Teaching International, 2004. 41(1): p. 59-78.14. Durrington, V.A., A. Berryhill, and J. Swafford, Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 2006. 54(1): p. 190-193.15. Carlson, P.A. and F.C. Berry, Using computer-mediated peer review in an engineering design course. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 2008. 51(3): p. 264-79.16. Furman, B. and W. Robinson. Improving engineering report writing with calibrated peer review. in Engineering as a Human Endaevor: Partnering Community, Academia, Government, and Industry, November 5, 2003 - November 8, 2003. 2003. Westminster, CO, United states: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.17. Nelson, S
in physical activity. This is hardly surprising given studentfeelings of isolation as a result of the pandemic and decreased availability of organized physicalactivities such as recreational sports. Prior physical activity, even light walking, in some casesappears to have converted to sedentary behavior; as one student remarked, “[b]efore [the]pandemic I [was] a very active person [who] like[d] to move around,” but “since the quarantinehappen[ed] I mostly or [sic] lie down all day.” Sedentary behavior over time can have significanthealth consequences, including an increased risk of hypertension and diabetes mellitus [20]. Onthe other hand, some students have been able to find opportunities to use their time to improvetheir physical fitness
identify patterns in the student perceptions of the engineering design processand the utility of science and math content. b In the group interviews, one student often dominated the conversation or all students wouldagree and co-construct a response. This made it near impossible to reliably attribute beliefs to Page 25.1191.4individual students. As such, we collapsed across the students in the group interviews
, educational objectives10. a. b. Role Skill Critical Accomplishments Knowledge Work Activities Self-Concept Tasks Trait Skills, Knowledge & Attributes MotiveFigure 2: Levels of investigation of competencies adapted from Plonka24– and Iceberg model of layers of competency according to
works A 3-1 Comprehensive quality evaluation Participation degree of activities Campus activities A 4 A 4-1 system for undergraduates Academic score B 1 Avearge score B 1-1 Learning ability B Sucject competition Sucject competitions involved
program) havereceived credit for completing undergraduate research, but this is often a “stand-alone” coursewith no additional preparation and ill-defined outcomes. While this approach may provide alaboratory experience, the research experience is greatly dependent on the research laboratoryand the research advisor. The significant increase in expected students performingundergraduate honors research also suggests that a group mentoring approach may be required inorder not to require additional time from the research mentors. In an effort to improve theundergraduate research experience, we will be initiating an Engineering Honors ResearchMethods course for the undergraduate Honors students during the Spring 2020 semester as a pre-requisite for
try again.”Students also discussed goal setting for particular task: “I remember when we were trying tocome up with the design for the landing gear, how to attach it to this body. We were like we needlanding gear here, but we don’t have any material there, let’s just draw a bar over there. And wedid, connect point a to point b.”Students who processed, summarized and elaborated the required information were coded asinformation management strategies, such as: “There are things that are based on most quadcopterstyles, and there were certain considerations that we had to come up with – so one of the things[in the] competition is why is additive manufacturing a good thing for this design. So we triedto – you can change the density of some of the
AC 2012-3395: DESIGN FOR THE OTHER 90% AND APPROPRIATETECHNOLOGY: THE LEGACIES OF PAUL POLAK AND E.F. SCHU-MACHERLindsey Anne Nelson, Purdue University, West Lafayette Lindsey Nelson is a doctoral student in engineering education. She has a B.S. in mechanical engineer- ing from Boston University and a M.A. in poverty and development from the Institute of Development Studies housed at the University of Sussex in England. Her research interests include sustainable de- sign, engineering design methodologies, the public’s understanding of engineering, poverty mitigation, global participation, and engineering education. She is a passionate advocate for inclusive and socially just engineering professional practice
] [First Authors Last Name] Page 17 test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. doi: 10.1119/1.18809.Hasna, A. M. (2008, July). Problem based learning in engineering design. Paper presented at the SEFI 36th Annual Conference 2008 Aalborg, DK.Holt, J. E., Radcliffe, D. F., & Schoorl, D. (1985). Design or problem solving - a critical choice for the engineering profession. Design Studies, 6(2), 107-110.Hora, M. T. & Millar, S. B. (2008). A final case study of SCALE activities at UW-Madison: The influence of institutional context on a K–20 STEM education change initiative. WCER Working Paper No. 2008-6: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Hsieh, C
learning.Educators should always ask the following questions: “Did the teachers and school leadersinterpret the reports correctly? If not, we needed to change the reports. Was there a consequentialaction from the reports?”B. Being Empathetic and Having The Right Mind Frame “A successful educator sees learning through the eyes of the students.”Empathetic teaching focuses on getting feedback about what the student does and does not knowand work backward from that. In this regard, Hattie has defined ten mind frames for educatorsdescribing how effective instructors think about feedback and formative assessment [37] (a sum-mary is presented in Table I). It is important for the educators to train their students on receivingand providing constructive feedback
Engineering Design (EI-100) is a first-semester 3 credit required course for everyengineering program of Universidad de las Américas Puebla (UDLAP). Course content andclassroom activities are divided into three, two-hour sessions (Modeling, Concepts, andLaboratory) per week. Students have six different EI-100 facilitators (an instructor and teachingassistant for each session). UDLAP’s engineering students have in EI-100 a great opportunity fora multidisciplinary collaborative experience. EI-100 is a team-taught course that uses active,collaborative and cooperative learning, which has been a major player in UDLAP’s efforts ofengineering education reform since 2001. However, EI-100 could be improved taking intoaccount technological advances and recent
ability).Results "Validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretation oftest scores entailed by proposed uses of tests" [55]. Evaluating validity requires developingsound scientific evidence for judging the interpretability of the instrument’s results andsubsequent decision-making based on this evidence [55, 56]. There are a variety of types ofevidence that may be used to validate an instrument, depending on the proposed interpretationand use of the resulting scale scores [55, 57]. For this paper we focused on aspects of validitythat were addressed through the scale development process. The results are organized based onthe type of validity examined: a) content validity, b) structural or construct validity
Paper ID #10030”Professional” Acts: Analyzing sites of identity and interactive response inchemical engineering studentsMs. Deborah Tihanyi, University of Toronto Deborah Tihanyi is a Senior Lecturer in the Engineering Communication Program.Dr. Penny Kinnear, University of Toronto Page 24.1411.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 “Professional” Acts: Analyzing sites of identity and interactive response in chemical engineering
. Leu and C. K. Kinzer, Eds. Chicago: National ReadingConference, 1995, pp. 197-204.[6] J. Piaget, The Equilibrium of Cognitive Structures. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1985.[7] R. J. Spiro, "Constructive processes in prose recall," in Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension:Perspectives in Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and Education, R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruceand W. F. Brewer, Eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1980, pp. 245-278.[8] V. Picciarelli, M. di Gennaro, R. Stella and E. Conte, "A Study of University Students' Understanding of SimpleElectric Circuits Part 2: Batteries, Ohm's Law, Power Dissipated, Resistors in Parallel," European Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 16
evaluate project centered and spiral curricula from other institutions and their ability tobe transferred to the Purdue environment; B) to develop, teach and evaluate two prototypecourses in BFPE and Chemical Engineering that demonstrate the integration of a select numberof targeted Engineer of 2020 attributes in practice; C) to design a prototype project based spiralcurriculum that incorporates the target attributes of the Engineer of 2020 into the BFPE program;D) to develop a "lessons learned" data base to guide the College of Engineering in wideradoption of spiral curriculum by a) forming a College of Engineering advisory group who willassist in assessing outcomes, b) progressively evaluating the operation of courses usingreflective instruments
Boise State University. She oversees projects in freshman programs, math support, mentoring, outreach, and women’s programs. She earned a B.S.E. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Duke University and a master’s degree in journalism from the University of California at Berkeley.Cheryl Schrader, Boise State University Cheryl B. Schrader is Dean of the College of Engineering and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boise State University. Dean Schrader has an extensive record of publications and sponsored research in the systems, control and engineering education fields. She received the 2005 Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Engineering and Mathematics
Page 12.1567.13learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), pp. 260-268(9).5. Mazur, E. (1997), Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.6. Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J., Mestre, J.P. and Wenk, L. (1996),‘Classtalk: A classroomcommunication system for active learning’, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.7. Bransford, JD, Brown, AL & Cocking, RR, eds. (1999) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School.Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.8. Linsenmeier, RA, Olds, SA, and Kolikant, Y B-D (2006) Instructor and course changes resulting from an HPL-inspired use of Personal Response Systems. Proceedings, 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,October
education,” Engineering Education, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.39-46, 2011.[9] M. J. Graham, J. Frederick, A. Byars-Winston, A. B. Hunter, and J. Handelsman, “Increasing persistence of college students in STEM.,” Science, vol. 341, no. 6153, pp.1455-1456, 2013.[10] C. Fleischmann, E. Nakagawa, and T. Kelley, “Redesigning the student learning approach through personality types and pedagogies: A case study in an undergraduate engineering course,” Universal Journal of Educational Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 426-431, 2016. doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.040217[11] ABET. “Criteria for evaluating engineering programs, 2018-19.” Available: https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting
score at 14.9% was classified as machine operators, andsemiskilled workers. Lastly 21.3% of students reported their parents as skilled craftsmen,clerical, or sales workers.Eighth Grade Math/Science Scores and Current GPA Among the participants in this study the majority of students reported receiving the gradeof “C” or higher in eighth grade math or science. More importantly ~ 44% of them received a“B” in math and almost 50% of students received a “B” in science. Roughly 17% of studentsreported receiving an “A” in both eighth grade math and science. This is important signifyingthat students performed above average in these core courses. According to the school district’sdefinition a “C” is considered an average grade. The average
. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Chicago, IL, June, 2006. 8. Olds, B. M., Streveler, R. A., Miller, R. L., and Nelson, M. A. (June, 2004). “Preliminary Results from the Development of a Concept Inventory in Thermal and Transport Science.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Salt Lake City, UT. 9. Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T.H., and Resnick, L. B. (2000). “Naive Physics Reasoning: A Commitment to Substance-Based Conceptions,” Cognition and Instruction, Volume 18, Number 1, 1-43. 10. Rowe, G., Wright, G., and Bolger, F. (1991). Delphi: A Reevaluation of Research and Theory. Technological
climate. Following the initial coding, the threeresearchers met to define preliminary hypotheses based on the results. Considering both researchquestions, the researchers drafted 10 initial hypotheses that were used as a starting point for theremainder of the data analysis.The next phase in analytic induction is to examine a new case25, for this study that aligned with anew interview, final report, or qualitative survey response. The aim of this examination is todetermine whether the hypotheses adequately describe the new case. If a hypothesis does nothold, the hypothesis is either (a) modified to capture the new case and all previous cases moreaccurately or (b) given bounds such that this new case is excluded from the hypothesis25. The
you influence the students’ academicand career choices?” and, “How did you influence the students’ conceptions of science andengineering?”. The complete undergraduate student and graduate student/faculty member Page 25.1308.7interview protocols can be found in Appendices A and B. 63.0 Results and Discussion3.1 Program Demographics In six years of this REU program, 64 Aundergraduate students have been supportedthrough funding from the National ScienceFoundation. These students are from 24different states and 46 institutions (Figure 1
. Thehybrid rubric also contains a column to indicate the percentage of total score allocation for eachdescriptor (major step of learning activity) corresponding to a certain PI. The scales implementedare obtained from Estell’s FCAR [44,45], E, A, M and U performance vectors [59] that stand for theExcellent: (100-90)%, Adequate: (89-75)%, Minimal (74-60)% and Unsatisfactory: ( 0-60)%categories respectively. The Office of Quality and Accreditation at the Faculty of Engineering hasdeveloped elaborate, step by step, instructional videos for developing hybrid rubrics for the CE[65] , EE[66] and ME[67] programs. The appendix B provides a documented sample of hybrid rubricsdevelopment process from a workshop organized by the office of quality and
, as its creators ponder a dark side to success. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118228116940840904.html. The Wall Street Journal. B-1.3 Alley, Michael, and Katherine A. Neeley (2005). Rethinking the Design of Presentation Slides: A Case for Sentence Headlines and Visual Evidence. Technical Communication, 52 (4), 417-426.4 Tufte, Edward R. (2003, September 11). PowerPoint is evil. Wired, www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html.5 Schwartz, John (2003, September 28). The level of discourse continues to slide. The New York Times.6 Keller, Julia (2004, January 23). Is PowerPoint the devil? Chicago Tribune.7 Tufte, Edward R. (2003). The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.8 Patty, Anna (2007, April 4
Paper ID #12572Engineering, Society and the Environment in the Teaching Goals and Prac-tices of Engineering InstructorsMs. Lisa Romkey, University of Toronto Lisa Romkey serves as Senior Lecturer, Curriculum, Teaching and Learning with the Division of Engi- neering Science at the University of Toronto. In this position, Lisa plays a central role in the evaluation, design and delivery of a dynamic and complex curriculum, while facilitating the development and imple- mentation of various teaching and learning initiatives. Lisa is cross-appointed with the Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at OISE/UT, and
theinvestigators from five diverse institutions is an effort consisting of two primary goals 24, asoutlined in Table 1. Meeting these objectives is expected to result in a more comprehensivepicture of the state of LTS from the view of the faculty, who are agents of university culture.Table 1: Purpose, goals, and objectives of the EFELTS Project.PURPOSE: “to provide the motivation, training, and resources to catalyze widespread adoptionof LTS among engineering faculty, departments, and colleges interested in offering modern andeffective curricula 24.Goal 1: Understand the motivations, obstacles, and strategies for engineering faculty whocurrently offer LTS opportunities. a) understanding why faculty adopt LTSObjectives b
contribute to the students' skills/knowledge and identity? What elements contribute to students’ persistence in an engineering major and persistence in the engineering profession? 4. What skills do early career engineers need as they enter the workplace?Given the scale of the APS investigation with multiple schools and student populations, theanswers to these questions will allow us to identify educational practices that contribute tostudents persisting and thriving in engineering, and potential strategies for attracting morestudents to the study of engineering.This paper describes the evolution and implementation of the Academic Pathways Study (APS),a five year, multi-institution study designed to address these questions and
.” Donna furthercompares her work ethic to her American peers: “Like one of my American friends, hewas like, ‘Doesn’t matter’, you know, and I’m fighting down my B’s and getting B’s, anddoing everything that I can to not get a B….so when they say they’ll get a C whereas formost of us … C’s aren’t enough, …, we don’t want to even see that… You could tellbasically by their mentality in class and by the way they deal with work and assignmentsand stuff like that.”The acknowledgement of these differences was also cited by the African Americanengineering students. Morris, an African American civil engineering student discussedgender differences, but made special mention of African Caribbean female students.“…a lot of females don’t choose this major… So
AC 2007-220: EXPERIENCES AND EXPECTATIONS OF DOCTORALINSTITUTION FACULTY COLLABORATING ACROSS DISCIPLINESMaura Borrego, Virginia Tech MAURA BORREGO is an assistant professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech and 2005 Rigorous Research in Engineering Education evaluator. Dr. Borrego holds an M.S. and Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from Stanford University. Her current research interests center around interdisciplinary collaboration in engineering and engineering education, including studies of the collaborative relationships between engineers and education researchers. She was recently awarded a CAREER grant from NSF to study interdisciplinarity in engineering graduate
engineering: research and practice of an interest-based engineering challengesframework", European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 44, no. 1-2, pp. 103-122.Krüger, M. & Diercks-O'Brien, G. 2013, Cooperative and self-directed learning with thelearning scenario VideoLearn: Engineering education using lecture recordings.Liu, W., Tan, R., Peng, Q., Li, H., Li, Z. & Yang, B. 2020, "Impact of TRIZ learning onperformance in biologically inspired design", International Journal of EngineeringEducation, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 974-987.Lönngren, J., Adawi, T. & Svanström, M. 2019, "Scaffolding strategies in a rubric-basedintervention to promote engineering students’ ability to address wicked problems", EuropeanJournal of Engineering Education