Collection

2016 Spring ASEE Middle Atlantic Section Conference

Authors

Ralph C. Tillinghast; Edward A. Petersen

Establishing a Balanced Organizational Structure for Large STEM Outreach Programs: Adopting the 10, 20, 30, 40 Rule Ralph C. Tillinghast and COL (Ret) Edward A. Petersen ralph.c.tillinghast.civ@mail.mil, edward.a.petersen.ctr@mail.milAbstract - Developing, operating and maintaining a large STEM outreach organization can be adifficult task due to the variety of programs, number of outreach professionals involved andfrequency of outreach events. This paper looks to document an established STEM outreachprovider that has been in operation for more than 10 years and has provided pre-K throughgraduate school outreach, training and consulting. A review of the different STEM

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Assessment

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jenell Wilmot, University of Texas, Austin; Nina Kamath Telang, University of Texas, Austin

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering from the Uni- versity of Notre Dame in 1992 and 1995 respectively. Her teaching interests are in the area of circuits and devices, computing, and logic design. Dr. Telang works closely with success programs for freshman engineering students. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017   Assessment of Supplemental Instruction Programming on First Year Academic SuccessAbstractDuring the 2015-2016 academic year, the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE)Department and the Sanger Learning Center at the University of Texas at Austin collaborated tobring

Conference Session

Administering First-Year Programs

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Philip Parker, University of Wisconsin, Platteville

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

was formed in response to this and countered with arevised course. The programs that had threatened to drop the course adopted a “wait and see”attitude. If the modified course represented a significant improvement over the old course, theseprograms would continue to require the course. This paper describes the modified course and presents preliminary assessment results thataddress the question: have the modifications worked? That is, does the revised course (hereafterreferred to as the “new course”) meet its objectives better than the original course (“oldcourse”)?Background – The Old Course The old course was created for the Fall 2004 semester. It had a prerequisite of GeneralEngineering 1000 - Engineering Success Skills and

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division Technical Session 4B: Assessing Student Motivation and Student Success

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Anne Dudek Ronan P.E., New York University; Jack Bringardner, New York University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Civil and Urban Engineering department. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Assessing Gender Differences between Student Motivations for Studying EngineeringAbstractThis research paper investigates what motivates students to major in engineering, and how themotives differ between men and women. It aims to address curriculum planning in first-yearengineering programs to improve retention and diversity. Previous research has identified coursepractices – such as team-based projects – that have positively impacted engagement of women inengineering. Understanding the motivations for students to choose engineering can connect thereasons why certain curricular

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Monday Potpourri

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Amelia Chesley, Purdue University; Nathan Mentzer, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering); Dawn Laux, Purdue Polytechnic Institute; Tejasvi Parupudi, Purdue University; Asefeh Kardgar, Purdue Polytechnic Institute, West Lafayette; Sarah Knapp, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Graphics Technology at Purdue polytechnic Institute, West Lafayette.Sarah Knapp, Purdue University Master of Architecture, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA PhD Candidate, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Assessing the Impact of an Interdisciplinary First-Year Experience ProgramAbstractThis research paper builds upon an ongoing exploration of a large-scale, interdisciplinary courseintegration for first-year Technology majors. Our research begins to show that the program ismaking measurable differences to students’ learning, engagement, and sense of community.Administrators and instructors from 2 colleges within the university collaborated to

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Assessment

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Brittany Ann Kos, University of Colorado, Boulder; Sarah Miller, University of Colorado, Boulder

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

declared an engineering major but had intentions to transfer to anengineering major the following spring semester. This was a 1-credit hour, online and in-personhybrid class, technologically managed by a Learning Management Software (LMS).Over 700 students enrolled in the course, and our instructional team consisted of one Instructor,one graduate TA, and two undergraduate TAs. This paper reports evidence-based practice oftwo assessment methods, Divide-and-Conquer and Grade-a-thons, that we used to successfullyevaluate a large-enrollment course with small grading staff. The coursework was divided intotwo types of assignments: weekly homework and a final report.The design of the course was based on content that had been previously implemented at

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division - Visualization and Mathematics

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kristen L. Sanford Bernhardt P.E., Lafayette College; Mary Roth P.E., Lafayette College

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs, Mathematics

Paper ID #22569Using Concept Maps to Assess Student Learning in a Multi-Section Introduc-tion to Engineering CourseDr. Kristen L. Sanford Bernhardt P.E., Lafayette College Dr. Kristen Sanford Bernhardt is chair of the Engineering Studies program and associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lafayette College. Her expertise is in sustainable civil infrastructure management and transportation systems. She teaches a variety of courses including sustainability of built systems, transportation systems, transportation planning, civil infrastructure management, engineering economics, and Lafayette’s

Conference Session

Design Tools and Skill Development

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

William H. Guilford, University of Virginia

Tagged Divisions

Design in Engineering Education

Paper ID #18221A Skills-focused Approach to Teaching Design Fundamentals to Large Num-bers of Students and Its Effect on Engineering Design Self-efficacyDr. William H. Guilford, University of Virginia Will Guilford is an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia. He is also the Undergraduate Program Director for Biomedical Engineering, and the Director of Educational Innovation in the School of Engineering. He received his B.S. in Biology and Chemistry from St. Francis College in Ft. Wayne, Indiana and his Ph.D. in Physiology from the University of Arizona. Will did his postdoctoral

Conference Session

Design Tools and Methodology I

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mary Kathryn Thompson, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology; Beunguk Ahn, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

Tagged Divisions

Design in Engineering Education

paper-based rubrics, it is also shown that small detailscan interfere with usability and thus user satisfaction and that compatibility with mobile devicesis a necessary, but still unaddressed, requirement.IntroductionThe logistical problems associated with distributing, collecting, grading, and returningassignments and the difficulties in ensuring fairness and consistency in grading tend to increasenon-linearly with the number of students enrolled in a class. This is especially true in project-based design courses where evaluation is subjective, deliverables are team-based, and thephilosophies and expectations of course faculty members may vary substantially.Online course management programs like Blackboard1 and Moodle2 can be very helpful in

Collection

2014 ASEE Zone 4 Conference

Authors

Sukhmander Singh

359 An Assessment of ABET’s Assessment Process Sukhmander Singh Santa Clara UniversityAbstractIn the U.S.A., accreditation of engineering schools by ABET has for years been centered on theassessment of the program of the studies and the educational objectives. Much has been writtenon the methodology for assessment. The emphasis has been on what can be measured. However,some of the most important aspects of education for example, creativity and innovative thinking,which cannot be measured, have been ignored. Enormous amounts of effort in the

Conference Session

Continuous Improvement & Assessment of ET Programs

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Timothy Skvarenina, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Technology

and Assessing ABET “Soft Skills” in the Technical CurriculumAbstractTAC-ABET accreditation requires that each program develop program outcomes that embraceABET criteria 2a to k. Several of those, such as diversity, internationalization, and ethics, areoften referred to as the soft skills. Generally students exposure to these items is through theirelective (or required) courses in the humanities and social sciences. However, ABETaccreditation also requires that the achievement of the outcomes be assessed and evaluated.Obtaining direct evidence of achievement of the outcomes by the students can be problematicalas the other departments may not be doing assessment. Even if they are, the technology studentsin a humanities

Collection

2012 ASEE Midwest Section Conference

Authors

Darrin S. Muggli; Brian M. Tande

, and other active learning activities frequently employed by engineering faculty. This aspect of the model addresses the difficulty of incorporating active learning in distance classes24-26. Students will not be isolated. They will form study groups and participate in on-site engineering student societies (BC Engineering Club, AIChE, ASCE, IEEE, and ASME). Students receive the well-known benefits of personal attention from a small college with small-class sizes. Because of the large number of supporting courses in the curricula, only one-fourth of the courses required for the dual-degree programs will be distance courses. The 75% of the courses in the engineering curricula that are not

Conference Session

Assessment of Community Engagement

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Angela R Bielefeldt, University of Colorado Boulder; Kurt Paterson P.E., Michigan Technological University; Chris Swan, Tufts University; Olga Pierrakos, James Madison University; David O Kazmer, University of Massachusetts, Lowell; Annie Soisson, Tufts University

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

create“blueprints” to examine and then build or revise their LTS course or program (Figure 3). Theblueprint activity occurred after the spectra activity, and occurred in parallel with a number ofworksheet activities that were generally conducted in small groups. The goal of the blueprintwas to help each individual concisely and thoroughly consider important components of theirLTS program. The content of each blueprint is summarized in Figure 5 below. Each participantwas given a large “blank” blueprint, that contained initial questions for reflection and someexamples, as shown in Figure 5. The content of each stage of the blueprint process wascompleted by participants for their particular LTS program over the two days of the workshopand then

Conference Session

First-year Programs Division Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ghada Salama, Ph.D., Texas A&M University, Qatar; Beena Ahmed, Texas A&M University at Qatar

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

complicating the situation. Furthermore as Qatar is a small country with limitedemployers, students realize that grievances can be continued into the workplace, if by chancethey or their family members end up working at the same company.Students also struggled in correctly using the provided forms to accurately reflect individualcontributions. The instructors asked the students to provide multiple assessments not only at theend of the project but also during it. This provided the students with the opportunity tofamiliarize themselves with the peer evaluation process. These results were analyzed and used inevaluating individual student performance. The peer evaluations were able to provide asomewhat better picture of the “inside story” on student

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Assessment in the First Year

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Abigail T. Stephan, Clemson University; Elizabeth Anne Stephan, Clemson University; Laurel Whisler, Clemson University; Andrew I. Neptune, Clemson University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

the most important information related to their topic.However, like Slidedocs [7], students are encouraged to go beyond what is typically consideredPowerPoint formatting (i.e., incomplete sentences as large, bulleted text) and include sufficientdetail on each slide through well-designed, aesthetic formatting.Students present the topics in a modified “SpeedGeek” format [8]. In the adapted format,students have two to three minutes to succinctly present the two slides they have prepared.Presentations occur in rotating pairs or small groups, allowing each student to hear six to eightpresentations about various topics during the class period. Following the presentations, studentsreflect (Appendix C) on the two presentations they found had the

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division Technical Session 5B: Work-In-Progress: 5 Minute Postcard Session II

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Anita Vila-Parrish, North Carolina State University; Tameshia Ballard Baldwin, North Carolina State University; Lina Battestilli, North Carolina State University; Hailey Queen, North Carolina State University; Jessica Young Schmidt; Susan Carson, North Carolina State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

. We also are able toobserve increasing trends in the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (described in the assessmentsection), and in some cases, large, statistically significant increases over one semester (Carson2015a).The second year (Fall 2016 to Spring 2016) of the TH!NK initiative is focused on first year courses,with an increased emphasis on first year engineering courses. Four faculty, two from the computerscience department and two from the FYE program, are taking part in this second iteration of theinitiative, resulting in substantial changes to the way they teach and assess their students. Duringthe planning process in the summer 2015, it became evident that while these courses offeredopportunities for students to work on projects

Conference Session

Program-Level Assessments for Multidisciplinary Areas

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mary Katherine Watson, The Citadel; Elise Barrella P.E., James Madison University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Multidisciplinary Engineering

undergraduateengineering education to include sustainability content in order to equip students to engage insustainable design. Indeed, ABET requires that engineering programs prepare students toconsider sustainability constraints during design. Furthermore, accreditation of civil engineeringprograms by ABET now requires documentation that students more stringently includesustainability principles in the design process. To quantify the effectiveness of educationalinterventions aimed at developing sustainability-conscious engineers, appropriate assessmentmethods and tools are needed. Due to the broad, ill-defined, and often subjective nature ofsustainability, assessment of related knowledge and design skills has proven challenging formany engineering educators. A

Conference Session

Program Level Assessment

Collection

2005 Annual Conference

Authors

Peter Young

of a student workspace that supports design-build-test educationexperiences requires consideration of a large number of factors – such as ownership,functionality, staff competence, costs, safety, security, sustainability and so on - that differ fromthose in classical student workspaces. A set of CDIO workspaces also needs to be designed Page 10.400.1holistically with the entire curriculum in view rather than an individual course or subject. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering EducationHowever

Conference Session

Assessing Entrepreneurship Programs

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jeffrey Blessing, Milwaukee School of Engineering; John D. Gassert, Milwaukee School of Engineering; Lawrence J. Schmedeman, Milwaukee School of Engineering; Larry Fennigkoh, Milwaukee School of Engineering

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee in 1981. He is a member of the American Society of Engineering Educators (Entrepreneurship Division), the Association for Computing Machinery, and the IEEE Computer Society. Dr. Blessing has served as a consultant to major corporations and is the author of many publications in the areas of algorithms, artificial intelligence, networks and computer systems. Prior to his academic career, has worked for three Fortune 500 companies and has owned and operated two small businesses.John D. Gassert, Milwaukee School of Engineering JOHN D. GASSERT, Ph.D., P.E. John D. Gassert is currently a Professor and Biomedical Engineering Program Director at

Conference Session

Program Level Assessment

Collection

2005 Annual Conference

Authors

Linda Strauss; Patrick Terenzini

, resource, faculty, and facilities standards toward a new focus on student learningoutcomes.1,2 The new standards, called Engineering Criteria 2000: Criteria for AccreditingPrograms in Engineering in the United States,2 emphasized 11 specific learning outcomes andthe assessment of program achievement on those outcomes. The new criteria maintained theprevious standards’ emphasis on the development of students’ mathematical, scientific, andtechnical knowledge, but the new criteria also emphasized developing other professional skills,such as solving unstructured problems, communication, and teamwork skills. Programs are nowrequired to present evidence of student achievement in each of 11 learning outcome areasspecified in Criterion 3.a-k.2

Conference Session

Course/Program Assessment

Collection

2004 Annual Conference

Authors

James Higley; Jana Whittington; Joy Colwell

, looks at specific assessment measures, investigates issues inassessment such as small class sizes or classes taught online, examines statistical and anecdotalinformation to support assessment, and then discusses methods of presenting assessment data.Introduction and DefinitionsWith education now directed toward customer- or constituent-focused programs the need forcontinuous improvement grows more important. In order to be responsive to students, businessand industry, academia must assess the needs of those groups, meet them, and continuouslyimprove. One of the key factors in a continuous improvement (CI) program is assessment.There are two basic types of assessment, formative and summative. Formative assessments tell“where we are now”; what do

Conference Session

Program Level Assessment

Collection

2005 Annual Conference

Authors

Lawrence Feick; Larry Shuman; Katherine Thomes; Bopaya Bidanda

assessment of the program andaddress educational research questions that have emerged as the result of such a program.The Need For An International Focus For Engineering EducationIn commenting on ABET’s newly adopted criteria (EC-2000), Prados noted that the majordrivers had included the country’s shift from defense to commercial competition with a resultant Page 10.1289.1* This research was sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation, Grant number 0431355; “GOALI:Offshoring - The New Challenge for Engineering Educators.” “Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition

Conference Session

Course/Program Assessment

Collection

2004 Annual Conference

Authors

David Cottrell

several days and featured both large lecture-type instruction and small group interactive sessions. The seminars proved highlyeffective in presenting the overall concepts encompassed by TC2K. However, the valueof the seminars was found not in the theoretical discussions of continuous improvementbut rather in the “hands on” training that served to equip the faculty with tools toimplement the tenets of the TC2K. Seminar participants examined and simulated variousmethodologies for developing appropriate program objectives and outcomes, matched awide variety of assessment techniques to hypothetical venues, and practiced iterativeresponse cycles by performing outcome evaluations followed by hypothesizing specificactions to correct identified

Conference Session

Programming Education 2

Collection

2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Robert Scott Pierce P.E., Western Carolina University; Chaitanya Borra, Western Carolina University

Tagged Divisions

Computers in Education Division (COED)

. Thus, the“Student Self-Assessment” columns of Table 2 are the students’ own assessment of theirachievement, normalized to a percentage. This self-grading approach has been well-received bystudents; it is frequently cited as one of the best aspects of the class in student evaluations of thecourse.To ensure that the student self-grading was an accurate reflection of their actual achievement, theauthors re-assessed a large sample of the homework problems. The results of this re-assessmentare included in Table 2. Table 2: Skills Assessed via Student Self-Grading of Homework ProblemsTable 3 presents assessment by the authors of skills that were evaluated as part of an in-classexam. The problems were short programming assignments that

Conference Session

Pre-College Engineering Education Focused on Female Students

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jeanna R. Wieselmann, University of Minnesota; Emily Anna Dare, Florida International University; Gillian Roehrig, University of Minnesota; Elizabeth Ring-Whalen, St. Catherine University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Pre-College Engineering Education

], which is often thecase in engineering design tasks.Despite the centrality of teamwork to integrated STEM and the high potential of engineeringdesign activities within small groups, little is known about how students at the middle schoollevel participate in small group engineering activities [23], [24]. Investigations of small groupinteractions in engineering tend to focus on the undergraduate level [25], [26]. Schnittka andSchnittka [27] explored small group gender dynamics in a design-based afterschool program formiddle school students; however, their work was in a rural, primarily White setting, includedcooperative group roles within self-selected groups, and has not yet been extended to formalmiddle school classroom instruction of

Conference Session

Tricks of the Trade I

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Aly Tawfik, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Janis Terpenny, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Richard Goff, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

AC 2008-1766: SMALL INTERVENTIONS, BIG IMPACTS: HOWMODIFICATION OF DELIVERY PROCESS OF IN-CLASS ACTIVITIES FORFRESHMEN CAN DRAMATICALLY IMPROVE LEARNINGAly Tawfik, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Aly Tawfik is the VTSTA President and a Graduate Teaching Fellow in the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech. He is a doctoral student in the Charles E. Via, Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. His research is in the area of transportation systems. He is currently a workshop leader for freshmen courses at Virginia Tech.Janis Terpenny, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Janis Terpenny is an Associate Professor in Engineering Education and Mechanical

Conference Session

Effective Methods for Recruiting Women to Engineering

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Donna Milgram, Institute for Women in Trades, Technology and Science (IWITTS); Daniella Severs, Institute for Women in Trades, Technology and Science (IWITTS)

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

effectiveness to the Committee forGovernment Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Performance Assessment, where it has alsobeen very well received. Project outcomes show that colleges that proactively recruit women intotheir technology programs will show a significant increase in the percentage of women studentsin those programs in a little over a year. Of the four community colleges participating in theProject’s first cohort, the two sites that implemented recruitment strategies within recommendedtimelines experienced a significant increase in women in targeted programs: City College of SanFrancisco’s (CCSF) Computer Networking and Information Technology (CNIT) program wentfrom 18% to 30% female students and San Diego Mesa College’s Geographic

Conference Session

Assessing URM Programs Targeting the K-16 Continuum

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Denise Hum, Cañada College; Anna Marbella Camacho, Cañada College

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Minorities in Engineering

differences in the program outcomes forminority and non-minority students. Comparisons will be based on student retention and successrates in subsequent math courses, pre- and post-program math self-efficacy survey, and surveysthat assess satisfaction with the program and student perception and knowledge of resources andskills needed for academic success.1. IntroductionWith the increasing demand for a skilled and technically savvy workforce in the United States,addressing retention problems in the first two years of college is a promising and cost-effectivestrategy to address this need. A recent Committee on STEM Education National Science andTechnology Council report Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics(STEM) Education 5-Year

Conference Session

Assessment of Entrepreneurship Programs

Collection

2003 Annual Conference

Authors

Harvey Wolfe

areproductive.2. Lack of background: Many engineering students have the ability to innovate, buthave no background in finance, marketing, sales, management, etc. The challenge is todevelop ways of presenting material for which most students have no background in amanner that they can absorb and use.3. Need for personal attention: Teams need individual guidance. The challenge is todesign the course such that students can get the personal attention they need withoutsacrificing the large body of knowledge that they must learn to be effective entrepreneurs.4. Individuals who are incompatible with the team: The challenge is to find a way ofenabling non-productive individuals to continue in the course without stifling theentrepreneurial spirit and commitment

Conference Session

Assessment of Engineering Leadership Skills

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mike Klassen, Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering, University of Toronto; Doug Reeve, University of Toronto; Cindy Rottmann, University of Toronto; Robin Sacks, University of Toronto; Annie Elisabeth Simpson, Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering, University of Toronto; Amy Huynh, Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering, University of Totonto

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Leadership Development Division

auseful starting point for this study. Both Froyd and Graham sought to evaluate programeffectiveness with the end goal of large-scale educational improvement. However, theyeach interpret the diversity of program structure and pedagogy differently – on the onehand as demonstrating attempts at reform that are not yet effective; and on the other handas hope for building a larger coalition of contextually relevant initiatives. Our paper addsto the ongoing conversation about developments in engineering education by analyzingcore differences and similarities across engineering leadership programs in a holistic way.Recent work in the field has more clearly defined engineering leadership asprofessionally relevant forms of influence8 and has also begun to