suggests that these students possess afoundational competency in the English language [21]. Research on international students is oftenlimited to studying their language skills and cultural adaptation rather than focusing on how theylearn and interact within their academic programs. This narrow scope of knowledge aboutinternational students fails to fully capture their unique academic context, which is crucial forproviding adequate support for their adjustment and successful completion of their degrees [22],[23].The diversity and linguistic variations among international students are also profound. Forinstance, as reported by SEVIS [1], international students come from over 225 different countries.Research of this nature largely depends on the
. Page 13.600.7Fig. 7. BYU and Mexican student groups. Fig. 8. A BYU and Mexican student team work together.TongaThis program was a service learning project associated with Engineers Without Borders,7 achapter of which was started at BYU this past year. For the inaugural project, students developedand implemented a small scale facility for the conversion of coconut oil to bio-diesel fuel on thePacific island of Tonga.To prepare for this project, students enrolled in a new course titled, “Global Projects inEngineering and Technology.” The course was open to all disciplines and counted as a technicalelective. As part of the course, students worked in multi-disciplinary teams on one of
sophomore through senior-year alumni of the FE curriculum has formed theMechanical Engineering Lab Team (MELT), a club to train other students on the use of the lasercutters, 3D printers and conventional machine tools that are introduced in the LWTLcurriculum.This paper is one part of an on-going assessment of the outcomes of our FE program. Here wereport on a survey of student opinions of the LWTL curriculum as adapted to our BSME program.We begin with an brief overview of the LWTL curriculum and highlights of our innovations to thecurriculum. We then present summary data on enrollment and retention. The bulk of the paper isa report and analysis of a survey of students who have taken at least one of the FE courses.Method and research
) and varied experience (Government, small and large engineering firms, K-12 education,as well as college and university employment), including the Associate Dean of the EngineeringSchool, who has been instrumental in the design, development, and deployment of the course.The team has developed and used closely coordinated formative work including guided readingquestions and class activities as well as common summative assessments (both quizzes andexams). The interdisciplinary nature of the team has been extremely valuable to the ongoingevolution of the course. Page 26.967.4Course descriptionWhile most students broadly accept the notion that our
introduction illustrates the wide variety ofhardware options already available. There is also an extensive choice of programming languagesthat can be taught to freshman engineering students. These range from standard languages suchas C, C++, and Java to scripting languages such as Python and MATLAB. The latter has over theyears become a large platform for many simulation tasks. In the following sections, we will giveour rationale for pursuing our path of using a LabJack data acquisition device for introducingprogramming to EE students, discussing why it was chosen over other alternatives, and how ithas affected our students.Course OverviewPrior to 2010, our EE program’s first year experience was provided by a pair of generalengineering courses that
measures of success based on their needs. Because this is still a newtool, assessment of student satisfaction, engagement with the tool, etc. is still on-going but a briefsummary of engagement is below.College of EngineeringSpire is available to any undergraduate or graduate engineering student, though the targetaudience is undergraduates. As of February 2025, there are 94 staff-created opportunities and189 individual students have created their own unique opportunities. Additionally, ● 46% of all undergraduate engineering students and a small number of graduate students have engaged with the system ● Of those, 54% have planned to complete at least one activity ● 736 students have levelled up in the system, including those that
provide a transferable model for increasingretention at other large state institutions.Specifically this paper describes the research that was conducted during the Spring (January-May) 2009 term at Michigan State University by the Office for Survey Research (OSR) for theEEES team on one particular thrust of the project, the implementation of a “Connector Faculty”student mentoring program. The objective of the research was to establish baseline measures forthe EEES project in general and the Connector Faculty (CF) program in particular. Results offour surveys taken of faculty and students are reported. While the program has not been in placelong enough to determine college-wide retention outcomes, early results show that this programmay have a
better servestudents and industry, a small private College in the Mid-Atlantic and an Educational Non-Profitin the Northeast partnered to design an innovative work-integrated learning program inengineering. The semester-long program includes a three-week bootcamp and a twelve-weekinternship placement with an engineering company. During the entire 15-week semester studentswere enrolled in a 14-credit courseload including a math course, sustainability and community-based design project courses, and professional development courses. The program used a work-integrated learning approach to leverage connections between students’ work placement and thecoursework to allow for real-life, real-time application of engineering skills. The pilot
in specific courses in the core curriculum to the more complex, authentic problems and projects they face as professionals. Dr. Koretsky is one of the founding members of the Center for Lifelong STEM Education Research at OSU. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Cultivating the Next Generation: Outcomes from a Learning Assistant Program in EngineeringIntroductionA growing tension in higher education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics(STEM) disciplines is the need to produce a greater number of STEM graduates [1] whilemaintaining learning effectiveness in the resulting large-enrollment STEM courses. One way tomitigate this tension is to create
the Akamai Internship Program, a seven week summerinternship program in Hawai‘i, demonstrate success in retaining diverse undergraduateparticipants in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Established in 2003,Akamai partnered with all major astronomical observatories on Hawai‘i Island and Maui andmany industry partners to productively engage local college students in workplace projects.Qualified locals are highly desired by island employers including observatories and industrypartners who work with advanced technologies while operating in small communities. Over thepast fifteen years, Akamai has been recognized for its ability to source and train local talent. Theprogram uses research on persistence, equity, identity
remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, we give a brief introduction to theunderlying wiki technology. We then describe the IntroEngineering.org wiki itself, in terms ofits structure and the features that it provides users. Next, we give the publisher’s perspective andtheir motivations for building an open online community. Finally, we conclude with openquestions and some possible future directions.Wiki TechnologyOver the past few years, the term “wiki” has gone from being known only by a small communityof programmers to being widely known by the general public, largely as a result of thephenomenal success of Wikipedia, which bills itself as “the free encyclopedia that anyone canedit.” While Wikipedia has provided a compelling
only has the learning community helped us increase our retention from 47.6 percentfor the 1997/1998 academic year to 86.2% for the 1999/2000 academic year, it has helped us toaddress many of our program objectives including: an ability to function on multi-disciplinaryteams, an ability to communicate effectively, and knowledge of important contemporary issues.Our formal assessment of the initiative reveals that students are overwhelmingly satisfied withthe program.IntroductionThe term “learning communities” has become increasingly prominent in the literature since thelate 1980s1. According to Huba2, “A learning community can be defined as a small group ofstudents, mostly freshmen, who work closely together as a community of learners within
development and social events, mightbe linked to slightly higher intrinsic motivation and a sense of belonging. One potential reasonfor this finding is the small sample size within non-participant subgroups, which may havelimited the ability to detect meaningful differences. Additionally, self-selection bias in surveyparticipation may have played a role. It is possible that among non-participants, those who weremore motivated or already had a strong sense of belonging were more likely to respond to thesurvey, leading to an overrepresentation of highly motivated individuals in both groups. Thiscould have resulted in smaller observed differences between participants and non-participantsthan might exist in the broader population of the EMPOWER Program
Paper ID #48741WIP: Professional development experiences from participation in an engineeringcooperative education programMs. Fatemeh Mirzahosseini Zarandi, University of CincinnatiMadeline Martin, University of CincinnatiMr. Siqing Wei, University of Cincinnati Dr. Siqing Wei received a B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education program at Purdue University as a triple boiler. He is a postdoc fellow at the University of Cincinnati under the supervision of Dr. David Reeping. His research interests span three major research topics, which are teamwork, cultural diversity, and international and
Paper ID #34357Exploring GTA Skills and Responsibilities to Inform a GTA ProfessionalDevelopment Program in Computer ScienceDr. Jill K. Nelson, George Mason University Jill Nelson is an associate professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at George Mason University. She earned a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BA in Economics from Rice Uni- versity in 1998. She attended the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for graduate study, earning an MS and PhD in Electrical Engineering in 2001 and 2005, respectively. Dr. Nelson’s research focus is in statistical signal processing, specifically
Systems – Realistic comparisons of different energy systems for applications other than transportation.SummaryIn the development of curricula for applied engineering programs it is important to take asystems viewpoint of technologies so that realistic comparisons can be made. For example, inthe development of automotive curricula, the concept of a zero emissions vehicle can be verymisleading, since pollution and GHG can be produced throughout the entire system, from thewell to the wheels. Furthermore, the risk for the automotive industry in the development ofgasoline and diesel hybrid technologies is small in comparison to hydrogen fuel cell vehiclessince the existing infrastructure and technologies are already in place
with local gov- ernmental agencies and civic organizations to advance sustainable community development, especially in South Africa’s informal settlements. Jiusto regularly prepares students to research and manage projects, develop proposals, presentations and reports, and engage in intercultural exchange, and has traveled with and advised students in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and the US. In Worcester, he works often with student project teams to advance campus and community sustainability, particularly in areas of energy and climate, and sustainability policy, assessment and communications. He also contributes to WPI pro- fessional development programming for faculty engaged in project advising
Haven Ron Harichandran is Dean of the Tagliatela College of Engineering. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Relationship between Gen Z Engineering Students’ Personality Types and Topics of Technical InterestIntroduction In this paper we build upon a preliminary work in progress reported last year [1]. A popularpersonality assessment tools is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) test [2]. In thisindicator, people are classified according to 16 different personality types. Results of the MBTIself-assessment test indicates whether the person tends to be sensing (S) or intuitive (N),thinking (T) or feeling (F), judging (J) or perceiving (P), and extroverted (E) or
recruited for participation throughinformational fliers, social media posts, and partnerships with local community organizations(e.g., Boys & Girls Clubs, local schools, public libraries). Various program sessions occurredduring the Spring and Summer (2020 and 2021).Over the course of their participation, children and their families engaged in two elements of anat-home engineering program. The first element involved use of take-home engineeringchallenge kits including facilitation guides, basic materials, and equipment (e.g., popsicle sticks,small motors, hot glue guns, etc.). Participating families received anywhere from 4 to 6 take-home kits, which were designed to introduce children and families to the engineering designcycle, starting with
Page 24.880.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Making a First-year Impression: Engineering Projects that Affect and ConnectIntroductionAfter years of having passed through multiple assessments, iterations, and updates of the coreGeneral Engineering courses in the first-year program at Northeastern University (NU), severalengineering professors wondered the following, “With our engineering courses so full ofactivities, topics, and projects, how can we identify which of those elements have the greatestimpact on our students?” It was time for a more detailed reflection on all that had been put inplace in the first-year courses in order to identify which
beoperationalized in an EL program using a team-based experiential learning approach.Motivation for curricular innovation – The promise of experiential learning in ethicsA growing set of examples in engineering education literature describe new experiential learningapproaches for ethics instruction in engineering [12, 17 - 20]. Motivating this trend, scholars discusshow traditional approaches to ethics instruction have largely focused on retrospection and historicreview, often at the expense of other learning modes, such as experimentation and personalexperience [18, 19]. Those latter modes can be important toward building an ability in students tohandle “unfamiliar tensions” [18], a capacity essential for joining new work environments and indealing with
control help students become more integrated into the socialand academic culture of the university and to feel greater affinity for the institution” [4, p. 2].These preparatory courses lay a foundation to support the integration, and begin the process ofconnection.The implementation of college readiness programs continues to show solid results for theirtargeted deployments [5] [6] [7]. The challenge is that they are largely available to a small,targeted audience and are difficult to scale. The courses proposed herein strive to create acommon student knowledge and skills foundation through an unrestricted inclusive deploymentwith scaffolding available, as deemed necessary, for the student.Following are two sections with overviews of the material
focused on the effectiveness of a peertutoring and supplemental instruction program implemented in the College ofEngineering at Kansas State University, a Midwestern large land grant researchinstitution.Background and Need for the StudyIn order to increase the retention rates of freshmen and sophomores, the College ofEngineering developed and implemented a free tutoring program called ScholarsAssisting Scholars, SAS. SAS was implemented in 2005 as a part of an NSF STEMTalent Expansion Program grant addressing barriers and adversity encountered by firstyear students. As we planned this program, we found a need for research regarding bestpractices for training tutors and the types of assistance offered by tutors, such assupplemental instruction
Paper ID #25055Testing a Reflective Judgement Scale for Suitability with First-Year StudentReflective ResponsesMs. Natalie C.T. Van Tyne, Virginia Tech Natalie Van Tyne is an Associate Professor of Practice at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer- sity, where she teaches first year engineering design as a foundation courses for Virginia Tech’s under- graduate engineering degree programs. She holds bachelors and masters degrees from Rutgers University, Lehigh University and Colorado School of Mines, and studies best practices in pedagogy, reflective learn- ing and critical thinking as aids to enhanced student
programs.Integration of Maker Culture in an ET program Many researchers concluded that Maker Culture provides excellent learning opportunities for students2,6,11,16,17. It helps with cultivating lifelong learning28 as well. Large amount of presentations at ASEE Maker Sessions in ASEE Annual meetings are the clear evidence ofinterests among engineering major educators7,10,21,24,30. Many aspects of Maker Culture fit well with course projects for ET courses; however, as theauthors learned from their experience, it is challenging to successfully implement MakerCulture in ET courses. The incorporation of Maker Culture in educational institutions requirecareful planning and research31. Vossoughi et al 25 caution against the unprepared adoption ofMaker Culture
, approximately 80 applications were received and nine faculty selected.Faculty came from both domestic and international academic institutions, large state schoolsand small private schools, and a variety of disciplines. There were traditional aerospaceengineering faculty in disciplines that you would expect at Boeing, such as aeronautical,mechanical and electrical engineering, however, there were also other disciplines represented, suchas systems engineering. Part of the strength of the program for me was to see the “non-traditional” disciplines at Boeing and their importance to the organization. Boeing would dowell to advertise this fellowship to a broader audience to attract a stronger variety of disciplines. Apossibility is a mass mailing to targeted
large. This bimodal populationcreates a huge challenge for designing programming curriculum and instruction methods. Thetechniques presented here are all themed around employing peer learning inside and outside theclassroom. Peer learning has been shown to help both the peer leader and the peer learner1. Withsuch a wide range of abilities among the students, peer learning serves as a way to enhance thelearning environment for both modes of students.Three forms of research-based peer learning were implemented in the design of a MATLABprogramming course for mechanical engineering undergraduate students. This is a follow-upfrom the work presented previously on the backward course design which shaped thiscurriculum2. First, a peer learning program
Productivity. in ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036- 1183.: ERIC, 1991.[13] A. J. Magana, T. Amuah, S. Aggrawal, and D. A. Patel, “Teamwork dynamics in the context of large-size software development courses,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 57, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40594-023-00451-6.[14] L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, and L. D. Fink, Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching. Taylor & Francis, 2023.[15] P. Bahrami, Y. Kim, A. Jaiswal, D. Patel, S. Aggrawal, and A. J. Magana, “Information Technology Undergraduate Students’ Intercultural Value Orientations and Their Beliefs about the Influence of
very likely. It is not a good practice to admit students into a program and dismiss 16some of them later. It takes a lot of time, money, and other resources to run programs and theadmission. Here, the mentors can play a key role to assess whether a student is ready tosuccessfully participate in a program or the admission should be delayed. A student’s departurefrom a program may lead to a permanent departure from the STEM fields, which causes moredamage to our human resources.Fourth, we believe that each institution should make a genuine effort to diversify theirmathematics departments. It is not feasible to have a small number of URM students in aprogram where those students are isolated and
presented, received critique, then presented again. A written report was also required. Many of the research products were insightful, and all were presented with professional Powerpoint visuals. The critique and representation was awkward in some cases, and team grading presented distinct challenges. A modified form of “Signature Block”16 peer assessment was utilized, wherein non- contributors were given a grade of zero.5. The final project of the first course was a Robot construction and programming challenge using Lego Mindstorms Kits. The challenge was to build a robot that could push a heavy object, find and differentiate between two types of objects, and push two of the objects of interest out of the arena. Figure 3 shows one