bedestructive if only because it encourages understanding writing as afterthought rather than place-of-thought” (Irish, 83). This risk may be intensified by a technology that so easily obfuscates thelabor involved in writing.1 While I refer to the concept of engineering “disciplines,” I am also aware of the contingent and dialogical nature ofthis intellectual space as one that is in flux through the dialogical relationships between its practitioners over time.See Prior and Hengst (2010) for a full discussion of disciplinarity as a dialogic and contingent activity that escapesneo-Platonic concepts of the ideal. Considering these tensions that constitute a discipline may well become salient asGenAI pushes the boundaries of convention in education and
analyzed using confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA). The results indicated that the developed measures do extract a significantportion of the average variance in the latent constructs and the internal consistency of themeasures (Cronbach’s α) fell within the acceptable and better range. The development of theseitems provides new measures for engineering education researchers to more deeply explore theunderlying self-beliefs in students’ engineering identity formation.BackgroundEngineering identity has been shown as a significant indicator of educational and professionalpersistence in multiple quantitative and qualitative studies1–8. These prior investigations ofengineering identity have focused on whether students consider or see themselves as an
Paper ID #48626The impact of alternative rhetoric and AI on inclusivity in STEM educationDr. Gary P. Halada, Stony Brook University Dr. Halada, Associate Professor in Materials Science and Chemical Engineering at Stony Brook University, directs an interdisciplinary undergraduate degree program in Engineering Science. He designs educational materials focused on nanotechnology, advanced manufacturing, materials engineering, learning from engineering disaster, science fiction, and diversity and inclusivity in STEM.Dr. Lori Scarlatos, Stony Brook University Lori is an Associate Professor and Graduate Director in the Department
, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86-104.[25] Perez, R. S., Johnson, J. F., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Instructional design expertise: A cognitive model of design. Instructional Science, 23(5-6), 321-349.[26] Ambrose, S., & Norman, M. (2006). Preparing engineering faculty as educators. The Bridge, 36(2), 25–32.[27] Lattuca, L. R., Bergom, I., & Knight, D. B. (2014). Professional development, departmental contexts, and use of instructional strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4), 549–572.[28] Ziegenfuss, D. H. (2007). A phenomenographic analysis of course design in the academy. Journal of Ethnographic &
research involves modeling and simulation of protein molecules as nano bio robots with applications in new drug design. The other aspect of her research is engineering education.Ms. Alexandra Emma Lehnes, Manhattan College Alexandra Lehnes is a senior at Manhattan College majoring mechanical engineering and minoring in mathematics. In the past she has done biomechanical research on aortic aneurysms and worked for an energy distribution company as a project engineering intern. Currently she is the president of the engi- neering ambassadors club and assisting with an National Science Foundation grant to increase engineering awareness using the engineering ambassadors, offering a minor in engineering educations, and encourag
newcomers, yet newfaculty are expected to “hit the ground running.” As daunting as this may feel, and much as newfaculty want to “hit the ground running and just run away,” there are some tricks of the trade thatI culled from the literature and my own experiences that I share in this paper. These guidelinesmay help new engineering faculty in terms of job satisfaction and in addressing key sources ofstress.In this paper, I draw from the higher education faculty development literature and outline themerits of a faculty development program and how crucial these topics are for new engineeringfaculty members. I examine faculty development topics in the broader context of teaching,research, service, and personal growth and development. Key sources of
(1997).4. Besterfield-Sacre, M., Altman, C. J. & Shuman, L. Engineering Student Attitudes Assessment. Journal of Engineering Education 87, 133–141 (1998).5. Besterfield-Sacre, M., Shuman, L. J. & Wolfe, H. Modeling undergraduate engineering outcomes. International Journal of Engineering Education 18, 128–139 (2002).6. Hilpert, J., Stump, G., Husman, J. & Kim, W. An Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Pittsburgh Freshman Engineering Attitudes Survey. in Frontiers in Education Conference, 2008. FIE 2008. 38th Annual F2B–9 (2008).7. Hilpert, J. et al. Steps toward a sound measure of engineering student attitudes: Pittsburgh engineering attitudes scale-revised. in Frontiers in Education Conference
in the everyday world and at work," in Interdisciplinarity for the Twenty-first Century: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Mathematics and Its Connections to Arts and Sciences, Moncton 2009, vol. 11, IAP, 2011, p. 67.[4] L. Martin and P. Gourley-Delaney, "Students' images of mathematics," Instructional Science, vol. 42, pp. 595-614, 2014.[5] *M. Civil, “Chapter 4: Everyday mathematics, mathematicians' mathematics, and school mathematics: Can we bring them together?,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education: Monograph, pp. 40-62, 2002.[6] I. Eloff, J. G. Maree, and L. H. Miller, “The role of parents’ learning facilitation mode insupporting informal learning in mathematics,” Early
datacollection. One of the authors (Lin) wishes to thank Dr. Tamara Moore and Dr. Karl Smith of the STEMEducation Center at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities for input.References:1 J.-L. Lin and D. C. Woolston, Important Lessons in Engineering Education Learned from Seven Years ofExperience in Undergraduate Academic Support Programs. Proceedings of Frontiers in Education, TA3:9-13.(2008).2 Internal communications, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison (2001- 2010).3 K. Gray, W. Adams, C. Wieman, and K. Perkins, Students know what physicist believe, but they don’t agree: Astudy using the CLASS surveys, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020106 (2008). See also references 1-4 herein.4 E. Redish, J. Saul, and R. Steinberg
presents and publishes in both technical/technology education and engineering. He has been and con- tinues to be a Principle Investigator on a variety of grants related to visualization and education and has focused his research in areas related to STEM curricula integration. Dr. Clark is recognized as a Distin- guished Technology Educator by the International Technology Engineering Education Association. He currently consults to a variety of businesses, educational agencies and organizations. Page 26.16.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 5th Year Master’s Degree Program for Engineers: Preparing the NextGeneration of K-12 Technology, Engineering and Design
, coping strategies, and academic performance: An evaluation of theoretical models. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 196–218. doi:10.1080/00220973.2011.596853 4 Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M., and Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(4), 527–538. 5 Jones, B. D., Paretti, M. C., Hein, S. F., & Knott, T. W. (2010). An analysis of motivation constructs with first- year engineering students: Relationships among expectancies, values, achievement, and career plans. Journal of Engineering Education, 99, 319–336. doi: 10.1002/j
motion theme reviewed in Table 4. However, when itcame to an engineering activity that required a scalar that quantizes the result, studentimprovements in mathematics by the 3rd grade classes did shift the traditional primarygrouping to just Kindergarten through 2nd grade. This shift from intermediate to primarymay be of note to some elementary educators but for DLJ it just triggered a convenientgrade level regrouping for the assignment of and progress through the engineering themesin the corresponding science strand. It is mentioned to the reader because the shift willhappen in the elementary school you work with and it does represent an internal indicatorthat the curriculum program is working.For the 4th graders, the actual hands-on component
Paper ID #16045Improving Engineers’ Ability by Strengthening University-Industry Collabo-ration: A Plan for Education and Training Outstanding Engineers (PETOE)in ChinaDr. Huiming Fan, East China University of Science and Technology I am a lecturer from Institute of Higher Education, East China University of Science and Technology. I got Ph.D. degree from Zhejiang University in 2014. I was also a visiting scholar at the area of University- Industry Collaboration at North Carolina State University from 2012.12-2013.7. My research focuses on engineering education, university-industry collaboration, entrepreneurial university
Paper ID #38383Engineering Education Enrichment (e3) Initiative: A Co-Curricular Program Intended to Improve Persistence andCareer Success for Low-Income and First-GenerationEngineering StudentsHannah Huvard (Postdoctoral Researcher) Dr. Huvard is currently a Postdoctoral researcher at New Mexico State University. Her research focuses on non-traditional frameworks and measures of success in undergraduate STEM programs and courses.Hengameh Bayat PhD Candidate in chemical engineering at New Mexico State UniversitySandra M. Way (Associate Professor)Catherine Brewer (Assistant Professor)Addison Miller I am an
being conducted in Nigeria, South Sudan, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, and the US. His disserta- tion focuses on understanding the nuances and affordances of culturally relevant engineering education in Nigeria and the United States using a comparative case study methodology.Prof. Jennifer Deboer, Purdue University, West Lafayette Jennifer DeBoer is currently Assistant Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Her research focuses on international education systems, individual and social development, technology use and STEM learning, and educational environments forMohammad Javad Ahmadi ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023“Say it anyhow you can”: Unpacking how Engineering
where this study is being conducted. With overseven years of experience in teaching and research in engineering education, the researcher nowserves as the course's instructor and coordinator within the research setting.Setting of the study This study is conducted at a public university in the northeastern region of Indiana,United States. The FYE program plays a crucial role in introducing fundamental engineeringconcepts for all new engineering students across the four engineering programs (computer,electrical, civil, and mechanical engineering) in two core engineering courses, the EngineeringFundamentals I (ENGR127) and II (ENGR128). Each engineering fundamentals course includesa lecture, a project studio, and a computer lab component
Paper ID #11907Writing Proficiency in Engineering Technology Students and Skill Develop-ment in the ClassroomDr. Anne M Lucietto, Purdue University Dr. Lucietto has focused her research in engineering education and the understanding of engineering technology students. Her current focus is in the area of energy, including both fluid and thermodynamics. She teaches in an active learning style which engages and develops practical skills in the students. She is currently exploring the performance of engineering technology students and better ways to teach in an authentic manner.Nichole Ramirez, Purdue University Nichole
AC 2009-2122: SUPPORTING SECONDARY TEACHERS AS THEY IMPLEMENTNEW SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CURRICULA: CASE EXAMPLES FROMNANOSCALE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATIONKelly Hutchinson, Purdue UniversityLynn Bryan, Purdue UniversityGeorge Bodner, Purdue University Page 14.1102.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 Supporting Secondary Teachers as they Implement New Science and Engineering Curricula: Case Examples from Nanoscale Science and Engineering EducationAbstractAs is the case for most engineering content, nanoscale science and engineering (NSE) content isoften new territory for secondary teachers. Teachers not only have to
, financial support from the NSF (DLR programgrant # 0431779) is very sincerely acknowledged.References:[1] Bruner, J., 1960. The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.[2] Lohani, V. K., Lo, J., Mullin, J., Muffo, J., Backert, R., and Griffin, H., 2005, Transformation of a FreshmanYear Engineering Course, Proc. 2005 International Conference on Engineering Education, July 25-29, Gilwice,Poland.[3] Lo, J, V.K. Lohani, and O.H. Griffin, “Full Implementation of a New Format for Freshmen EngineeringCourse”, to be published in the Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education AnnualConference and Exposition, Chicago, IL, June 18-21, 2006.[4] http://web.mit.edu/d-lab/resources/nciia_files/wfq-tn.pdf[5] http
Paper ID #20195The Development of Engineering Students’ Metacognitive Skills in InformalEngineering Learning ActivitiesMs. Xingya Xu, George Mason University Xingya Xu is a Ph.D candidate of the Department of Educational Psychology in the College of Educa- tion and Human Development at George Mason University. She has a M.S. in Psychological Science at Western Kentucky University. Her research interests include metacognition, epistemic cognition and self-regulated learning.Dr. Lori C. Bland, George Mason University Lori C. Bland, Ph.D., is an associate professor at George Mason University. She teaches courses in edu
Paper ID #11788Game Design and Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Engineering Ther-modynamicsProf. John M. Pfotenhauer, University of Wisconsin, Madison Professor John M. Pfotenhauer earned his BA, MA, and PhD degrees in physics from St. Olaf College and the University of Oregon in 1979, 1981, and 1984. For eight years he conducted research as part of the Applied Superconductivity Center at the University of Wisconsin – Madison before joining the faculty there in the Departments of Mechanical Engineering, and Engineering Physics in 1993. In addition to his research in cryogenics, and in educational games, he teaches
implementation of active learning throughout the school. One of the coaches (i.e., secondauthor) received an internal grant award from the Provost’s Office to propagate active learning inthe engineering school through this one-on-one mentoring and coaching approach. Thiscommunity-of-practice and mentoring approach in the propagation of active learning has also beenused elsewhere, with noted benefits [17].During my first experience in teaching (and in the use of active learning), I taught a course with70 students as a graduate student on microprocessor interfacing. Given the large number ofstudents, I noticed that some started to lose their focus. As a result, I adopted a think-share methodto increase student focus and involvement. Furthermore, I invited
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and international expertise in early childhood policy and research methods. Her current research focuses on developmental engineering, early education antecedents of engineering thinking, developmental factors in engineering pedagogy, technological literacy and human-artifact inter- actions. She is a member of Sigma Xi Science Honor Society and in 2009 he was awarded the prestigious NSF CAREER Award.Matthew W. Ohland, Purdue University, West Lafayette Matthew W. Ohland is Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. He has de- grees from Swarthmore College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the University of Florida. His research on the longitudinal study of
Murzi is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. He holds degrees in Industrial Engineering (BS, MS), Master of Business Administration (MBA) and in Engineering Education (PhD). Homero has 15 years of international experience working in industry and academia. His research focuses on contemporary and inclusive pedagogical practices, industry-driven competency development in engineering, and understanding the barriers that Latinx and Native Americans have in engineering. Homero has been recognized as a Diggs scholar, a Graduate Academy for Teaching Excellence fellow, a Diversity scholar, a Fulbright scholar and was inducted in the Bouchet Honor Society.Dr. Natasha B. Watts
The Engineering Advisory Committee One Solution Closing he Gap in he Iron Range s Engineering Education: K-14 Carl Sandness, Tom Jamar, Roy Smith, J. Moe Benda University of Minnesota DuluthAbstract: The Iron Range will never be the same. A powerful and influential group fromcommunities surrounding Hibbing Minnesota has aligned to ensure area students have everyopportunity to discover engineering as their lifelong passion. Powerful is not based on anyorganizational chart but rather an attitude of we-will-make-it-happen. The group started as theHibbing High School Engineering Advisory Committee. Creating an ad-hoc partnership
engineering education. Requirements Engineering, 28(2):145–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766- 022-00381-911. Javed S, Alam KA, Ajmal S, Iqbal U (2022) Requirements Engineering Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Proceedings of International Conference on Information Technology and Applications, :469–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7618-5_4112. Ouhbi S, Idri A, Fernández-Alemán JL, Toval A (2015) Requirements engineering education: a systematic mapping study. Requirements Engineering, 20(2):119–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-013-0192-513. Kimbell L (2011) Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3):285–306. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X1307116652521614. Schön DA (1983) The
with student writing as a learning and assessment tool in her introductory physics courses for non-majors. She has been an active member of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) for over 25 years. Dr. Larkin served on the Board of Directors for ASEE from 1997-1999 as Chair of Professional Interest Council (PIC) III and as Vice President of PICs. Dr. Larkin has received numerous national and international awards including the ASEE Distinguished Edu- cator and Service Award from the Physics and Engineering Physics Division in 1998. Dr. Larkin received the Outstanding Teaching in the General Education Award from AU in 2000. In 2000 – 2001 she
universities in the Mathematics and Physics Departments.Clarisa E Bercovich Guelman, Cal State San Marcos I have a M.Sc. in Physics and a Ph.D. in Physics Education. I am interested in Physics Education Research. I conducted research about teachers’ implementation of reform-based curricula and about stu- dents’ conceptual understanding of Chaos. I developed face to face and online professional development workshops for elementary, middle school and high school teachers. I taught courses on Physics for middle and high school students and teachers, as well as several Physics courses at college.Nancy A Taylor, San Diego County Office of Education Ms. Taylor is currently the Science Coordinator/ Curriculum Specialist for K-12
Paper ID #10030”Professional” Acts: Analyzing sites of identity and interactive response inchemical engineering studentsMs. Deborah Tihanyi, University of Toronto Deborah Tihanyi is a Senior Lecturer in the Engineering Communication Program.Dr. Penny Kinnear, University of Toronto Page 24.1411.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 “Professional” Acts: Analyzing sites of identity and interactive response in chemical engineering
engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(4), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20291McNeill, N. J., Douglas, E. P., Koro‐Ljungberg, M., Therriault, D. J., & Krause, I. (2016). Undergraduate Students’ Beliefs about Engineering Problem Solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(4), 560–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20150Morelock, J. R., Cunningham, P., & Matusovich, H. M. (under review). Working the Problems: Understanding the Learning Strategies of Engineering Students in Problem-Solving Courses. International Journal of Engineering Education.Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated