faculty Page 24.1006.2members, who taught in both conditions, also completed reflection papers related to theirexperiences. The following describes guiding research questions for the study.Research questions: 1. Do students in inverted classrooms spend additional time actively working with instructors on meaningful tasks in comparison to those students in control classrooms? 2. Do students in inverted classrooms show higher learning gains as compared to students in traditional classrooms? 3. Do students in inverted classrooms demonstrate an increased ability to apply material in new situations as compared to students in
incompleteheader information provided by our students on their FE exams, we obtained data from only 72%of our students (134 out of 186). We wished to verify that the grade-point averages (GPA) of theexaminees reflected the overall cohort of graduates; however, the very high percentage of ourstudents taking the FE exam virtually assures a strong correlation using any statistical metric. Amore meaningful measure was suggested by Dr. Yonnie Chyung, an Instructional & PerformanceTechnology professor and expert in assessment techniques6. The approach we use to verify thatthe FE metric accurately measures all of our students is to compare the GPA distributionbetween all graduates and graduates who took the FE exam while they were students.ResultsA
Engagement Survey? Secondary 1. How did students evaluate these engagement strategies in terms of their level of engagement? 2. What were the self-evaluation of students in terms of staying engaged (affective, cognitive, behavioral) and learning propensity? 3. What challenges primarily hindered their engagement in their learning environment?Theoretical Framework:Engagement research has been around for decades and has been established to be an importantforerunner for learning and achievement [6,11]. For this study, engagement is defined in thecontext of affective (interest, excitement, belonging, motivated, persistent, joy, etc), cognitive(self-directed/regulated learning, reflective, task specific-design solutions, etc), and
systematically captured and incorporated in thecourse development.Samples of mind-map, design document, mock session effectiveness rubrics, content andworkbook review rubrics which are some of the important deliverables in the coursedevelopment of Introduction to Engineering, which reflect the course refinement, arediscussed in the following sections. The data captured and used in reporting the study aresecondary in nature and are taken from publications of the institute available with openaccess. Also, students participating in giving feedback were given clear indications ofpurpose of the feedback and were also given the option not to participate.4.1. Mind mapAs part of course development the working team consisting of faculty members and
collection of responses and not in terms ofeach individual perception of the system.Responses were grouped into usability and learnability subscales. Ninety-two responses for eachsubscale were coded and used to calculate the mean. Because the statements alternate betweenthe positive and negative, care is taken when calculating the mean [20] for each subscale. Thelatest research suggests that negatively worded items should not be used because they measuredifferent constructs [22]. To address this issue, items from even numbered statements werereverse scored before calculating the mean score. The first subscale reflects responses related tothe participants’ perception of the usability of the method. For this subscale, the mean score wascalculated from
; Douglas, 2008; Walther, 2014; Walther, Sochacka, & Kellam, 2013). There aredangers, however, that as qualitative research becomes more common the ways in which itis used fail to reflect quality approaches. One early work critiqued inconsistencies betweenespoused and practiced epistemologies in qualitative papers (Koro-Ljungberg & Douglas,2008). Other authors have critiqued interpretive methods, such as thematic analysis, forresulting in superficial descriptions of phenomena that do not provide meaningful insight(Jackson & Mazzei, 2012; St. Pierre, 2000; St. Pierre & Jackson, 2014) Another concern isthat the qualitative approaches described in papers and textbooks can become seen aschecklists that must be followed, rather than
reviews. The ECA-M8 will then beadministered to a larger sample of eighth grade students (~1800) to test for reliability andvalidity evidences for the revised instrument. The research team will engage in reflection on thedevelopment and validation process in Phase 10 to inform future research.Description of the ECA-M8The modified ECA consists of 13 multiple-choice items assessing basic understanding ofengineering design concepts and one design problem testing their ability to transfer the conceptsto a new design problem. Two design problem scenarios were developed, one for the pre-test andone for the post-test. Students were presented with five questions related to the design problem.Specifically, students identified the constraints of the
adopted from P-MEAR rubric 13-14, asshown in Table 4. As with design, the authors of the rubric helped to modify the attributes to usein behavioral observation.Table 4. Ethical Decision Making Attributes Attribute Basic Definition Recognition of Subject recognizes one of the key ethical dilemmas. This task is a single subject attribute (i.e. Dilemma only reflective on the original speaker of the statement and not upon the rest of the group) Information Subject is reading or speaking of material that is already present in the documentation given. This does not include any analysis into the case study. This can be a single subject or multiple subject task. (i.e. it is reflective on other
Figure 1) may reflect something significant, but more analysis, and a larger sampleof female students, are required before any statistically significant conclusions can be drawn. 14 Female Male 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SAT/100 Math Folding/10 Rotation SCI FBD1 Equil Eqn FBD2Figure 1: Comparison of inventory and external criterion scores for female and male participants Page 12.586.6The cluster analysis was run using three of the four measures, and the students’ total SAT score.Because of the low variability associated with
key unique aspect is that this classroom was designed for engineering classes and is “owned”by the engineering department. In addition to allowing the customization of the classroom forengineering needs, this ownership helps to build the sense of attachment in both engineeringstudents and in the faculty.AssessmentFinal development and IRB approval of the formal assessment of this space is underway. A keyelement of that assessment is an assessment of student engagement. Student engagement hasbeen shown to be an appropriate target for assessment of learning spaces which reflects learningquality.28 Student engagement is also a direct reflection of our goal of seeing student-to-studentinteraction and student-to-faculty interactions increase.A
morescholarly activities, and engineering education is a case-in-point. The post-WWII and Sputnikeras saw a massive influx of federal support for research in higher education, increased hiring ofresearch-oriented faculty members, and curriculum revisions that reflected faculty members'interests. By 2000, engineering education looked more like that in a traditional science than in aprofession.3 Government, business, and professional societies pressed for engineering educationreforms in order to sustain America's technological and economic leadership. Consistent with Finkelstein et al.,1 one explanation for the failure of engineeringprograms to provide graduates with important professional skills is that most engineeringstudents are taught by
difficulty formulatingthe problem.ScaffoldingBased on the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, scaffolding is a cognitive supportmechanism that enables learners to perform cognitively based tasks that are just beyond theirability.11 Scaffolding includes instructional assistance that helps problem solvers find thesolution that they would not be able to find otherwise.12 The degree of assistance will depend onthe expertise of the problem solver and the difficulty of the problem. Barron et al. suggested thatan effective form of scaffolding is to have students and instructors reflect on the relationshipbetween problem solving activities and the goal state throughout the problem solving process.13Although many forms of modeling and coaching have
. For example, Part I had8341 words and 11 figures while The Nature of Science had 7342 words and 17 figures. For allthree different modules, there were open-ended reflection questions inserted after each mainsection of instruction in order to facilitate students’ deep understanding of the trainingmaterials.20ResultsAdaption of the schema training modulesResults of the case study indicated that the materials, which were originally used to train middleschool students and undergraduate psychology students in learning science concepts, were welladapted for undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, all four participants (n=4)considered the reading level of the modules is appropriate for undergraduate engineeringstudents, the content is
Page 14.1088.4literature and a general lack of more detailed research into the conceptions and attitudes ofstudents towards environmental and ecological issues, especially how both relate to engineeringcareers.Threshold Concepts and attitudesConceptual change is among the conceptions oflearning that have recently been most closelyembraced by the educational psychology andlearning sciences communities6. Humansnaturally build simplified and intuitive theories toexplain their surroundings. The cognitive processof adapting and restructuring these theories basedon experience and reflection is referred to asconceptual change. Most research indicates thatconceptual change arises from interactionbetween experience and current conceptionsduring higher
and another part during the second phase. The intention here was that students wouldhave time in between the phases to reflect upon information presented. The Motivated Strategiesfor Learning Questionnaire 25served as the filler activity.Participants in this study were students enrolled in Statics and the intervention was administeredjust prior to the midterm exam. Participation in the study was one of several activities for whichthe students could receive extra credit in the statics class. The intervention and all instrumentswere delivered through the course web site and students could complete the activities at any timeduring each phase. The web-based system randomly assigned students to one of the fourexperimental groups.Table 1. Summary
references n=3 references Figure 7 Sieta’s Tree map for the Design steps C. Mathematical thinkingThe following Schoenfeld-inspired plots illustrate which mathematical thinking aspects eachparticipant engaged in during segments 10-17. This same period examined in section above fordesign steps. The tree maps illustrate the subcategories of the mathematical thinking aspects andtheir frequency throughout the entire session. Refer to figures 8 and 9 for the tree maps.The plots as in figures 6 and 7 appear (at least for this excerpt) to reflect that Casey the engineerengages
humor, it still marks an unusually directivestatement in the collegial atmosphere of the review. That said, one of the authors can attest from experience thatstrong statements and pointed conversation is not an infrequent event inside an engineering context.insulation levels, heat rejection mechanisms, thermally reflective surface coatings, and a thermalmodel that required hours of computation time per run. It can be easier to focus on specificquestions rather than to look holistically at the entire system. The question, “do you knowenough about the thermal conditions?” seems relatively simple in comparison. The amount oftime spent on this question suggests that even simplistic processes for addressing epistemologicalconcerns could
better when space andbandwidth exist for team members to reflect on how well they work together. A prerequisite forcollaborating productively is to purposefully design and facilitate a robust learning environmentwhere people recognize and work to decrease their own biases. While overt forms ofdiscrimination and bias exist, there are implicit forms of discrimination and bias as well. Tomediate implicit bias, for example, Project Implicit (2011) is a multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary initiative that uses research and practical tips to help people recognize where theyare subconsciously treating people differently and enacting discrimination. When educatorsorganize curricular and co-curricular experiences for students to reflect on their
reflect on their full rangeof projects. We conducted one focus group interview with three students from one team in energyengineering and six individual interviews with students from energy engineering, civil engineering,and computer engineering (Table 2). Since this is a work-in-progress, we reported our primaryfindings based on the group interview and six individual interviews. In our next step, for triangulationand enrich data with different aspects of students’ learning experiences in PBL, we planned to conductfocus group interviews firstly, and then invite same students from focus group interviews toparticipant in individual interviews.In the data analysis process, all interviews involved in this study were transcribed and reviewedcarefully
. 1 compares the overall (over the four topics included in the experiment) average percentagescore of the control and experimental groups. As seen from the figure, the experimental (KACIE)group average was 10 points higher than that of the control group (59 compared to 49 percent).To verify that this difference is a reliable, the t-test was performed assuming two-taileddistribution with unequal variance samples. The p-value was found to be 0.002 which is less thanthe typical alpha threshold of 0.05 indicating that the difference is reflective of the impact of theKACIE intervention. For additional insight the averages for each individual topic werecompared in the same figure. With a difference of 26 and 18 percentage points for the
?Preliminary findings suggest students’ interpretation of items points to a discrepancy betweenresearcher and student meaning of engagement. Though the survey was intended to target in-class engagement, students often conflated their in- and out-of-class engagement behaviors.Moreover, students did not distinguish between language we intended to reflect different levelsof cognitive activity. As we continue to develop surveys surrounding engagement, this studygives useful insight into how we can interpret student responses and provide meaningfulfeedback to faculty. This is accomplished by understanding the ways in which researchers,faculty, and students talk about engagement differently, and how that might lead us towardsshared
classes pose.In order to address these research needs, we first reviewed the literature on what constitutesgood teaching and reflect upon identified criteria and their feasibility when it comes to largeclasses. Second, we identified Team-based learning (TBL) and active learning exercises(ALEx) as two teaching methods, which have been proposed in the literature as alternatives toconventional teaching [5],[6]. Furthermore, these innovative TMs may have potential forwidespread implementation in university teaching. Third, we analyzed and evaluated the twoidentified TMs against the identified criteria for good teaching of large classes and we discussthe limitations of our study and how the pros of both methods can, in theory, be used to
Paper ID #27043Engineering Education and Quantified Self: Utilizing a Student-CenteredLearning Analytics Tool to Improve Student SuccessBrandon Xavier Karcher, Bucknell University Brandon is a Digital Pedagogy & Scholarship Specialist at Bucknell University. His work centers around instructional design, educational technology, and pedagogy. Current interests are reflective learning, student-centered design, and learning analytics. He received his B.S. at Southeast Missouri State in Graphics and Multimedia and an M.S. in Computer Graphics Technology at Purdue University.Dr. Beth M. Holloway, Purdue University, West Lafayette
Fulbright scholar and was inducted in the Bouchet Honor Society.Ms. Michelle Soledad, Virginia Tech, Ateneo de Davao University Michelle Soledad is a PhD candidate in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. Her research interests include faculty development and data-informed reflective practice. Ms. Soledad has degrees in Electrical Engineering (BS, ME) from the Ateneo de Davao University (ADDU) in Davao City, Philippines, where she continues to be a faculty member of the Electrical Engineering Department. She also served as Department Chair and was a member of the University Research Council before pursuing doctoral studies. Prior to joining ADDU in 2008, Ms. Soledad was a Senior Team Lead for Accenture
per the exploratory factor analysis,a confirmatory factor analysis was run on the data. We first investigated the developer’shypothesized model using an independence model, in which none of the factors were correlated.We then tested a higher order model, which adds a single, higher order factor to theindependence model. The latter model fit the data better, with the performance indices within therecommended ranges. This result suggests that the concepts in CATS are differentiable but stillrelated in terms of reflecting a general conceptual understanding of the domain of statics, which Page 26.497.9supports the developer’s claims. These CFA
their professional career Page 26.1236.2objectives in a civil engineering-related field.”[4] Reflective of these mission statements, thereexists common desire for classes and material covered within the education plan of civilengineering students to prepare them for the profession after they graduate.Universities generally undergo ABET certification because, as noted in the ABET website,“accreditation is proof that a collegiate program has met certain standards necessary to producegraduates who are ready to enter their professions.”[5] For students, accreditation of a programmeans that the school “knows their profession's dynamic and emerging
determines the lower asymptote as θgoes to negative infinity. For questions where there is no chance of guessing, setting cj = 0yields the two-parameter logistic model (2PLM), whereas making the assumption that allquestions have the same aj yields the Rasch model (1PLM). Extensions to settings with multipleresponse options or where θ is multidimensional are available, but we will focus only on the caseof dichotomous responses reflecting a unidimensional underlying construct.If the question parameters are known, as is the case for a test composed of well-researched andvalidated items, then estimation of student ability level is a straightforward single variable
through understanding rather than memorization and copying. Learning how to think, how to self reflect, how to take personal responsibility for learning, and the development of expert problem solving skills are all reasons why this style of teaching is life changing for many students.Mr. Mostafa Amin-Naseri, Iowa State University Mostafa Amin-Naseri, is a masters student in industrial engineering in Iowa State University. He is interested in data mining and statistical analysis. He applies data analysis to educational data, building learner models and reporting tools for instructors, in order to evaluate and enhance educational systems and methods.Prof. Stephen B Gilbert, Iowa State University Stephen B. Gilbert
-84. doi:10.1002/tl[12] Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933–940. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034[13] Greiffenhagen, C. (2011). Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. doi:10.1007/s11412-011- 9134-8[14] Hall, S. R., Wait, I., Brodeu, D. B., Soderholm, D. H., & Nasu, N (2002). Adoption of active learning in a lecture-based engineering class. In Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.[15] Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H
activity and is presented in accurate ways. Inquiry Extent to which youth get to 2.28 4 direct their learning through use of scientific practices (including engineering design) in authentic ways Reflection Extent of youth opportunity to 2.03 3 reflect on their experiences, build new knowledge and discuss how what they learn in the current activity relates to prior knowledgeTable 2: Dimensions of Success Tool Comparative DataThe tool is not available publicly and requires an extensive training for its