sociotechnical issue, leveragingfundamental circuits topics, and introducing students to potential subdisciplines in their field.Research PlanWith a cohort of graduate students, we will develop a series of new modules. We will pre-piloteach module at a small private institution (University of San Diego), pilot it at a large publicresearch institution (University of Michigan), and then scale it to other large circuits courses.Our research questions include#1 How can graduate students apply proven course design practices to effectively integratesociotechnical issues into an introduction to circuits course?#2 What is the impact of the modules on students’ sense of social responsibility and their adherenceto normative cultural beliefs? How do these impacts
the tenure process was concerned, and was therefore difficult tojustify.Among the respondents that tried S-L and stopped, most recognized the personal enjoyment orsatisfaction of implementing S-L practices and the positive impact it had on their students.Funding, faculty time and insufficient staff and teaching assistant support were the majorobstacles to sustaining S-L in their courses. One faculty member emphasized that it was notpossible to define sufficiently rigorous S-L projects in the context of the subject matter.Finally, among the respondents that continued to practice S-L, most highlighted the ability of S-L to enhance student experience and motivation and push students to confront real-world issues.The major issues identified were
. PresentationsAcademic Year FLCFLCs create connections for instructors from various but related disciplines to further theirunderstanding of pedagogical issues, meet faculty expectations for establishing community, andsupport multidisciplinary curricula6. STEM teaching is more effective and student achievementincreases when instructors are involved in FLCs7-8. The academic year FLC is scheduled to meetapproximately once a month for 90 minutes. As with the summer academy, meetings includetime for updates and discussions in addition to a relevant topical seminar. Seminar topics forboth academic year FLCs are presented in Table 2.Table 2: Academic Year FLC Professional Development Seminar Topics Month 2014 – 2015 Academic Year FLC 2015 – 2016
, and patience with textbooks and lectures haveevolved substantially in the last few decades.14 Finally, recent developments in learning sciencehave shown that engaging, authentic instructional experiences enhance student learning assummarized in the How People Learn framework.4Certainly, large-scale faculty development efforts will be necessary to accomplish these changes,but the current models for faculty development have had limited impact. The present studyexplores a new faculty development model that may meet the need for a sustainable, economical,effective approach to support ongoing efforts to advance engineering education. The modelbuilds on the existing face-to-face faculty development models, on the engaging community ofpractice
andEnvironmental, Mechanical, Biomedical, and Materials Science and Engineering. This paperpresents an overview of the implementation of a new framework for inclusive, strengths-basedcourse design standards that were developed by engineering faculty along with experts incurriculum and instruction.Traditionally, universal design standards emphasize aligning course objectives, learningexperiences and assessments, explaining course information clearly, and using varied andaccessible instructional materials. These universal design standards are adequate to providecourses that are accessible to all learners. However, to provide inclusive courses forneurodivergent students, additional standards are necessary to ensure that students can identifyand use their
disciplines [1, 2]. The primary goal of this NSF WIDERproject was to study the impact of discipline-based faculty learning community model forteaching professional development. The SIMPLE model, which is described in further detailbelow, provides a structure for ongoing faculty-led teaching development. Designed to beadaptable and require little in the way of infrastructure, the SIMPLE model supports faculty asthey learn about, implement, and revise evidence-based teaching strategies. Broadly speaking,these teaching strategies may be characterized as active, inquiry-based, and student/learner-centered. SIMPLE groups meet on a regular basis over at least one academic year to becomefamiliar with new teaching strategies and to receive support and
talked extensively about their need to learn these practices through efficient ways,which in some cases meant faculty wanted personalized support when making the transition toeffective teaching practices.Student ExperienceFaculty were also concerned about the student response to changes in their teaching practices.They felt that if students would truly learn more material, would learn it more deeply, and wouldbe more engaged in the material, then they would be motivated to change. However, faculty werenot convinced this was the case, and they feared that their attempts to adopt new practices wouldprompt negative feedback from students.TimeNot surprisingly, lack of time was discussed as a primary reason that faculty chose not toimplement new
appearance that makes studentsfeel welcome. Spaces that appeared too bare or “industrial” had the opposite effect, and as aresult, came across as inaccessible 2, 3.Reportedly, students felt anxiety about entering a space and not knowing where to go or what todo 3. An effective way to avoid this issue is to ensure that there is an appropriate amount ofsignage and accessible instruction for new attendees. This can be accomplished by way ofposters on the wall, standard operating procedures, and equipment instructions or informationavailable online or in the makerspace. Helpers and makerspace staff should be accessible,understandable, friendly, and knowledgeable as well 2, 8.Other factors affecting student perceptions of accessibility are the amount of
Page 26.309.11schematics in background reading before the tour, seeing the schematic on the concept inventorybetter indicates the importance of these concepts. Furthermore, by giving students the samepost-concept inventory, students were able to reflect on their learning gains.InterviewsThe external evaluator helped gain further insight into the effectiveness of the new inductiveteaching approach by observing the tours and laboratory sessions and by interviewing studentsand other key informants. Key informants included undergraduate and Master’s studentresearchers, current and former students, senior faculty personnel, as well as the externalinstructor and teaching assistant that tested the new course interventions.Interviews were conducted
equation, doing some simple calculus totake the integral.”4.2. Effortless manipulations“Normally the students know all the rules. The question is how fast can they apply them.”-Computer Science faculty memberFaculty are concerned with their student’s algebraic skills, even at a highly ranked engineeringprogram. This complaint fades away for instructors of third-year courses. Perhaps the interveningcourses instill algebraic fluency in students or have eliminated students that did not already havethese skills. Specifically, faculty are concerned with the speed at which students can performalgebraic manipulations. Faculty teaching later courses also want simple calculus calculations tobe fast and second nature, students “should be able to
and active learning, student success, and student diversity.Motivation for the ISE-2 Faculty Development ProgramThe transition to college can be difficult for students regardless of major. Between 25% and 30%of students do not return to college after their first year [1]. Half of the students who major inscience and engineering migrate to another major within the first two years of the program;women and URM students leave science and engineering at even higher rates [2], [3]. Thesetrends are especially concerning when contrasted with the expected job growth in engineeringand other STEM fields compared to other professions [4]. Yet the responsiveness within the fieldof engineering to increasing diversity and inclusion is noticeably slower than
. He earned his PhD in Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a focus in Engineering Education. His interests are centered around mentorship, mental health, and retention in STEM students and faculty. Additionally, he helps support the development of new engineering education scholars and researches quality in mixed methods research methodologies.Dr. Karin Jensen, University of Michigan Karin Jensen, Ph.D. (she/her) is an assistant professor in biomedical engineering and engineering education research at the University of Michigan. Her research interests include mental health and wellness, engineering student career pathways, and engagement of engineering faculty in engineering
had introduced. The second theme concerned how the participants expected theirstudents to respond to the introduction of SETI technologies and instructional methods. Thethird theme was about feedback and ideas, asking what participants liked about SETI, how aSETI community could be developed and sustained, and what could be done to strengthen thenext iteration of SETI.Several participants identified as their next steps organizing and testing the new resources,preparing kits for fall semester circuits and introductory courses, and practicing applications ofCamtasia, PDF Annotator and AutoCAD. Several participants also planned to spend part of thesummer experimenting with video production. Some participants spoke more about integratingexisting
(participant selection described in detail in following sections). In addition to the surveys developed by Martin, Stefl, and Slaton, we also collected pre-workshop assessment surveys where participants answered questions such as “How do you define STEM faculty development?” and “What do you see as the main issues or concerns surrounding STEM faculty development?” We used the participants’ responses to inform discussions throughout the workshop, and attendees participated in directed discussions about the three separate workshop threads in separate breakout session rooms. Before the workshop, we gave attendees the option to select which thread discussions they would prefer to
Page 24.1022.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Promoting the Adoption of Innovative Teaching Practices by Transportation Engineering Faculty in a WorkshopIntroductionThe National Transportation Curriculum Project (NTCP), a consortium of researchers fromfifteen colleges and universities, is concerned with the development, dissemination, andwidespread adoption of curricular materials and best practices in transportation engineeringeducation [1]. In 2012, the NTCP hosted a two-day Transportation Engineering EducationWorkshop (TEEW) to facilitate the collaborative development and adoption of active learningand conceptual-assessment exercises for the introduction to
response to identification of these systemic issues, in 2001 the National Science Foundationlaunched Institutional Transformation grants as a new initiative in the ADVANCE program.Research planning grants and career advancement grants supporting individual women werephased out, and greater emphasis was placed on systemic change within academic institutions[33]. From a review of 37 ADVANCE institutional transformation initiatives from 2001 to 2008,Morimoto and coauthors argued that creating equity in gendered organizations must go wellbeyond articulating policy, beyond attending to the needs of individuals, and beyond workingtoward balanced gender composition among the ranks of faculty, all of which they characterizedas surface-level work [5]. In
outreach events. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Convergent Learning from Divergent Perspectives: An Executive Summary of the Pilot StudyIntroductionScience communication is an important issue as our global society continues to grow [1] .Whilemost researchers are comfortable conveying their findings to their peers, especially within theirdiscipline, through publications and conference presentations, there is room for improvementwhen communicating scientific discovery to the general public. Communicating with the generalpublic requires knowledge of the audience and engagement techniques that are not alwaysneeded when faculty present to a room of peers. Additionally
Arizona State University. His research interests include social media, narrative storytelling, cyberlearn- ing, embodied mixed-media learning, affective computing, and instructional design. He holds a M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction from Arizona State University and is a former middle/high school English teacher. His work is steeped in a multi-disciplinary background including education, design, filmmaking, music, programming, sociology, literature and journalism. He is a member of ASU’s Advancing Next Generation Learning Environments (ANGLE) and Reflective Living research groups.Dr. Sandra Houston, Arizona State University Dr. Sandra Houston is a member of the Geotechnical Engineering faculty in the School of
Paper ID #22945Making a New Path: Lessons Learned During the ’Making the Data’ Phaseof our ProjectDr. Nadia N. Kellam, Arizona State University Dr. Nadia Kellam is Associate Professor in the Polytechnic School of the Ira A. Fulton Schools of En- gineering at Arizona State University (ASU). Prior to joining the Polytechnic School, Dr. Kellam was an Associate Professor at the University of Georgia (UGA). Dr. Kellam is an engineering education re- searcher and a mechanical engineer. In her research, Dr. Kellam is broadly interested in developing critical understandings of the culture of engineering education and
classroomincluding instructor attitudes about diversity, equity, and inclusion; barriers for implementation;and other concerns. One of the goals is to identify differences between faculty who would bewilling to take action to address these equity issues through implementing the ecological belongingintervention and those who would not be willing to do so. We will also provide an update on theresults of the intervention on student outcomes. Our findings can help inform strategies forinstitutional scaling and transformation and potential barriers for others interested in the uptake ofevidence-based classroom engineering education efforts.IntroductionSupported by a NSF IUSE: EDU Program, Institutional and Community Transformation trackgrant (NSF IUSE 2111114
average meeting. Two ongoingincubators and three communities of practice have been hosted so far.The participantsAcross the three institute cohorts, the ProQual Institute has enjoyed the participation of 48STEM faculty, averaging 16 participants per cohort. Recruitment for the institutes focused onminority-serving institutions in the southeast United States, but we also amplified recruitment atthe national level through ASEE listservs, NSF contacts, and word-of-mouth advertising fromearly participants. Participants were overwhelmingly women (n=37, 77%), included manyfaculty of color (n=21, 44%), and spanned 19 states and two other countries (Canada and Oman.)In terms of methods experience, 19 (40%) reported being new to research, 19 (40
the Classroom 8. Muddiest Points and Other Tech Tools; Facilitating Course InnovationDuring the second semester in the spring the implementation of innovation discussion sessionsoccurred in the disciplinary communities of practice (CoP) [7], [8]. The faculty from Cohort 1were polled to determine the topics of foremost interest and then six biweekly discussion sessionswere structured to include the most requested topics. These included the following topics, issues,and concerns. 1. Opportunities and Issues in Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Active Learning 2. Assessing Student-Centered Learning vs. Instructor-Centered Teaching 3. Implementation of Tech Tools and Impact of Summative and Formative Assessment 4
concerned with sci- ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning and participation among historically marginalized students of color. Her research focuses on the role of racialized experiences and biases in STEM educational and career attainment, problematizing traditional notions of academic achievement and what is mean to be successful yet marginalized, and STEM identity and identity development in high-achieving students of color. She is currently the PI on two studies funded by NSF, the first of which investigates the causes behind why African Americans remain one of the most underrepresented racial groups in engineering faculty positions. The second study is working toward the design of a holistic
Paper ID #5932Influence of S-STEM Funding: Challenges and SuccessesDr. Mo Ahmadian, Eastern New Mexico University Dr. Mo Ahmadian is a professor of Electronics Engineering Technology at Eastern New Mexico Univer- sity. He also serves as ABET/TAC program evaluator for Electronics and Computer Engineering Tech- nology programs. He received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Before starting Ph.D. work, he worked three years as a project engineer. Page 23.745.1
AC 2012-2982: TWO PREFERRED ACTIVITIES USING S-STEMDr. Mo Ahmadian, Eastern New Mexico University Mohamad H. Ahmadian is a professor of electronics engineering technology at Eastern New Mexico University. He also serves as ABET/TAC program evaluator for electronics and computer engineering technology programs. He received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Missouri, Columbia. Before starting his Ph.D. work, he worked three years as a project engineer. Tom Brown is a professor of computer science and the chair of the Mathematical Sciences Department at Eastern New Mexico University. He received his B.S. in mathematics education and M.S. in mathematics with an emphasis in
. Gu is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at New York Institute of Technology. Prior to join- ing the NYIT faculty, she was an Associate Professor of Health Informatics at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. She is a research associate of Structural Analysis of Biomedical Ontologies Center at New Jersey Institute of Technology. Dr. Gu’s research interests include controlled terminolo- gies, ontologies, object-oriented modeling, conceptual modeling, data mining, and medical informatics with an emphasis on controlled biomedical terminologies. Dr. Gu’s research has been supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH), the UMDNJ foundation, PDR network, and NYIT ISRC grants. She has
., Promoting academic resilience in multicultural America:Factors affecting student success. New York: Peter Lang, 2004.[9] E. E. Morales, “A Focus on Hope: Toward a More Comprehensive Theory of AcademicResiliency Among At-Risk Minority Students,” Journal of at-risk issues, vol.14, issue 1, pp. 23-32, 2008[10] Y.S. Lincoln and E. G. Guba, “Naturalistic inquiry,” Sage,1985.
support from A Scholarship Program to Increase Retention in Engineering (ASPIRE):Improving Work-Study-Life Balance. The goal of the program was to increase retention ofsophomore and junior engineering students who show academic promise but are at risk of notcompleting their studies due to financial concerns and/or life-work-study balance issues. Inaddition to financial support, ASPIRE provided scholarship recipients with opportunities toparticipate in activities that contribute to persistence such as tutoring, faculty mentoring,conferences, presentations and career planning workshops. Sixty-one students have beenawarded scholarships in this five-year period.This paper examines the effectiveness of ASPIRE to help students alleviate financial
Learning in EngineeringDr. Patti Wojahn, New Mexico State UniversityGermain Degardin, New Mexico State UniversityMuhammad Dawood, New Mexico State UniversityMelissa Guynn, New Mexico State UniversityRachel Boren, New Mexico State UniversityIntroduction Engineering programs often struggle to optimally support and retain promising students. Toattempt to address that issue at a Southwest HSI land-grant university, our interdisciplinary teamof researchers set out to study the impacts of putting learning and success more directly into thehands of students. We began exploring what we could learn from preparing first-yearengineering students to take more control of and responsibility for their learning and their growthas learners [1]. With faculty and
Paper ID #21260Lessons Learned from a NSF S-STEM Project in a Rural and Hispanic Serv-ing InstitutionDr. Ivan Lopez Hurtado, Northern New Mexico College IVAN LOPEZ HURTADO received his B.S. degree in Industrial Physics Engineering from Tec de Mon- terrey, Monterrey, Mexico, 1995. M.S. degree in Automation from Tec de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico, 1998 and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA in 2008. He is currently the Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs at Northern New Mexico College, Associate Professor of the College of Engineering and Technology, and