Mentoring Relationship,” Commun. Educ., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 309–334, Oct. 2012.[19] C. M. Ruud, E. S. Saclarides, C. E. George-Jackson, and S. T. Lubienski, “Tipping Points: Doctoral Students and Consideration of Departure,” J. Coll. Student Retent. Res. Theory Pract., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–22, 2016.[20] B. J. Barnes, “The nature of exemplary doctoral advisors' expectations and the ways they may influence doctoral persistence," vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 323–343, 2010.[21] C. G. P. Berdanier, C. Whitehair, A. Kirn, and D. Satterfield, “Analysis of Social Media Forums to Elicit Narratives of Graduate Engineering Student Attrition,” J. Eng. Educ
is felt positively. They are willing to participatemore and interact with their professors. For some students, the professor made a keydifference in their understanding of the subject matter. In the second semester, in [introduction to] algebra, I got a 5.0 [equivalent to a B] in my first test. I was happy because I was understanding it. After that, I realized that it was a professor’s influence. [The math professor] talked, explained and checked for understanding with questions. Then, there was a quiz, and then he explained and worked with examples. Moreover, he made us participate in class. He was a bit tough, he started saying, “you! Solve
between clusters andalso minimizing variance within the clusters. Promax rotation was utilized to adjust for the factthat some of the factors in our survey were correlated; more details about correlation amongfactors and utilizing rotation in a cluster analysis may be found in the literature40,41.Phase IIIn Spring 2015, students enrolled in the same sophomore level IE course in Fall 2014 wererecruited to participate in semi-structured interviews (see Appendix B) addressing their views ofthe future and how they regulate their learning. Four students volunteered for the interviews, andeach student was given a $20 Amazon card as incentive for participating. Interviews weretranscribed, and the text was analyzed with RQDA using directed content
. The benefits of peer mentoring and PLAs span more than just the outcomes of thestudents taking the targeted course. Many studies [11, 12] have emphasized the benefits to thementors, the mentees, professors, and the university.It is important to differentiate a PLA, in this work, from normal TAs. The PLAs role is to helpstudents with all aspects of a course, including homework, exams, labs, and project work. Theydo not grade student work. PLAs are undergraduate students who have taken the course inquestion and performed reasonably well (usually A and B grade students.) Selection for the PLAposition is usually based on the student’s ability to communicate and their drive to help otherslearn. Table 1 illustrates the basic differences of the two
. 95, no. 1, p. 25, 2006.7. R. Stevens, K. O’Connor, L. Garrison, A. Jocuns, and D. M. Amos, “Becoming an Engineer: Toward a Three Dimensional View of Engineering Learning. Research Brief.,” Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (NJ1), 2008.8. H. Matusovich, R. Streveler, R. Miller, and B. Olds, “I’m Graduating This Year! So What Is An Engineer Anyway?,” in Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX, 2009, p. 14.821.1-14.821.18.9. Pierrakos, T. K. Beam, H. Watson, E. Thompson, and R. Anderson, “Gender differences in freshman engineering students’ identification with engineering,” in 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2010.10. O. Pierrakos, T. K. Beam, J. Constantz
Analysis and Optimization: An Exploratory Study (Evidence-based Practice)Background and MotivationThere is a long-standing interest and focus in educational research on electricity-related concepts, due totwo essential reasons: (a) electricity is one of the central areas of science, technology, and engineeringcurricula at all levels of education, and (b) its concepts are particularly difficult to teach and learn becausethey are abstract and complex 1. Therefore, both educators and students face several challengesthroughout the learning process 2. Students often develop their own conceptions of electricity, which maybe in conflict with the formal science perspectives 3. When these students’ interpretations of
tinkering because all ofthe modeling and Making is encapsulated within kits that the students purchase, but the creationelement is still present. The instructor references that the students are “inventors” because they arecreating something that is new to them. Even though this is a supportive/ mezzanine course it isessentially a project course in which the students are tasked to create a functional robot, and theymust learn how to meet this goal by the end of the semester. Making and the creation of thisartifact is a key component to the success of students in this course. There appears to be a high“overhead cost” in that the professor spends substantial time planning the semester projects.Case B focuses on a sophomore level required course on
events. In addition, feeling comfortable and welcomed in a space will build students’ sense of belonging. Survey results indicated that the atmosphere was the second strongest factor in determining the likelihood of a student returning to the center.3. Study center spaces should provide access to resources, including technology. Being able to access computers, software, printers, and other resources contributes to the functionality of the location. It makes the space more convenient because it acts as a one-stop-shop for effective study and makes it more likely that students will a) stay longer when they come and b) return more frequently. This is the third biggest factor influencing students to return to the space, according to
be used forindividual, group, or full-class learning experiences. If the students come well-prepared and theexercises are well-designed, then it is hoped that students will leave the face-to-face time with adeeper understanding of the core concepts, one which they have worked to develop through theirown efforts with the support of their peers and the instructor.The inverted classroom approach has a basis in three well-known principles of the science oflearning: (a) Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development 1, (b) Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning 2,and (c) “How the Brain Learns” and the retention of core material 3. Lev Vygotsky introducedthe concept of a zone of proximal development (ZPD) to describe the intermediary state betweenthe things a
grant from the National Science Foundation (Award # EEC-1730576). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. The authors are grateful to Catherine McGough and Rachel Lanning fortheir assistance in collecting and analyzing survey data.References[1] W. Sarasua, N. Kaye, J. Ogle, N. Benaissa, L. Benson, B. Putman and A. Pfirman, “Engaging Civil Engineering Students Through a ‘Capstone-like’ Experience in their Sophomore Year.” Proceedings of the 2020 Annual American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Conference and Exposition, Virtual Conference, June 21 – 24, 2020.[2] Ogle, J.H., Bolding
Indicators of ‘Yield’ From Mixed Methods Studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147-163. [8] Mark, M. M. (2015). Mixed and multimethods in predominantly quantitative studies, especially experiments and quasi-experiments. In S. Hesse-Biber & B. Johnson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. (p. 21-41). New York: Oxford University Press. [9] Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(2), 112-133. [10] Reeping, D., Taylor, A. R., Knight, D. B., & Edwards, C. (2019). Mixed methods analysis strategies in program evaluation beyond “a little quant here, a little qual
. Dev., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 223–236, 2005.[3] E. A. Linnenbrink and P. R. Pintrich, "Motivation as an enabler for academic success," School Psych. Rev., vol. 31, no. 3, p. 313, 2002.[4] A. C. Koenka, L. Linnenbrink-Garcia, H. Moshontz, K. M. Atkinson, C. E. Sanchez, and H. Cooper, "A meta-analysis on the impact of grades and comments on academic motivation and achievement: a case for written feedback," Educ. Psychol., pp. 1–22, 2019.[5] R. E. Clark and B. Saxberg, "Engineering motivation using the belief-expectancy-control framework," Interdiscip. Educ. Psychol., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2018.[6] M. Bong, "Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal orientations, and attributional beliefs," J
prepare the next generation’s STEM-savvy citizensto be ready for the complex and unknown challenges and opportunities the future holds.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1329321. We would like to extend our thanks to the participants of this study and their families,as well as to Maker Faire for allowing us to connect with our participants.ReferencesAnderson, C. (2014). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. Crown Business.Barron, B. (2006). Interest and Self-Sustained Learning as Catalysts of Development: A Learning Ecology Perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094368Bean, J., & Rosner, D. (2014). Making: movement or brand
cell phone. This semester, 35 different projects weresubmitted and analyzed. To guide the students during the projects, the instructor provided a detailedassessment rubric, as well as some general guidelines for each project. These guidelines includedrecommendations for viability analysis, literature review, model validation, optimal electrolyte/saltconcentration, and specific guidelines depending on the type of technology selected. No recommendationsconcerning the use of representations was included. As mentioned on the rubric, the projects were gradedbased on the students’ rationale about each step of the following modeling and simulation process adaptedfrom Shiflet and Shiflet 23: (a) problem description, (b) problem framing, (c) model
’.Main motifs were then selected as representative of the themes identified as described above.After three main motifs were identified, themes were reviewed for existing I-statements. Afterdoing this categorization , the researchers realized that it would be critical to separate two ofGee’s1 categories, a) State and Action, and b) Ability and Constraint into four separatecategories. This decision was important given that participants made distinct reference to thesecategories and to converge them would have given a faulty representation of participants’experiences. Conversely, the researchers decided to eliminate the Achievement Statementcategory due to the absence of this category in the data. Later in the analysis process the topthree
the status of the old action items. The Program Term Review module of EvalTools® 6 consistsof three parts a) Learning Domains Evaluation b) PIs Evaluation and c) ABET SOs Evaluation asper our specific requests and requirements. The PIs and SOs evaluation is focused on failing SOsand PIs for analysis and discussions relating to improvement [37]. Weighted average values ofABET SOs and PIs [34] with a scientific color coding scheme as per PVT heuristic rules shown inFigure 12 indicate failures for investigation. Courses contributing to failing PIs and SOs areexamined [37]. The action items generated in the FCAR are at times evaluated to become tasks forthe standing committees for actual CQI action.The Faculty of Engineering has presented an
2006-1336: THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN ENGINEERINGATTRITIONGuili Zhang, University of Florida Guili Zhang is research assistant professor in College of Engineering, University of Florida. She received a Ph.D. in Research and Evaluation Methodology at the University of Florida. She also received a B.A. in British and American Language and Literature at Shandong University, China, and a Master of Education degree at Georgia Southern University. Previously, she served as a staff development specialist and researcher at Jinan District Education Commission, China, and took part in the writing and revision of the National Unified Text Books and Teacher’s Reference Books. She
change in university STEM education (No. arXiv: 1412.3037).Sarabia-Cobo, C. M., Sarabia-Cobo, A. B., Pérez, V., Hermosilla, C., Nuñez, M. J., & de Lorena, P. (2015). Barriers in implementing research among registered nurses working in the care of the elderly: a multicenter study in Spain. Applied Nursing Research, 28(4), 352–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APNR.2015.03.003Steering Committee of the National Engineering Education Research Colloquies (2006). Special report: The research agenda for the new discipline of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 259–261.Subcommittee of Education Reform, U.S. Congress, U. S. H. of R. (2002). From research to practice: Improving America’s schools
density functions usingthe maximum likelihood method. This made it possible to quantify the observations made in thechart. The results are shown in Table 2. Persisters Non-Persisters Institution Scale (m) Shape Scale (m) Shape A (53%) 15.99 0.46 7.73 0.59 B (38%) 6.43 0.74 3.47 0.81 C (50%) 41.67 0.58 14.29 0.65 D (31%) 13.26 0.68 4.50 0.77 E (57%) 37.74
AC 2010-1756: SPECIAL SESSION: NEXT GENERATION PROBLEM-SOLVING:RESULTS TO DATE - MODELS AND MODELING USING MEASLarry Shuman, University of Pittsburgh Larry J. Shuman is Senior Associate Dean for Academics and Professor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh. His research focuses on improving the engineering educational experience with an emphasis on assessment of design and problem solving, and the study of the ethical behavior of engineers and engineering managers. A former senior editor of the Journal of Engineering Education, Dr. Shuman is the founding editor of Advances in Engineering Education. He has published widely in the engineering education literature, and is co-author
subjectstransition between the various attributes 17.References1. Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA, SAGE Publications, 1985.2. Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1984.3. Bucciarelli, L. L. Designing Engineers. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994.4. Brereton, M.F., et al. An Exploration of Engineering Learning. in ASME - Design Theory and Methodology. 1993.5. Besterfield-Sacre, M., E. Newcome, L. Shuman, and H. Wolfe, “Extending Work Sampling to Behavioral and Cognitive Concepts,” Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Houston, TX, May 16 – 18, 2004 (CD- ROM - 6 pgs.).6. Aft, L., Work Measurement and Methods Improvement, John
in the application of the rubric to future transcripts. The generaldecision rules are found on the first page of the rubric, which is located in Appendix B. Scoringrules per ABET skill are located on the corresponding ABET skill page in the rubric. Thesescoring aides allowed the research team to have only two research participants score each of thesubsequent transcripts. By reducing the number of participants, scoring time was reduced toapproximately 2 hours per transcript (2x45 minutes of scoring by individual raters + 30 minutesof sharing scores and forming consensus). The subsequent scores are shown in Table 6 whereraters produced a singular consensus score. This effort has produced a number of best practicesfor annotating transcripts
measurementframeworks: Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT); and (b) toinvestigate its relationship with academic-related variables to provide validity evidence.Approximately 600 freshmen enrolled in the fall 2010 FYE Program in a large Midwesternpublic university completed the Revised PSVT:R. Students’ academic performance, such asSAT/ACT subject scores and high school core GPA, were retrieved from the university archivesalong with students’ demographic backgrounds. The results indicated that the revised PSVT:Rmeasures a unidimentional subcomponent of spatial ability and the scores are reliable formeasuring spatial visualization ability of FYE students. They also indicated that the test isrelatively easy for this population.1
, and b) how can the informationobtained from student evaluation be used to improve student learning and instructional methods?Concept maps, rather than beginning with a single idea or topic begin with a “focus question”.Furthermore, concept maps promote the development of a student’s understanding by requiringthem to “link” one idea to another with a single word or phrase. Mind maps tend to encouragethe generation of ideas, while concept maps encourage the linking of concepts. Furthermore, 15concept maps are defined as tools for organizing and representing knowledge , and researchers
. Knowledge/Background corresponded with Outcome (h) thebroad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a societalcontext, and Outcome (j), a knowledge of contemporary issues. Math and Theory correspondedwith Outcome (a) an ability to apply mathematics, science and engineering appropriate to thediscipline. Problem Solving corresponded with Outcome (a) an ability to apply mathematics,science and engineering appropriate to the discipline, and Outcome (e) an ability to identify,formulate and solve engineering problems. Concepts, Think/Reason, and Logic correspondedwith Outcome (e) an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems, Analyticalcorresponded with Outcome (b) an ability to design and conduct
categorize a problem better if thereexists an understanding of the deep structure of a problem, and this supports the problem solverin the quest of finding the correct solution approaches 17.Therefore, to effectively integrate these tools in engineering contexts, students can also developproblem solving and design skills in addition to inquiry skills, the adoption of a “practiceperspective” is needed 3. In a practice perspective the focus of learning is on participation inauthentic contexts where the learning experiences: (a) are personally meaningful to the learner,(b) relate to the real-world, and (c) provide an opportunity to think in the modes of a particulardiscipline 4. Since practice consists of a process of action and reflection in context 5
education at the University of Michigan.Dr. Mar P´erez-Sanagust´ın, Universit´e Paul Sabatier Toulouse III Mar P´erez-Sanagust´ın is a researcher and Associate Professor at the Computer Science Department of the Universit´e Paul Sabatier and associate researcher at the Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. Her research interests are technology-enhanced learning, engineering education, Self-Regulated Learning, MOOCs and b-learning.Dr. Jorge Baier, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile He is an associate professor in the Computer Science Department and Associate Dean for Engineering Education at the Engineering School in Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. Jorge holds a PhD in Computer Science from
variables added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regressioncoefficients and concomitant statistics can be found in Table 2 (below).Table 2. Multiple regression results for Academic achievement goals Academic B 95% CI for B SE B R2 ΔR2 achievement goals LL UL Model .49 .24*** (Constant) 5.16*** 2.57 7.76 1.32 Academic motivation .899*** .69 1.11 .11 .35*** Confidence at .316*** .20 .44 .06 .21*** completing a degree
, advance in their career, maintain personal finances, andobtain background on what it means to become and entrepreneur. These are essential topics inthe growth of individual engineers and in the field of Science, Technology, Engineering, andMathematics.Prior to entering university, engineering students may have been offered a high school coursesuch as Consumer’s Education. Consumer’s Education utilizes a multidisciplinary approach toteach high school students about the marketplace, decision making, money management,housing, basic necessities, and other relevant topics13. Each of these lessons aims to teachstudents about real life scenarios involving money and their future. B. Douglas Bernheim andDaniel M. Garrett have studied the long term effects
; Snijders, T. A. B. (2003). A comparison of measures for individual social capital. Paper presented at the Creation of and Returns to Social Capital. Retrieved from http://www.xs4all.nl/~gaag/work/comparison_paper.pdf.16. Trenor, J.M., Gipson, K., and Miller, M.K. (2011). Developing a Survey Instrument to Characterize Social Capital Resources Impacting Undergraduates' Decisions to Enter and Persist in Engineering. Proceedings of the 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, South Dakota.17. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.18. Van Note Chism, Douglas, and Hilson (2008). Qualitative Research Basics: A Guide for Engineering Educators