environment as men, and theymight not develop a strong sense of self-determination and internalization of the learning.Table 4. Descriptive statistics and gender-based comparisons of SIMS subscale measures for women and men incourses with (a) traditional pedagogy, (b) mixed pedagogy, and (c) non-traditional pedagogy. Between groups p-values are from independent samples t-tests, and effect sizes are Cohen’s d. Small (*) and medium (**) effect sizesare indicated. ns = not significant. a. TRADITIONAL PEDAGOGY Men Women Effect (N=1606) (N=2366) size Motivation Subscale
.0080 .828511 11091 86 3972 .0072 .822512 7843 58 2824 .0074 .8164(table 3) starts with a sub-sample population of 51,970. In hazard rate and absolute numbers thegreatest risk for “attraction” is in semesters 2-5, with a peak in semester 4. By the end of theperiods examined, 82% abstained from switching into STM or 18.36% were attracted into thefield. These results are now displayed in the hazard and survivor functions graphed below. Page 23.1187.8 Figure 1 – Hazard (left) and Survival (right) rates by semester for the three sub-sample populations.Figure 1 shows the hazard (a) and survival (b) function
outputs. The classificationthreshold for the three models was set to allow 25% of students be predicted as at risk. Predictionof retention was evaluated based on overall prediction accuracy, probability of detection (POD)for retained students, and probability of detection (POD) for non-retained students. Prediction ofGPA was evaluated based on sum of squared errors (SSE) 18. The following table and equationsdefine these terms: Predicted Retained Non-Retained Retained a b Actual Non-Retained
).Burke, R. J., & Mattis, M. C. (2007). Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Upping the numbers. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187-1218. doi:10.1002/tea.20237Cass, C. A. P., Hazari, Z., Cribbs, J., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2011). Examining the impact of mathematics identity on the choice of engineering careers for male and female students. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference Rapid City, SD.Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L
-2011 with no awardavailable in 1976, 1977, and 1980, as illustrated in Figure 2(a). Among all these proposals, thereare 517 proposals from DGE, 894 from DRL, 4,603 from DUE, and 1,718 from EEC, as shownin Figure 2(b). The metadata downloaded from nsf.gov contains the following fields: title,abstract, PI, co-PI, awarded institution, award revision date, active period, award amount,directorate, NSF organization, and NSF program. Note that NSF does not make proposal fulltexts available to the public. Number of selected awards in each year Number of selected awards from each
higher levels of project performance through improved teamwork (Van Knippenberg,van Ginkel, & Homan, 2013). Two layers of diversity attributes were identified by researchers:(a) the surface level (e.g., age, gender, race, and physical disabilities; Mannix & Neale, 2005);and (b) the deep level (e.g., cognitive ability, personality traits, values, beliefs, and attitudes;Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). However, the majority of studies on team diversity havefocused solely on surface-level attributes because deep-level diversity tends to be difficult tomeasure. The present study aims to explore micro-level patterns of behavior where effects ofdeep level diversity are manifested to create a collaborative environment and attenuate
Multiple Identity science, (2) the rules that govern the behavior of an engineer, and (3) the Theory environmental setting of the institution in which one learns to become an engineer. It is this latter factor that we have examined in this study.”Godwin (no specific Identity is composed of students’ perceptions of their performance/competence, Hazari (2010)32,(2013a;b)29; 30 Identity theory) recognition, and interest in a domain. (p. 1) Cass (2011)23, Potvin (2011
integrate their fundamental engineering scienceknowledge should be more efficient with the experimental designs. a b cFigure 1. Screen shots of the Virtual CVD 3D Student Client a. Virtual CVD reactor parameter inputs: these parameters must be input by the student to run the reactor b. selection of measurement points on a wafer c. CVD reactor bay in the virtual factory.Real-time assessment has been identified as a critical, but lacking, aspect of most virtual andphysical laboratory learning experiences.13 To meet this need, the Virtual CVD laboratoryinstructor web interface has been designed to allow formative assessment of student’sperformance and to
17engineering diploma programs since July 2017 [1] by the Maharashtra State Board ofTechnical Education (MSBTE), Mumbai and being offered in the 452 technical institutionsgeographically spread miles apart across the whole state of Maharashtra (see figure 1). University/Board of Technical Education (Certifying Body) Institution ‘a’ Institution ‘b’ Miles apart geographically separated institutes Institution ‘n’ Figure 1. Centrally Controlled University Affiliated College System of IndiaOf the several innovations, a major one that was incorporated in this new curriculum modelwas the seamless integration of the separately offered ‘laboratory course’ (seen in thecurricula of some universities), as part of the whole
practice of similar problem. Q#30 Indicate the cut-off, active and saturation regions on the following i-v characteristic curves for a BJT: Collector current, mA Note: These are typical i-v characteristic curves for the BJT. Students have been using these curves to identify the three operating regions of a BJT. A similar Page 15.833.5 problem was assigned in the homework. b. Inferential problems: Inferential problems required a step further to the
DevelopmentBased on the literature review on leadership theories and development, six factors necessary forengineering students’ leadership development were considered for assessing leadership self-efficacy: (a) leadership opportunity, (b) goal setting, (c) team motivation, (d) innovative changes,(e) ethnical action and integrity, and (f) engineering practice. Table 1 describes the definition ofeach construct.Table 1. Six Factors that constitute the Leadership Self-efficacy Scale for Engineering Students Construct Definition (Abbreviation) Leadership Opportunity Students’ personal belief in their ability to develop their own (LO) leadership by taking the initiative in a team. Goal Setting
they believe each engineering undergraduate degreeprogram should be able to cultivate in their students, including: (a) an ability to apply knowledgeof mathematics, science and engineering, (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, aswell as to analyze and interpret data, (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process tomeet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political,ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability, (e) an ability to identify,formulate, and solve engineering problems, and (g) an ability to communicate effectively (ABETCriterion 3. Student Outcomes (a-k)). We argue that all of these skills are essential componentsof the argumentation process
=−∞ Fs () F ()/Ts … … -S -B B S Figure 10 – Scaled frequency spectrum of a continuous signal (solid line) and the frequency spectrum, Fs (), of its sampled version.Under these conditions, it should be clear that in order to reconstruct/retrieve the continuous signalfrom the corresponding discrete/sampled signal, the sampling frequency, S, needs to be at leasttwice as large as the largest frequency, B, of the (frequency spectrum of the) continuous signal.Otherwise, overlap may occur between the
., Hinkin, 1998). Inaddition to authentic engineering practices, we used ABET’s EC2000 Criterion 3a-k as atheoretical basis for defining elements of engineering practice: a. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering 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 multi-disciplinary teams e. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems f. an understanding of professional and ethical
a network of opportunities external to the universityPage 15.1122.11VI. Bibliography[1] Berger, J. B., & Lyon, S. C. (2005). Past and present: A historical view of retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success. Westport, CT: Praeger.[2] Seidman, A. (2005). College student retention: Formula for student success. Westport, CT: Praeger.[3] Tinto, V. & Pusser, B. (2006). Moving from theory to action: Building a model of institutional action for student success. Commissioned paper presented at the 2006 Symposium of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC).[4] Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
knowledgeMetacognition is “knowledge of one’s knowledge, processes, and cognitive and affective states;and the ability to consciously and deliberately monitor and regulate one’s knowledge, processes,and cognitive and affective states” (Hacker, 1998, p. 3). This definition, and others (e.g., Brown& DeLoache, 1978; Kluwe, 1982; Schraw & Moshman, 1995; Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, &Afflerbach, 2006), identifies both declarative and procedural components of metacognition (seeFigure 1). Metacognitive declarative knowledge consists of a person’s knowledge or beliefsabout: (a) one’s cognitive and affective states and the states of others; (b) a task, its demands,and how those demands can be met under varying conditions; and (c) strategies foraccomplishing
“knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselvesknowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing” 34: Page 26.1696.3 a) the teacher teaches and the students are taught; b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing; c) the teacher thinks and the students are thought about; d) the teacher talks and the students listen—meekly; e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined; f) the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply; g) the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher; h) the teacher chooses
behavior as they fill incells in the matrices. One of the strengths of their paper is the correspondence between examwrappers and professional software engineering practice, but that was not evident in the surveyinstrument itself. There was no software engineering specific content except for the errorclassification.The two entries for our study refer to (1) the midcourse exam wrapper given twice during theterm (appears in Appendix A), and (2) an end-of-term exam wrapper given in Appendix B. Table 2. Characterization and Counts of Exam Wrapper Questions: Total (with Open-ended in Parentheses) paper total preparation performance planning other [7] 4(2
theYouTube channel and 3b shows its statistical report from September 2016 to March 31, 2018. The students enrolled and participated in Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 are n=21 and n=33respectively. During the control period (Fall 2015 semester) n=20 students were enrolled andparticipated. A student survey indicates that, on an average, a student watched concept movies 4-6 times with an average view time of nearly 10-15 minutes. This repeated watching is self-regulated. It provides a context for the students to make conceptual connections and repairs at apace they determine. To date these videos are watched nearly 34000 times with a total view timeof more than 55000 minutes over 125 countries as per YouTube statistics (fig. 3 b). Thisintervention also
Foundation.ReferencesAlexander, C. (2011). Learning to be lawyers: Professional identity and the law school curriculum. Maryland Law Review, 70(2), 465-483.Ampaw, F. D., & Jaeger, A. J. (2012). Completing the three stages of doctoral education: An event history analysis. Research in Higher Education, 53(6), 640-660.Auxier, C., Hughes, F. R., & Kline, W. B. (2003). Identity development in counselors-in- training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43(1), 25-39.Bieschke, K. J., Bishop, R. M., & Garcia, V. L. (1996). The utility of the research self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(1), 59-75.Bowen, W. G., & Rudenstine, N. L. (1992). In pursuit of the Ph. D. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Brace, N
the subject university in assessing ABET outcome 3j. A distinction is made between awareness/knowledge of the issues (J1) and of their broader impacts (J2).2010-11 Case Study: Lithium Mining for Li-Ion Electrical Vehicle BatteriesFor the first implementation of the module, the author selected and revised a case study from alist of prepared scenarios by Ater Kranov et al. (2008 & 2011) (Appendix B of [6]). The revisedcase study (presented here in Appendix A) describes the then-current (2010) state of electricvehicle production, the quantities of lithium involved in lithium-ion battery production, and the Page
, the value of the vignette is to show that multiple foci could beaddressed concurrently in a change initiative.Str ategies for Cur r icular ChangeA change strategy is an overall plan for how the change will occur. Curricular change strategiesseem to come in two varieties: (i) prototype first, and (ii) full-scale deployment. In the prototypefirst strategy, change agents develop the new curriculum and then offer it to a fraction of thestudents for whom it is ultimately envisioned. There are two sub-varieties of the prototype firststrategy: (a) show that it makes an improvement, and (b) work out the kinks.The purpose of the first sub-variety is to demonstrate that that prototype makes a difference withrespect to the stated goals in order to
CLEERhub the value added ofproviding unique information in engineering education and educational research, in an organizedway, not available from other resources. For example, information about: a) other people, theirresearch interest, and their groups or affiliations within and outside the website, b) recentdevelopments of the field, c) grant opportunities, and d) research methodologies. “I would probably only use it if I were looking with a specific purpose in mind. I would probably not go there just to hang out on a discussion board or chat room.” “Regularly updated information of immediate relevance and utility that is not available from other sources.” “If it were an easy to use, one-stop
them to think? New Dir. Teach. Learn. 1980, 11–31 (1980).14. Paul, R. W. Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society. Educ. Leadersh. 42, 4 (1984).15. Walsh, D. & Paul, R. W. The Goal of Critical Thinking: from Educational Ideal to Educational Reality. (1986).16. Mason, M. Critical thinking and learning. Educ. Philos. Theory 39, 339–349 (2007).17. Ennis, R. H. A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. (1987).18. Watson, G. B. & Glaser, E. M. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Manual. (Psychological Corporation, 1980).19. Beyer, B. K. Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. (Allyn and Bacon, 1987).20. Paul, R., Niewoehner, R. & Elder, L. The thinker’s guide
generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal. (Teachers College Press, 1992).18. Yinger, R. J. Can we really teach them to think? New Dir. Teach. Learn. 1980, 11–31 (1980).19. Paul, R. W. Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society. Educ. Leadersh. 42, n1 (1984).20. Walsh, D. & Paul, R. W. The Goal of Critical Thinking: from Educational Ideal to Educational Reality. (1986). at 21. Mason, M. Critical thinking and learning. Educ. Philos. Theory 39, 339–349 (2007).22. Ennis, R. H. A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. (1987). at 23. Watson, G. B. & Glaser, E. M. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Manual. (Psychological Corporation, 1980).24. Beyer, B
Engineering Student Identity. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(6),1550-1560.[4] Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education,25, 99-125.[5] Kittleson, J. M., S.A. Southerland. (2004). The Role of Discourse in Group Knowledge Construction: ACase Study of Engineering Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 267-293.[6] Allie, S., M.N. Armien, N. Burgoyne, J.M. Case, B.I. Collier-Reed, T.S. Craig, A. Deacon, Z. Geyer, C.Jacobs, J. Jawitz, B. Kloot, L. Kotta, G. Langdon, K. le Roux, D. Marshall, D. Mogashana, C. Shaw, G.Sheridan, N. Wolmarans. (2009). Learning as acquiring a discursive identity through participation in acommunity: Improving student learning
respect to these troublesome concepts; see Appendix B); and Analysis of exam grades (where the grades for specific exam questions are correlated to the threshold concepts pointed out by the students).It should be noted that all activities are conducted in such a way that the students’ identity is notcompromised. For example, the research assistant is the person to transcribe the minute papers,think-aloud sessions, self-reflections, and end-of-term surveys. The instructors themselves do nothave any information as to which students even participate in the study. This way, students areneither rewarded, nor penalized for helping out in the study.Preliminary resultsThe courses under study in the threshold concepts identification part of this
Earthquake game regarding (a) students’ cognitive abilities and (b) students’ fundamental earthquake engineering content knowledge? (2) To what magnitude does the evidence support the two knowledge claims?We developed these questions to provide inference into the educational efficacy of Earthquakeand into GBL research methodology. These questions specifically targeted the fifth and finalR&D phase, Evaluate, of Dick, Carey, and Carey’s model for instruction development.37Answering the two research questions above will conclude our R&D process, thus addressing thepurpose of this paper.5. Overview of literature on game-based learningEducational gaming is a rapidly evolving field of increasing attention.34 While many membersof the
-9830.2011.tb00003.x.[2] J. E. Froyd and J. R. Lohmann, “Chronological and Ontological Development of Engineering Education as a Field of Scientific Inquiry,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri and B. M. Olds, Eds.: Cambridge University Press, 2014.[3] B. K. Jesiek, L. K. Newswander, and M. Borrego, “Engineering Education Research: Discipline, Community, or Field?,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 39–52, 2009, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01004.x.[4] J. Seniuk Cicek and M. Friesen, “Epistemological Tensions in Engineering Education Research: How do we Negotiate Them?,” in 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), San Jose, CA, USA, 2018, pp. 1–5.[5] B. Jesiek, M. Borrego, K. Beddoes
, “Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 132–139, 2010.[25] C. G. P. Berdanier, “Learning the Language of Academic Engineering: Sociocognitive Writing in Graduate Students.” Purdue University, 2016.[26] E. Lavelle and K. Bushrow, “Writing Approaches of Graduate Students,” Educational Psychology, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 807–822, 2007.[27] B. J. Zimmerman and A. Bandura, “Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 845–862, 1994.[28] K. Lonka, A. Chow, J. Keskinen, N. Sandstrom, and K. Pyhalto, “How to measure PhD. students ’ conceptions of academic writing – and are