analysis of numbers and above knowledge gained in other ways is in the methods by which SE3 has approached improving engagement and equity. Elsewhere, I write about how SE3 has demonstrated the hierarchy that we see of technical over social and data analysis over other kinds of knowledge production. This is apparent in the committee’s first action to gather data and analyze it, through surveys and quantitative analysis, and appealing to this data continues to be prevalent.[2] S.B. Merriam and E.J. Tisdell, “Chapter Nine: Dealing with Validity, Reliability, and Ethics,” Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, pp. 209-235, United States: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015.[3
generation methods such asBrainstorming and Design Heuristics. But in practice, there are many other opportunitiesthroughout an engineering project where engineers may find it useful to explore multiplealternatives. When does divergent thinking take place during engineering problem solving as it iscurrently practiced? We conducted 90-minute semi-structured interviews with mechanicalengineering practitioners working in varied setting to elicit their experiences with divergentthinking taking place in their engineering projects. The initial results document divergentthinking in six different areas of engineering design processes: 1) problem understanding, 2)problem-solving methods and strategies, 3) research and information gathering, 4
and qualitative), curriculum design, curriculum implementation, and sustainability.Dale Baker, Arizona State University Dale Baker, Ed.D., is an international expert in equity issues in science education. She was honored in 2006-07 as a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for this body of work. In 2008 she was elected fellow of the American Educational Research Association. She is a former editor of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Stephen Krause, Arizona State University Stephen Krause, Ph.D., is professor of Materials Science and Engineering. His research in engineering education has focused on misconceptions and he has expertise in the development of
entertainment video games with engineering-relevant gameplay into the curriculumcan engage students and enhance proficiency in machine design. 1. IntroductionStudent motivation refers to the internal drive, enthusiasm, and determination that compelstudents to engage in learning activities, achieve their academic goals, and overcome challenges.Among college students, motivation plays a critical role in shaping their academic performance,persistence, and overall success in their educational journey [1], [2].Motivation plays a pivotal role in the academic journey of engineering students, significantlyinfluencing their learning outcomes, performance, and graduation rates [3]. Intrinsic motivation,characterized by a genuine interest in engineering
WebCT and FrontPage”, Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, pp. 1017-1020.[7] Norton, R. L., (2007), “Design of Machinery”, 4th Edition, McGraw Hill.[8] Norton’s web page at: http://www.designofmachinery.com/.[9] Working Model by Design Simulation Technologies, Inc. at: http://www.design-simulation.com/.[10] Yu, N., Erdman, A. G., and Byers, B. P., (2002), “ LINCAGES 2000: Latest Developments and Case Study”, Special Session on Computer Aided Linkage Synthesis ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences (Special Session on Computer Aided Linkage Design), Montreal, Canada.[11] Rankers, A. M., (2002), “SAM (Simulation and Analysis of Mechanisms)”, Special Session on Computer
Participation in Computing/Engineering (BPC/BPE)initiatives almost exclusively center a binary gender model focusing on girls and women as staticcategories [1]. However, recent surveys [2] suggests that 2.1% of Gen Z adults identify astransgender (that is, have a gender identity that differs from the sex they were assigned at birth[3]). Additionally, in research presented at the 2022 RESPECT conference, we showed that thereare at least 10,850 nonbinary1 K–12 students in the United States registered across nine differentstates [4]. As the number of people who identify as transgender and nonbinary (TNB) increase,current best practices regarding approaching gender in computing and engineering need to berevised [5]. To further support future gender diverse
, yearsinvolved in projects, and how their role on the team was chosen or assigned. We asked anotherfifteen questions related to their team’s organization, relationship with other students, conflictsand resolutions, and psychological safety within the team. The students interviewed playeddifferent roles within their projects (e.g., project manager, technical lead, general team member,etc.) and participated on teams with different goals; some aimed to participate in internationaldesign competitions while others set internal goals, perhaps with a faculty advisor.From thematic analysis of interview responses, despite no two projects being organized the sameway, some patterns surfaced. Students tended to enjoy working in smaller groups compared tobigger ones
the Forty-First ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, Wisc., March 10–13, 2010, 102-106.[11] Herman, G. L., Loui, M. C., & Zilles, C. (submitted). Flip-Flops in students' conceptions of state, IEEE Transactions on Education.[12] Herman, G.L., Loui, M.C., & Zilles, C. (in press). Students’ misconceptions about medium scale integration circuits, IEEE Transactions on Education.[13] Herman, G. L., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M. C., & Zilles, C. (2008). Proof by incomplete enumeration and other logical misconceptions, in ICER '08: Proceeding of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research, ACM, 59-70.[14] Hestenes, D., Wells, M. and Swackhamer, G. (1992) Force Concept Inventory
innovators and asking them to reflect on their education andcareers and their perceptions on what would work and what would not. We believe that thisapproach yields significantly richer information that would be used for this research.3 MethodsThe data analyzed here is based on interviews conducted with 60 innovators over the course ofseven months between April 2013 and October 2013. These data emerge from the broader studyof innovation and education mentioned above. The research methods for the broader studyincluded a workshop held on October 22-23, 2013, at the NAE Washington, D.C. The workshopbrought together over 75 innovators and leaders from several fields to share insights oninnovation and its education in focus-group style sessions
; supporting the professionaldevelopment of faculty; improving projects; expanding education research; and growing thecommunity of electricity access stakeholders.References [1] G. Burleson, M. Machado, and I. Aranda, “Engineering for global developmen in academic institutions: An initial review of learning opportunities across four global regions,” in 2021 World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF/GEDC), pp. 153–158, 2021. [2] G. Bixler, J. Campbell, R. Dzwonczyk, H. Greene, J. Merrill, and K. Passino, “Humanitarian engineering at The Ohio State University: Lessons learned in enriching education while helping people,” International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, pp. 78–96, 2014. [3
completedthe course passed the course with a grade of C or higher. High attendance was achieved: Theaverage attendance in the first 10 classes and Review session is 88.3%. Attendance in the first fiveclasses is 94.3%, 92.9%, 94.3%, 94.3%, and 94.3%, respectively. In the first 10 classes, 4, 3, 4, 3,4, 8, 13, 17, 15, and 13 students missed class which corresponds to 94.3%, 95.7%, 94.3%, 95.7%,94.3%, 88.6%, 81.4%, 75.7%, 78.6%, 81.4% attendance rates, respectively. Only six studentsmissed the review sessions prior to Exam 1 (91.4% attendance). Only 5 students missed 4 (ormore) out of 10 classes. All 70 students took the first MidTerm Exam. After the first MidTermExam, 92.9% of the class had passing grade of C or higher (at least 74%). The percentage
©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Convergence and Divergence in Engineering Leadership, Entrepreneurship, Management, and PolicyAbstract A little over half (28 of 54) of the divisions of ASEE focus on the intersections betweenSTEM disciplines and different contexts of engineering education and practice. These 28divisions emphasize three broad areas: (1) humanistic content and goals; (2) particular groups ofstudents, faculty, practitioners, or other stakeholders; and (3) specific arenas of activity andorganizational contexts. Four of these “Engineering and. . .” divisions include engineeringleadership, entrepreneurship, management, and policy. The divisions share goals such asconnecting the technical
) of this NSF-ISE-funded initiative, aimed at integrating STEM learning into Out-of-School Time programs at community centers. 2. Junior Research Scientists Program – A program funded by After School Matters to support high school students in Chicago in conducting STEM research. 3. STEAM Learning Collaboration – Partnered with CCAS-NEIU to enhance STEM learning in the Upward Bound Math & Science program. Additionally, I co-founded and co-chair the student-led STEAM Conference and established ManifiestoSTEAM, a collaborative initiative promoting STEM education in Spanish-speaking, underprivileged communities across Latin America. I also collaborate with international organizations such as the OEA and Virtual
missionincludes four sections: an ‘intro’ session; a ‘play’ session in which students experiment withmaterials; a ‘learn’ session in which students review and practice relevant algebra standards; anda ‘build’ component, in which students build a design using algebra skills. Example missiontopics are technical rescue, machine learning, soundproofing, business optimization, and urbanheat islands. Moreover, ten role model videos feature predominantly minoritized professionalsdescribing their work in engineering careers, how their interests developed, challenges theyencountered, and how they persisted. The program also included two field trips to the sponsoringuniversity to learn about college admissions and scholarships, tour an engineering design lab,and
Session 1037 Web Development Modules for Non-Web Programming Students Lisa Anneberg Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Lawrence Technological University Southfield, MI 48075 248-204-2539 anneberg@ltu.edu Roger Ferguson Department of Computer Science and Information Systems Grand Valley State University Allendale, MI 49544-9403 616-895-2060
strategizing and outlining project objectives, and 3) the Beneficence principle withinthe ethics reasoning framework, as the text captures aspects related to preventing harm andproviding benefits.Table 1. Delineating and integrating design, data, and ethical reasoning in a project.Text from a student technical report Design Reasoning in Data Life-cycle Ethical Management Reasoning Eliciting Design Data Ethical Questions Reasoning Reasoning Reasoning What is the purpose of this Experiential Planning
21 Credits (Choice from 1-3 cores) General education courses to meet requirements of the appropriate college.The Innovation Core is 27 Credits, geared toward innovation and entrepreneurship; a keycomponent is the multi-disciplinary, long-term team activities over the sophomore, junior andsenior years. Teams are expected to include students from all years, possibly including graduatestudents. The teams will have dynamic membership and the roles of team members will changeon a regular basis. The innovation core also includes an overview course of innovation, acourse on entrepreneurship, a variation on the technical writing course focused on proposalpreparation, a course
,and/or instructor-based student assessments have been shown to have some promise forimproving assessments in PBL by capturing both the technical and problem-solving/professionalelements [15], [16]. One example of this alternative assessment method is to numericallyevaluate student performance in the following 5 areas [16]: 1) contribution to the analysis of theproblem and to the statement of the learning goals; 2) keeping one’s agreement to thegroup/team; 3) contribution to the discussion concerning the collected data; 4) fulfilling aleadership role in a group session; and 5) contribution to the promotion of the group process.While these considerations have value as a solid starting point for future work, there are someconcern areas for broad
from diverse backgrounds. And I definitely learned a lot about mentoring at that conference, so I attended some sessions. And it talked about effective practices and mentoring and how to mentor your students, not just in their technical subject area but also thinking about their lives as a whole.Yet, some participants did mention faculty meetings as a primary context in which faculty wouldexperience frameworks at the programmatic level. An interviewee from physics brought up sucha point, saying: ...that's a good question. We had [faculty name] come into our faculty meeting and talk about various on campus possibilities for faculty members. I know him a little bit because he sponsored the senior
for students when talking aboutdesigning for communities within the STS program. In general, our paper explores how theUMD STS program fosters an ethics of care through cultural practices and mindsets that embodysocio-technical systems thinking. A hypothesis emerging from this work is that the ethics of caregains stability and salience in students’ ways of thinking and being due in part to its centrality inboth the internal norms of STS community and in the program’s human-centered designorientation toward interacting with other communities. If confirmed, this hypothesis suggeststhat countercultural engineering programs more generally should focus on practices and mindsetsthat cut across the internal norms of the community and its orientation
experiential learning that iscentral to the discipline [1], [2]. This paper explores how these challenges were addressed in anEmbedded Systems course offered during the Fall 2020 semester, highlighting the adaptations andinnovations employed to ensure students achieved the desired learning outcomes.The transition to remote learning demanded significant modifications to course delivery andcontent, particularly for project-based learning and laboratory sessions. Tools and strategies had tobe reimagined to replicate the hands-on experience that is central to Embedded Systems education.While technical constraints such as access to hardware, tools, and reliable internet connectionsposed hurdles, these challenges also presented opportunities for creative
contributor to consultations, policy papers and op-eds on AI and Society, and a consultant on AI application assessments and sustainable industrial processes. She volunteers with Women in AI. She’s an alumna of McGill University, Universit´e de Laval, and MILA, the Montreal Institute for Learning Algorithms’s program for Human Rights and Responsible AI. Her principal methodology is participatory research for impact.Leslie Salgado, University of Calgary Leslie Salgado is a PhD Candidate and Sessional Instructor at the University of Calgary. She is an experienced professional with a strong background in science communication and in working with international organizations, including UNESCO, OXFAM and PAHO. As a doctoral
, Dr. Povinelli has worked with leading aerospace companies, as well as collaborating with universities and government research labs. He brings over thirty years of experience in both technical and educational fields, blending scientific rigor with humanistic insight to promote holistic, transdisciplinary pedagogies. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Integrating Visual Thinking into Design EducationMark J. Povinelli, College of Arts and Sciences, Syracuse UniversityIntroductionVision is one of the first senses to develop in infancy, starting with facial recognition and objecttracking [1], [2]. As the visual system matures, it supports memory, cognition, and
-initiated technology use,instructor-initiated technology use, and contact information for technical support. Students ratedthe importance of each structural feature on a scale that ranged from 1 (not important) to 7 (veryimportant). Results were tabulated and ranked by mean response, the rankings are shown inTable 4.Table 4: Importance of Course Structural Features How important is the following course feature to your success in class? Mean Rank Prompt response to e-mail by instructor 6.39 1 Assignment grades within a week 6.01 2 Student-initiated technology use 5.36 3 Instructor-initiated
EthicsThere are good grounds for making this connection between sustainability and ethics althoughengineering academia has only recently recognized the importance of focusing on this link in thegeneral education and technical parts of the curriculum. As evidence of this, Herkert argues thatdespite ABET’s requirement that engineering schools address “sustainability” and “ethics”, only“17% of institutions and 8% of graduates do have one or more required courses with ethics-related content, these courses are usually not courses in engineering per se, but rather courses insuch areas as philosophy or religion”[3]. In these courses, sustainability is not generally pairedwith ethics.Twenty-first century engineering demands a paradigm shift in the way
nation’s economy depends on a significant increase of this highly trainedsegment of the workforce.2The lack of undergraduate women in many STEM fields essentially restricts the potential laborforce of STEM workers. Women earn most of their bachelor’s degrees in the humanities,education, and fine arts, and in the fields of psychology, social sciences, and biological sciences.By contrast, men earn most of their degrees in computer sciences; earth, atmospheric, and oceansciences; mathematics and statistics; physical sciences; and engineering.3 Increasing women’saccess to and retention in STEM fields is one important solution to the dwindling STEM laborforce in the United States.Living-Learning Programs for Women in STEMLiving-Learning Programs for
technology. Indeed, their focus is restricted to technicalspecifications, such as AV and network equipment, cable runs and computer choices.Consequently, these professionals make a number of assumptions about what the classroomshould look like and what it should include, without necessarily consulting faculty members.These assumptions leave a gap between what is perceived to be of value for the renovation andwhat actually is needed by faculty and students [3]. For this classroom of the future project, wetook a more inclusive approach. The design team was substantially expanded to includeinstructors and students since they will ultimately be the ones using the room. They provide acrucial perspective that may not necessarily be technical in nature
in higher education," 1998 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications.2. Gibbons, M. T., “The Year in Numbers,” 2007 Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges, Washington, DC: The American Society for Engineering Education, 2008.3. Brown C., Johnson M., Lax J., “Educational Classroom Technology: What Works Best in the Engineering Context”, 2007, 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Session S4J.4. Grady, H., and Codone, S., " From chalkboard to PowerPoint to the web: A continuum of technology," 2004 International Professional Communication Conference, pp. 217-222.5. Colegrove, Patrick. "Making It
and attainmentwhile also improving overall satisfaction amongst students and employers who are involved inwork-based learning programs. One of the ways to achieve this is through the strongcollaboration of academic staff and faculty. They work together to provide resources and focuson students’ development of communication skills and other transferable skills throughout theirwork-based learning experience [5] in conjunction with their technical learning.Iron Range Engineering (IRE)Iron Range Engineering is an upper-division (i.e., last two years of undergraduate education)engineering program, which started out as a project-based learning program [7]. The programhas evolved into a work-based learning model where full-time students typically
of the MS program, graduates from Homeland Security and SafetyEngineering will be able to: 1. Provide the security and safety demands required by the private and public sectors for the protection of people and assets. 2. Understand and appreciate the complex technical and managerial issues related to security and safety. 3. Understand the engineering/technology behind security and safety solutions. 4. Apply quantitative and qualitative analytical skills and techniques to security and safety of people and assets. 5. Apply a multidisciplinary approach involving the integration of quality and risk analysis to the security and safety of people and assets. 6. Integrate state-of-the-art technological advances to