools like Piazza.We are performing the study using the pattern of design-based-research 21 . This will have us en-gage in multiple, iterative formative assessments, and additional questions are likely to emerge asresearch questions are iteratively refined. This approach blends well with our software develop-ment pattern which is intended to follow an Agile process where features and functionality will bereleased and feature-by-feature testing will be done with end-users/learners.Our tool is available as an open source software, which other educators can download and configureto use in their courses. It is highly customizable in terms of features such as