cingulate cortex regions of the brain, has been linkedto inhibition control [26-27]. A section of the literature highlights the N400, a prominent negativecomponent peaking around 400 milliseconds, as pertinent to interference control in Stroop tasks[28-29]. The N400 reflects the higher cognitive demand involved in managing the interferencebetween conflicting sources of information, such as ink color and word name in incongruentconditions. Additionally, alongside the N200 and N400, studies have reported a late negativity infrontal regions or a late positivity in centro-parietal regions, typically occurring around 600milliseconds [29-30]. These late components are indicative of processes like executiveengagement, conflict resolution, response
students’ navigational capital, and researchers’ schema development through the peer review process. Dr. Benson is an American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Fellow, and a member of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), American Educational Research Association (AERA) and Tau Beta Pi. She earned a B.S. in Bioengineering (1978) from the University of Vermont, and M.S. (1986) and Ph.D. (2002) in Bioengineering from Clemson University. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Work In Progress: An Exploratory Study of Appalachian Students’ Quest for Success in Undergraduate Engineering ProgramsAbstract This work in progress paper reflects
throughthe EDIL Survey, reflecting a comprehensive understanding of inclusion within academiccommunities. The components from SI suggest that inclusion has a multi-faceted understandingthat goes beyond just being present in a group, to include how one is perceived and valued by theinstitution and its smaller sub-communities. SI-1 also adopted the survey instrument, but theyonly used part of the survey, which focused solely on the engineering department. The reductionin the number of items compared to SI could imply a more streamlined approach to measuringthe sense of inclusion that focuses on specific aspects of inclusion.Psychometric Integrity The study utilized a variety of instruments with different dimensions to measureconnectedness and
Search TermsFor the search, we carefully selected a set of specific keywords and search terms to ensure athorough search, capturing a wide range of relevant papers. Core themes searched were digitalaccessibility and computer science education. Digital accessibility is central to this study,focusing on accessibility in digital and online environments. Computer science or computingeducation refers to the educational context and curricular aspects of computer science. Fromthose core themes we also included the associated terms online learning and inclusive education.Online learning reflects the shift towards digital education, especially relevant due to impact ofCOVID-19. Inclusive education encompasses broader educational principles that
aerospace engineering from the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor and a B.S.E. in civil engineering from Case Western Reserve University, both in the areas of structural engineering and solid mechanics.Dr. Aaron W. Johnson, University of Michigan Aaron W. Johnson (he/him) is an Assistant Professor in the Aerospace Engineering Department and a Core Faculty member of the Engineering Education Research Program at the University of Michigan. His lab’s design-based research focuses on how to re-contextualize engineering science engineering courses to better reflect and prepare students for the reality of ill-defined, sociotechnical engineering practice. Their current projects include studying and designing classroom
itscapabilities, limitations, and ethical implications in different contexts. A visual representation ofthe participants’ perceptions is shown in Fig 1. Fig 1. Visual representation of students’ perceptions of ChatGPTQ2. How do you see ChatGPT evolving in the future and what impact do you think it will haveon education?In analyzing the responses to this question, we employed NVIVO to auto-code the responses.Through this process, a diverse array of themes reflecting various perspectives on ChatGPT'sfuture evolution and its potential educational impact. The question itself bifurcates into two distinctaspects: one regarding future developments and the other pertaining to its educationalramifications. To streamline our analysis, we initially
techniques that accurately reflect the varied ways in whichstudents learn. Starting from this, new evaluation methods are being sought that better fit the wayof learning of each student, so our research will focus on finding a new form of evaluation basedon frequent unannounced evaluations to improve student learning. and contribute to academicintegrity. This new method was applied in civil engineering and architecture courses, along withactivities that develop student learning.Background/FrameworkAcademic integrity within the student environment is related to honesty, responsibility, andrespect, and implies that students must follow rules and regulations, demonstrating theircommitment to responsibility and ethics against frowned upon activities
Virginia Tech. Prior to joining VT, Dr. Pitterson was a postdoctoral scholar at Oregon State University. She holds a PhD in Engineering Education from Purdue University and othDr. Emily Dringenberg, The Ohio State University Dr. Dringenberg is an Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Ohio State University. She holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (Kansas State ’08), a M.S. in Industrial Engineering (Purdue ’14) and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education. Her current career purpose is to learn about and reveal beliefs that are widely-held as an implicit result of our socialization within systems of oppression so that she can embolden others to reflect on their assumptions and advance equity
are struggling tofind a research advisor conceptualize this struggle as a direct reflection on their competence and worth.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant 2130169. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] Council of Graduate Schools, “Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline program data from the Ph.D. completion project,” 2008.[2] R. Sowell, J. Allum, and H. Okahana, “Doctoral Initiative on Minority Attrition and Completion,” Washington, DC, 2015. doi: 10.1145/1401890.1402023.[3] R
points, and he or she only had an error in the manipulation of the equation priorto finding those points. In graph 9 (Figure 5), all of the points are wrong and the slope is incorrect. However, if wecompare the line in the graph and the correct line for the equation, they are reflections of eachother across the x-axis. Therefore, it may be that this graph resulted from a sign error, slope andintercept are positive when they should be negative.In the case of Graph F (Figure 2), Sam hypothesized about this student’s reasoning in creatingthe graph when he was grading. Sam gave the student 7 points. The other graders only gave thepoints for the correct slope – a feature of the appearance of the graph. Daniel said, “I will onlylook at what the
researchers to guide their curriculum analysis and redesignefforts. BackgroundWe have referred to the idea of “curricular complexity” loosely so far, but we can be moreprecise by using a framework that is growing in popularity when describing curricular designpatterns. The formal analysis of curricular design patterns can be accomplished using aframework called Curricular Analytics [10]. The adoption of Curricular Analytics reflects aparadigm shift toward a data-driven approach to analyzing curricula and degree requirements.This method quantitatively assesses the "complexity" inherent in a plan of study; at its core,Curricular Analytics captures and models the intricate web of pre- and corequisite
methods, strategies, and their outcomes, allowing institutions to gaugethe overall performance of educators and identify areas for improvement. This process allowseducators to reflect on their teaching practices, adapt to evolving pedagogical trends, andenhance their students' learning experiences. In the existing literature much is known about howteaching evaluations are conducted and their value in helping educators become better at theircraft. However, there remains a gap in our understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of howsupervisors and peer evaluators make decisions about how to rate teaching beyond their ownperceptions of teaching.In this paper, we introduce the theory of rating (ToR) by Robert Wherry as a candidatetheoretical
that students’ scores on the first project were significantlyhigher in the HyFlex modality. HyFlex's median ranks were significantly higher in all other grade measures(Project 2, 3, and final semester grades), whereas means were similar for the rest. Between in-person andone-or-more-times-remote students, t-tests and the Mann-Whitney U test indicated similar grades for Project 1.The median ranks were higher for in-person students, whereas the means in both modalities were similar in allother measures.Study 6: Deep Learning (unpublished work, currently in progress)While grades are a traditional measure of academic success and commonly used to determine universityprogression, they may be reflective of effort and or performance (Banta et al
statistically significant differences for Scenario 3.LimitationsThere are several limitations inherent to this work. Given the diffuse subject recruitment strategy,it is possible that ethically minded individuals are overrepresented in the sample (i.e., thatethically minded individuals would be more likely to respond to a voluntary survey onengineering ethics). Further, this survey examined individuals at one Research 1 institution in theUnited States and the results may to a degree reflect that (e.g., individual’s views on code sharingmay be influenced by institutional academic integrity culture and rules). Subjects were askedabout their perceptions of the views of industry, but contemporaneous surveying of individualsfrom industry was not an
toconsider the various aspects of wellbeing for the design of instruction as well as policy.Acknowledgements We thank Erin Rowley, the engineering librarian at the University at Buffalo, for hersupport in the database selection and helpful recommendations for conducting this systematicreview. We also thank Joseph McCusker, engineering student at University at Buffalo, and anundergraduate researcher at DARE to CARE lab, for his invaluable assistance with the review ofthe studies. This material was partially supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No.2147193. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
graduatestudents. Items that received lower average scores focused on mentoring skills related tocommunication, coordination, personal relationships, and career planning. This was reflected inthe open-response questions, where participants frequently cited these areas as problems orpoints of stress in their relationships with their advisor(s). Items that received higher averagescores focused on research skill building, resource acquisition, feedback, and trust. These areastend towards some of the more technical aspects of mentoring that advising requires, whichengineering doctoral advisors may feel more comfortable with. For example, setting researchgoals with students may come more naturally for faculty members than helping students preparefor a career
engineeringpractitioners. Intuition is a skill used by experts in the decision-making process when problemsolving, and believed to develop alongside expertise largely through experience. Previous worksupports that at least six years of experience is necessary for expertise development. Wesubsequently define early-career as up to six years of post-baccalaureate experience and expectthat this population will not yet have expertise and therefore not use intuition. However,research has shown that early-career practitioners who graduated from a primarily undergraduateinstitution (PUI) prior to the onset of COVID-19 both claim expertise and report using intuitionin their decision-making. This unexpected result may be reflective of the PUI’s emphasis onhigh-impact
demonstrates aprevalence of studies regarding interactions in the online context. These studies have providedimportant observations of how increased interactions relate to performance for remote and/orhybrid instruction overall [12], [13], [14]. However, we believe that this emphasis on onlineinteraction over f2f interaction may not reflect the scale of research need, but the ease of datacollection for SNA regarding online interactions. Specifically, f2f interactions are a less studied,but major component of students’ interactions.To overcome these issues, our research group, familiar with SNA from small studies, conducteda large-scale (1000+ individuals) SNA study at a large, public university in the United States[15]. This study sought to extend the
help-seeking beliefs among underrepresentedstudents is critical; opinions about pursuing professional treatment for a mental health conditionmay be affected by gender, race, ethnicity, disability status, and socioeconomic status. Further,data was collected from first-year engineering students at the end of their first semester of collegeclasses. Therefore, the results may not reflect the students’ progress through the engineeringprogram. To address this, future directions plan to include a wider range of students from otherinstitutions and a higher proportion of students from racial and ethnic minority groups. As a result,we will be able to learn more about the mental health of marginalized student groups and theeffects of institutional
Matthew M. Grondin1,2, Michael I. Swart2, Claire Huggett1, Kate Fu1, and Mitchell J. Nathan2 Department of Mechanical Engineering1 Department of Educational Psychology-Learning Sciences2 University of Wisconsin-MadisonKeywords: Epistemic Network Analysis, Mechanical Reasoning, Mechanics of Materials,Undergraduate Engineering EducationAbstract:This full paper considers how collaborative discourse can reveal ways upper-class engineeringstudents mechanically reason about engineering concepts. Argumentation and negotiation duringcollaborative, multimodal discourse using speech and gestures helps establish common groundbetween learners and fosters reflection on their conceptual
should provide good opportunities to learn aboutcomplexities and contexts. Similarly, Merriam [9] reminds that the cases need to be selectedbased on relevant criteria, which means the researcher must first determine what selectioncriteria are essential in choosing the people or sites to be studied [17]. The criteria you establishdirectly reflects the purpose of the study and guide in the identification of information-rich cases[17].Additionally, in case study research, it is important to consider two levels of sampling [9].Firstly, the researcher identifies the case, which can be a person, a program, a university, amongothers. Secondly, within each case exists numerous sources of data, so the researcher needs toselect how to better approach that
. Meanwhile, greater attention should be devoted todeveloping advanced assessment techniques to detect dishonesty and academic misconduct.From the perspective of curriculum design, it also suggests investigating how future courses canbe designed to adapt to the development of such technology.AcknowledgmentThis material is based upon work supported by the Nanyang Technological University under theURECA Undergraduate Research Programme and partially supported by the AI.R-NISTH AI forSocial Good Research Grant at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Any opinions,findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the views of the URECA or AI.R program. We would like
themeasurement data were collected, they were asked to conduct related analysis and answerquestions designed to reflect their understanding of the concepts and the ability to draw meaningfulconclusions. This new lab experiment also fulfills one of the seven ABET learning outcomeassessment requirements.Before this new student-designed lab experiment on specific heat, a FE type quiz was given to thestudents during the lecture time. After the new lab experiment, the students were tested again witha similar quiz to gauge the improvement on their learning. Another survey question was also givenbefore and after the new lab experiment to assess their understanding of the concept from thestudents’ perspective.The before and after quiz results showed 20
, Stanford University Helen L. Chen is a Research Scientist in the Designing Education Lab in Mechanical Engineering and co-founder of the Integrative Learning Portfolio Lab in Career Education at Stanford University. She earned her undergraduate degree from UCLA and her PhD in Communication with a minor in Psychology from Stanford. Her scholarship is focused on engineering and entrepreneurship education, portfolio pedagogy, reflective practices, non-degree credentials, and reimagining how learners represent themselves through their professional online presence.Prof. George Toye Ph.D., P.E., is adjunct professor in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University. While engaged in teaching project based engineering
. Matusovich, and S. R. Brunhaver, “Understanding the socializer influence on engineering students’ career planning,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2018, vol. 2018-June, doi: 10.18260/1-2--31182.[15] J. S. Eccles and A. Wigfield, “Expectancy-Value Theory to Situated Expectancy-Value Theory: Reflections on the Legacy of 40+ Years of Working Together,” Motiv. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1037/mot0000275.[16] A. Wigfield and J. S. Eccles, “Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 68–81, 2000.[17] J. S. Eccles and A. Wigfield, “Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., vol. 53, pp
day the surveys were distributed. All subscales from the StRIP questionnaireprompted participants to reflect on the class activities in which they were asked to engage duringa specific class period. Additionally, students self-reported their gender identity. We present allmeasures used in the present study in Table 1 and descriptive statistics and correlations betweenmeasures for all students and by students' gender identity in Table 2. Table 1. Abbreviations & Sample Items for Measures Measure Abbreviation Sample Item Belongingness BEL “I have a sense of belongingness in this class.” Affective Response AR “I enjoyed the activities.” Behavioral Response
questions wasasked twice—once with the phrase “engineering person” and once with “science person.” Weinitially wanted to adapt these items for “person in my field,” but after expert review it wasdetermined that the items would not capture what we were hoping they would capture. Performance/competence reflects the extent to which students perceive their ownknowledge and abilities in engineering. This dimension comprises five items that capturestudents’ confidence in their understanding of engineering in class and out of class, that they cando well on exams, that they understand concepts in engineering, and that others ask them forhelp. These items were adapted from engineering to “my field” for greater applicability. Missing data were
. Her research focuses on individuals’ development from students to professional engineers. She is particularly interested in studying co-op/internship programs, experiential learning opportunities, professional skills development, and diverse student experiences in experiential learning settings.Dr. Aaron W. Johnson, University of Michigan Aaron W. Johnson (he/him) is an Assistant Professor in the Aerospace Engineering Department and a Core Faculty member of the Engineering Education Research Program at the University of Michigan. His lab’s design-based research focuses on how to re-contextualize engineering science engineering courses to better reflect and prepare students for the reality of ill-defined
advised 17 UG theses, 29 MS theses, and 10 Ph.D. dissertations. Hammond is the 2020 recipient of the TEES Faculty Fellows Award and the 2011 recipient of the Charles H. Barclay, Jr. ’45 Faculty Fellow Award. Hammond has been featured on the Discovery Channel and other news sources. Hammond is dedicated to diversity and equity, which is reflected in her publications, research, teaching, service, and mentoring. More at http://srl.tamu.edu and http://ieei.tamu.edu. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 FIE 2023: An aggregate and statistical analysis of the results and feedback of the ASEE ERM premier international conference on engineering education
byJensen and Cross.Further Reflection and Future WorkThe programs in this study are still growing and evolving. Consequently, limitations of this workinclude the current small sample size. One of the consequences of our currently low N is that weare not yet able to break down results by ethnicity, gender identity, or other important identity andbackground variables. However, while it’s true that our N is small (both overall and incomparison with Jensen and Cross), our results do show the strong potential impact ofproject-based engineering programs. As our programs grow and our N increases in future studies,we may observe further differentiation in outcomes with the population studied by Jensen andCross.The results of this research stimulates us to