utterable, or even thinkable in engineering education, resulting in an unacceptable erosion of analyticpower for studies centering equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Whose voices do we lose when we arerestricted to normative discourse in our data collection instruments? Whose voices are raised in anger ordisbelief when we nevertheless dare to invite participants to examine the water in which they swim? Ourpaper examines these issues by documenting what happened when we introduced the socially theorizedconcept “culture” in our national engineering career path survey: “I’m not sure what you mean about engineering culture. To me it is a culture of checking and rechecking and making sure things are right. That isn't
forth their best effort. These issues will be addressed during the remainder of thisstudy. Future work will involve exploring whether students’ problem solving performance willbe improved by enhancing their spatial thinking abilities or understanding of key concepts inmechanics. In addition, we are planning on extending this research to other areas of application,such as engineering design or other disciplines and recruiting participants at various levels ofacademia (i.e. graduate students, instructors, and faculty members) to examine the impact ofexperience/expertise. Although eye-trackers are becoming more accessible and affordable, theyare not widely used and it requires trained personnel to manage every stage of the study. Inaddition
) orientation-related barriers, which may stem from universities’focus on pure science and long-term goals, causing misunderstandings with industry; and (ii)transaction-related barriers, which might include unrealistic expectations, low engagement byliaison offices, IP conflicts, confidentiality concerns, and regulatory constraints. Muscio andVallanti (2014) identified 16 obstacles and tended to group those into four categories:conflicts with companies, academic networking issues, conflicts with academic goals, andresearch nature.Regarding enablers, scholars have explored factors from micro to macro levels, classifyingUICs into three contexts: individual, organizational, and institutional. The individual contextincludes factors like scientists
search inquiry keywords were personal narratives, stories, engineering, classroom,university, college, students, STEM, education, intervention, pedagogy, and psychology. Throughiterative searching using these keywords, some new keywords were added (e.g., expressivewriting intervention) and removed (e.g., students). Ultimately, we ended up using the followingkeywords: engineering, education, narrative(s), personal narrative, storytelling, story, stories, 5psychology, STEM, college, university, expressive writing intervention, pedagogy, curriculum.At the same time, our target samples were post-secondary students in higher education, such thatwe
. NVivo, a qualitative dataanalysis software, was used to analyze the open-response survey questions. NVivo requires aninput of qualitative data that can be coded to produce a quantitative response, decreasing thechance of cherry-picking and researcher bias in data analysis. Such software allowed for themanual and automatic coding of themes identifiable in the data. Sentiment analysis wasperformed to analyze the frequency and tone of word usage. Ongoing work will continue toexamine the long-term impacts of the course concerning the above metrics as well as studentretention and graduate placement.IntroductionMyriad undergraduate Biomedical Engineering programs have developed programs that seek toprovide an element of "clinical immersion" for
AC 2011-1052: COMPARISON OF TWO CURRICULUM MODELS FORMAPPING ENGINEERING CORE CONCEPTS TO EXISTING SCIENCEAND MATHEMATICS STANDARDSMike Ryan, CEISMC - Georgia TechBrian D. Gane, Georgia Institute of Technology Brian Gane is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Psychology at Georgia Tech and a research assistant at CEISMC. His research focuses on skill acquisition and instructional design.Marion Usselman, Georgia Institute of Technology Marion Usselman is Associate Director for Federal Outreach and Research for Georgia Tech’s Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics and Computing. She has been with CEISMC since 1996 managing programs, interacting with K-12 schools, and assisting Georgia Tech faculty in
cheating originated in courses administered by the College of Computing. Withfew exceptions, these cases came from CS1501 and the next course in the series, CS1502.These numbers drew the attention of both the Senior Associate Dean of Students Dean KarenBoyd, and the Honor Advisory Council, a student organization tasked with educating thecampus about the new Academic Honor Code. Their concerns precipitated this study, apreliminary investigation of cheating in the context of an introductory computer science course.II. Previous Research related to Cheating in Post-Secondary EducationUndergraduate cheating has long been a problem at many colleges and universities1; three-quarters of college students confess to cheating at least once8. As a result
Paper ID #36477Hydropower from Gutters: Generating Electricity fromRainwaterBala Maheswaran (Professor) Bala Maheswaran is currently a senior faculty in the College of Engineering, Northeastern University. He has contributed and authored over one hundred publications consisting of original research and education-related papers, and conference proceedings. He has over twenty years of experience in teaching at Northeastern University. He is the Chair of the Engineering Physics Division, ASEE, Chair and executive board member, ASEE NE Section; the co-chair of TASME Conference (Technological Advances in Science
from Southern Methodist University and a B.S. from Monterrey Technological Institute in Mexico. He is currently part of the research on a construction workforce technology education project. In addition to several civil projects he has served as a teacher in two Distance Education online programs for low-income communities.William O'Brien, University of Texas, Austin BILL O'BRIEN'S professional goals are to improve collaboration and coordination among firms in the design and construction industry. Dr. O'Brien specializes in construction supply chain management and electronic collaboration, where he conducts research and consults on both systems design and implementation issues. He is
sections of Union College Mechanical Engineering Thermodynamics (UC METhermo) course. Each section was taught by a distinct full-time faculty with extensiveexperience teaching thermodynamics. Table 3 provides further details related to the participantsand sample size.Table 3. Impact study sections and participation details. RU ME TFS RU ChE Thermo UC ME Thermo Total Treatment instructor Dr. Bakrania Dr. Dahm Dr. Anderson Treatment class size 35 33 18 86 Control instructor Dr. Bhatia Dr. Van Kirk Dr. Bruno Control class size 40 32
Paper ID #5886Consistent Course Assessment ModelDr. Sabah Razouk Abro, Lawrence Technological University Dr. Sabah Abro is an internationally educated professor and program Director at Lawrence Technological University. He graduated with a Bachelor degree from the University of Baghdad, pursued a post gradu- ate diploma in planning from the United Nations institute in the middle east, Went to Wales in the United kingdom to get his Master’s degree and then to Belgium for his Ph.D. He has also international work experience; he served as Faculty at Al Mustansiria University in Baghdad, a regional consultant at the
performance (C)1. Godwin based her work on the existing physics, math, andscience identity scales, which had been extensively validated in previous work13,14,15,16,17,18Perkins et al. (2018)2 subsequently used Godwin’s engineering identity scales as a starting pointfor the generation of scales used to measure different aspects of professional identity in graduateengineering students (they developed scales to measure engineering, scientist, and researcheridentity, respectively). However, they significantly expanded Godwin’s original scales bygenerating and testing several new items based on data gathered through interviews withengineering doctoral students. For comparison, Godwin’s original engineering identity scalescontain 11 total items. Perkin et
more challenging to score and why (re-gardless of how easy or difficult it appeared for students to address those elements), a substantialnumber of respondents did not identify any elements that they found challenging to score: of these,thirteen indicated “none” and/or elaborated upon their response (e.g., “no troubles scoring any ofthem”; “they were all about the same. I used the drop down menu to look at the rubric as I was scoringto be sure that I was doing it uniformly and fairly”), five left this question blank, and one respondentregarded the elements as equally difficult to score. Of those with no issues, ten were new judges. Among those judges who identified particular elements they found challenging to score, twoelements were noted
Modality with Adaptive Learning (2016-2019)Flipped classrooms face student resistance, especially regarding pre-class learning. Poor pre-class preparation then impacts student engagement in the classroom, which is crucial to thesuccess of a flipped classroom. We wished to address this concern by using adaptive learning forpre-class learning. As an exploratory project, adaptive lessons were developed for half of theeight topics of the course. The lessons were designed on the adaptive learning platform (ALP) © American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 2023 ASEE Southeastern Section Conferencecalled Smart Sparrow [23]. The results from using these adaptive lessons in the flippedclassroom were
major. Tyler earned his B.S. (2016) and M.S. (2018) degrees in Electrical Engineering from Ohio State University.Dr. Krista M. Kecskemety, The Ohio State University Krista Kecskemety is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Department of Engineering Education at The Ohio State University. Krista received her B.S. in Aerospace Engineering at The Ohio State Uni- versity in 2006 and received her M.S. from Ohio State in 2007. In 2012, Krista completed her Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State. Her engineering education research interests include investigating first-year engineering student experiences, faculty experiences, and the connection between the two. American
students’ minds about the suitability of women to be engineers.2. Mismatches between characteristic instructional styles of engineering professors and Page 2.83.2 characteristic learning styles of women students.3. Discrimination by faculty instructors and advisors.4. A tendency of women to be less active in cooperative learning groups.5. Discounting by male classmates, including (and perhaps especially) in cooperative learning groups.6. Lack of female role models in engineering schools.7. Different relative priorities attached by men and women to personal relationships and schoolwork.Clearly, confidence is an important ingredient of success in
committee based on their frustrations ofstructures pedagogy. In a memo from member Richard Bender, they commented on thestructures sequence, “However, divorced as it usually is from involvement with the total processof design, this sequence has resulted in architectural graduates who have no understanding of thebasic principles involved, cannot apply them, nor retain for a significant period after graduationthe basic core of material encountered.”[4] The committee was concerned that structurespedagogy evolved from engineering programs without a connection to the total process ofdesign. In 1994, David Faoro surveyed the ACSA structures faculty regarding pedagogy. Thesurvey found most teachers were civil engineers who recognized a deficit in
explores how students develop andmodify their engineering identities throughout their studies. This is accomplished throughanalysis of regular practices and cultural definitions and an exploration of how these factorsimpact performance and retention.Theoretical FoundationsWe used two theories to interpret identity among graduate level engineers, social identity theoryand identity theory (sometimes called role identity theory). Identity is used to refer to the waysthat students view themselves as being recognized by others. These similarly named frameworksboth grapple with issues of identity but take different approaches and operate at different levelsof analysis. Social identity theory is often used in social psychology and focuses primarily
Paper ID #17677Turbocharge General Education Requirements with Science of External andInternal ExcellenceDr. Pradeep B. Deshpande, University of Louisville and President, Six Sigma and Advanced Controls, Inc. Pradeep B. Deshpande is Professor Emeritus and a Former Chair of the Chemical Engineering Department at the University of Louisville. He served on the ChE faculty there for thirty-three years (1975 – 2008). Post retirement, he has continued his research into the pursuit of perfection in human endeavors and teaching and consulting in advanced process control and six sigma. He is an author or co-author of more than
Manitoba, Winnipeg Canada, R3T 5V6; telephone:(1) 204.474.9698; e-mail: Sandra Ingram@umanitoba.ca.Anita H Ens, University of Manitoba Anita Ens is a Ph.D. candidate in Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning in the Faculty of Education at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. She has over 15 years of experience working with adults in adult education and postsecondary settings, with particular focus on learning strategies and writing pedagogy. Influenced by the social, cultural, and relational aspects of learning, her research interests include collaborative writing, sustainability in education, and diversity in learning groups.Marcia R. Friesen, University of Manitoba
Pittsburgh Dr. Barry is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science depart- ment at the University of Pittsburgh. He earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, a B.A. in History, and a Nuclear Engineering Certificate from the University of Pittsburgh in 2010. In 2012, he completed a M.S. in Mechanical engineering, and was awarded a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, both from the Uni- versity of Pittsburgh. Before joining the University of Pittsburgh as a full-time visiting faculty member, Dr. Barry taught in the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Technol- ogy departments at Youngstown State University intermittently between 2013 and 2018, and worked at
Paper ID #43738Enhancing Teaching Evaluation in Engineering Education: An Explorationof the Theory of RatingMayar Madboly, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Mayar Madboly is currently a PhD student in the department of Engineering Education at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University. Her research focuses on the issues in teaching evaluation, teaching effectiveness, and teamwork dynamics in engineering student and practitioner teams. She received her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Electrical Energy Engineering from the faculty of Engineering in Cairo University in Egypt.Dr. Nicole P
Professor of Industrial Engineering and the Fulton C. Noss Faculty Fellow at the University of Pittsburgh. Her research interests are in engineering education evaluation and empirical and cost modeling applications for quality improvement in manufacturing and service organizations. She holds the B.S. in Engineering Management (University of Missouri Rolla), M.S. in Industrial Engineering (Purdue University), and Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering (University of Pittsburgh).Larry Shuman, University of Pittsburgh Larry J. Shuman is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh and Professor of Industrial Engineering. His research includes studies directed at the
science, and engineering teach- ing to frame his research on STEM teaching and learning. Nadelson brings a unique perspective of research, bridging experience with practice and theory to explore a range of interests in STEM teaching and learning.Dr. Jana Bouwma-Gearhart Jana L. Bouwma-Gearhart is an associate professor of STEM education at Oregon State University. Her research widely concerns improving education at research universities. Her earlier research explored en- hancements to faculty motivation to improve undergraduate education. Her more recent research concerns organizational change towards postsecondary STEM education improvement at research universities, in- cluding the interactions of levers (people
from the stronger students as well as the co-construction ofknowledge when the group talks through questions and confusing topics. Smith et al. havedocumented these two modes of improving conceptual understanding through peer tutoring11.The importance of this small group is further stated by McKeachie and Svinick10: “Students aremore likely to talk in small groups than in large ones; students who are confused are more likelyto ask other students questions about their difficulties or failure to understand than to reveal theseproblems with a faculty member present. Students who are not confused must actively organizeand reorganize their own learning in order to explain it. Thus both the confused and theunconfused benefit.”The team was also
. 392). In their study, issues relating to classroom instruction, departmentalculture and institutional structure were pivotal in students’ decision-making.Besterfield-Sacre et al. recognized the role of students’ attitudes during decision-making abouttheir major. These authors concluded that institutional structures (including high creditrequirements in engineering), prematurely force students to narrow their career interests.11 Otherwork in student learning has identified the importance of student attitude in decision-making.Bransford et al. have documented how students’ emotional reaction to a learning situationcomplicates their ability to gain mastery over the new knowledge. Students who feel frustratedor defeated by their learning
emphasis includes faculty development and mentoring, graduate student development, critical thinking and communication skills, enhancing mathematical student success in Calculus (including Impact of COVID-19), and promoting women in STEM. Her technical research focuses on sustainable chemical process design, computer aided design, and multicriteria decision making. She also has extensive experience in K-12 STEM education and program evaluation and assessment. She has held a variety of administrative positions: 1) Director of STEM Faculty Development Initiatives-Clemson, 2) Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies in the College of Engineering, Computing and Applied Sciences-Clemson, 3) Interim Director of Student
engineering techniques and tools.Additionally, smaller proportions of engineering managers saw their current positions andidentities as being engineering-related. The findings suggest that different engineering sub-occupations require different skill sets, which may in turn affect how employees view their jobsand themselves. Determination of these differences can enable new thinking about which skillsto emphasize in undergraduate engineering programs, through core courses, electives, and/orextracurricular activities.IntroductionIn response to national calls for engineering education reform5-6, the training and preparation ofengineering students have received much attention. Government, industry, and organizationssuch as the National Academy of
constructivist forms oflearning, where students actively engage in the learning process, constructing new knowledge8through inquiry, exploring, and making cognitive associations with prior experience. While 24 ofthe studies exhibited direct relevance to the constructivist theory in their goals and results, threeprototypical examples were selected that either explicitly concerned: a) the benefits of usingrobots to promote students’ ability to transfer knowledge learned through experiences in a certainsetting or problem to a novel setting or problem; or b) how the hands-on learning experienceprovided by robots allows students to better understand abstract concepts. The first presented study, conducted by Williams et al. (2012), assessed the
and actionablefeedback, and intervening when grades begin to slip; though, the faculty member usually takesover this last item. They also sit in on classes to support student-teachers in building theirconfidence by being available if needed and providing feedback during post-class debriefs.Often, it helps just to be there until the student-teachers hit their stride. Thus, the workload forthe instructor of record is heavy at the beginning of the quarter as they set up the classroom/labspace/equipment for what is frequently a new class context, organize Canvas, attend classes,debrief student-teachers, and deal with add/drop and permissions codes.Makerspace Classroom: The space in which these courses are taught has emerged as anothercritical