. 48–63, 2015.[25] O. P. Edge and S. H. Friedberg, “Factors affecting achievement in the first course in calculus,” J. Exp. Educ., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 136–140, 1984.[26] D. G. Beanland, “Challenges and Opportunities Facing the Education of Engineers- Address to Victoria Division of Engineers Australia Seg Meeting.” Melbourne, 2010.[27] K. E. Snyder, S. M. Barr, N. B. Honken, C. M. Pittard, and P. A. S. Ralston, “Navigating the First Semester: An Exploration of Short‐Term Changes in Motivational Beliefs Among Engineering Undergraduates,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 11–29, 2018.[28] N. B. Honken and P. Ralston, “Freshman engineering retention: A holistic look,” J. STEM Educ. Innov. Res., vol. 14, no. 2, 2013.[29] M. W
. Students present their team research project on Day 7. After presentationsstudents reflect on a) the content and how this experience has impacted their views onengineering, b) the mechanics of giving a good presentation, and c) on teamwork by completinga reflective writing assignment considering how they interacted as team members. Feedbackfrom these reflections is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the module. Page 26.915.5Results and DiscussionFrom an instructor’s perspective the module has been hugely successful. Inclusion of conationhas increased overall satisfaction with teamwork experiences, thereby creating positiveexperiences for students
, and personally through their transition to higher education andengineering coursework (Hinds, Walton, Urban-Lurain, & Briedis, 2014; Walton et al., 2013).Specifically, we examined the following research questions:1. Are there differences between students who report low versus high belonging in the CoE interms of (a) the degree to which potential sources of belonging (e.g. tutoring, residential halls,teamwork in courses) differentially predict students’ overall sense of belonging in the CoE, (b)mean level of perceived support for belonging from the potential sources of belonging, (c)overall participation in support activities, and (d) gender and race/ethnicity?2. For students who expressed low feelings of belonging in the CoE, what types
Context.2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Montfort, Devlin B., Geoffrey L. Herman, Shane A. Brown, Holly M. Matusovich, and Ruth A. Streveler.2013. “Novice-Led Paired Thematic Analysis: A Method for Conceptual Change in Engineering.” In 120thASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 23:1. Atlanta, GA: American Society for Engineering Education.Murzi, Homero G. 2019. “Using Continuous Feedback as an Alternative Form of Students’ Evaluation ofTeaching - UQ ESpace.” In . Cape Town, South Africa: Research in Engineering Education Network.https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8aa40c2.Shi, Congying, Chaojun Xu, and Xiaojiang Yang. 2009. “Study of TFIDF Algorithm.” Journal of ComputerApplications 29 (6): 167–70.Soledad, Michelle, Jacob Grohs
Rubric sub-dimension.The students were also required to give written feedback in response to eight prompts associatedwith the three MEA Rubric dimensions (APPENDIX B). The written feedback was collectedthrough a series of textboxes. The Mathematical Model dimension had five textboxes, the Re-Usability & Modifiability dimension had two textboxes, and the Share-Ability dimension hadone textbox to complete. The explanations of required focus for the peer feedback within thethree dimensions follow. Page 25.1323.5For the Mathematical Model dimension, the students were required to write feedback concerningthe degree to which the teams’ math model
mathematics,” Washington, DC: Office of the President, 2012.[8] N. B. Honken and P. Ralston, “Freshman engineering retention: A holistic look,” J. STEM Educ. Innov. Res., vol. 14, no. 2, 2013.[9] J. S. Eccles and A. Wigfield, “In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs,” Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 215–225, 1995, doi: 10.1177/0146167295213003.[10] J. L. Meece, A. Wigfield, and J. S. Eccles, “Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 82, no. 1, p. 60, 1990, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.60.[11] T. Perez, J. G
: (a) how a person identifies himself or herself, and(b) how others identify them in different contexts25. Traditional approaches for helping studentsfrom underrepresented groups persist and succeed in engineering, such as Women and Minoritiesin Engineering Programs, focus on the underrepresented students themselves. These efforts areaimed at helping students adapt to a culture that is different from them, and in some situations,they may help underrepresented students recognize themselves as engineers. But identity is two-sided, where peers/colleagues must identify students as engineers25. Programs focused onsupporting the underrepresented students do nothing to encourage others to viewunderrepresented students as engineers. Unfortunately
. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 86–89, 2016.[5] J. Abarca, A. Bedard, D. Carlson, L. Carlson, J. Hertzberg, B. Louie, J. Milford, R. Reitsma, T. Schwartz, and J. Sullivan, Introductory Engineering Design: A Projects-Base Approach, 3rd Ed. Boulder: Regents of the University of Colorado, 2000. Appendix: Pre- and Post-Assessment Survey Questions1. Define engineering.2. Define reverse engineering.3. List as many fields of engineering as you can think of.4. What is the engineering design loop?5. Convert 5 MPa to Pa.6. Define electric current. a. Flow rate of electric charge. b. Electric pressure due to the separation of charge. c. Energy per unit time converted to another form.7. Define voltage
AC 2008-2018: A FRESHMAN ENGINEERING CURRICULUM FOR ABACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING PROGRAMLaura Ruhala, University of Southern Indiana Laura Ruhala earned her BSME from GMI Engineering & Management Institute (now Kettering University) in 1991 (as Laura Wilson) and her PhD in Engineering Science & Mechanics from The Pennsylvania State University in 1999. She has three years industrial experience at General Motors, served as Director of Safety at Pride Mobility, and taught at Lafayette College. She has been an Assistant Professor rank in the Engineering Department at USI since 2002, and has developed and taught many of the freshmen engineering courses, including ENGR 107 (Intro to
Paper ID #16156Enhancing Critical Thinking in a First-Year Engineering Course using a Hands-On Study of VectorsDr. Angela Thompson P.E., University of Louisville Dr. Angela Thompson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Fundamentals at the University of Louisville. Dr. Thompson received her PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Louisville. Her research interests are in biomechanics and engineering education, particularly related to critical thinking instruction.Dr. Brian Scott Robinson, University of LouisvilleDr. J. C. McNeil, University of Louisville Jacqueline McNeil is an Assistant
Paper ID #11179A Core Course Component in a Project-Based First-Year Engineering Expe-rienceDr. Robert H. Caverly, Villanova University Dr. Caverly is a professor in the ECE Department at Villanova University. An IEEE Fellow, he is also an IEEE-MTTS Distinguished Microwave Lecturer.Dr. Randy Weinstein, Villanova University Randy D. Weinstein joined the Chemical Engineering Department after receiving a B.S. in Chemical Engineering with high distinction from the University of Virginia and a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Chemical Engineering. He was awarded the 2001 Farrell Award to recognize
Paper ID #11984Teaching a College Wide Introductory Engineering Course within a Fresh-men Year ExperienceDr. Rolfe Josef Sassenfeld, New Mexico State University Dr. Rolfe Sassenfeld, son of German Rocket Scientist Dr. Helmut Sassenfeld, earned his Doctoral degree in Computer Engineering from the University of Texas, El Paso. He has worked in higher education for 25 years as a Director of Instructional Technology, Computer Science Faculty, and Research Assistant Professor. He is presently an Assistant Professor and Program Coordinator of the Electronics and Com- puter Engineering program in the Engineering Technology department
Paper ID #17246Using Concept Maps as a Tool for Assessment and Continuous Improvementof a First-Year CourseDr. Elise Barrella, James Madison University Dr. Elise Barrella is an Assistant Professor of Engineering at James Madison University, who focuses teaching, scholarship, service, and student mentoring on transportation systems, sustainability, and engi- neering design. Dr. Barrella completed her Ph.D. in Civil Engineering at Georgia Tech where she con- ducted research in transportation and sustainability as part of the Infrastructure Research Group (IRG). Dr. Barrella has investigated best practices in engineering
AC 2012-3867: COMPARISON OF A FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE COURSEWITH AND WITHOUT A LIVINGDr. Thomas J. Vasko, Central Connecticut State University Thomas J. Vasko, Assistant Professor, joined the Department of Engineering at Central Connecticut State University in the fall 2008 semester after 31 years with United Technologies Corporation (UTC), where he was a Pratt & Whitney Fellow in Computational Structural Mechanics. While at UTC, Vasko held adjunct instructor faculty positions at the University of Hartford and RPI Groton. He holds a Ph.D. in M.E. from the University of Connecticut, an M.S.M.E. from RPI, and a B.S.M.E. from Lehigh University. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in Connecticut and he is on the
AC 2011-534: USE OF A PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE SIMULATION INA FIRST YEAR INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING COURSENaomi C. Chesler, University of Wisconsin, Madison Naomi C. Chesler is an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering with an affiliate appointment in Educational Psychology. Her research interests include vascular biomechanics, hemodynamics and cardiac function as well as the factors that motivate students to pursue and persist in engineering careers, with a focus on women and under-represented minorities.Cynthia M D’Angelo, University of Wisconsin - Madison Cynthia D’Angelo, Ph.D. has a background in physics and science education. She has always been inter- ested in improving science instruction and most
VoC techniques (Phase 1); Initial Sketches ● B – Task Analysis (Phase 2) Appendices ● C - Onshape Drawings (Phase 3) ● D – Economic Analysis of Manufacturing Processes (Phase 3) ● E – ReflectionsStudents were also required to present information about their toy in the form of a video. Thevideos were 5-6 minutes long and needed to include information regarding the potential market,voice of customer techniques used, final prototype, tradeoffs made
evaluation of the Texas A&M freshman integrated engineering program. in 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference (1995).2. Olds, B. M. & Miller, R. L. The effect of a first-year integrated engineering curriculum on graduation rates and student satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Journal of Engineering Education 93, 23–35 (2004).3. Ambrose, S. A. & Amon, C. H. Systematic design of a first-year mechancial engineering course at Carnegie Mellon University. Journal of Engineering Education 173–181 (1997).4. Froyd, J. E. & Rogers, G. J. Evolution and evaluation of an integrated, first-year curriculum. Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change 2, 1107
Paper ID #8229Scholarships for Academic Success Program: A Final ReportDr. Carolyn Skurla, Baylor University Carolyn Skurla is an Associate Professor and the Graduate Program Director in the Department of Me- chanical Engineering at Baylor University. She received a B.S. in Biomedical Science from Texas A&M University and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Colorado State University.Dr. Steven R. Eisenbarth, Baylor University Professor Eisenbarth has 33 years of teaching exerience in the fields of electrical and computer engineer- ing and computer science at Baylor University where he has served as Associate Dean
theEnglish Proficiency Test, which is a separate test required for all students at Queens University.Figures 3a and b show the distribution of scores on the three Bands. Students in Band 1 withscores <60%, were those flagged to write the diagnostic. Students with scores 60% and <75%make up Band 2, while students who scored 74% make up Band 3. In both cases Band 2 madeup the smallest group. Comment [PK1]: I"don’t"have"the"original"and"I"don’t"know" how"to"take"(University"A)"out"and"replace"it"with"University
Paper ID #13336A reflection on the process of selecting, developing, and launching a new de-sign project in a large-scale introduction to engineering design courseMr. Kevin Calabro, University of Maryland, College Park Kevin Calabro is Keystone Instructor and Associate Director in the Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland.Dr. Ayush Gupta, University of Maryland, College Park Ayush Gupta is Research Assistant Professor in Physics and Keystone Instructor in the A. J. Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland. Broadly speaking he is interested in modeling learning and reasoning processes
AC 2007-1653: AN ONLINE REAL-TIME QUIZ SYSTEM FOR READINESSASSESSMENT TESTINGJoshua Peschel, Texas A&M University JOSHUA M. PESCHEL is a PhD student in Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University. He received the BS in Biological Systems Engineering and the MS in Biological & Agricultural Engineering, also from Texas A&M. His current research interests include unsaturated soil water transport, spatially-distributed hydrologic modeling, and emerging technologies in engineering education.Luciana Barroso, Texas A&M University LUCIANA R. BARROSO is an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University. She is a graduate of Rice University and received
AC 2011-337: USING NO-STAKES QUIZZING FOR STUDENT SELF-EVALUATIONOF READINESS FOR EXAMSKirsten A. Davis, Boise State University Kirsten A. Davis is an Assistant Professor in the Construction Management Department within the College of Engineering at Boise State University. Dr. Davis earned a B.Arch. in Architecture and a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Tennessee, an M.S. in Civil Engineering specializing in Construction Engineering and Management from the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineer- ing specializing in Construction Engineering and Management from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Her educational research interests are focused on improving
AC 2011-2023: SKETCHING, DRAFTING, & DEVELOPING ENGINEER-ING VISUALIZATION SKILLSMatthew A. Carr, U.S. Naval Academy Commander, U.S. Navy PhD, PE Permanent Military Professor Nuclear Submarine Officer Page 22.1299.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Developing Engineering Visualization SkillsintroductionIn the fall semester of Academic Year 2000, the Mechanical Engineering Department at theUnited States Naval Academy introduced a new course required for all students entering theMechanical Engineering major. The course is run through a 16-week fall semester and currentlyis
, and how will the program effectiveness be assessed?2) How many students do we want to support?3) Which student populations will be supported/allowed to participate?4) How will students be selected?5) Will a formal application be required?6) Will students need to have completed specific coursework in order to participate?7) Will the students be paid to work in a lab? If so: a) How will the students be funded? b) How much will they be paid?8) How many hours will the student be expected to work each week?9) How long will the program last?10) What are the expectations of: a) The undergraduate student b) The faculty researchersGoals & scope – SURE detailsThe details from the SURE program conducted in the spring of 2019 will
Paper ID #26333Intended and Unintended Consequences of Rapidly Expanding an Engineer-ing Mathematics Intervention for Incoming First-Year StudentsDr. 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 image of
followed to explain some unique aspects of selected participants.Findings from the 15 transfer/non-traditional students are contextualized in a larger qualitativestudy that included a total of 92 freshman engineering student interviews.Major Findings from the Larger Mixed-Methods StudyQuantitative survey data analysis generated significant results in two topic areas; a. studentperceptions about the required amount of work/effort to succeed in the engineer program andexpected benefits of earning an engineering degree, and b. gendered patterns in male and femalestudent social relationships during the first semester. By the end of the semester, an increased number of students indicated that they did not desire to pursue engineering as a
and new in-service teachers. Pract. Assessment, Res. Eval. 16, (2011).32. Coso, A. E. & Pritchett, A. The development of a rubric to evaluate and promote students’ integration of stakeholder considerations into the engineering design process. ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc. (2014).33. Hansen, E. J. Idea-based learning: A course design process to promote conceptual understanding. (Stylus Publishing, 2012).34. Goldberg, G. L. Revising an engineering design rubric: A case study illustrating principles and practices to ensure technical quality of rubrics. Pract. Assessment, Res. Eval. 19, 7714 (2014).35. Moskal, B. M. Recommendations for developing classroom performance assessments and scoring rubrics
taught a variety of classes ranging introductory programming and first-year engineering design courses to introductory and advanced courses in electronic circuits. He is a member of ASEE, IEEE, and ACM.Dr. Kathleen A Harper, The Ohio State University Kathleen A. Harper is a senior lecturer in the Engineering Education Innovation Center at The Ohio State University. She received her M. S. in physics and B. S. in electrical engineering and applied physics from Case Western Reserve University, and her Ph. D. in physics from The Ohio State University. She has been on the staff of Ohio State’s University Center for the Advancement of Teaching, in addition to teaching in both the physics department and college of
Paper ID #6935The Effect of Required Introduction to Engineering Courses on Retentionand Major SelectionDr. Marisa Kikendall Orr, Louisiana Tech University Dr. Orr is an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering at Louisiana Tech University. She completed her B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, as well as a Certificate of Engineering and Science Education at Clemson University. Her research interests include student persistence and pathways in engineering, gender equity and diversity, and academic policy.Dr. Catherine E. Brawner, Research Triangle Educational Consultants Catherine E. Brawner is President
calibration process).B. Data CollectionParticipants participated in a semi-structured interview ranging from 45 to 90 minutes. Since thepurpose of the interviews was to understand the G/UTAs’ perspectives of the FYE program andtheir TA position, the questions covered a wide range of position related topics. The interviewquestions were divided into seven categories: background information, hiring process, overallexperience, thoughts on MEAs, training, expectations and responsibilities, and support andmentoring (See Appendix A). The interview categories were developed based on analysis offindings regarding the key components for a successful program utilizing UTAs,15 changes to theimplementation and grading of the mathematical modeling activities in