profiles developed. In contrast to the study described in [6], wedifferentiated between two dimensions of engagement – behavioral and emotional – andseparately explored the levels of engagement in each dimension. We also used a differenttimeframe; rather than considering a single class period, we asked students to reflect on theirengagement across the entire semester. These differences allowed us to develop a comprehensivepicture of student engagement profiles, which we hope will be useful for electrical engineeringinstructors. Specifically, knowledge of students’ engagement profiles may help instructors tounderstand the various ways students engage in a course. This knowledge may also help informinstruction and course management
conceptualgains on a concept inventory, but made smaller gains on final exam problem solving questions,compared to a traditional classroom.Overall, we see the collaborative quizzes as a well-aligned assessment tool for the active learningclassroom. This approach fostered improved co-regulation skills, and students who started withthe lowest levels of conceptual knowledge had similar course outcomes to those who began withhigher scores.In reflecting on our observations of the course, we also feel the collaborative quizzes were well-received. The majority of students participated fully and were engaged with the materials. It wasnot uncommon to hear students in extended discussions, particularly about the latter questions inthe quizzes, which tended to
’ ratings fromone moment in time to another. Each survey included 13 questions intended to capture a student’soverall sense of community, derived from the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction andFrustration Scale [22]: Thinking about your experiences in your undergraduate studies so far, please indicate how true each statement is for you on a scale of 1 (Not at all true) to 5 (Extremely true). Each question also included a ”Not Applicable” option. 1. I feel a sense of choice and freedom in what I undertake 2. I feel capable at what I do 3. I really like the people I interact with 4. I feel confident that I can do things well 5. I feel that my decisions reflect what I really want
through distance education in the time ofthe fourth industrial revolution: Reflections from three decades of peer reviewed studies",Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2020.[8] W. Ibrahim and R. Morsi, "Online engineering education: A comprehensive review,"American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Washington, DC,2005, pp. 1–10, 2005.[9] B. Mischewski and A. Christie, "Understanding the feasibility of micro‐credentials inengineering education," 29th Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference(AAEE 2018), Engineers Australia, p. 758, 2018.[10] C. M. Stracke, and A. Bozkurt, "Evolution of MOOC designs, providers and learners andthe related MOOC research and publications from 2008 to
(3) including both Google Docs and interactive videos in the third. End-of-Course Surveys consistently show that the students enjoyed the weekly hands-on labs. After thethird class offering, an additional survey of student experience with the new technologies wasconducted. The results reflected a positive student experience with the course delivery.EE110 Course Description and ObjectivesIntroduction to Engineering, EE110 provides the beginning engineer with fundamentalknowledge and skills associated with the electrical or computer engineering professions. It willintroduce common electronic components, basic circuit configurations, and laboratoryinstruments. Bench practices and lab reports will be introduced along with computer aidedanalysis
YouTube videos followed by with quizquestions in the first offering; (2) adding Google Docs (or Google Forms) with embeddedYouTube Videos and quizzes in the next class session; and (3) including both Google Docs andinteractive videos in the third. End-of-Course Surveys consistently show that the studentsenjoyed the weekly hands-on labs. After the third class offering, an additional survey of studentexperience with the new technologies was conducted. The results reflected a positive studentexperience with the course delivery.During the third offering (2016 Fall Quarter), a survey was conducted with five students fromEE110 and four students from an Advanced Circuit Analysis course (EE 341) to assess theteaching effectiveness thus far. This
five years, ensuring that weare using the documents that are actively shaping and reflecting the current departmental life. Wechose to analyze public and internal documents in conjunction with each other because theyallow us to see the stories that the department tells the public and itself about itself throughofficial documentary artifacts. In this way, we are able to explore the messages within thesestories about engineering identity for undergraduate engineering students in electrical andcomputer engineering. TABLE I DOCUMENT TYPES Document Type Document Sub-Type # of Documents Analyzed Public-Facing
use inboth course and student outcomes assessment. The most recent FCAR methodology consists ofthe FCAR which is generated by faculty members at the end of the semester. The FCARprovides one or two pages of summative information related to the courses taught by eachfaculty member during that semester. The FCAR generally contain the following information: • Course Description • Course Outcomes • Class Grade Distribution • Course Outcomes Assessment • Student Outcomes Assessment • Reflection • Proposed Action ItemsThe main idea is to capture the reflection and proposed action items for improvement of coursestaught at the grass-roots by the responsible instructors. Hence, the assessment information isprocessed by the
from different disciplines 3.14(1.03) 4.14(0.69) Clearly identify the type of knowledge and skills possessed by teammates 3.07(1.07) 4.00(0.82) from other disciplines Accurately recognize goals that reflect the disciplinary backgrounds of 3.00(1.18) 4.00(0.82) other team members Talk about a project design using other discipline language 2.86(1.17) 3.86(1.07)rated as the least confident (M = 2.86). A total of 13 students completed 4 sets of knowledgequestions and confidence level rating in
to become more effective by delegating work to competent individuals.Throughout the independent study, the faculty supervisor may hold weekly meetings with thestudent to discuss the project progress as well as answer questions and clear up anymisconceptions the student may have. These meetings provide an opportunity to discuss otheravenues of inquiry to research further or experiment with. The student may also keep an online orphysical project journal documenting the progress made and reflecting on the work completed.The faculty supervisor may choose to review the journal to provide feedback.The rules and structure for an independent study vary widely with departments and institutions.They may be letter-graded or graded as pass/fail. Many
instructional settings and EE topics.The success of the HBCU ECP project led the group to consider whether or not the scope of thecollaboration could be expanded to include a broader range of topics and participants. As theECP project wound down, the group has been reflecting on what lessons there are to be learnedfrom this experience. First and foremost, the project succeeded because many schools workedtogether as one to collectively improve the learning experiences of their students.What enabled the group to succeed? 1) Experienced faculty trained faculty at schools new topersonal instrumentation at both in-person workshops and regular online meetings. Theexperienced faculty from within the project had worked together previously in the MobileStudio
fundamentals to future technologies 2) Ability to solve open-ended problems with great complexity 3) Ability to work with a team with diverse backgrounds and perspectives.The current curriculum is recognized as successful in training students in the fundamentals ofEE, and has traditionally been the major emphasis of curricular discussions among faculty.Outcomes 2) and 3) are aligned with the identified shortcomings in training students withsufficient team skills, societal relevance, and cross-disciplinary content to prepare students fortoday’s workforce, and in directly promoting diversity. To achieve these student outcomes, thefollowing have been identified as goals for curriculum change: 1) Teach fundamentals that reflect current and future
level of agreement onwhether the session changed their perception of ECE, and the corresponding responses areshown in Figure 1.d. It can be observed that 80 percent of the respondents indicated a change inperception, while 20 percent didn’t. Of the two respondents who stated that the IoT sessiondidn’t change their perception of ECE, one was a student who maintained an interest in ECEafter the session. Responses to survey questions #5 and #6 are shown in Figures 1.e and 1.f, and they reflect theimpact of the IoT session on the respondents’ enhanced interest of ECE, and their motivation tostrongly consider it as a choice of engineering discipline. It can be observed that 80 percent ofthe respondents indicated an enhanced interest in ECE, and 60
and the Maker Movement(Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Jordan & Lande, 2016; Larson, Lande, Jordan, & Weiner,2017; Weiner, Lande, & Jordan, 2017; Wigner, Lande, & Jordan, 2016).Like Differentiated Instruction (DI), Project-Based Learning (PBL) is also used as astudent-centered and student-driven approach which enables teachers to help studentsmeet their learning needs (Miller, 2012). Miller (2012) proposes six strategies forDifferentiated Instruction in Project-Based Learning; (1) differentiate through teams:structuring teams is important as it helps teachers facilitate the teams through instructionbased on their needs, (2) reflection and goal setting: an important part of PBL is reflectionas it helps students know their
1734 $o&! WBYZ 6289 n%pqT4 $BCD W234 6%&! nXYZ A789 1opq* Time 0 represents member’s original teams. Each team at any given time point after Time 0was composed of three original or “core” members and one guest member. No team had morethan one guest member from the same team throughout the duration of the course. The onlyindividuals a member had contact with on more than one occasion were those individuals whowere apart of that member’s core team.Materials All scales were framed in order to have members reflect on the most recent project theycompleted with that specific team, whether it be the members home team or a guest team.Behavioral integration
distinct from sex. Connellnotes that gender is not a supposedly biologically-obvious division between men and women, butinstead the way human society collectively makes relevant these reproductive distinctions Page 26.1007.5between human bodies in a social context. For us, the context is engineering education. In its simplest form, gender reflects the set of characteristics, behaviors, and practices that we think ofas “feminine” or “masculine” – characteristics that any individual biological male or female mayor may not embody.Race, like gender, is not a biological category but a social one. And unlike sex, race has nobiological basis, despite a
/InstrumentationAs part of project work, members of the leadership team selected two discipline related topics,Voltage Division and Thevenin’s Theorem, as circuit content found in at least one, if notmultiple courses, within each of the 13 collaborating institutions. The students consisted ofundergraduates enrolled in engineering courses; the unique audience represents students enrolledin HBCU colleges. The content or setting of use reflected “Introduction to ElectricalEngineering” (second semester freshmen level course), and other early electrical engineeringcourses. The selection of the two topics was made using the following process. A series ofquestions used in introductory level ECE courses was presented to representatives from all 13institutions at
assessments are conducted at each course with CPS/IoT infusion. The outcomesand impacts of the course modules are monitored via student surveys as indirect measure andcourse assignment evaluations by instructor as direct measure. The student surveys reflect theiropinions on the course and their learning. Rubrics are developed for each course module onexercises and/or lab exercises, class projects, and independent projects to provide directmeasurements that quantify students’ achievements on the educational objectives presented inthe module outline. Each rubric includes the outcome indicators that align with some of the newABET students learning outcomes “1 through 7” and the levels of achievements for theexperience of CPS/IoT. For each instructional
answers questions. 30% Project How well the schedule and the budget are managed with remaining time, tasks and Planning & resources. Are the tasks done in a reasonable time or last minute? Are the task’s management dependencies, priorities, critical path, issues, risks, delays, and issues managed well and reflected in the task planning? A recovery plan is in place in case of delays task 30% reshuffling and rescheduling? Technical Individual technical contribution towards the project on a regular basis. All team Contribution members have well-thought-out solutions for technical issues and they are resolved in timely manner. Technical achievements are tested and verified
learningexperiences planned so as to achieve this desired knowledge? [32]. The key to course design is thedetermination of the enduring outcome for the course. In other words, what is the set of keyoutcomes one would like for their students to have possessed at the end of the learningexperience or even years after they have exited the learning process? For example, in theintroductory circuit course used for study three it was evident that students were expected tohave developed a certain level of engineering problem solving skills that could be translated toother complex learning experiences. The emphasis on working problems in the class or the use oflearning activities meant to provide more class time for working problems were also reflected instudies two
0.783 for Section 002.This is likely due to the makeup of students in each section and the time difference betweenwhen the two sections met for class. The lower performing section was the earlier 8 AM classwhen more students were apt to miss class, show up late, and be less engaged during the classlectures. The importance of the difference between the two sections is reflected in the unevendistribution of homework assignments. The section that performed better was assessed twicewith paper homework while the section that performed worse was assessed twice withWeBWorK homework. This would indicate the difference between paper-based homework andWeBWorK-based homework may be larger than directly indicated by the score averages weobtained. If only
GrantNumber DUE1525775. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressedin this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References[1] R. M. Felder, D. R. Woods, J. E. Stice, and A. Rugarcia, "The future of engineering education II. Teaching methods that work," Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 34, pp. 26-39, 2000.[2] S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, et al., "Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, pp. 8410- 8415, 2014.[3] B. Kerr, "The flipped classroom in engineering
Learner Capstone Panels Approach In this approach, the students select their preferred technical focus in computer systems design topicsamong a set of 5 to 7 technical focus topics such as reliability, circuit energy, memory read/write powerconsumption, etc. as identified by the course Instructor. Students are mentored on extending the coursematerial from a topic list by the laboratory Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) and the courseInstructor. The students gain experience composing a scholarly article and produce a substantial paperthat reflects a deep understanding of a topic having narrow breadth. Extra Credit (EC) is allotted to thoselearners who go beyond the baseline requirements and explore additional papers in order to provide amore
GPA. In the follow-up interviews, the students consistently praised SITE for: Working in teams Working with students of different backgrounds Exposure to other fields Meeting faculty on a close basis Working on projects with real applications Integrating material learned in courses to solving complex problems Opportunity to think about careers in industry Good for the resume At this early stage in their educational careers, SITE represented one of the first times that many of these students were able to engage in and reflect upon these important aspects of STEM training. The following highlights some markers of positive impact on students: 22% of students
offering.AcknowledgementsThis material is based in part upon work supported by the National ScienceFoundation General & Age-Related Disabilities Engineering (GARDE)Program under grants CBET–1067740 and UNS–1512564. Opinions, findings,conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authors acknowledge the students that participated in this effort and their work in termsof example images and data that they provided for this paper. This material was included withthe written permission of the students. References[1] "iHealth Feel Wireless Blood Pressure Monitor," iHealth Labs Inc., 2017, https://ihealthlabs.com/blood-pressure-monitors/wireless