Paper ID #41276Professional Competency Development through Reflection (Work-in-Progress)Laurie Sutch, University of Michigan Laurie is an experienced administrator in higher education as a director and program manager, workshop presenter, and facilitator of interactive learning experiences. Currently in the College of Engineering Undergraduate Education office at the University of Michigan, she supervises Spire, a program designed to help students develop professional competencies such as teamwork, communication, etc. She has presented at a variety of conferences, and has published several articles on gameful competency
the primary focus is directing students toengage with the tool to reflect on their experiential learning activities such as project teams,study abroad or research so they can build a story bank of their growth and development toprepare for interviews or other employer interactions. In the business school, the tool isintegrated into the undergraduate curriculum, and students achieve different levels of eachcompetency through the courses they take, with some direct interaction with the tool. Lastly,public health has fully integrated the tool with a masters program, where students use the tool toexplore the pathways to different careers as they gain proficiency in various skills, and much ofwhat happens in the tool is automated through the
studyabroad programs on the transformative learning outcomes of the participants are related to theirpersonality attributes.Transformative Learning in Study AbroadStudy abroad programs are exemplars of high-impact experiential learning. In Kolb’sexperiential learning theory, they focused on the centrality of experience and reflecting on theexperience. Like Kolb, Mezirow [4] also emphasized learning through critical reflection andproposed the transformative learning theory rooted in constructivism. According to Mezirow,when a disorienting event challenges an individual’s deep-rooted beliefs and assumptions, theywould critically reflect on those assumptions, initiating the transformative learning process [4].Consequently, the individual gains
important.The interview protocol was designed to correspond with Experiential Learning Theory’s (ELT)learning cycle (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2009; D. A. Kolb, 1984). The learning cycle is composed offour parts: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and activeexperimentation. During the cycle an individual experiences an event (concrete experience),reflects on said experience (reflective observation), congeals said reflections into abstractconcepts (abstract conceptualization), and plans on using the concepts in future situations (activeexperimentation). The theory was selected to frame how/if students are learning professionalskills experientially through their participation in engineering project teams. Since project
profession. Previous research has explored the use of artifact elicitation as a qualitative researchmethod in engineering education, building on the principles of photo elicitation, where visualprompts are used to evoke more profound, reflective responses [1]. This method allows for morecomprehensive insights than traditional semi-structured interviews, connecting participants'creations to their personal experiences. Artifact elicitation, similar to informational interviews,enables students to connect their theoretical knowledge to real-world contexts. This approachcould provide a framework for understanding how student interactions, such as informationalinterviews, might elicit more profound reflections and personal insights. Biases
; Jenkins, 2000; Kolb & Kolb, 2005, 2022) for its emphasis of a cyclical learningprocess that recognizes individual learning styles (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). The theory structureslearning through a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstractconceptualization, and active experimentation (Healey & Jenkins, 2000). In engineeringeducation, this approach enhances understanding of complex concepts and promotes activelearning (Widiastuti & Budiyanto, 2018; Abdulwahed & Nagy, 2009). It has been successfullyimplemented in various contexts, including laboratory education (Abdulwahed & Nagy, 2009),design competitions (Gadola & Chindamo, 2019), and construction engineering courses (Lee etal., 2008). The theory
the diverse individuals.Throughout the summer, students complete weekly guided reflections, and before and after theprogram, complete a pre- and post-assessment.MethodologyThis research study used mixed methods to collect data throughout the NHERI REU SummerProgram for a five (5) year period, which included five different cohorts of student researchers.The data collection is designed to follow a case study that is bound by time as studentsparticipate in the program together, attend the same events virtually, and provide the sameweekly deliverables. Although students have different experiences and perceptions based onindividual interactions at each of their sites, they are immersed as part of the community ofundergraduate researchers for the
not be a necessary participant. It can be defined as “individual transformationresulting from reflection on direct experiences, leading to the development of new abstract and appliedskills in the learner” [19]. In 1984, based on the learning theories of John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and JeanPiaget, Kolb proposed a four-stage experiential learning cycle model (Figure 1): “concrete experience,reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.” This model clarified thefundamental process of experiential learning [20]. Kolb categorized these four stages into twofundamental dimensions: the comprehension dimension and the transformation dimension. Concreteexperience and abstract conceptualization belong to the comprehension
abilities to inform career decisions [10]. Strong evidence suggests the importance ofidentity formation through experiential education; however, there are many questions that stillremain unanswered about how engineering programs can help create pathways for students tomeaningfully participate and develop professional identity, especially at scale.While experiential learning and engineering identity formation are important to the collegeexperience, challenges remain for creating robust structures for students to reflect, conceptualize,and apply their learning. Kolb [13] recognized that the experiences themselves are not enough.His model describes a cyclical process that begins with a concrete experience, followed byreflection on that experience
fall internship, and all fourstudents persisted in their engineering major or minor coursework.Data Collection and Analysis We conducted four semi-structured interviews approximately one year after theyparticipated in the program. Each interview was conducted virtually and lasted approximatelyone hour. The protocol for the semi-structured interviews can be found Table 1.Table 1. Protocol Questions Target Information Interview Guiding Questions Program reflection Can you tell me a little about your experience with the program and overall, how you feel now about that semester? Reflection on Can you tell me what you have been doing in the months since coursework post
discussion, overarching trends were identified and students were asked to reflect again ontheir perceptions of KSAs and work-integrated learning. After the focus group, individualsurveys were disseminated to ask follow up questions to the participants. Thematic analysis was used to guide the data analysis and identify preliminary findings[15], [16]. The focus group and accompanying handouts were used to identify trends andtensions in students' perceptions before discussing them with their peers. The initial findings ofthis data analysis in the early-stages of the program will be used to guide future research andpractice in the work-integrated program.Preliminary Findings Through the focus group and preliminary analysis we saw that
, and personal goals as key constructs shaping their reflections. Byinvestigating these elements, the study seeks to gain insights into how co-op experiences impactstudents' confidence in their abilities, their career expectations, and the personal goals theyestablish and accomplish during these practical work experiences. The primary research questionwas: “How do engineering students participating in a co-op program navigate their careerinterests, decisions, and outcomes through the constructs of Social Cognitive Career Theory?”Theoretical FrameworkMany studies explore co-op and work placement learning using Social Cognitive Career Theory(SCCT) (Reisberg et al., 2012; Raelin et al., 2013; Raelin et al., 2014; Chukwuedo & Ementa,2022). SCCT
by Dewey (1937) asa cyclical learning model in the education process with four components: concrete experience,reflection, abstraction, and application [5].Experiential learning refers to the transformation of experiences into applied knowledge [6] witha deliberate importance placed on the reflexive nature of learning [7]. Kolb’s experientiallearning theory is a noted example of a commonly cited learning theory presented in theliterature that maintains humanistic roots [8]. Experiential learning theory not only includes thecognitive aspects of learning, but also addresses one’s subjective experiences [9], defininglearning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience”(Kolb, 1984, p. 41). This theory
student reflections (n = 4,238) collected by the cooperative education office ata large Midwest public university to identify substantive themes and form an interview protocolto explore the two constructs of interest. We used descriptive analyses with closed-ended responsesin the reflections and inductive coding with the open-ended responses. After extracting relevantinsights from the reflections, the next phase will employ a phenomenographic lens to pinpoint howcollege and cooperative education (co-op) experiences influence engineering students'professional identities and career goals. We plan to conduct interviews with approximately 15students. We expect that by identifying ways to better align team-based activities with real-worldteamwork
these five reflections were collected, ateam of six researchers reviewed the five reflections, using manual preliminary coding methods[10] to take notes of words, phrases, or ideas that emerged. The group then met together todiscuss their takeaways. This led to coding the findings into categorical themes of the roles alearning coach takes on to be successful. While these methods were fairly informal, this is afoundation for future research directions that will evaluate the approaches and outcomes of thelearning coach to student relationships in both qualitative and quantitative ways.ParticipantsSome demographic information relating to the five facilitators who provided written reflectionson their experience as learning coaches is reflected in
science calculations and design considerations. We hypothesize that theprocess of reflection and iteration inherent to hackathon competitions will strengthen theparticipant groups’ perceived EJ skills. Finally, engineering leadership (EL) skills relate to theleadership style(s) used by individuals to lead groups of engineers to achieve a common goal. Aneffective leader exercises influence at interpersonal, team, and organizational levels, whilesimultaneously building strong relationships. We hypothesize that in the absence of a well-structured project, the need to delegate tasks among team members and develop solutionsquickly will increase the perceived EL abilities of participant groups.To frame this study, we will use the Buck Institute of
Engineering at The Ohio State Universitywere asked to complete an anonymous survey about their experiences with the teams they havebeen a part of. The survey asks students about their background, role and level of involvementand their motivation to join the project. They were asked to reflect about their experience in theproject team (Figure 2). There were also questions about their perception on how well-supportedthey feel by team organization/leadership and faculty advisors (Figure 3). Students were asked toreflect on the impact of their involvement in the project on their social life, leisure time, andmental health (Figure 4). Additionally, they were asked questions about the outcomes of theirparticipation, their team’s performance at competitions
badgesoffer exciting opportunities beyond their traditional program of study [6]. Digital badges splitlearning into smaller units and are certified separately, allowing the student flexibility in whenand how far to further their skills.In addition to motivating learner engagement and achievement, digital badges can also be usedas a means of: 1. Supporting alternative forms of assessment, differing from standardized tests as the dominant form of knowledge assessment 2. Recognizing and credentialing learning, meeting the increasing workplace demands for evolving skills and competencies 3. Mapping learning pathways, scaffolding student exploration through a curriculum 4. Supporting self-reflection and planning, tracking what was
-wise compared to the Vanilla cohort, and ii) Scrum cohort performed markedly bettercompared to the Vanilla exactly in the test topics practiced using the above techniques.Interestingly, despite the objective gains, the Expected Learning Outcome (ELO) survey resultsindicate that the Scrum cohort was more critical about their abilities, including those achievedwhile practicing Scrum methodologies. While we do not have a conclusive explanation for thisphenomenon, we provide several plausible hypotheses for the underlying rationales for suchresults. These include a heightened students’ awareness of the challenges and their knowledgegaps due to Scrum’s reflective practices, cognitive load and time constraints, and reducedcoverage of some technical
Graduate education in engineering often requires graduate students to balance multipleroles that shape their academic and professional identities. Indeed, in addition to developing theirresearch skills, graduate students are often asked to assume teaching and mentorshipresponsibilities. These responsibilities are seen as opportunities that can significantly contribute tothe student’s personal and professional growth [1]. However, these roles are sometimes viewed assecondary when compared to their research within the academic environment, reflecting a broadertendency to prioritize the latter over teaching in STEM opportunities/programs [2]. This limitationhas been reported to hinder the development of pedagogical skills in graduate students [3
. Theprojects and the deep collaboration with the entrepreneurs make the experience authentic. Thestudents also see the relevance of their input towards their professional formation and the growthof the entrepreneurs and their startup companies. Another principle of experiential learning is thestudent’s ability to connect their experience to their professional formation through reflection [5,6].The students submit weekly reflection papers about what they have learned about innovation andentrepreneurship. They do this by reflecting on their interactions with industrial speakers andtheir experiences from their projects, as well as the book they read. The projects also makelearning active. This principle of experiential learning helps to “fully engage” [5
in thefollowing document provides transparent documentation of content modules and evaluation, andmethods of assessment. A reflective survey is also provided as part of the learner work in everydedicated micro badge in this pathway, allowing learners to rate and comment on the utility of thematerial and activities in developing the skill in question and evaluate perceived benefits in theirfuture work/employment.3. Pathway Requirements For each level of the micro-credential, a list of pathway requirements has been identifiedto assess student skills and knowledge. These requirements are presented in Table 1, Table 2, andTable 3 for Level 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Three categories of requirements have been identifiedas shown below
arevaluable resource, it is seldom that more than a fraction of the existing knowledge in a field isput into writing” (p. 141). Hence, this research will attempt seek information about what studentsare learning as it relates to the SLOs and attempt to categorize the perspectives of what studentsare learning during an internship within Bloom’s taxonomy.Students were asked within the student learning management system to reflect on several guidedquestions as they relate to the SLOs. The following list of questions were used to identify thedata as it related to the SLOs as identified within eight different modules. Each of the specificquestions are specific to Bloom’s taxonomy and follow a sequence of deeper learning as thestudents progress through
% %Status Generation Not reported 12% - 3% - - - - % R1 University 65% 57% 71% 57% 65% 48% 52% %CarnegieClassification Non-R1 35% 43% 29% 43% 35% 52% 48% % Universities1 NHERI did not host an REU program in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.2 Reflects one student who participated twice and one student who left the program withoutcompleting it.MentorsFaculty mentors were selected every year by each site and were dependent on the projectsassigned to NHERI REU students. Faculty mentors’ mentoring experiences ranged fromunexperienced to highly experienced mentors. Faculty mentors were early career faculty, pre-tenured
panel, and a diversity, equity,and inclusion (DEI) reflective session. The peer support is extended at the end of the REUexperience, as students come together at one of the network sites to present their research andposters via virtual and in-person means; they also tour the facilities to learn more about thevarious aspects of research outside of their assigned REU site. Overall, students show an increasein the research skills gained throughout the REU program. The students are monitoredlongitudinally to learn more about their career paths after they exit the REU program.BackgroundThere continues to be a great need to encourage and prepare a diverse group of undergraduateengineering students to persist in their degree programs and, ultimately
interests while participating in high-impact experiential learning. The threecollaborating institutions offering the STEM Research for Social Change REU program each havemissions and identities centered on using education for knowledge creation to advance social change forthe common good, and the REU’s theme reflects the collaborating institutions’ connected educationalmissions. The four programmatic objectives of the REU are to: ● improve understanding of science and engineering research that promotes social change; ● increase interest in and awareness of graduate school opportunities; ● increase personal networks and collaboration; and ● increase competence in STEM researchIn compliance with the 2023 Supreme Court
a specific topic. Each module has stated learningoutcomes aligned with the program mission and the training needs of the STEM outreachprograms. Each module also provides skill development under the Future Skills framework.Within the module, participants are provided with key information and theory, participate inshort active learning activities, and are provided with reflection opportunities to self-assess onwhat they’ve learned. Modules topics are as follows: 1. Organizational Introduction 2. Anti-Racism in STEM 3. Classroom Management 4. Communicating with Parents 5. Conflict Resolution 6. Future Skills 7. Gender Equity 8. Inclusion and Accessibility 9. Indigenous Worldviews 10. Managing Stress/Mental Health
engineering system. This is equivalent to 4 years of bachelor’s and 2.5 years ofmaster’s studies in the Chinese higher education system. During the undergraduate(preparatory) stage, students pursue courses in basic sciences and humanities, with intensivetraining in mathematics and physics, reflecting a typical feature of French engineeringeducation (Lemaître, 2017). In the master's (engineering) stage, students engage in generaland interdisciplinary engineering studies and specialize in an area of study in which they willcomplete a master's thesis.Figure 1. SFEP curriculum structureThe WIL program at SFEP includes three internships designed to develop professionalcompetences in a progressive manner. These include a one-month ‘observation internship
: 10.21153/jtlge2019vol10no1art792.[5] E. M. Aucejo, J. French, M. P. Ugalde Araya, and B. Zafar, "The impact of COVID- 19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey," Journal of Public Economics, vol. 191, p. 104271, 2020/11/01/ 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104271.[6] F. Wu and T. S. Teets, "Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Student Engagement in a General Chemistry Course," Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 98, no. 12, pp. 3633-3642, 2021/12/14 2021, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00665.[7] S. M. King, "Approaches to Promoting Student Engagement in Organic Chemistry Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights and Reflections," Journal of Chemical Education
vacuum evaporator system with the old students are asked to fully completethe laboratory exercise from data collection through lab report submission. The graded outcomesof the submitted lab reports are compared with a sample of those from previous semesters todetermine any statistically significant variance between the fulfillment of learning objectives.Second, to determine perceptions of the student-built nature of the apparatus, food sciencestudents complete surveys that provide self-reported reflections about their experience during themock laboratory assignment. Students are asked to compare the effectiveness of the apparatus(ease-of-use, quality of measurement devices, etc.) to previous laboratory experiments they haveperformed. Students