research teams are often composed of members from different disciplines.This interdisciplinary structure can bring a wealth of knowledge and perspectives but can also leadto challenges that hinder effective collaboration due to epistemic differences. These differences ap-pear in the approaches, values, and points of view of individual researchers toward how knowledgeis generated, expressed, and applied. If these differences in thinking are not effectively addressedand negotiated, they can compromise the success of a research team and hinder positive changesin the field of engineering education. Understanding how research teams negotiate epistemic dif-ferences is critical for developing strategies to overcome barriers to collaboration, negotiation
can stand alone in their own right.In addition, the industries in which students worked were noted, in order to determine whetherany correlations existed between the results of the analysis and students’ specific industrialsetting.FindingsWhile written assignments of various forms are required in many engineering courses, andwriting has been found to aid in metacognition in technical classes [12], students are sometimesresistant to writing assignments, as noted in [13], [14], and may describe themselves as not beinggood at writing. However, the quality of their essays was generally good. This may be due to theway in which the assignment was framed; the professor for the class consciously tried todecrease the pressure on students, particularly
will be discussed below in 'Outcomes and Impacts.'AssessmentStudent GradesEach class session, the students are given short, in-class worksheets that will lead them throughthe activities. The small class size enables direct supervision of each student, so the students areable to complete these assignments accurately. In general, the hands-on activities require that thestudents complete the worksheets correctly. The students' grades come from these worksheets,participation, behavior, and attendance. Since the class is almost entirely hands-on, requiring thetools and equipment available in the lab, there has not been homework assigned. The grades arecompiled at the end of the term and submitted for the official university transcript. The final
] developed a Draw an Engineer Test (DAET) where elementary andsecondary youth provided written and drawn responses to a set of questions regarding theirpreconceptions about engineers. Their responses were found to be generally simplistic, forexample, engineers were commonly depicted as workers who constructed buildings or repairedcar engines, though older participants more frequently mentioned engineering design tasks. Themost common stereotypical actions youth perceive engineers to do are to design, plan, and orperform physical labor. Common images included tools, cars and computers. Consistent findingswere reported by a number of subsequent investigations using similar data collection methods(e.g. [1], [9]–[12]). Further, youth displayed signs of
teachers in generating interest in computer programming among students[10], [16] .Pedagogical Framework: Gamification of LearningGamification of learning is defined as “the use of game elements in non-game contexts” [17, p.2] and should include four main components, a game goal, game dynamics, game mechanics,and game elements (defined in Table 1 in the Methods section, [18]). Researchers have shownthat gamification increases learning achievement, motivation to learn, and generates positiveattitudes among students [10], [19]. Specifically, this paper focuses on problem-solving typegames to foster problem-solving skills and computational thinking. Problem-solving games haveeffectively increased intrinsic motivation to learn STEM concepts [20], [21
identified by the other model. The GPT-4 model tended to identifymore basic relationships, while manual analysis identified more nuanced relationships.Our results do not currently support using GPT-4 to automatically generate graphicalrepresentations of faculty’s mental models of assessments. However, using a human-in-the-loopprocess could help offset GPT-4’s limitations. In this paper, we will discuss plans for our futurework to improve upon GPT-4’s current performance.IntroductionAssessments are found in every engineering classroom and are an important part of our educationsystem [1]-[3]. Assessments play many different roles, including understanding studentimprovements in learning [4], acting as a tool to assist students with learning [5], [6
learn their application on a light bulb and the DC motor built by students. 4. Obtain practical techniques for reducing noise while measuring motor output voltage. 5. Utilize an oscilloscope to visualize and analyze the input and output of rectifier circuits.Assessment methods involve prelab quizzes and post-lab reports to evaluate student learningoutcomes. The prelab quiz requires building a low-cost DC motor and improving its performancebefore the lab session. Each student built the DC motor, and in the lab, they verified the motor'sfunctionality. Next, they constructed half- and full-wave rectifier circuits that operated from a 9-14 volt AC voltage from an AC power generator source. Initial testing of the rectifier circuitinvolves
to reduce FW.Introduction and BackgroundEvery year approximately 40% of the food produced in the United States [1] (approximately onethird, globally [2]) is wasted rather than eaten. Food is wasted or discarded throughout the foodsupply chain, creating significant economic, societal, and environmental impacts. The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 63.1 million tons of food waste (FW)were generated from commercial, institutional, and residential sectors in the United States in2018, with an additional 40 million tons generated from industries [3], [4]. Along with thatwasted food is the wasted farm land, water, labor and energy resources required to grow,process, package and transport it. According to the NRDC, food waste
recognize both problems as featuring basketballs—a surfacelevel understanding of the problem. Those processing through gist trace would be able to lookbeyond the basketball and identify the underlying concepts that are engaged. When considered askill, gist trace is also parallel to stage two of Patel and Groen’s development of expertise(identifying relevant information) described earlier [1].Domain-specific vs. Domain-general KnowledgeHistorically, the contrasting ideas of domain-specific versus domain-general knowledge havebeen used to describe and understand knowledge acquisition in science, technology, engineering,and mathematics (STEM) fields, particularly at the primary school level of K-12. A number ofstudies in the area focus on each
firstengineering literacies that undergraduates are assigned. Before entering their first engineeringlaboratory courses, they are exposed to various general education writing curricula such as first-year composition and/or technical writing, or a writing-across-the-curriculum approach.However, engineering educators often do not have enough knowledge about students’ priorwriting knowledge and how they can connect students’ learning from early writing courses totheir writing in their engineering lab courses. Writing transfer theories offer a potential solutionbut require a clear understanding of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). According to thelens of Vygotsky's theory of scaffolding, how can the ZPD in lab report writing be defined in thecontext of
conceptual understanding through those means alone may be limited. For example, evenwhen students complete pre-laboratory assignments to prepare for cookbook lab sessions, theselab exercises do not necessarily improve student learning in corresponding lecture-based courses[6], [7].Numerous authors discuss the potential merits of inquiry-based learning (hereafter IBL) as analternative to cookbook approaches to instructional laboratories, e.g. [2], [3], [8]. In a recentliterature review, Pedaste and colleagues [8] identified and summarized the core features of IBL.In general, student experiences mirror one or more steps of the scientific method and/ordisciplinary habits of mind of scientists or engineers: (1) articulating testable questions
of capabilities of Arduino, in particular, to measure electric currents; • Direct comparison of performances of Arduino and Keysight 3446xx DMM.Summer camp for high-school studentsIn July 2017, Alexander Ganago led a 5-day-long summer camp for high-school students. At thebeginning, only one of 26 participants knew what electric resistance is (according to informalsurvey in Lecture 1). The camp activities started with a general introduction: • Lectures reviewed the basics of Electrical Engineering o Voltages, currents, resistances o Building circuits on a solderless prototyping board o Voltage division o Resistive sensors o Analog and digital signals o Microcontrollers
degree and the chemicalengineering profession.On the other hand, students at Town, Residential, and Commuter at times struggled to see therelevance of their first-year courses toward their chemical engineering degrees. The followingquotes exemplify this phenomenon: I didn’t think the first year would be as general as it is because as much as I registered for Chemical Engineering, right now the majority of my modules have nothing to do with Chemical Engineering, so that was something I didn’t expect and that was a bit stressful sometimes because you are having to study what you don’t like. [Tammy, Year 1, Town University] I feel like the whole idea like the general engineering program, like I understand that
-historical activity theory (CHAT) [17], as depicted in its originalformulation in Figure 1, to understand the activity systems inhabited by faculty and their students.“Third-generation” indicates an evolution of the theory through three major iterations. First-generation CHAT, pioneered by Vygotsky, introduced the idea of mediation: the response to astimulus was mediated by a cultural artifact [21]. An important contribution of this theory was thatit emphasized the necessity of looking at the subject and their goals, or objects, within the cultural-historical context, which mediates their action. A common illustration of first-generation CHAT isa triangle connecting the subject through whose perspective the activity is analyzed; the object
(e.g., engineering, engineering education, psychology) [1],[2], [3]. Each of these disciplines have their own norms around the generation, expression, andapplication of knowledge. It is important that these teams are able to navigate differences inthinking. Failure to acknowledge, address, and integrate these differences can lead to tensionsthat negatively impact their ability to have their desired impact. A team’s norms and approachesaround the generation, expression, and application of knowledge define their epistemic culture[4]. A team’s epistemic culture affects all aspects of the research process: the types of questionsthey answer, knowledge they generate, knowers they recognize, and knowledge they share.Existing work across Team Science
G.-J. Hwang, “A collaborative game-based learning approach to improvingstudents’ learning performance in science courses,” vol. 63, pp. 43–51, Apr. 2013, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.019.[3] D. B. Jordaan, "Board Games in the Computer Science Class to Improve Students’ Knowledgeof the Python Programming Language," 2018 International Conference on Intelligent andInnovative Computing Applications (ICONIC), Plaine Magnien, 2018, pp. 1-5.[4] Swacha, Jakub. “An Architecture of a Gamified Learning Management System.” Lecture Notesin Computer Science New Horizons in Web Based Learning, 2014, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13296-9_22.[5] V. Gupta, M. James, J. McLurkin, M. Smith, and J. Robinson, “Raising a Generation ofInventors,” How Play Fosters
the groups taking these courses are relatively homogeneous ina way that a large classroom generally is not. Our students are generally from the midwest regionand have a relatively uniform socioeconomic and educational background. We have attempted touse this homogeneity to tease out some confounding issues with the hope that other researcherswill be able explore these observations.ResultsThe following tables provide data from each of the classes taught using the different methods.Data from the flipped classroom model is shown in Table 1, from the problem-based lectures in 2,and from the interactive lectures in 3.The clearest trend in the data indicates that that the interactive lecture is the least effective methodof instruction. It is more
elective includeslaboratories. Therefore, the first step of reviewing a program is examining the programrequirements and catalog to determine how many general education, engineering requirementsand electives are required of students. This classification is referred to as requirement type.2.2 Selecting Catalogs for ReviewAfter the courses in a program have been categorized by requirement type, a set ofinclusion/exclusion criteria was applied to guarantee that programs in the review were suitablefor statistical analysis. The criteria were: 1. EXCLUDE IF: The program does not provide a syllabus with course descriptions and requirements for the engineering discipline being considered. 2. EXCLUDE IF: Course descriptions are absent to a
that were non-compliant did not meet one or more of following requirements: a. timelysubmission, b. completeness of information, c. acknowledgement of addendums, and d. othermistakes and errors typically found on bids which results in disqualification.Although the teams had a strong compliance results, more teams submitted an incomplete bids(33 teams) than a complete bids (39 team). Based on a debriefing session with students followingthe competition, students commented the time commitment for the project was not adequateenough to finish off the submission completely.The teams’ estimate to the target price was very impressive with the 58 compliant bids in ouranalysis for this criteria (Figure 1). Note that 83% of the compliant bids were within
● Present Solution ● Generate Ideas ● Iteration ● Compare Designs & Make Decisions ● Gather InformationResponses were gathered using a Likert-type scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree.Strongly agree and strongly disagree were assigned numerical scores of 5 and 1, respectively,such that means and standard deviations could be calculated. The results are presented in Figure2. The first six items, which correspond to the steps of the EDP adopted for use in this course, allscored a mean value above 4, indicating that most students felt that the semester-long projectstrengthened their understanding of those components. These six steps also match the milestoneframework used in Phase 2
accurate [8].In Fig. 1 we can observe this concept applied in the activity regarding this paper. It isimportant to avoid some technicalities and show them a general picture to capture theirattention, once they show interest they can create designs in great detail during theirspecializations in the area. II. Research motivationAccording to Andrade [9] interest in STEM areas has declined in recent years in Mexico, thiscan be noted by the decreasing number of participants entering the programmes. The authorsof this article believe that the importance of inspiring and motivating children in high schoolcannot be underestimated. It is common to hear among students that STEM careers aredifficult as the approach they have with them tends to be
project is a stand-alone computer program that runs on Windows operatingsystems and fulfills the required project task. At the end of the semester, each team presentsits solution to the entire class and submits all required project documents (technical report,minutes of meetings and an instruction manual for the program).The project task, which is described in this paper, was the creation of a computer program thatsimulates and visualizes the dynamics of a flock of birds as realistically as possible. As a firststep, a swarm based on the Vicsek model should be generated. Particular attention should bepaid to the visualization of the individual particles, which were to be displayed as smallarrows. In addition, the user should be given the option to
undergraduate students who hadpreviously taken an upper-division mechanical design course. Preliminary results from thedesign survey highlight generally high student engagement with multiple stages of the designprocess but suggest limited participation in both user-oriented design and analysis. Initial resultsfrom the fabrication survey suggest wide variation in the extents to which availability, advising,design decisions, and project management influence fabrication decisions. This decision processshould be explored further through qualitative follow-up questions in future work. Additionalfuture work includes (1) refining survey instruments, (2) survey deployment to faculty, machineshop / makerspace staff, and broader student study participants, and
engineers understand the value of open data even if they are not quite prepared totake their data to that next level.Study LimitationsThe survey results contribute to what has been found in the literature but given the response rate(9%) is low, it cannot be generalized. Survey results were described with an attempt to not makegeneralizations about the field, but rather contribute to the existing literature. Results from thesurvey did align with previous studies. An additional limitation could be sampling bias asrespondents could self-select participation. Those with more interest in the topic may havechosen to complete the survey over others. References[1] J. Kim, “Overview of disciplinary data sharing
cards from 2017, 195 cards fromthose published in 2018 starting on Jan 1, 2018, and 205 cards analyzed from 2019 accessed inreverse calendar order starting Dec. 31, 2019. The initial review stage categorized each of the400 cards based on the type of information it included and the intended participants of the card’sresources or programming. Overall content categories for cards included: Classroom-focused: classroom resource, lesson plan, or course overviews Outreach-focused: events or activities for K-12 students or general public Extra-curricular programs: student organizations or non-event, non-academic programs Event-documentation: materials/documentation from workshops, conferences, or events University-level
). Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning. Downloaded from https://p12framework.asee.org/Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Wiliam, D., & Johnson, D. (1997). Effective Teachers of Numeracy in Primary Schools: Teachers' Beliefs, Practices and Pupils' Learning.Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389-407.Barth, K., Bahr, D., & Shumway, S. (2017). Generating clean water. Science and Children, 55(4), 32-38.Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3
about computer science and get natural language responses. Maria wasdesigned to: (1) make students want to ask her questions, (2) answer student questions, and (3)provide emotional support to students. Maria's implementation focuses on achieving these goals.To make students want to ask questions, Maria is relatable and easy to access. To make sureMaria was able to answer questions, she was programmed with the answers to many commoncomputer science and general knowledge questions. She can also walk students through morecomplicated issues, like finding the cause of a NullPointerException. Finally, to provideemotional support to students, Maria will give students tips on how to improve their score onprogramming assignments and will congratulate
based learning that has evolved.Utilizing Literature and Best Practices to Create the ProgramProfessionals need to be content experts, as well as highly skilled problem solvers, team players,and lifelong learners to meet the challenges head on and remain competitive in the workplace[1], [2]. Necessity to train the next generation of construction industry professionals isrecognized as a significant challenge [3]. The capstone project is described as an experiencewhere practitioner and faculty share the project’s supervision [4]. Therefore, the conception andexecution of the capstone course aims to immerse students in a design-build stimulation.In the beginning of every semester, students are asked to share their topic of interest (i.e.commercial
typical pedagogical approaches engineeringfaculty often use to teach engineering education (i.e., the case study). Two validated instrumentshave found special favor in engineering fields, namely, the Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2) (Restet al., 1999) and the Engineering and Science Issues Test (ESIT) (Borenstein et al., 2010). Twomain issues presented that counseled pursuing another approach – first, the DIT-2 and the ESITare not publicly available, but more fundamentally neither instrument directly addresses someissues of current note in engineering ethics, so a new instrument was developed. Three scenarioswere generated in Sottile (2023); see that reference for an explanation for the motivation behindeach of the scenarios.Scenario 1: Concealing
some shared agency withresearchers to direct conversation [1]. The result can be data which provide a rich description of acomplex social topic. Interview data are typically analyzed by researchers who synthesize andinterpret findings from a large amount of data to share with research stakeholders [2].Thematic analysis or thematic coding is a common methodology for analyzing interview dataacross different approaches to qualitative research. In thematic analysis, researchers reviewinterview data for recurring words, ideas, topics, or perspectives which are categorized intothemes [3]. The results of the research are researcher-generated themes, which are oftendiscussed with supporting examples from participant quotes. When using this method