Conference Session

First Year Programs Division Poster Session: The Best Place to Really Talk about First-Year Education

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mary E. Goodwin, University of South Florida; John Pharo Morgan III, University of South Florida; Yan Wang, University of South Florida; Michelle King, University of South Florida College of Engineering; Blake A Burton, University of South Florida

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

157% Dec 330 369 534 718 218% Total 2229 2598 3614 4862 218%Written information was collected from the learning teams twice a semester along with a finalevaluation. All students were asked to turn in two reflection papers, one at four weeks in and thesecond one at 11 weeks. The questions asked on the first paper were the following:  Please write in a few sentences about your biggest challenges to date concerning adjusting to the University.  Describe the positive experiences you have had and what has helped you to adjust.  Please describe your comfort level with your course work to date.  What courses have been the most difficult and what courses do you feel you need further

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Student Perceptions and Perspectives

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Nora Honken, University of Cincinnati; Angela Boronyak, University of Cincinnati; James Edward Roethler, Spalding University; Aimee M. Frame, University of Cincinnati; Cedrick Kwuimy, University of Cincinnati

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

study must be viewed along with the threats tovalidity that are inherent in all studies based on retrospective survey questions. We do not knowhow students interpreted the survey questions, nor how accurately their responses match theirtrue feelings. Multiple questions related to when they started college which was 12 weeks tothree years prior to taking the survey. We fully understand that their responses might have beeninfluenced by their experiences and might not reflect what they were truly looking forward to orconcerned about when they first started college. When reviewing the comparisons between thefirst-year students and upper-level students, one must also consider that students who weredismissed from the college of engineering due to

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division Poster Session

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Michael Elmore P.E., State University of New York at Binghamton; Koenraad E. Gieskes, State University of New York at Binghamton

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

factors might have influenced their decision. The intent was to better understandhow students, who are uncertain about their choice of major at the start of the fall semester, cometo a decision about which major to declare. And why some students who are more confident oftheir intended major at the start of the semester end up changing their intended major. Theprimary question being asked is: What can the 1st-year engineering program do to better aid students in their choice of major?An estimated 40% of entering 1st-year engineering students are uncertain about their choice ofmajor [1]. This was reflected in the number of 1st-year students at Binghamton University asreported in a survey they were given in

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: First-Year Experiences

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Stephanie L. Walkup PE, Villanova University; John Komlos, Villanova University; Kevin A. Waters P.E., Villanova University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

. In addition, upper-level courses in ArcGIS and AutoCAD are incorporated into therevised departmental curriculum, so less proficiency in the freshman year may be acceptable forthese two technologies knowing that it will be enhanced with the future courses. It is interestingthat the first-year students scored lower in faculty assessment in the same two topics that theyperceived as being less essential to their semester project. Additional research is needed todetermine if these trends are also observed in future offerings of the course. If studentsunderstand the importance of these technologies as they relate to the semester project, there maybe more commitment to achieving proficiency.This research provides reflection for department faculty

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Virtual Instruction in the First Year II

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Jaya Dofe, California State University, Fullerton; Sudarshan T. Kurwadkar, California State University, Fullerton

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

complicated. • I think all the project simulations were as helpful as they could be during these circum- stances. • I think it would still be a challenge for the hands-on experience because of the virtual learning we must use. However, I do feel once we are allowed to go back to school, we will be able to have a much better and improved experience with these projects.From the survey responses collected from the participants, it is evident that many students ex-pressed a better understanding of engineering discipline when the course was offered in virtualmode. These responses do not necessarily reflect the enhanced learning experiences in the virtualmode because only 66% responded favorably rated their experiences compared to 79

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Cornucopia

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Kelsey Joy Rodgers, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Daytona Beach; Angela Thompson P.E., University of Louisville; Matthew A. Verleger, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Daytona Beach; Farshid Marbouti, San Jose State University; Nishith Shah; Pujan Thaker, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Daytona Beach

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

responses compared to thepost-survey responses are presented in some of our prior research [24, 25].AcknowledgementsThis work was made possible by a collaborative research grant from the National ScienceFoundation (DUE 1827392; DUE 1827600; DUE 1827406). Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References 1. J. S. Zawojewski, H. A. Diefes-Dux, and K. J. Bowman, Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students. Sense Publishers, 2008. 2. A. R. Carberry and A. F. McKenna, "Exploring student conceptions of modeling and modeling uses in engineering design

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Virtual Instruction in the First Year III

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Rui Li, New York University; Jack Bringardner, New York University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

method for relativeness score for Lab 1 — 3. 9 As for the qualitative analysis, coding method was used to extract keywords from students’10 responses. According to the qualitative questions, four categories were created: benefits of11 participating in Lab 2, challenges of participating in Lab 2, remote working skill, and12 transferable skill. In each category, the authors read reflections sequentially by student and13 identify common keywords. The number of common keywords was counted, and the pie charts14 were created to display the popularity of common keywords in each category. Moreover, some15 student answers to the qualitative questions were used to provide more insights.16 Results and Discussion17 Quantitative Assessment

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division Poster Session

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Matthew Lucian Alexander P.E., Texas A&M University-Kingsville; Breanna Michelle Weir Bailey P.E., Texas A&M University-Kingsville; Rajashekar Reddy Mogiligidda, Texas A&M University-Kingsville; Mahesh Hosur, Texas A&M University-Kingsville; David Hicks, Texas A&M University-Kingsville; Michael Preuss, Exquiri Consulting, LLC

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

expressed in this material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References1. Khasawneh, M., Bachnak, R., Goonatilake, R., Lin, R., Biswas, P., Maldonado, S.C.,(2014) “Promoting STEM Education and Careers among Hispanics and Other Minorities throughPrograms, Enrichment, and other Activities.” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition,Conference Proceedings, 2014.2. Martinez, D., Jacks, J., Jones, D., Faulkner, B. (2010). “Work In Progress – RecruitingInitiatives for Hispanic, First-Generation Students.” 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in EducationConference, 2010.3. Enriquez, A., Langhoff, N., Dunmire, E., Rebold, T., Pong, W. (2018). “Strategies forDeveloping, Expanding, and

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the First Year

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Melissa Lynn Morris, University of Nevada - Las Vegas; Joseph Dygert, West Virginia University; Robin A.M. Hensel, West Virginia University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

profession.Recommendations include focusing on cohort formation, designating space and times for studygroups and encouraging use of campus career resources. Additional focus should be put towardsassisting students in applying for and obtaining internships, co-ops, and undergraduate researchexperiences early in their academic careers.This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNo.1644119. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.6.0 References[1] B. E. Hughes, W. J. Schell, B. Tallman, R. Beigel, E. Annand, and M. Kwapisz, “Do I ThinkI’m an Engineer? Understanding the Impact of

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Monday 5-Minute Work-in-Progress Postcard Session

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Emma Tevaarwerk DeCosta, Northwestern University; J. Alex Birdwell, Northwestern University; Ken Gentry, Northwestern University; Richard Wayne Freeman P.E., Northwestern University; Alan R. Wolff, Northwestern University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

. Unfortunately, no data for Physics IB were collected due toan error in the reporting system. Also, some students may not have reported scores if they weretoo low to receive credit. Thus, there is potentially a larger number of students who took thephysics advanced placement exams than the reported 45-50%.Table 3 shows the level of math and physics preparation of the 2015-2016 incoming class,reflecting the math they were placed into and their self-reporting of AP physics scores. The vastmajority of students test into multivariable calculus, with half self-reporting an AP physics scoreand half not reporting an AP physics score. The students placing into a lower level of math(differential or integral single variable calculus) were much more likely not to

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Focusing on Student Success

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Melissa Lynn Morris, West Virginia University; Robin A. M. Hensel, West Virginia University; Joseph Dygert, West Virginia University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Conference Session

FPD8 - Early Intervention & Retention

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Robin Hensel, West Virginia University; J. Ryan Sigler, West Virginia University; Andrew Lowery, West Virginia University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, West Virginia University.Acknowledgement and DisclaimerThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.0525484. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. Page 13.256.16

Conference Session

FPD4 - Teaching Methods for First Year Students

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

David Hall, Louisiana Tech University; Stan Cronk, Louisiana Tech University; Patricia Brackin, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; Mark Barker, Louisiana Tech University; Kelly Crittenden, Louisiana Tech University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

theorywith practical project-based experience to courses throughout the engineering disciplines.Acknowledgement and DisclaimerPartial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation’s Course, Page 13.855.17Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program under Award No. 0618288. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Bibliography1. Splitt, F.G., “Systemic Engineering Education Reform: A Grand Challenge.” The Bent of Tau Beta Pi, Spring 2003.2. Sheppard, S. and Jenison, R

Conference Session

Potpourri

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ronald Welch, University of Texas, Tyler

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

-ended laboratory experiences that introduced each discipline within thecollege as well as provide a historical introduction to modern engineering. Existingcontent was repackaged and condensed to increase efficiency and allow room for elevenhours covering engineering in the modern world. The laboratories were not only anintroduction to each discipline, but provided the exercises to learn knowledge and skillsused throughout their program of study. The modest adjustments to the course objectivesare reflected in bold print in Table 1.The underlying goal of the new course content (Appendix 2) is to develop a passion forengineering and hopefully a specific engineering discipline within the freshman andtransfer students that will carry them through

Conference Session

Retention Tools and Programs

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jon Sticklen, Michigan State University; Thomas Wolff, Michigan State University; Wolfgang Bauer, Michigan State University; Daina Briedis, Michigan State University; Neeraj Buch, Michigan State University; Nathaniel Ehrlich, Michigan State University; John Courtney, Michigan State University; Ruth Heckman, Lansing Community College; Denise Fleming, Michigan State University; Louise Paquette, Lansing Community College; Renee Mickelson, Lansing Community College; Mark Urban-Lurain; Clifford Weil, Michigan State University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation (NSF).14. Citations1. The Information Technology Association of America, Innovation and a Competitive U.S. Economy: TheCase for Doubling the Number of STEM Graduates(http://www.itaa.org/workforce/docs/Innovationwhitepaper.pdf). 2005.2. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 (Two volumes), National ScienceFoundation. 2006.3. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 (Two volumes), National ScienceFoundation, table 3-2. 2006.4. Seymour, E.; Hewitt, N. M., Talking about leaving : why

Conference Session

Exploring Retention

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jeong Hwan Choi, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Jacob Marszalek, University of Missouri, Kansas City; Joyce Lee, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Susan Linnemeyer, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

toperformance?” The aforementioned results partially answer the question by indicating that boththe ICE and SAGE programs affected student performance together. However, of particularinterest was whether the ICE program affected performance, so the above analysis was replicatedwith the subsample of students who participated in either ICE or both ICE and SAGE, and theirmatches (an analysis of ICE-only students was not possible because there were less than 10).GPAs were reweighted to reflect the new groupings, and all tests of the assumptions weresatisfactory. Page 14.596.12A full-factorial repeated-measures general linear model was again run to compare the

Conference Session

Assessment and Curriculum Development

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

David Hall, Louisiana Tech University; Stan Cronk, Louisiana Tech University; James Nelson, Louisiana Tech University; Patricia Brackin, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Bibliography 1. 2008-2009 ABET Criteria for Engineering Accreditation; http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents- UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2008-09%20EAC%20Criteria%2012-04-07.pdf 2. National Academy of Engineering, “The Engineer of 2020.” The National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2004. www.nap.edu 3. Litzinger, Thomas; Wise, John; Lee, Sangha; Simpson, Timothy; Joshi, Sanjay. 2001. Assessing Readiness for Lifelong Learning. Proceedings of the 2001 ASEE Annual Conference. pp. 2211-2219 4. Nelson, S. 2001. Impact of Technology on Individuals and Society: A critical thinking and lifelong learning class for

Conference Session

The Ever-Changing Course

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Amy Thompson, University of New Haven; Jean Nocito-Gobel, University of New Haven

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

, mathematical, simulated, physical) reflecting all significant aspects of the requirements and constraints• Simulating or testing and analyzing system solution(s) against environmental models• Iterating as necessary to revise the system model or environmental models, or to revise system requirements if too stringent for a viable solution until the design and requirements are fully compatible. Figure 7. System Engineering Method Page 14.735.12Instructors have assigned this project for several years to achieve some of the original outcomesof the course. The major outcome associated with this assignment and assessment includesgetting students to begin to think about how to

Conference Session

Exploring Retention

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Susan Freeman, Northeastern University; Beverly Jaeger, Beverly Jaeger, and Richard Whalen are members of Northeastern University’s; Richard Whalen, Northeastern University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

as cars, amuseum, a person not listed previously, building a fort. Some mentioned 3 to 5 times were Legosor toys, curiosity, programming, internship, non-relative such as a friend’s Dad, and high pay.Only once was the web mentioned, we thought maybe we had missed that category given theprolific use of the internet and the amount of time students seem to be on the internet. But interms of career choices, we saw no mention of the internet as a contributor to their decision.What is Engineering?We also asked our students “What is engineering”? This question helps first-year instructorscalibrate to the students’ preconceptions of their selected major. Content analysis revealed thatthere were 4 dominant responses –solving problems (39% reflected

Conference Session

FPD7 -- Service Learning

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

P.K. Raju, Auburn University; Chetan Sankar, Auburn University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

classrooms around the country, we expect other studies toreport on the efficacy of using these materials in the classrooms and help instructorsinterested in implementing innovative educational materials choose the appropriatematerials.AcknowledgementsWe thank the Division of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation forfunding the case study development and dissemination activities under the grants #9752353, 9950514, 0001454, 0089036 and 0442531. In particular, we thank Dr. RussPimmell, program director, NSF for his valuable feedback and comments. Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. ,Mrs

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Monday Potpourri

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Tammy VanDeGrift, University of Portland; Sherry Liao, University of Portland

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

wereimportant in helping them decide their major. Self-led exploration of the engineering disciplineswas the top occurrence, followed by advice from people not at Purdue, advice from other Purduestudents, and several others. Interviews with students confirmed the survey results. Students’own research and initiative to talk to others helped them identify which pathway to take. In aseparate survey, students answered the question “Did activities help you decide whichprofessional school to enter? Explain.” Course presentations were, by far, listed most often. Thisis similar to the results of the study presented in this paper.Continuous RefinementThere are numerous ways to support students in reflecting upon their interests and goals.Students were given the

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Tuesday Potpourri

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kelsey Joy Rodgers, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach; Nanmwa Jeremiah Dala, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University ; Krishna Madhavan, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering)

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

learning. This research needs to continue in otherengineering courses, including upper-level undergraduate courses, to understand similarities anddifferences in this established framework.AcknowledgmentThis work was made possible by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF EEC1227110). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.Bibliography1. Zawojewski, J. S., Diefes-Dux, H. A., & Bowman, K. J. (Eds.) (2008). Models and modeling in engineering education: designing experiences for all students. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. (change 10 to 1, add 1 up to 10 to all so would be 12)2

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Retention & Bridge Programs #2

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Zahrasadat Alavi, California State University, Chico; Kathleen Meehan, California State University, Chico; Kevin Buffardi, California State University, Chico; Webster R. Johnson, California State University, Chico; Joseph Greene, California State University, Chico

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

choice of major was correct shouldreduce the likelihood that the student will change majors, which can extend the time tograduation.Results of pre- and post-bootcamp surveys demonstrated improved self-confidence regardingskills important to their majors, particularly in their ability to learn and apply math concepts, aswell as an increased sense of belonging in the major. The authors also assessed the ALEKSmathematics learning tool as a means to improve students’ math skills. Evaluation of the impactthat PBL modules had in helping students recognize the importance and application ofmathematics in their chosen fields and the faculty reflections on the bootcamp are still inprogress. Data on participants’ success in Fall 2019 math courses and

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Metacognition, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation #2

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Peter M. Ostafichuk, University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Susan Nesbit, University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Naoko Ellis P.Eng., University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Gerald Tembrevilla, University of British Columbia, Vancouver

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

. Thisstrongly relates to metacognition.As described by Schraw and Dennison [2], metacognition refers to “the ability to reflect on,understand, and control one’s learning.” Sometimes described by the informal shorthand“thinking about thinking,” a more formal definition of metacognition typically includes elementsof knowledge of cognition (declarative knowledge involved with understanding learningprocesses and strategies, and knowing when to adopt a particular strategy), and regulation ofcognition (procedural knowledge of planning, monitoring, and adapting one’s learning) [3];although many other distinctions for elements of metacognition exist [4].Metacognition is a key asset as students transition to the more independent post-secondarylearning

Conference Session

First-year Programs Division: Best Papers

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Andrew H. Phillips, Ohio State University; Krista M. Kecskemety, Ohio State University; David A. Delaine, Ohio State University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

. Delaine is a co-founder and past president of the Student Platform for Engineering Education Development (SPEED) and has served two terms as an executive member of the International Federation of Engineering Education Societies (IFEES) as a Vice President for Diversity & Inclusion. He is investigating university-community engagement as empow- erment settings and working to further the research agenda of the global community of practice within Diversity and Inclusion in Engineering Education. His research laboratory aims to support an inclu- sive, global pipeline of STEM talent and to unify the needs of the engineering education stakeholders in order for engineering education to more accurately reflect societal

Conference Session

First-year Programs Division: Retention

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Darlee Gerrard, University of Toronto; Chirag Variawa, University of Toronto

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

first-year students (n=353) just beyond the mid-point of their first-year.The Workload Measurement Survey (WMS) was administered weekly, and was distributed byemail to groups of 20 first-year students from each program throughout the first semesters inYears 1 (2016) and 2 (2017) of our study. These twenty students were selected at random fromeach of our 8 engineering programs each week; surveys were distributed at the end of the weekfor a twelve-week fall semester in order to encourage reflection and responses based on thatparticular week of study. In 2016, the survey received a response rate of 26.87% with acompletion rate of 77.88%; in 2017, the response was 46.27% and presented a completion rate of77.87%. This survey explored the perceived

Conference Session

First-year Programs Division: Design

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ryan Munden, Fairfield University; Marcia Arambulo Rodriguez, Fairfield University; Djedjiga Belfadel, Fairfield University; Michael Zabinski, Fairfield University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

categories reflected, and grew out of the previous presentation rubric, but with specificpoints now guiding student preparation, peer assessment, and instructor assessment, equally.The Content area was reworded to address the points from the Target rubric, so that the studentswere given the expectation that their critical thinking process needed to be demonstrated duringtheir oral presentation as well as during the writing. The other points addressed technical aspectsof the presentation including: organization, visuals/slides, timing, speaking, and nonverbalcommunication. The full IOP Rubric is given in Appendix B.The student poll of rubric effectiveness (see appendix A) indicates that 83% of respondentsAgreed or Strongly Agreed that they found the

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Monday Cornucopia (Classroom Innovations)

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jenn Stroud Rossmann, Lafayette College; Hannah Stewart-Gambino, Lafayette College

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

wellestablished ([3]-[7]). Relying on technological progress to drive or require the social progressthat would make “solutions” widely available has also been shown to be inadequate (e.g. [8-9]). As scholars [10] have written, “Critical analyses and reflections on the design of scienceand technology are essential if societies are to meet their challenges in ways that create realimprovements rather than re-create inequalities.” Meaningfully addressing the GrandChallenges thus requires interdisciplinary collaboration, critical thinking about the potentialand the limitations of engineering design methods, and deep understanding of local socialcontext and larger economic and political systems.Lafayette College began its Grand Challenges Scholars Program

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division Technical Session 5A: Work-In-Progress: 5 Minute Postcard Session I

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ryan W. Krauss, Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville; Ryan Fries, Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville; Cem Karacal, Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

. Davis. Using strengths of first-year engineering students to enhance teaching. In Proceedings of the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA, June 2015. [7] Matthew Meyer and Sherry Marx. Engineering dropouts: A qualitative examination of why undergraduates leave engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4):525–548, 2014. [8] Kerry L. Meyers, Stephen E. Silliman, Natalie L. Gedde, and Matthew W. Ohland. A comparison of engineering students’ reflections on their first-year experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2):169–178, 2010. [9] David E. Goldberg and Mark Somerville. The making of a whole new engineer: Four unexpected lessons for engineering educators and education researchers. Journal of

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division Technical Session 4B: Assessing Student Motivation and Student Success

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Anne Dudek Ronan P.E., New York University; Jack Bringardner, New York University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

majoruniversities are lower: 20% at Ohio State,3 27% at UT Austin,4 24% at NYU,5 26% at UCBerkeley,6 and 28% at Georgia Tech.7 It is suspected that the low enrollment numbers are aresult of social issues and curricular policies. While social change is outside the scope of highereducation faculty control, curriculum changes can be used to encourage women as well as retainthem in engineering programs.There is evidence that certain curriculum practices are more enticing to women and motivatethem to stay in engineering. Strategies to attract women to engineering have included teamwork,service projects, and social impacts of engineering projects. These strategies reflect the higherpercent of degrees awarded to women in areas like environmental and biomedical