deciding what action to take now”). The instrument was an adaptation of the Future Time Perspective Scale connectedness subscale from Husman and Shell (2008).Course Belongingness (CB - E, CB-B): This instrument contained five items for studentsfeelings of belongingness in engineering (e.g., “The field of engineering is a good fit for me; Ithink of myself as an engineer”), and six items for students feelings of belongingness in thecourse (biology) (e.g., “ I feel like an outsider in this course, the field of biology is a good fit forme” ) - see Walton & Cohen (2011).Interest (I): The four items of this instrument assess students interest in their biology course(e.g., “I’m really looking forward to learning more about biology
provided insight into some of the challenges that will be faced whenimplementing a larger scale EEG study within a real-world learning environment. Particularly,this study has shown the challenges in identifying whether focused brain activity is in fact,focused on the “right” content, and has suggested a related avenue for future work in identifyingthe unfocussed EEG activity of students as a way of providing potentially valuable real-timefeedback on the effectiveness of various teaching methods.References[1] E. L. Park and B. K. Choi, "Transformation of classroom spaces: traditional versus activelearning classroom in colleges", Higher Education, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 749-771, 2014. Available:10.1007/s10734-014-9742-0.[2] M. Prince, "Does Active
-dimensionalconstruct of interest, and the parameters aj, bj, and cj, for the jth item. a j ( i b j ) e (1) P ( X ij | i ; a j , b j , c j ) c j (1 c j ) a ( b ) 1 e j i jThe difficulty (or threshold) parameter bj is understood to be “on the same scale” as θ, allowingfor the matching of items and examinees. The discrimination (or slope) parameter aj determinesthe rate of ascent from the lower asymptote to 1. Finally, cj
Reviewer’s Comments1. a) The manuscript is not organzied and poorly written. b) While it can be expaneded to topics other than "mechanics of material," the lack of proper presentation of the methodology makes it difficult to understand to educators outside this filed.2. a) The paper exhaustively discusses the interview process for a small group of students. It concludes with a discussion of their analysis of stresses in a member exposed to three different loading cases. b) This paper will be of interest to those involved with solid mechanics (Mechanical and Civil engineers). c) There are some grammar and spelling issues that need to be addressed. d) The abstract
isparticularly suitable for implementation in engineering courses because its benefits are consistentwith student learning outcomes specified by the Accreditation Board for Engineering andTechnology (ABET), specifically the following strands from criterion 3 (ABET, 2015): (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data; (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability; (d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams; (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve
, the factorial validity of the decision-makingquestionnaire was tested. The researchers predicted that: (a) indicators related to group decision-making processes would load appropriately on three factors (Processing Information,Understanding Decisions, and Processing Alternatives), (b) error terms would be uncorrelated,and (c) no items would cross-load. The factors were permitted to covary based on the hypothesisthat they are related facets that constitute the overall decision process. The hypothesized modelfor the factorial structure of effective group design decision making is in Figure 1. Figure 1. Hypothesized CFA Model for effective design decision making.* An error during creation of the revised survey led to the
be able to analyze,synthesize, and evaluate relevant domain knowledge in order to create and investigate thesystem’s phenomena 1,2. Currently, there is a growing body of research that provides insights forresearchers and instructors regarding (a) how students construct conceptual meaning through theuse of simulation and modeling tools 3,4, (b) what are the effects of students’ prior learning andmisconceptions on their modeling process 3,5,6, and (c) what are pedagogical approaches thatexplore the role of computer simulations for the design of students’ learning environments 7,8.However, there is a limited amount of research that describes engineering students’computational practices in the context of complex problem solving. In particular
got the same students got a lower score students got a higher score excluded) score on each round on round 2 on round 2 1076 497 58 521 100% 46.2% 5.4% 48.4%From Table 1, we see that 48.4% of activities in-class, resulted in getting higher scores after theteam-based discussions. When we compare this with the 5.4% of students whose scoresdecreased after team discussions in round 2, we may see that the benefit of working in a team-based model outweighs the negatives.Appendix B - Figure 1 shows the heatmap of several aggregated constructed features for eachstudent, such
., & Moon, S. (2005). Model-Eliciting Activities as a Tool to Develop and Identify Creatively GiftedMathematicians. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 37-47.Diefes-Dux, H. A., & Capobianco, B. (2008). Learning from a faculty self-study. In J. Zawojewski, H. A. Diefes-Dux & K. Bowman (Eds.), Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students.Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Diefes-Dux, H. A., Moore, T. J., Zawojewski, J., Imbrie, P. K., & Follman, D. (2004). A framework for posingopen-ended engineering problems: Model-Eliciting Activities. Paper presented at the 2004 Frontiers in EducationConference, Savannah, GA.Diefes-Dux, H. A., Osburn, K., Capobianco, B. M., & Wood, T
Interaction Figure 1. Online Classroom: Top Level ArchitectureEach area of the online classroom can be categorized into one of the three top levelcomponents of the baseline architecture in a variety of ways. For the purpose of thisanalysis, the online classroom architecture is defined as follows: 1. Course Access/Layout (Learner-Interface Interaction) a. Course Appearance Page 12.1046.6 ‚ Similar Look/Feel ‚ Ease of Use b. Course Structure ‚ Modular Format ‚ Sequence of Content ‚ Course Grade Distribution 2. Student/Faculty Interaction
AC 2010-1032: COGNITIVE HEURISTIC USE IN ENGINEERING DESIGNIDEATIONShanna Daly, University of MichiganSeda Yilmaz, University of MichiganColleen Seifert, University of MichiganRichard Gonzalez, University of Michigan Page 15.282.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Cognitive Heuristics Use in Engineering Design IdeationAbstractResearch in engineering design has revealed approaches and processes used by engineers tomove through a design task. While studies have made evident general approaches in ideation, itis unclear how multiple and varied ideas are generated. When faced with a design problem, howdo engineers generate multiple alternative solutions
from Malaysia,” Phys. Medica, vol. 80, no. July, pp. 10–16, 2020.[4] V. Singh, M. T. Khasawneh, S. R. Bowling, S. Kaewkuekool, X. Jiang, and A. K. Gramopadhye, “The evaluation of alternate learning systems in an industrial engineering course: Asynchronous, synchronous and classroom,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 495–505, 2004.[5] M. D. Roblyer, J. Freeman, M. B. Donaldson, and M. Maddox, “A comparison of outcomes of virtual school courses offered in synchronous and asynchronous formats,” Internet High. Educ., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 261–268, 2007.[6] S. Morimoto et al., An Empirical Report of Project Based Learning with Asynchronous and Synchronous e-Learning* *This work was supported in
all three courses. Response rates were as follows: (a) 45% (N=67) for EDC, (b) 36% (N=10) for IDP, and (c) 38% (N=25) for MI. We also interviewed20 faculty members from all three classes with each interview lasting from 30 minutes toabout two hours. Furthermore, did we recruit 30 more faculty members for surveys. Theresponse rate for the faculty surveys was 45% (N=14).Faculty interviewsInterviewed faculty consisted of former instructors that were chosen based on theirexperience with team-based design or innovation classes as current or former instructors.The interviews were constructed to conduct exploratory research on faculty observationsof conflict as well as on conflict-management strategies. Faculty, were first asked generalquestions
path taken.” This P-V diagram represents a system consisting of a fixed amount of ideal gas that undergoes two different processes in going from state A to state B: Process #1 State B Pressure Process #2 State A Volume [In these questions, W represents the work done by the system during a process; Q represents the heat absorbed by the system during a process.] 1. Is W for Process #1 greater than, less than, or equal to that for Process #2? Explain. 2. Is Q for Process #1 greater than, less than, or equal to that for Process #2? Please explain your answer.FIGURE 1. Two of the questions posed to students in both
). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17, 363-383.[17] Christensen, B., & Schunn, C. (2009). Setting a limit to randomness [or: ‘Putting blinkers on a blind man’]: Providing cognitive support for creative processes with environmental cues. In K. Wood & A. Markman (Eds.), Tools for Innovation: Oxford University Press.[18] Linsey, J. S., Laux, J., Clauss, E. F., Wood, K. L., & Markman, A. B. (2007). Effects of analogous product representation on design-by-analogy. Proc. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Paris, France.[19] Perkins, D. (1997). Creativity’s Camel: The Role of Analogy in Invention. In T. Ward, S. Smith & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative Thought (pp. 523-528
. Indeed, one finds that many attempts to assess theABET Criterion 3 outcomes have involved development and use of indirect measures, e.g.,survey instruments and questions that ask students to self-assess their own capabilities for eachtarget attribute.12 Many assumptions undergird this entire process, including that: a) groups ofpracticing professionals and educators can accurately identify, through reflection and discussion,the specific knowledge, skills, attitudes, abilities, etc. that a practicing professional shouldpossess, b) the process of bringing these attributes into courses and curricula is relativelystraightforward, and c) students can reliably and accurately gauge and report on their owncapabilities, such as by filling out Likert
Doctoral Study,” Am. J. Sociol., vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 679–681, 2001. [6] J. C. Weidman, D. J. Twale, and E. L. Stein, Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: a perilous passage? San Francisco: Prepared and published by Jossey-Bass in cooperation with ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Association for the Study of Higher Education, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, the George Washington University, 2001. [7] B. L. Yoder, “Engineering by the Numbers,” in American Society for Engineering Education, 2012. [8] M. Wang, J. Kammeyer-Mueller, Y. Liu, and Y. Li, “Context, socialization, and newcomer learning,” Organ. Psychol. Rev., vol
, other factors wereinfluencing the validity of our hypothesis. The most prominent unexpected factor was that somewomen were pulled by a strong desire to pursue a vocation or passion that conflicted withengineering workplace persistence, such as teaching in K-12 or staying home with her children.We have named this phenomenon a competing vocation. Two other influencing factors arose toa lesser extent: persistence was sometimes affected by the degree to which the workplace metthe women’s a) need for relatedness and b) expectations for employees being encouraged to helpone another and/or the end customers (prosocial motivation). Thus, we found engineeringidentity to be an influential factor in the workplace persistence of degreed women engineers
*** Five Week Alice – CCP – Women 0.808 0.236 *** Five Week Alice – CCP – Men 0.133 *** 0.267 Five Week Alice – TC3 0.000* 0.000* 0.476 Five Week Alice – TC3 Women 0.000* 0.018* 0.566 Five Week Alice – TC3 Men 0.000* 0.000* 0.413 Fall PC Applications A 0.000* --- 0.007* 2005 PC Applications A– Women 0.000* --- 0.010* PC Applications A– Men 0.067 --- 0.159 PC Applications B 0.455 --- 0.242 PC
briefly discuss it in small groups to make sure theyunderstood it. When they reached a gap, one of several different things might happen: (a) theinstructor might go through the solution at the board in traditional lecture format; (b) the studentsmight be given a short time (30 seconds–3 minutes) to try to fill in the gap; or (c) the instructormight skip the gap and tell the students to be sure they knew what went in it before they got tothe next exam. The class was told and periodically reminded that some of the questions andproblem segments in the handouts would show up on the exams, and they did. Activities weresometimes done by pairs or groups of three and sometimes by individuals, alternating among theformats for active learning outlined in
university average when rated on their effectiveness as an instructor by the students. Thedifference between students in section B and the two other “control” sections was the format oftheir homework assignments, which made up 5% of their semester’s grade. The students insection B completed two homework sets each week; the common textbook-based problem setand a personalized online homework. The control sections completed one common textbook-based homework set and short multiple choices reading quizzes (Blackboard quizzes or BBQ) inthe courses web environment (Blackboard) each week. In general, the student achievement inthe two control sections was indistinguishable (i.e., independent of the instructor). Details on thestandard homework, web based
reasoning and mathematical computation, among others. In fact, most RPGgames utilize some or all these scientific habits, making serious games an excellent medium foracademic knowledge transfer, especially.MethodsThe studies chosen for the preliminary literature survey were filtered according to the followingcharacteristics: (a) papers published between the years 2010 to 2020 (b) board games and real-world games were also included (c) search queries in Scopus were run for ‘Serious Games’ and‘Engineering’ in ‘Article Title’ (d) due to the limited number of entries found and relevant papersafter refining the selection criteria, a further search query of ‘Virtual Learning Environment’ and‘Engineering’ in ‘Article Title’ was also executed (e) To filter
-based + +course. Train is moving South, slowing down - -The question involves two + 0common representations Train is stopped, about to move Northinstructors often use indescribing motion in one B. A cart travels in front of a motion sensor and slowsdimension: Positive and down. The acceleration graph for the motion isnegative signs to denote shown below.direction and graphs of thedifferent kinematics aquantities. In many texts,direction for 1-D motion isrepresented by positive and
measuring academic success. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(5), 1–20. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=20&n=5[6] Lowell, B. L., Salzman, H., Bernstein, H., & Henderson, E. (2009). Steady as she goes? Three generations of students through the science and engineering pipeline. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.[7] Veenstra, C. P., Dey, E. L., & Herrin, G. D. (2008). Is modeling of freshman engineering success different from modeling of non‐engineering success?. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(4), 467-479.[8] Komarraju, M., Ramsey, A., & Rinella, V. (2013). Cognitive and non-cognitive
-visual aids, Power Point Presentations, Tutorials, Problem-solving sessions, writtenresearch reports, peer group discussions, etc.) to communicate with students who mayprefer to have different learning styles. The authors also recommend that studentsutilize the resources that are readily available at the university, such as Library. WritingCenter, etc.Appendix A shows how Assessment of Perceptual Modality Styles was carried out.The grading was administered using Washington State University’s Rubric. A sample ofgrading scheme is shown in Appendix B & C. The data obtained was tabulated using aLikert Scale. Several “Primary Traits” or “Characteristics” were identified andassessed. Appendix D documents this using a bar chart. It is desirable to
education, (b) a stronger pipeline for local undergraduates inpursuit of Navy civilian careers (i.e., non-military or non-combat related work and planning) inscience and engineering, and (c) a greater understanding about what constitutes STEM thinking,being and doing within a naval engineering context. Included in these desired outcomes is ourinterest in recruiting and successfully supporting participating veterans, who have been purportedto be an untapped resource of expertise and knowledge highly relevant to engineering (Crawford& Burke, 2016; Jovanovic et al., 2016). We postulated that our veteran participants would havean insider’s advantage compared to non-veteran participants due to the naval context, and thatthis unique knowledge base
continuous variables and their descriptive statistics is provided in Appendix A,and proportions for the continuous variables are provided in Appendix B. The dependent variableis a dichotomous variable indicating if students marked engineering as their major at the end ofthe fourth year of college. As all students in the sample indicated engineering at the beginning ofcollege, this variable represents whether they were retained in engineering at the end of theirfourth year of college or not. Students who initially did not select engineering, but later switchedmajors into engineering, were not included in this analysis for two reasons. First, the number ofstudents who switch into engineering tends to be quite small, much smaller than the number
I am able to solve thermodynamics problems Table 3 (continued): Overview of survey questions and the factors which they intend to measure Factor Contributing Questions Content assessment questions: 1. All heat engines: a. can attain thermal efficiencies of 50% b. are reversible c. convert only a part of their heat intake into work and discard the remainder to the surroundings d. add heat very quickly so that the heat-addition process always happens at constant volume. 2. The Stirling engine can in principle
community and were able to make connections outside SDSU on a regular, although required basis. (Faculty mentor #15) 8(b) Social support for students theme [14 of 15] • Faculty and peer social structure to support student success • Emotional support and guidance for students' personal lives both in an out of class • Reduction of financial stress • Involvement in campus activities and attachment to SDSUAs examples, surveyed faculty mentors commented as follows. "I believe that the mentoring experience helped students a lot--sitting down and discussing with each student their overall in-class and out-of-class
B. Content Aspect: includes evidence of content relevance and representativeness of the construct domain C. Generalizability Aspect: evaluates the extent to which the scores and interpretations generalize to other groups, settings, and tasks D. Consequential Aspect: evaluates the implications of the use of the instrument and score interpretations as a foundation for taking actions (especially as it relates to issues of bias and fairness); and includes evidence for evaluating both the intended and unintended consequences of use and interpretation E. Structural Aspect: evaluates the fidelity of the scoring structure to the structure of the construct domain of interest F. External Aspect