funds of knowledge has beenused in STEM education literature by examining the following questions: 1) How is the funds of knowledge framework being utilized to understand math, science and engineering concepts at the secondary and post-secondary level? 2) What are implications for the use of the construct—funds of knowledge—in research related to a) first generation college students, in general, and b) first-generation college students in engineering?Study Methods and FindingsA systematic literature review is a methodology for “making sense of large bodies of information”and a way of contributing answers to questions “about what works and what does not” amongother types of questions (p. 2).17 Additionally, it is
listening to a verbal message. Mayer2 has defined 10 evidence-based principles forthe design of multimedia messages, which are included in Table 1.Michael Alley, an associate professor of engineering communications at Penn State Universityhas implemented some of Mayer’s concepts, among others, in the development of an alternativeuse of presentation slides, which he calls the “Assertion-Evidence Structure.”3 Critics ofPowerpoint presentations in general, but specifically the default structure of Powerpointpresentations, state that the typical bulleted structure oversimplifies material and reduces it to alist of bullet points that do not adequately convey the relationships between concepts and themessage that the speaker is trying to convey. Alley
to product/servicedevelopment led by design vs. research14. The co-creation activity that we used, proposed by the graduatestudent instructor, led students to collectively constructcomprehensive diagrams about innovation. Beforestudents came to the class session, each was tasked withchoosing one image that expressed his/her answer to thequestions: What is innovation today? How can design Figure 1: Co-creation student conceptcontribute to change? In groups, the students used mapwhiteboards and poster materials in the followingactivities:Stage 1: Each student wrote down his/her ideas anddefinition about innovation, identifying key words.Stage 2: Groups worked together with
Northwestern University, a MS in Human Factors Engineering from Tufts University, and a Doctorate in Ergonomics from Harvard University.Arpita Bhattacharya, University of Washington ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Integrating Theory and Practice into a Design Foundations Course Sourojit Ghosh, Arpita Bhattacharya, Sarah Coppola, University of Washington, SeattleIntroduction Engineering education scholars have emphasized the need for holistic, integratedengineering education that prepares future engineers for the complex sociotechnical systems(STS) in which they will work [1], [2]. Design courses such as Cornerstone or Capstone coursesprovide
, including: • Create 1 new STEM activity each semester. • Attend recruiting events. • Participate in one virtual Welcome Session during the summer.iv. STEM Tutoring: Persistence in STEM, a primary goal of our LLCs, is often correlated with succeeding in STEM courses. To make tutoring easier and more likely to happen, WiSE brings tutoring into the residential LLC spaces. While our student LLC mentors are successful STEM students who have taken STEM courses themselves, they are neither hired nor trained to provide academic tutoring. Instead, WiSE works with the Learning Center to provide in-residence tutoring services for STEM courses. Courses
to high level of performance for these questions. To address maintenance stage oflearning same type of questions were used as for acquisition and generalization, only that thequestions were not put right after the concepts were studied but later in the semester.The experience with the undergraduate students in the engineering technology circuits coursesuggests that students’ level of performance is higher during the acquisition phase of the learningprocess, when students are required to identify, define, or reproduce a concept taught ordiscussed during class session. Questions in this category were posted using Polleverywhereduring lectures right after new concepts were introduced, as practice exercises. Examples ofacquisition type questions
. Technical report, The Learning Partnership, January 2021. URL https://www.jointhepartnership.net/publications/coaching-teachers-of-exploring-computer-science-a- report-on-four-years-of-implementation/.[15] Hauwa Muibi, Brian Dorn, and Thomas Park. Teacher Perspectives on Web Design Instruction. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pages 231–236, Vilnius Lithuania, June 2015. ACM. ISBN 9781450334402. doi: 10.1145/2729094.2742606. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2729094.2742606.[16] Rebecca Mercuri, Nira Herrmann, and Jeffrey Popyack. Using HTML and JavaScript in introductory programming courses. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(1):176–180, March 1998. ISSN 0097-8418
. The explosion of the internet and access to information on the World Wide Web (WWW), or the web as it is also known, has changed the paradigm of conducting research. Gone are the days of searching the “stacks” of the old library as are the hours pouring through microfiche and microfilm. Today, simply sit down in front of a computer with your favorite web browser and you quickly have access to published media, videos, recorded classes, presentations, etc. In fact, according to Google, 1 billion searches are conducted every day through Google’s search engine9. Utilization of the web has simplified gaining access to research materials. No doubt everyone has utilized the web to find information, be it the price of the latest technical gadget or
, health, and welfare of the public, does engineering education equip practitioners to makeinformed judgments about what constitutes “health,” “safety,” and “welfare” in differentcontexts and for different publics, and how to best promote these ideals through the applicationof engineering expertise? Do engineering ethics education and professional codes of conductrender engineers competent in matters of the social good? Do engineering societies andassociations serve as effective guardians of the profession’s aspirational commitment?Scholars who have grappled with these questions point to important deficiencies: 1. Conventional engineering education places almost exclusive emphasis on technical knowledge. The material taught is routinely
mitigation, and identity or diversity, to building and implementing partner-ships, identifying sources of support and resistance, and creating action plans. Every session in-cludes time for learning, practice, and feedback from facilitators and participants. The workshopis designed to help individuals move along a path toward becoming journeyman change agents,through organized sessions, building community, targeted follow-up, and other support. Alt-hough the four subjects of this report were all participants in this workshop, they have also en-gaged in other organized and casual development experiences. One pursued management train-ing in the military, another participated in graduate student-focused general development experi-ences, another engaged
general struggles, situations, relationships,social interactions, and comments made by students.Data AnalysisThe data analysis process, illustrated in Fig. 1 and guided by Moustakas [11], used noematic andnoetic processes to understand intentionality. The steps included phenomenological reduction,imaginative variation, and synthesis of findings. For phenomenological reduction, the researcherrecorded and transcribed interviews, extracting horizons and transforming them into invariantconstituents categorized into periods before, during, and after the CE course. These wereclustered into meaning units to create individual and composite textural (noematic) descriptions,focusing on the "what" of the experience. Imaginative variation involved
inputs. The Bluetooth adaptor creates awireless serial port and the Android app retrieves the desired sensor information, formats thedata into a byte stream, and transmits it via the Bluetooth link. The app development is done inthe App Inventor platform, which is based on a visual programming environment and can bequickly learned. Students can easily develop basic, functional apps and create a customized I/Omodule that can be incorporated into microcontroller, digital systems, or embedded systemsprojects.1. Introduction1.1 Motivation The input devices of a computer system are peripherals to take user command, such asswitches and keypad, and sensors to measure environmental conditions, such a barometer and anaccelerometer. In the computer
experiencesprepared panelists for their current job and/or career, what challenges they faced in theirtransition from being a student to their careers, what they would have done differently knowingwhat they know now, and how they continue to keep their expertise and skills growing in thisconstantly changing and evolving field. As a follow-on activity, students were asked to find threejobs that are very different from each other that interest them and parse the job description andrequirements to identify technical expertise, skills, experiences, professional skills and personaltraits those job descriptions required. The following class discussion then grouped therequirements that each student had found under academic background, technical expertise,general
collaborative learning and reflecting on their experiences withinthe group. Second, a teaching assistant (TA) system is implemented. The project employs a “studentsteaching students” approach, selecting experienced participants from previous phases as TAs. Through agroup learning mechanism, TAs actively participate in creating learning community. The TA-to-studentratio is approximately 1:30, with online guidance for front-end design and offline guidance for SoCinternships. TAs provide key knowledge node guidance and encourage independent reflection. Accordingto the official website: “The TA team schedules weekly online meetings to hear progress reports fromeach student, with one minute allocated per student for targeted Q&A sessions.”The abstract
Paper ID #45465An Evaluation of Student Responses to a Fluid Mechanics Concept InventoryOzge Uyanik, University of South Florida Ozge Uyanik is a PhD candidate in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of South Florida, where she researches engineering education and develops microfluidic systems and surface acoustic wave-based devices using 3D printing and advanced microfabrication techniques. She holds a B.S. from Istanbul Technical University (Turkey), having completed a double major in mechanical engineering and meteorological engineering. Ozge was awarded the 2024 Student Research Award by USF
. Currently, he is serving as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on VLSI Systems, the ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, the IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I, and the Guest Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing for the special issue of Emerging Embedded and Cyber Physical System Security Challenges and Innovations (2016 and 2017). He was the lead Guest Editor for the IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinfor- matics and the IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing for special issues on security. He is currently serving as the technical committee member for a number of related conferences on embedded systems security and reliability
Page 26.1605.3teachers related to transportation in our region combined with seminar style discussions of howteachers’ experiences on these field trips related to STEM content standards. The programoverview for the 2014 Academy is shown in Figure 1. The participants also were engaged inshort work sessions to promote collaboration and inter-disciplinarily of lesson planning.Instruction on curriculum development and mini-lessons on effective instructional strategies forgenerating high levels of active student engagement related to STEM disciplines were woventhroughout the Academy.FIGURE 1 Learning Enhancement through Active Participation in Transportation Transportation Academy for Teachers July 15-17, 2014 Southeastern
integrated undergraduate building construction curriculum for the twenty-first century. J Constr Educ. 1996;1(1):34- 44. http://www.ascjournal.ascweb.org/journal/1996/no1/Vol. 1, No. 1.pdf#page=34.11. Rojas EM, Mukherjee A. General-Purpose Situational Simulation Environment for Construction Education. J Constr Eng Manag. 2005;131(3):319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:3(319).12. Felder RM, Brent R. Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. 1996:1-8. http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Resist.html. Page 26.982.12
of $600,000 each, were Page 26.1543.2received in succession. The first one, DUE-0728485, covered the period 2007-2013 (including ano-cost extension); we will refer to this as Grant #1. The second one, DUE-0965783, coveredthe period 2010-2013; we will refer to this as Grant #2. The vast majority of funds in both grantswere allocated to student scholarships, with roughly 10% allocated to administrative and studentsupport services, as required by NSF guidelines. These administrative and support funds wereused to fund many of the program activities described below.Populations. The program participants, referred to as S-STEM Scholars, were
trends should be pursued cautiously, as it can be very difficult topredict what topics should be considered “fundamental” and what will be “in-demand” 5 yearsfrom now.Challenge: An Evolving Accreditation LandscapeThe Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) is the world’s leadingaccreditation body for technical degree programs. To attain accreditation, a program first selectsa commission through which to apply (e.g. Engineering) and demonstrates compliance with thatcommission’s general criteria. In addition, programs must comply with any applicablediscipline-specific program criteria—as indicated by the title of the program.For the last decade, there was no program-specific criteria for “robotics engineering” so similarlytitled
present preliminary findings from two of the nine focus groups—one addressinglecture-based instruction and the other addressing active learning. Each session included fourengineering college students with ADHD, respectively, and we present demographic informationabout the participants in Appendix Table 2. In Appendix Table 1, we present sample quotes foreach student’s response to instructional practices.Students’ attitudes and feelingsStudents expressed mixed feelings towards lecture-based classes, often highlighting challengessuch as maintaining focus, staying accountable, and effectively absorbing content. Maria valuednote-taking and shorter, frequent lectures to help her stay interested but found extended sessionsoverwhelming. John noted how
degreein mechanical engineering while the other had worked in the construction field. Although neitherhad experience in engineering education methods, faculty members from a nearby engineeringcollege provided guidance. Before designing individual courses, the teachers generated twodocuments intended to form the foundation of all ensuring coursework. The first of thesedocuments, entitled the Academic Standards, focused on five key areas for student development:1) STEM career exploration, 2) collaborative teamwork skills, 3) STEM skills and knowledge, 4)open-ended hands-on design, and 5) communication skills. The second, called the Grade LevelExpectations, broadly outlined the learning outcomes for each of the program’s four years. Theseexpectations
existence (2003-present),along with students’ responses to SSI sessions in the past helped to shape the evaluation processfor the 2015 SSI. The 2015 SSI used a hacking-styled approach to engage students and allowthem to work with visiting faculty and professionals from underrepresented ethnic groups whoserved as “Mentor-coaches.” There were three groups: New/incoming students, continuingstudents, and the PP&P (Professors, postdocs, professionals). New/incoming graduate studentswere designated as Group 1 for the SSI, and all participants in Group 1 were presented with a listof five “Challenge Areas” under the umbrella title: “Mitigating Risks in the First Year- Eyes onthe Prize.” The Group 1 Challenge Areas included 1) Time management, 2
start-up ofhigher education in general and engineering education in particular.There are today eight public colleges of engineering in the Region (Table 1) inaddition to several, recently established, private and semi private colleges and/oruniversities that offer engineering programs. These eight public colleges have, sincetheir inception, been guided by advisory boards made up largely from facultymembers and administrators drawn from US colleges. Previously, the Grinter’sReport (15) and the Goals Report (16) have been used to guide the educational process.Recently, ABET Engineering Criteria 2000(17) has been the subject of seminars andworkshops, intended to shed light and assist engineering colleges in the Region inmaking use of the EC2000
ideas of design concepts, i.e., getting inputs from team members, leads to unique concepts that are not generated individual.7Few researchers have surveyed a large number of inventors and innovative companies tounderstand innovation. For example, Walsh and Nagaoka have considered the question “Whoinvents?” by surveying about 1900 Japanese and American innovators identified from theirpatents.8 Arora, Cohen, and Walsh have recently conducted a survey of American companies toidentify the sources of innovation (e.g., supplier, customer, internal lab, startups, etc.); they alsostudy whether patents have played a role in the innovation.92.2 Teaching innovationUniversity programs that teach innovation can be categorized as follows:1. Courses
fosters creativity and innovation. By engaging with long-termprojects, students contribute to meaningful research and development. Strachan et al. [1] advocate forthe integration of project-based learning, which equips students with the skills and knowledge to addresscomplex challenges. Bell et al. [3] emphasizes the ability of VIPs to bring together diverse perspectives,encouraging innovation through interdisciplinary collaboration. The collaborative, interdisciplinary natureof long-term experiential projects encourages students to generate tangible outcomes, such as researchfindings and professional presentations, thus reinforcing the link between research and education [2].3.4 Sustained Faculty Engagement and MentorshipThe VIP model fosters
electrical engineering.The second class (combination of ENG 1 and ENG2) is offered to non-engineeringstudents. Most of the students are primarily from the College of Design. The Department ofIndustrial Design has included this sequence in their curriculum to cover technical literacyrequirements, and are considered two parts of the same class from the Industrial Designcurriculum. The first is called “From Thoughts to Things” and the second “How Things Work”.The first term begins with how engineering works, the engineering process, and the criticalpoints of engineering technology, design, and methodology. The second class works on practicalissues of engineering and engineering basics of how things work. These classes cover aspects ofengineering and
exceptAnxiety have positive relationships with students’ behavior of using smartphones in classrooms.1. IntroductionOne of the main technologies that have dominated the classroom is the smartphones. Page 26.1224.2Smartphones are one of the most popular devices that allow the users to connect to the internet,check emails, connect to social medias, etc.. Due to these functionalities, smartphones have beenwidely used by new generations and college students. Many researchers are debating whetherusing technologies such as laptops help students to learn better. Although several studies havebeen done to show the impact of different technologies on students
offering did not critique the course during these data collection sessions.The fall 2014 course-wide end-of-semester, mixed-method group feedback session revealed 18areas identified by students as needing improvement; privately, at least two-thirds of the studentsagreed with 11 of those—more in line with what we find for engineering courses that studentsappreciate. And, the overwhelming feeling among students was more positive than the previousyear. The suggestions were generally small, easy-to-implement “tweaks” rather than overallcourse issues. An example of one “tweak,” and the suggestion with most private agreement(96%) among student participants, was that the online homework should provide explanationsfor wrong answers. This type of
find examples of EM in the classroom.Appendix BFor each of the following questions a Likert-scale was used: Not at all, Slightly, Somewhat,Moderately, Extremely.1. How confident are you in implementing activities that demonstrate student curiosity by: [Investigating trends]2. How confident are you in implementing activities that demonstrate student curiosity by: [Generating their own questions]3. How confident are you in implementing activities that demonstrate student curiosity by: [Challenging assumptions]4. How confident are you in implementing activities that demonstrate student curiosity by: [Investigating areas of their own choosing]5. How confident are you in implementing activities that demonstrate student