various research and development projects in industry and academia for more than 15 years.Dr. Nicholas B. Conklin, Gannon University Nicholas B. Conklin received a B.S. in applied physics from Grove City College in 2001, and a Ph.D. in physics from Penn State University in 2009. He is currently an associate professor and chair of the Physics Department at Gannon University, Erie, PA. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Assessment and Analysis of Use of Self-Regulated Learning in Laboratory-Based Extracurricular Undergraduate/First-year Graduate Research ProjectsAbstract This paper in the Research category examines student use of the self
Machine Design course which most take at the same time as the new CAE course, and show a greater confidence in their own ability to solve engineering problems.References[1] Cook, K., Larson, R., Fisher, K., Mechanical Engineering Technology Curriculum Enhancement: AProcess Review of Program Level Change, Proceedings of the 2007 ASEE Annual Conference andExposition, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2007-2252.[2] Kirkley, Jamie, Principles for Teaching Problem Solving, Plato Learning Inc., Indiana University, 2003.[3] Duch, B., Gron, S., Allen, D., ed. The power of problem-based learning: a practical "how to" forteaching undergraduate courses in any discipline, 2001, Stylus Publishing, LLC.[4] Ton De Jong and Wouter R. Van Joolingen, Scientific Discovery
Paper ID #26865The Nordic Future Engineer.Dr. Lena B. Gumaelius, KTH Royal Institute of Technology Dr Lena Gumaelius has a background as a researcher in Biotechnology (Lena got her Master of Science in chemistry 1993 and her PhD in Environmental Microbiology in 2001.) In parallel with her research, she worked for several years with development of experiments for students at House of Science. In 2006 Lena became the director of House of Science, which she remained until 2012. House of Science is a university based Science centre with about 40 000 visitors were the goal is to stimulate high school students’ interest for
for educational proposals and projects, and working with faculty to publish educational research. Her research interests primarily involve creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship education.Mr. Philip M. Reeves, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Mr. Reeves is a graduate student in the Educational Psychology program at Penn State.Irene B. Mena, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Irene B. Mena has a B.S. and M.S. in industrial engineering, and a Ph.D. in engineering education. Her research interests include first-year engineering and graduate student professional development.Dr. Thomas A. Litzinger, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Thomas A. Litzinger is Director of the Leonhard Center
in the area of electrical engineering, he has gained new perspectives on teaching and learning. He has developed and delivered numerous workshops on student-centered learn- ing and online-learning-related topics during his service in Indonesia. Dr. Lawanto’s research interests include cognition, learning, and instruction, and online learning.Mr. Harry B Santoso, Utah State University Harry B. Santoso is a faculty member at Faculty of Computer Science, University of Indonesia. He re- ceived a BS and MS from Universitas Indonesia (UI) in Computer Science. Before pursuing his Ph.D. program majoring Engineering Education at Department of Engineering Education, Utah State Univer- sity, he taught some courses at UI (e.g
, New York, NY, USA, pp. 281–282. doi:10.1145/2567574.2567602 8. Dillahunt, T., Chen, B., Teasley, S. (2014). Model Thinking: Demographics and Performance of Mooc Students Unable to Afford a Formal Education, in: Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference, L@S ’14. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 145–146. doi:10.1145/2556325.2567851 9. Campbell, J., Gibbs, A. L., Najafi, H., & Severinski, C. (2014). A comparison of learner intent and behaviour in live and archived MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5). 10. Coffrin, C., Corrin, L., de Barba, P., Kennedy, G. (2014). Visualizing Patterns of Student Engagement and
. Frederick, A. Byars-Winston, A.-B. Hunter and J. Handelsman, "Increasing the Persistence of College Students in STEM," Science, vol. 341, pp. 1455-1456, 27 September 2013.[4] J. G. Cromley, T. Perez, and A. Kaplan, "Undergraduate STEM Achievement and Retention: Cognitive, Motivational, and Institutional Factors and Solutions," Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, pp. 1-8, 2015.[5] L. Espinosa, "Pipelines and Pathways: Women of Color in Undergraduate STEM Majors and the College Experiences that Contribute to Persistence," Harvard Educational Review, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 209-241, 2011.[6] E. Seymour, A.-B. Hunter, S. Laursen and T. DeAntoni, "Establishing the Benefits of Research Experiences for Undergraduates in
: A Study of the Impact ofEC2000. 2006: ABET. http://www.abet.org/papers.shtml, accessed.9. R. Martin, B. Maytham, J. Case and D. Fraser, Engineering graduates' perceptions of how well theywere prepared for work in industry. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2005. Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 167-180.10. N. Spinks, N. Silburn and D. Birchall, Educating Engineers for the 21st Century: The Industry View,Henley, England: Henley Management College, 2006.11. V. K. Domal and J. P. Trevelyan. Comparing Engineering Practice in South Asia with Australia. inAmerican Association for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. 2008. Pittsburgh.(submitted forreview).12. A. Enshassi and A. Hassouna, Assessment by employers of
, but at different levels”. They suggested that when developing a curriculum for aprogram “you come up with the degree program and then that becomes the individual degreecourses”.A synthesis of the findings which emerged from the data analysis has enabled us to propose adefinitional framework for curriculum that is set out below.Proposed curricular definitional frameworkOur proposed curriculum definitional framework includes three principal and separatecomponents: (a) a designed object – the official-curriculum, (b) a process of design fromwhich the official-curriculum, that is the written curriculum, and curriculum-in-use, that isthe implemented curriculum, are outputs, and (c) the notion that official curricula for aprogram and its
. Figure 2 O the 294 awaards reviewedd, approximattely half of thhem containedd Forms of Cyyberlearning (see Of (Table 1). Moreover, Fiigure 3 revealls which Form ms of Cyberleearning are ussed by each diiscipline. Bassed ona quick gllance, four infferences can be b made. Onee, all disciplinnes have at least two formss of cyberlearrningamong theeir awards. Seecondly, the representation r n of cyberlearrning varies across a discipliines, withEngineeriing, Computin
AC 2009-1290: UNDERSTANDING COGNITIVE STYLE AND LEARNING STYLEAND THEIR APPLICATION TO TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ENGINEERING.B. Kyun Lee, LeTourneau UniversityPaul leiffer, LeTouneau UniversityR. William Graff, LeTourneau UniversityVicki Sheafer, LeTourneau Iniversity Dr. Vicki Sheafer is a professor in Psychology at LeTourneau University.Vicki Sheafer, LeTourneau Iniversity Dr. Vicki Sheafer is a professor in Psychology at LeTourneau University. Page 14.1293.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 Understanding Cognitive Style and Learning Style and Their Application to Teaching and Learning in
engineering coursework and the design process of undergraduate students in project-based courses.Dr. Kristen B. Wendell, Tufts University Kristen Wendell is Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Ed- ucation at Tufts University. Her research efforts at at the Center for Engineering Education and Outreach focus on supporting discourse and design practices during K-12, teacher education, and college-level en- gineering learning experiences, and increasing access to engineering in the elementary school experience, especially in under-resourced schools. In 2016 she was a recipient of the U.S. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). http
Paper ID #8669Engineering Practice in the Academic Plan: External Influences, Faculty, andtheir Teaching RolesMr. Michael Geoffrey Brown, University of Michigan Michael is a second year doctoral student at the University of Michigan in Higher Education. His research interests focus on organizational communication and curriculum planning in post-secondary education.Dr. David B Knight, Virginia Tech Department of Engineering Education David Knight is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education and affiliate faculty with the Higher Education Program at Virginia Tech. His research focuses on student learning
Paper ID #27268Board 53: WIP: Learning Assistant ”Noticing” in Undergraduate Engineer-ing Science CoursesDr. Kristen B Wendell, Tufts University Kristen Wendell is Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Ed- ucation at Tufts University. Her research efforts at at the Center for Engineering Education and Outreach focus on supporting discourse and design practices during K-12, teacher education, and college-level en- gineering learning experiences, and increasing access to engineering in the elementary school experience, especially in under-resourced schools. In 2016 she was a
Purdue University’s School of Engineering Education. His re- search interests includes diversity, equity, and inclusion and empathy within the engineering pedagogy.Dr. Joyce B. Main, Purdue University, West Lafayette Joyce B. Main is Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She received an Ed.M. in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and a Ph.D. degree in Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy from Cornell University. Dr. Main examines student academic pathways and transitions to the workforce in science and engineering. She was a recipi- ent of the 2014 American Society for Engineering Education Educational Research and Methods Division
Paper ID #12468Sharing the Full Range of Leadership in Student Teams: Developing an In-strumentLt. Col. Brian J. Novoselich, Virginia Tech Brian Novoselich is an active duty Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army and currently a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. His is a former assistant profes- sor at the United States Military Academy. His research interests include capstone design teaching and assessment, undergraduate engineering student leadership development, and social network analysis.Dr. David B Knight, Virginia Tech Department of Engineering Education David Knight
. Institutional level 2000 2012 b. Unit (college, student affairs, etc.) level 2000 2012 c. Program level 2000 2012 d. Course level 2000 2012 3 Those with a vested interest in the learning outcomes, and are involved in developing, articulating, and assessing them at the 2000 2012 Program or major curriculum level 4 Statements of program-level expected learning out-comes are made available to current and prospective
Paper ID #11339Measuring Engineering Students’ Ability to Thrive in Diverse and Global En-vironmentsDr. Joyce B. Main, Purdue University, West Lafayette Joyce B. Main is an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She holds a Ph.D. in Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy from Cornell University, and an Ed.M. in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.Matilde L. Sanchez-Pena, Purdue University Matilde Sanchez-Pena is a first year PhD student in the Engineering Education program at Purdue Uni- versity. Her research interests are global
workforce.Dr. Joyce B. Main, Purdue University at West Lafayette Joyce B. Main is Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She received an Ed.M. in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and a Ph.D. degree in Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy from Cornell University. Dr. Main examines student academic pathways and transitions to the workforce in science and engineering. She was a recipi- ent of the 2014 American Society for Engineering Education Educational Research and Methods Division Apprentice Faculty Award, the 2015 Frontiers in Education Faculty Fellow Award, and the 2019 Betty Vetter Award for Research from WEPAN. In 2017, Dr. Main
AC 2007-1516: CREATIVE, CONTEXTUAL, AND ENGAGED: ARE WOMEN THEENGINEERS OF 2020?Deborah Kilgore, University of Washington DEBORAH KILGORE is a Research Scientist in the Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching (CELT) and the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE), University of Washington. Her areas of specific interest and expertise include qualitative and mixed educational research methods, adult learning theory, student development, and women in education.Debbie Chachra, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering DEBBIE CHACHRA is an Assistant Professor of Materials Science at the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering in Needham, MA. Her research interests in
and graduate level Mechanical Vibrations and Multimedia Engineering Analysis, and undergraduate level thermodynamics, Measurement Systems, Experimental Stress Analysis , Machine Design and Introduction to Engineering. Professor Orabi has received a number of research awards from the State of Connecticut and Untied Technologies. He has established two Laboratories: the Materials Testing laboratory sponsored by the National Science Foundation, and the Engineering Multimedia Laboratory funded by AT&T. He is a member of ASME and ASEE. Page 12.777.1© American Society for Engineering
AC 2007-706: EFFECTS OF SEX AND ETHNICITY ON PERFORMANCE ON THEMATERIALS CONCEPT INVENTORYElliot Douglas, University of Florida Dr. Elliot P. Douglas is Associate Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Florida. His educational research interests are in the areas of active learning techniques and critical thinking. He has been involved in faculty development activities since 1998, through the ExCEEd Teaching Workshops of ASCE, the Essential Teaching Seminars of ASME, and the NSF-sponsored SUCCEED Coalition. He is a member of the American Chemical Society, American Society for Engineering Education, and the American Educational Research Association
Engineering Degree ProgramsAbstractA study was undertaken to examine sources of support and challenges to retention ofunderrepresented women and minorities at Northern Arizona University. The study wasevaluative in nature in that it sought to understand how well underrepresented students are beingsupported to complete their degree programs, and to gain insights into how programs might beenhanced or developed to support these students to degree completion. A mixed-methodsresearch design involving a survey and in-depth interviews of students, faculty and staff yieldedseveral factors that support and challenge students toward degree completion at this institution.Applications to programmatic decision-making are discussed.Introduction and BackgroundIt is
the curriculum mapping session and the desired level of cognitive skilldevelopment based on the rubrics was input into the worksheet. Each course coordinator wasthen responsible for: a) defining the course-level learning outcomes; b) the foundational conceptsexpected or needed coming into the course; c) the reflection component that would be includedin the course; d) developmental resources available if a student felt unprepared for the coursebased on the expected foundational concepts coming into the course; e) active learningcomponents including high-impact practices; and f) the means of assessing course-leveloutcomes.There are two additional steps: Step 7, creating implementation and assessment plans; and Step8, implementing the new
), a weighted system familiar to many in higher education. The two primaryvariants are the `straight’ scale (i.e. A, B, C, D, F) and the somewhat more granular `plus/minus’scale (i.e. A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), both used widely. Despite research on cumulative GPAs, gradeinflation, and academic performance, there is a dearth of research correlating grading systemsdirectly to students’ passion, interest, or motivation toward their coursework.In this work, we consider another GPA system using a continuous scale in which students’numerical course grade (0-100%) would map directly to their course GPA (0-4). The approachallows the GPA to provide infinite grade differentiation among peers. No prior literature hasconsidered student attitudes about such a
course when controlled for course content and instructor? 2. What psychosocial dimensions were most impacted by the flipped pedagogy? 3. What do these results indicate about student motivation in a flipped classroom?One group of students (Group “A”) had just completed the flipped course. The second group (Group “B”)consisted of students who had just completed the same course, but taught in a traditional format. This wasto control for the effect of the course material on student’s motivation and interest. The third group(Group “C”) consisted of students who had just completed a different engineering course taught by thesame instructor in a traditional format. This was to control for a different instructor. The groups wereanalyzed
Engineering Education, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 69-70, 1997.[4] L. J. Shuman, M. Besterfield-Sacre and J. McGourty, J. “The ABET “Professional Skills” – Can they be taught? Can they be assessed?” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, 41-55, January 2005.[5] R. Stevens, A. Johri and K. O’Connor. “Professional engineering work,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri, B. M. Olds, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119-138, 2014.[6] R. F. Korte, S. Sheppard and W. C. Jordan. “A study of the early work experiences of recent graduates in engineering,” in Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2008.[7] R. Korte
authors anddo not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation. References1. Laurillard, D. Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. (Routledge, 2012).2. National Academy of Engineering. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. (The National Academies Press, 2004).3. Wulf, W. A. The urgency of engineering education reform. The Bridge 28, 4–8 (1998).4. Anderson, T. & Shattuck, J. Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educ. Res. 41, 16–25 (2012).5. Kelly, A. E. in Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (eds. Johri, A. & Olds, B. M.) 497–418 (Cambridge
. Retrieved from Washington, DC:Brubaker, E. R., Kohn, M., & Sheppard, S. (2019). Comparing outcomes of introductory makerspaces courses: The role of reflection and multi-age communities of practice. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces, New Haven, CT.Carbonell, R. M., & Andrews, M. E., & Boklage, A., & Borrego, M. J. (2019, June), Innovation, Design, and Self-Efficacy: The Impact of Makerspaces Paper presented at 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, Florida. https://peer.asee.org/32965Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Fasso, W., & Knight, B. A. (2019
introductory, fundamental engineering classes.The theme strongly suggests that instructor and students work together to create newunderstandings 29. In this new approach, learners would be able to make choices and form theirown perspective on ideas that are important to them and possess freedom to think, observe, andask questions 34. The researchers of this study wish to transfer the concept of this “new learning”and investigate that when instructor and students in IFEM courses participate in a curriculum thatis generated by active and cooperative learning, as suggested by Dewey and numerous otherscholars, does a stronger development of student learning in engineering concepts occur?B. Role of the Instructor in Developing a New Curriculum in