IntroductionResearch shows that cognitive functions are crucial components of mental processes and play acrucial role in our ability to perform a variety of tasks (e.g., [1], [2], [3]). In computer-aided design,cognitive functions such as perception, retention, visuospatial skills, etc. are relevant to using 2Ddrawings and 3D models in virtual reality (VR) environments. For example, the student mustrecognize and interpret a three-dimensional model from its orthogonal two-dimensionalrepresentations on a blueprint. Additionally, they must be able to store and recall information,which is essential in remembering prominent features of designs [4], which, in return, developsthe ability to recognize objects and identify their features based on visual information
-progress paper focuses onhow a learning experience in augmented reality can help students gain the required skills neededfor industry.To date, academia has tried to help students develop strong technical skills by incorporatingdifferent analytical and problem-solving skills into the curriculum. As a result, academia hasintroduced different learning techniques to better prepare students for work after graduation. Onesuch technique is authentic learning with the use of augmented reality. Augmented reality (AR)is a technology that blends computer-generated elements with live video in real-time [1]. Virtual(computer-generated) objects appear to coexist in the same space as the real world are producedby the AR system. While many academics go beyond
learning. AI is proving to be an effective tool for educators teaching anywhere from K-12 [1] or in sec-ondary education [2] to enhance teaching and provide students with personalized learning experi-ences. State-of-the-art AI technologies have been able to analyze vast amounts of data to identifypatterns, adapt to student needs, and provide real-time feedback with little up-front implementa-tion costs. As such, it has been shown that this tailored instruction and support to each studentcan improve their learning outcomes [3], [4]. Moreover, AI has been used to automate routinetasks such as grading, assessment, and administrative duties, freeing up educators’ time to focuson higher-level tasks. In this way, AI has been the catalyst in a
limitations of the VR system; they also identified variables to consider for thedesign of future design observation tools. Overall, participants suggested that VR may be mostvaluable as a complementary tool to other training formats.1. IntroductionObservation is an essential method used during human-focused engineering design approaches.Observations allow engineering designers to collect rich data on design problem environments andstakeholder behaviors in ways that are not always possible with other methods, as well as allow for thetriangulation of data across methods [1]. Multiple tools and strategies exist to support quality data tobe gained from observations. However, support for the development of skills necessary for effectivedesign-focused
lightweight Augmented Reality display. In order to facilitate captioning servicesin areas with limited network connectivity, whisper.cpp, a derivative of OpenAI’s Whisperproject, was also incorporated into the application. Links to the open source project are includedso that other educators may adopt this inclusive practice. Some accessibility-related opportunitiesthat could be used as motivating design projects for engineering students are described.1. Introduction:Live-captioning with augmented reality (AR) headsets is an effective and promisingcommunication tool for students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) [1]. Compared to basiclive-captioning on a separate display, which causes information gaps for DHH students [2]resulting in lower
entering first-yearcollege students enrolled in the Research, Academics, and Mentoring Pathways (RAMP) six-week engineering summer bridge program at University of Massachusetts Lowell. Theworkshops incorporated activities designed to create an environment fostering respect,belonging, and acceptance to make teamwork more inclusive and effective.Each workshop was based on collaborative learning and used a broad range of strategies toengage students as active participants in learning about diversity, equity, and inclusion within thecontext of teamwork. To develop the workshops, the facilitators aligned the activities with keythemes from chapters in the book From Athletics to Engineering: 8 Ways to Support Diversity,Equity, and Inclusion for All [1
. Christopher P. Pung P.E., Grand Valley State University Dr. Pung has interests in experiential learning, design processes and student teams. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Evaluating ABET Student Outcome (3) in a Multidisciplinary Capstone Project SequenceAbstractIn 2017, ABET published a revised list of student outcomes detailed under ABET GeneralCriterion 3, which replaced outcomes (a) through (k) with outcomes (1) through (7). The revisedstudent outcomes place greater emphasis on measuring students’ ability to consider a wide rangeof factors in engineering situations and to be able to communicate and work with a wider range ofstakeholders. Outcome (3) is
recommendations for enhancing thementors’ effectiveness. Overall, the results indicate that the mentors positively supported studentlearning and enhanced their success in their first-year design course.Review of LiteratureStudy Framework: Supporting Student Development. We framed our research by embracingChickering and Reisser's [1] seven-vector student development model. The model aligns wellwith our focus on students working in teams, developing a sense of belonging, increasing theirconfidence for learning, and gaining a professional identity. The seven vectors are developingprofessional relationships, enhancing personal competence, monitoring emotions, gaining apersonal identity, internalizing a sense of purpose, realizing personal interdependence
create as they work through design problems. This literaturereview provides a short synthesis and comparison of the techniques that have been previouslyused to measure mental models in undergraduate design contexts. We identified and reviewed aset of 13 articles to draw insight and summarize how these measurement techniques have beenimplemented. In general, our findings aligned with previously published literature. We providecommentary comparing these techniques and explain why these results are helpful to engineeringeducators who teach design in their classroom.1. IntroductionTeamwork is used in undergraduate engineering classrooms to prepare graduates for theengineering design problems they will face that cannot be handled by a single person
objective and politically neutraldiscipline, scholars have recently called for reforms to engineering education that challengetechnical/social dualism by integrating the “social realm” into dominant ways of thinking,knowing, and in doing engineering [1-2]. By social realm, we mean to evoke the waysengineering shapes, and is shaped by, social, cultural, political, and ethical systems, that informwho gets to participate in engineering, how and why engineering problems are perceived andundertaken, the results of engineering work, and who benefits from the outcomes of engineeringwork [1,3]. As scholars become increasingly aware of the role engineering plays in socialsystems, there have been increasing calls for engineering education to center the
ITS. The tutoring platform provides individualizedautomatic feedback to students immediately after they complete a sketch to inform them of theirperformance and ultimately to enhance their sketching skill development. This study aims tounderstand the experiences of graduate and undergraduate mechanical engineering students fromthree institutions learning sketching through the ITS environment.Our study is guided by thefollowing research questions: 1. What was the engineering student’s experience in learning tosketch in an intelligent tutoring platform? 2. What are the strengths, weaknesses, and suggestionsfor improving the intelligent tutoring system? 3. What are the impacts of the intelligent tutoringSystem on the sketching self-efficacy of
introduction to increase student comfort/confidence with some fabricationmethods, but students/curricula can benefit even more from the incorporation of experiential andproject-based learning activities that require the use of various fabrication methods, such asshorter practical assignments and multi-week integrative projects, respectively.1. Introduction1.1. Self-EfficacySelf-efficacy in students describes their perception of their abilities to perform particular tasks[1], and has been found to positively correlate with a number of desirable student outcomes.These include academic performance according to traditional metrics, such as achievementscores and cumulative GPA [2],[3]. More importantly, self-efficacy has been found to bebeneficial not only
classroom-level connections to ABET outcomes, develop assessment tools,and create organizational changes.IntroductionHuman-centered design (HCD) [1] has been an important player in the future direction ofengineering education. HCD offers a promising approach to promote situated learning inengineering design projects, and to facilitate students’ learning of modern engineering skills [2].In our work with engineering faculty and students, we observed a disconnect betweenengineering sciences, especially those taught in the middle years of a program, and the open-ended design problems that learners must address in the workplace. For example, students maybe well-prepared to compute the deflection of a beam and even redesign its cross section tooptimize
benefitted from pictural design problems, as well.IntroductionEngineering education is a dynamic field influenced by the industry's shifting demands. TheAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Vision 2030 Project (V2030) has identifiedseveral goals that are crucial for the preparedness of future engineers. One goal is to enhance"Student design/build project experiences in the degree program" [1]. However, this goalchallenges educators as they strive to implement it effectively.Implementing the goal poses a challenge for educators as it leaves many decisions to be made,which should only be done with consideration for the students. One crucial factor to consider isthe academic major of the students. As demonstrated by Vieira, the regions of
while in personDBL is ideal, a hybrid DBL contributes to easy access to learning while still enablingparticipation and creativity. Best practices for supporting a collaborative hybrid learningenvironment for CAD based projects are provided.1. IntroductionThe maker movement combines creative makers and advanced technologies such as the Arduinomicrocontroller and personal 3D printing to drive innovation in manufacturing, engineering,industrial design, hardware technology and education [1]. Through the process of making,students learn deeper. 3D printing and rapid prototyping allows students to practice the iterativedesign process [2] to produce a functional, aesthetic, and viable product [3].Hands-on projects provide students with a “real
software development [1], politics [2], or theworkplace [3], the idea of incorporating game elements to enchance performance is rapidly beingimplemented. Such is the case in learning as well. Gamification is a new tool in making the studentenvironment more effective and dynamic than the traditional classroom model [4]. Gamificationis a natural application of experiential learning, wherein students learn by doing i.e. being activelyengaged in material with tasks, problems, or projects. Trivial examples of gamification to enhancelearning include those of educational games or in self-teaching tools such as Khan Academy orClasscraft. Early discussions of gamification in the classroom share the opinion that gamification has thepotential to improve
opportunity for students to berewarded for learning and teaching their peers. This study lays the foundation for a long-termlongitudinal study to understand further the impact of peer mentorship and socio-technicalprojects from freshman to senior years. The paper will present the benefits and challengesassociated with engaging seniors and first-year students while solving an authentic designchallenge through surveys and focus groups. These results will help develop the framework tobuild vertical integration within the curriculum for effectively teaching engineering design.IntroductionBackground Peer mentorship is a learning model that allows students to learn from one another in acollaborative and supportive environment [1]. The model involves
design courses are typically project-based, where students work inteams to address a “customer-provided” problem and develop real working solutions. This typeof project-based learning requires that students synthesize knowledge and apply skills to anopen-ended design problem. The open-ended nature of “customer-provided” problems thatstudents encounter in capstone design courses contrasts with the structured and constrained“instructor-provided” problems seen in their earlier coursework [1], [2]. Solving complex,unstructured problems is an essential skill for a working engineer, but it requires a differentskillset than that which is needed to solve the standard textbook problems typically seen inclassrooms [2]–[6]. Solutions to textbook problems
people learn and apply design thinking and making processes to their work. He is interested in the in- tersection of designerly epistemic identities and vocational pathways. Dr. Lande received his B.S. in Engineering (Product Design), M.A. in Education (Learning, Design and Technology) and Ph.D. in Me- chanical Engineering (Design Education) from Stanford University. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Making Spaces to Supporting Formal, Informal, and Nonformal Learning Spanning a University's Makerspace Learning EcologyIntroductionThis cross-case case study [1] project aims to ascribe characteristics of differently orientedmakerspaces across the learning ecology [2] at a
outcomes from two semesters of its teaching. Integrated andsynergistic deployment of suitable pedagogical approaches is found to be very important forthe execution of the course; and its resource-intense nature and high student workloadrequirements appear as potential challenges.1 Dhanani School of Science and Engineering, Habib University, Karachi (Pakistan)2 Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford (UK)IntroductionExperiential, hands-on minds-on, active learning approaches like learning through makingand doing, and project-based learning have been known to benefit student learning as theypromote creativity, engagement, critical thinking, and collaboration by making studentsactive producers of knowledge rather than
DevelopmentAbstractTraditional proprietary textbooks for undergraduate students often cost hundreds of dollars andcreate barriers to learning by restricting which and how many courses students take and forcingstudents to decide whether or not they purchase their textbooks [1], [2]. Having low-cost or freealternatives for course textbooks helps give all students access to learning materials and canlower barriers such as affordability and retention [3], [4]. Such alternatives to traditionaltextbooks are considered Open Educational Resources (OER). OER can be comparable in qualityto traditional textbooks [5]. Given the proper context, they have been shown to lower the numberof D, F, and Withdrawal letter grades, or DFW rates, in classrooms [3]. This evidence, showingthe
selection and screening, LCA, and design engineering exercises. The findings andconclusions of this paper show that the use of materials selection, screening, and LCA processeswas beneficial to the students in the design engineering laboratory course. The use of thesetechniques allowed students to gain a deeper understanding of the topics and to gain hands-onexperience that reinforced the lecture material. The use of these techniques also allowed studentsto gain an appreciation for the importance of sustainability and design engineering. Background: As early as the 1970s, there was a call from within the engineering community toinclude sustainability as an engineering practice within the curriculum [1], with the World Councilon Churches calling for
a primary goal in recent engineering education because it refers to the values, attitudes,and critical thinking skills that are associated with successful and creative engineering designs[1]. Some of the focuses of EM are teamwork, considering real-world problems, coming up withmultiple solutions to problems, and balancing criteria and constraints that require trade-offs [1].It is crucial for engineering students to understand and learn about the engineering mindsetthroughout their education because it encourages them to innovate, take risks, and becomecomfortable solving open-ended problems [2]. Integrating EM into engineering programs andhas been a recent focus in engineering education, such as integrating it into faculty members(e.g., [3
with respect to product designand development, documentation analysis (course syllabi, course descriptions in academic coursecatalog, textbook) [4, 5] was undertaken. A cross-case comparison [6] is undertaken to be able tocompare and contrast these learning experiences more specifically.Qualitative interviews of teaching facultyThis qualitative set of descriptions are augmented by interviewing faculty of these courses. Aseries of qualitative, semi-structured, reflective and critical incident interviews [7] wereperformed. The interview protocol used is listed below in Table 1. Table 1 Faculty interview protocol 1. Can you tell me about the Product Development classes at Mines? What are your views on
. Furthermore, this training collaboration andpartnership provided the foundation and training model for the newly funded NSF EngineeringResearch Center for Precision Microbiome Engineering (PreMiEr) for work in the critical area ofengineering the microbiome in built environments.IntroductionIn the last decade, rapid advances in DNA sequencing technology have transformed thebiological sciences [1]. It has become essential for students training in biological disciplinesrequiring metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analyses to have a working knowledge ofbioinformatics and biostatistics. Conversely, it is critical for students training in bioinformatics,biostatistics, and engineering to understand fundamentals behind the biological systems theymodel and
recommendations about theirteaching are shared. It is hoped that design educators can use learnings from the comparativestudy in course design and teaching to enable engineering students to: (i) understand generalprinciples of design-based problem-solving and develop a designer’s mindset, (ii) linkproblem-solving techniques taught in engineering and non-engineering courses/contexts, and(iii) develop necessary skill and vocabulary sets to interact with non-engineers trained invarious forms of the design framework.1 Dhanani School of Science and Engineering, Habib University, Karachi (Pakistan)2 Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford (UK) 11. IntroductionThe last decade
that guides localofficials on accessing the federal funding reserved for supporting innovative and equity-focusedSTEM education strategies from Pre-K–12 grades [1]. Additionally, initiatives such as ‘You Belongin STEM’ and the ‘STEM Education Coalition’ aim to strengthen STEM education locally andnationwide. This push to increase access to STEM courses and experiences has boosted students’knowledge of problem-solving and project-based learning.Research shows successful engineering education requires experiential project-based, hands-on, andinterdisciplinary learning elements to engage and motivate students, increasing retention andgraduation rates [2]–[4]. This includes identifying clear applications of their acquired skills andfinding purpose
DesignIntroductionDesigning courses and learning activities in engineering is a complex process affected by manydynamic variables: student characteristics, shifting policies, changing technical and professionalknowledge, national and global events, and more. While many frameworks and systems exist tosupport engineering faculty as they (re)design their courses, design thinking has emerged as oneviable framework due to its human-centered, creative, diverse, and adaptive nature [1-5]. Still,studies show that certain mindsets and approaches essential to design thinking may bechallenging for faculty, especially those in engineering [6]. Thus, if engineering educators hopeto leverage design thinking for course design, how might it be accomplished? This study seeks
points (referred to here as snapshots) were alsoincluded that encouraged effective project management. Students were required to review eachother’s designs, and students in the follow-on capstone course also provided feedback to theteams as their designs progressed. In this work-in-progress paper, details about the coursestructure and materials are presented, learning assessment approaches are discussed, andpreliminary assessment results from the initial offering are described.Introduction and MotivationEvery ABET-accredited engineering program is required to include “a culminating majorengineering design experience that 1) incorporates appropriate engineering standards andmultiple constraints, and 2) is based on the knowledge and skills
intelligence. Technology-enabledlearning aims to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of education by providing newopportunities for engagement, personalization, and collaboration [1]. The use of advancedtechnologies in education has grown dramatically over the past few years, with LearningManagement System (LMS), social media, interactive simulations, and game–based learningplatforms. Integrating educational technologies in training programme provides the facility torecord the learning process in the form of data. The potential aspect of data collection on differentaspects of learning engagement and experiences have increased the usage of technology. Toprovide a better learning experience through technology, the domain of learning analytics can