practices, environmental, ethics and humanitarian engineering, and non-traditional knowledge transfer. Homero has been recognized as a Fulbright scholar and was inducted in the Bouchet Honor Society.Dr. David B. Knight, Virginia Tech c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Paper ID #22387David Knight is Assistant Professor and Assistant Department Head for Graduate Programs in the De-partment of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. He is also Director of International Engagementin Engineering Education and affiliate faculty with the Higher Education Program at Virginia Tech. Hisresearch tends to be at the
A. Maciejewski, Colorado State University Anthony A. Maciejewski received the BS, MS, and PhD degrees in electrical engineering from Ohio State University, Columbus in 1982, 1984, and 1987, respectively. From 1988 to 2001, he was a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue University, West Lafayette. He is currently a professor and head of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Colorado State University. He is a fellow of IEEE. A complete vita is available at: http://www.engr.colostate.edu/ ˜aam.Dr. Laura B. Sample McMeeking, Colorado State University Laura B. Sample McMeeking is the Associate Director of the CSU STEM Center. She earned a Master of Science degree in Atmospheric
Comparative Analysis of Female and Male Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White Students,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 167–190, 2009.[4] B. E. Hughes, “Orientation Identity ‘ Managing by Not Managing ’: How Gay Engineering Students Manage Sexual Orientation Identity,” J. Coll. Stud. Dev., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 385–401, 2017.[5] E. A. Cech and T. J. Waidzunas, “Navigating the heteronormativity of engineering: the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students,” Eng. Stud., vol. 3, no. 933165213, pp. 1–24, 2011.[6] H. Boone and A. Kirn, “First Generation Students ’ Engineering Belongingness First Generation Students ’ Engineering Belongingness,” presented at the 2017
. References [1] D. Crismond and R. Adams, “The informed design teaching and learning matrix”, Journal of Engineering Education , vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 738797, 2012. [2] D. Crismond, “Scaffolding strategies for integrating engineering design and scientific inquiry in projectbased learning environments,” in Fostering human development through Engineering and Technology Education , pp. 235255, SensePublishers, 2011. [3] M. Ford, “Educational Implications of Choosing “Practice” to Describe Science in the Next Generation Science Standards”, Science Education , vol. 99 , no. 6, pp. 10411048, 2015. [4] L. Berland, C. Schwarz, C. Krist, L. Kenyon, A. Lo and B. Reiser, “Epistemologies in practice: Making
Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.[11] K. Bohle Carbonell, R. E. Stalmeijer, K. D. Könings, M. Segers, and J. J. G. van Merriënboer, “How experts deal with novel situations: A review of adaptive expertise,” Educational Research Review, vol. 12, pp. 14-29, 2014.[12] G. Hatano and K. Inagaki, “Two courses of expertise,” in Child Development and Education in Japan, H. W. Stevenson, H. Azuma, and K. Hakuta, Eds., ed New York: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1986, pp. 263-272.[13] B. van der Heijden, “Prerequisites to guarantee life-long employability,” Personnel Review, vol. 31, pp. 44-61, 2002.[14] E. M. Smith, J. K. Ford, and S. W. J. Kozlowski, “Building adaptive expertise: Implications
’ perceptions of andapproaches to problem-solving over the course of their first engineering science course?Data Collection and AnalysisTo investigate this research question, we conducted a series of three cognitive interviews withfour students over the course of a one-semester statics and dynamics course. All students had thesame instructor for this course and were enrolled in their third semester at a highly selectiveuniversity in the eastern United States. They all earned high grades (mostly A’s with theoccasional B) on homeworks, quizzes, and exams. Each interview had two phases. First, studentswere asked open-ended questions about their methods of problem solving and conceptualquestions. Second, they were asked to think aloud as they solved
Engineering Professor. With this opportunity, Hern´an is able to further his understanding of both engineering and education to aid the generations who aim to become future engineers.Dr. Kristen B. Wendell, Tufts University Kristen Wendell is Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Ed- ucation at Tufts University. Her research efforts at at the Center for Engineering Education and Outreach focus on supporting discourse and design practices during K-12, teacher education, and college-level en- gineering learning experiences, and increasing access to engineering in the elementary school experience, especially in under-resourced schools. In 2016 she was a recipient of the U.S. Presidential
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
).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
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
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
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
observation (RO) are not really intuitive. Before diving into the statisticalanalysis, it will be helpful to more clearly define these terms (visualized in Figure 1). Figure 1: LSI Learning PreferencesThe following list contains statements to help define each of these terms (Kolb, 1993): 1. Abstract conceptualization (a) To learn, I’d rather think about ideas. (b) I like to reason things out. (c) I want to analyze things. (d) I’m rational. (e) I rely on my ideas. 2. Concrete experience (a) Thinking about my feelings affects how I learn. (b) I trust my feelings and intuition. (c) I’m open to experiencing new things. (d) I like to learn from
, measurement, and theory-focused approaches," in Cambridge Handbook ofEngineering Education Research, 1st ed., A. Johri and B. Olds, Eds. Cambridge UniversityPress, 2014, pp. 83-101.[9] C. Venters, L. McNair and M. Paretti, "Using writing assignments to improve conceptualunderstanding in statics: Results from a pilot study," in ASEE 112th Annual Conference andExposition, San Antonio, TX, 2012.[10] D. Montfort, S. Brown and D. Pollock, "An Investigation of Students' ConceptualUnderstanding in Related Sophomore to Graduate-Level Engineering and Mechanics Courses,"Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 98, (2), pp. 111-129, 2009.[11] R. Taraban et al, "First Steps in Understanding Engineering Students' Growth of Conceptualand Procedural Knowledge in an
examples research,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 181–214, 2000.[41] J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, “Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 3, no. 2, Jul. 2007.[42] A. A. DiSessa, “Knowledge in Pieces,” in Constructivism in the Computer Age, G. Forman and P. B. Pufall, Eds. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, In., 1988.[43] E. Yackel and P. Cobb, “Sociomathematical Norms, Argumentation, and Autonomy in Mathematics,” J. Res. Math. Educ., vol. 27, no. 4, p. 458, Jul. 1996.[44] K. Tatsis and E. Koleza, “Social and socio-mathematical norms in collaborative problem- solving,” Eur. J. Teach. Educ., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 89–100, Feb. 2008.[45
). Creativity in the design process: the co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437. 10. Cinlar, E. (2013). Introduction to Stochastic Processes. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 11. Daltrozzo, J., & Conway, C. M. (2014). Neurocognitive mechanisms of statistical-sequential learning: what do event-related potentials tell us? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8. 12. Keele, S. W., Ivry, R., Mayr, U., Hazeltine, E., & Heuer, H. (2003). The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. Psychological Review, 110(2), 316–339. 13. Clegg, B. A., DiGirolamo, G. J., & Keele, S. W. (1998). Sequence learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences
-Participants noted an innate aptitude was necessary for continued science interest due to challenging materialEnvironmental FactorsThe data revealed four overall themes relating to environmental factors that impact bothdecisions to major in computer science and pursue a career in computer science. Themesincluded: a) prior experiences, b) pedagogy and immediate educational environment, c) cultureof the computer science field, and d) long term job prospects. While the literature suggests thatdifferences may exist between men’s and women’s experiences, such differences did not emergein the data from our study with the exception of the value associated with and likelihood ofparticipating in “tinkering” experiences.The environmental
grade: Exploring the judgement processes involved in examination grading decisions,” Eval. Res. Educ., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 19–35, 2010.[10] W. B. Armstrong, “The association among student success in courses, placement test scores, student background data, and instructor grading practices,” Community Coll. J. Res. Pract., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 681– 695, 2000.[11] N. M. Hicks and H. A. Diefes-Dux, “Grader consistency using learning objective based rubrics,” in The 124th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2017.[12] M. A. Stellmack, Y. L. Konheim-Kalkstein, J. E. Manor, A. R. Massey, and J. A. P. Schmitz, “An assessment of reliability and validity of
Design Theory and Methodology, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1992. 1992. pp. 277-281.[17] T. Kershaw, K. Holtta-Otto, and Y. S. Lee, "The effect of prototyping and critical feedback on fixation in engineering design," in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 20-23 July 2011. Carlson, L., Ed. Cognitive Science Society, 2011. pp. 807-812.[18] P. Samuel and K. Jablokow, "Psychological inertia and the role of idea generation techniques in the early stages of engineering design," in Proceedings of the Fall 2010 Mid-Atlantic ASEE Conference, Villanova, Pennsylvania, USA, October 15-16, 2010. 2010. pp. 1-12.[19] I. Belski, A. Belski, V. Berdonosov, B
Paper ID #21616Lean LaunchPad and Customer Discovery as a Form of Qualitative ResearchDr. Cory Hixson, Rowan University Cory is an Assistant Professor of Experiential Engineering Education (ExEEd) at Rowan University. He earned his B.S. in Engineering Science (2007), M.S. in Industrial and System Engineering (2014) and Ph.D. in Engineering Education (2016). Cory has experience as both a professional engineer and high school educator. His professional interests are understanding the interaction between engineering educa- tion pedagogy and entrepreneurship, faculty technology commercialization experiences, and institutional
Students for Work in the 21st Century, Proceedings of ASEE, AC2011-459, 2011[7] D.R. Fisher, Fostering 21st Century Skills in Engineering Undergraduates through Co-CurricularInvolvement, 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, June 2014[8] C. Forest, R.A. Moore, A.S. Jariwala, B.B. Fasse, J. Linsey, W. Newstetter, P. Ngo, & C. Quintero,“The Invention Studio: A University Maker Space and Culture.” Advances in Engineering Education,Summer 2014.[9] T.W. Barrett, C.M. Pizzico, B. Levy, R.L. Nagel, A Review of University Maker Spaces, ASEEAnnual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA, June 2015[10] M.Z. Lagoudas, J.E. Froyd, J.L. Wilson, P.S. Hamilton & R. Boehm, R. Assessing impact of makerspace on student learning
executionAccording to Bringle and Hatcher [1], service-learning is defined as a “course-based, creditbearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in an organized service activitythat meets identified community needs, and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as togain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and anenhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility” (p. 112).” Service-learning has beenproven to benefit students in many ways. More specifically, service learning has been found toenhance students’ collaboration skills [2], civic engagement, interpersonal skills [3], [4], andtheir ability to apply knowledge to problem-solving [5].Our service-learning course was
Paper ID #23568Examining the Replication – or Mutation – Processes of Implementing a Na-tional Model for Engineering Mathematics Education at a New SiteDr. Janet Y. Tsai, University of Colorado, Boulder Janet Y. Tsai is a researcher and instructor in the College of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Colorado Boulder. Her research focuses on ways to encourage more students, especially women and those from nontraditional demographic groups, to pursue interests in the eld of engineering. Janet assists in recruitment and retention efforts locally, nationally, and internationally, hoping to broaden the
skin. Datafrom all these devices were synchronized using a software package called imotions, a platformused to do biometric research [Figure 1(b)]. imotions also recorded screen capture while theparticipant worked on the workstation. Before the task started, the participant was prompted tofill out the before-task Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ), which is a validated self-report instrument based on CVT that assesses student emotions in academic settings [12]. Figure 1: (a) Shimmer device attached to participant’s foot, (b) Workstation with frontal camera, keyboard, and
approximately 15-60 minutes; (b) At the first in-class meeting, students weregiven a concept quiz to ensure they watched the videos, and the remaining class time wasdedicated to reviewing the solutions to the quiz, reviewing the concepts in the videos, andsolving example problems; (c) After the first in-class meeting, students were provided with anoptional zero-credit practice quiz to prepare them for a second, more challenging quiz at thebeginning of the second in-class meeting; (d) After taking the challenging quiz and reviewing thesolutions during the second meeting, the remaining class time was dedicated to an active learningexercise called a "Team Battle" in which students competed in teams to complete problems asquickly as possible. Students in
Paper ID #21513Situated Information Seeking for Learning: A Case Study of EngineeringWorkplace Cognition among Cybersecurity ProfessionalsHieu-Trung LeDr. Aditya Johri, George Mason University Aditya Johri is Associate Professor in the department of Information Sciences & Technology. Dr. Johri studies the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for learning and knowledge shar- ing, with a focus on cognition in informal environments. He also examine the role of ICT in supporting distributed work among globally dispersed workers and in furthering social development in emerging economies. He received the
Education as a Field of Scientific Inquiry,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri and B. Olds, Eds. Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 3–28.[2] L. D. Gonzales and R. Rincones, “Interdisciplinary scholars: negotiating legitimacy at the core and from the margins,” J. Furth. High. Educ., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 495–518, 2012.[3] S. K. Gardner, “‘What’s Too Much and What’s Too Little?’: The Process of Becoming an Independent Researcher in Doctoral Education,” J. Higher Educ., vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 326–350, 2008.[4] S. C. Narendorf, E. Small, J. A. B. Cardoso, R. W. Wagner, and S. W. Jennings, “Managing and Mentoring: Experiences of Assistant Professors in Working with Research Assistants,” Soc
AiChE Concept Warehouse: A web-based tool to promote concept-based instruction," Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. n1, 2014.[9] J. Trevelyan, The making of an expert engineer, CRC Press, 2014.[10] E. Wenger-Trayner, M. Fenton-O'Creevy, S. Hutchinson, C. Kubiak and B. Wenger-Trayner eds, Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice-based learning, Routledge, 2014.[11] D. M. Gilbuena, B. U. Sherrett, E. S. Gummer, A. B. Champagne, and M. D. Koretsky, "Feedback on professional skills as enculturation into communities of practice," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 7-34, 2015.[12] J. Trevelyan, "Technical coordination in engineering practice," Journal
. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, “Resources, framing, and transfer,” in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, J. P. Mestre, Ed. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 2005, pp. 89–120.[19] A. A. DiSessa, “Knowledge in Pieces,” in Constructivism in the Computer Age, G. Forman and P. B. Pufall, Eds. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, 1988, pp. 49–70.[20] S. A. Ambrose, M. W. Bridges, M. DiPietro, M. C. Lovett, and M. K. Norman, How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching, 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.[21] E. J. Hansen, Idea-based learning: A course design process to promote conceptual understanding. Stylus Publishing, LLC., 2012.[22] B. Rogoff, J
students to the higher order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, and creative problem solving. Simple questions asking students to list facts or identify among given choices will not be very valuable to achieving the goal.4. We recommend review videos to include the must-have features as students elected. In addition to giving control of how they want the video to be played, students should have access to the handouts used by the review video so that they can take their own notes. An example problem should be included at the end of the video to explain to students what they are expected to understand upon a successful review.References[1] B. Honeycutt, “Ready to flip: three ways to hold students accountable for pre-class work