Conference Session

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

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Julie Chiki, Ohio University; Braden Vale Jay Robinson, Ohio University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

% 52.17% Going to college was the next logical step 46.40% 34.78% I've always been good at math and science 41.10% 41.30% Someone suggested it to me 16.10% 10.87% Other (Qualitative) 5.40% 2.17% I'm not sure 0.00% 0.00%In keeping with the appreciative model, students were also asked to reflect on their personalstrengths before considering their academic failures. When asked what kept them from reachingtheir full potential in the previous semester (Table 3), students most commonly selected “anxiety,depression, or stress” (58.9%) and “poor time management

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Assessment

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jenell Wilmot, University of Texas, Austin; Nina Kamath Telang, University of Texas, Austin

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

population, and attendees weremore interested in understanding the material and working with others than the fall population,who identified more interest in securing a passing grade. The spring SI attendees also reported amore favorable view of engaging in small group work, which is an integral component topedagogical foundation of SI.The notable difference in motivation may be reflective of the differences in class environmentbetween the fall and spring semesters. With the spring semester’s smaller student population,there may be a different sense of community and accessibility to resources than is experienced in    the larger lectures during the fall. No longer in their first semester, spring

Conference Session

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

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Petra Bonfert-Taylor, Dartmouth College; Vicki V. May, Dartmouth College; Holly Wilkinson P.E., Dartmouth College; Alicia Betsinger, Dartmouth College

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

. (2003). Efficacy of using a single, non-technicalvariable to predict the academic success of freshmen engineering students. Journal ofEngineering Education, 92, 41−48.Meyers, K.L., Silliman, S.E., Gedde, N.L., Ohland, M. (2010). A Comparison of EngineeringStudents’ Reflections on Their First-Year Experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2). 169-178.Montgomery, R., Follman, D., and Diefes-Dux, H. (2003). Relative Effectiveness of DifferentFirst-Year Seminars. Frontiers in Education Conference. Boulder, CO.Mourtos, N.J. and Furman, B.J. (2002). Assessing the Effectiveness of an Introduction toEngineering Course for Freshmen, Frontiers in Education Conference. Boston, MA.NSF (2015). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in

Conference Session

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

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Melissa Danforth, California State University, Bakersfield; Charles Lam, California State University, Bakersfield

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

’ current major,mathematics progression, and overall academic progress during future terms. Additionalinterviews and follow-up with the participants will also be explored.AcknowledgementsThis paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1430398. 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 ScienceFoundation.BibliographyAlvarado, C., & Dodds, Z. (2010). Women in CS: An Evaluation of Three Promising Practices. ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Milwaukee, WI.Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Colleta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007

Conference Session

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

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Julian Ly Davis, University of Southern Indiana; Arthur L. Chlebowski, University of Southern Indiana; David J. Ellert PE, University of Southern Indiana

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Section of their Rube Goldberg Machine (Outcome C). As part of this work-in-progress, feedback will be obtained regarding Outcomes C, D, and G from these students duringtheir Senior Capstone. Students will be asked to reflect on their comments and if they were usedin the execution of their Senior Capstone. Students will also be assessed on the impact theirfreshman design course had on their ability to design a system, component or process, tofunction on a multidisciplinary team, and to communicate effectively.ConclusionsIt is suspected that there is a positive impact on student learning using the techniques described.Students were successful in their projects. They took ownership of their individual RubeGoldberg sections. There were NO complaints

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Assessment

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Noah Salzman, Boise State University; Matthew W. Ohland, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering); Monica E. Cardella, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering)

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

was supported by the National ScienceFoundation (EEC Grant # 1550961). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendationsdo not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References1. NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards. (Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS, 2013).2. Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D. & Strobel, J. Engineering in the K‐12 STEM Standards of the 50 US States: An Analysis of Presence and Extent. Journal of Engineering Education 101, 539– 564 (2012).3. Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W. & Kersten, J. A. NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards. J Res Sci Teach 52, 296–318 (2015).4

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Design in the First Year

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

James Blake Hylton, Ohio Northern University; Todd France, Ohio Northern University; Louis A. DiBerardino III, Ohio Northern University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

was largely positive with respect to the newmethods, as compared to more traditional lectures. Even if the design attitude impact of the pedagogiesremains to be proven, with positive student reception and a general positive reflection on the part ofparticipating faculty members, this is a very encouraging result.References[1] Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2016). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom : definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336[2] Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The Flipped Classroom : A Survey of the Research The Flipped Classrom : A Survey of the Research. In 120th ASEE

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Paying Attention to Retention

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Elizabeth A. Adams, Chandler Gilbert Community College; Mary Beth Burgoyne

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

engineering students arenovice researchers and that these skills require nurturing and guidance at this stage withopportunities for continued application.DiscussionThe Intervention sections are taught by a female professor, which since students self-select intothe courses, this is a factor that could influence, if not the successful completion by femalestudents, certainly the higher enrollment percentage of female students in the Interventionsections. The percentage of successful completion of the Intervention sections by female studentsis reflected by other underrepresented minority students in engineering as well. This isencouraging and suggests to the authors that the content variety and structure of the projects usedthis in model is one avenue

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Paying Attention to Retention

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Paige E. Smith, University of Maryland, College Park; Elizabeth R. Kurban, University of Maryland, College Park; Catherine T. Amelink, Virginia Tech

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

fact that SEEDS programs provide an immediate link to other underrepresented populationsin the Clark School of Engineering through LLCs and regular networking events.Regardless of the type of SEEDS program in which they participated (i.e., LLC, mentoring, orthe combination of LLC and mentoring), engineering undergraduates were more likely to beretained within engineering than peers who did not participate in SEEDS programming.Moreover, based on the study’s findings it appears that participation in the LLC programs (i.e.,Flexus and Virtus) in combination with the mentoring program may have the most positiveimplications for student retention. Reflected in the results, as a whole SEEDS students whoparticipated in the combination of living and

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: 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: Design in the First Year

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

David Joseph Frank, Ohio State University; Kelly Lynn Kolotka, Ohio State University; Andrew H. Phillips, Ohio State University; Michael Schulz, The Ohio State University; Clare Rigney, Ohio State University, Engineering Education Department; Allen Benjamin Drown, Ohio State University; Robert G. Stricko III, Ohio State University; Kathleen A. Harper, Ohio State University; Richard J. Freuler, Ohio State University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

the necessary runtime information for a givencomponent (such as I2C bus, resistor pull-up/pull-down configuration, pin number, etc.) isincluded. A major design goal for this system was configurability, along with reusability. Allnetworking information is present in the XML document as well, so should any networkingparameters change, those changes can be reflected in the XML document and no changes need tobe made to the software itself. Therefore, this system facilitates the development of innovativeand creative tasks in the future without any barriers.Robot Positioning SystemIn addition to the core software and hardware that allows students operate and test on thecourses, there is also the Robot Positioning System (RPS). The RPS is a system

Conference Session

The Best of First-Year Programs Division

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Darlee Gerrard, University of Toronto; Kirstin Newfield, University of Toronto; Narges Balouchestani Asli, University of Toronto; Chirag Variawa, University of Toronto

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

student to complete the deliverable.The second survey was distributed to current students weekly throughout their first semester oftheir first-year in 2016. Twenty students were selected at random from each engineering programeach week (N~120/week). Surveys were distributed at the end of the week in order for studentsto reflect and respond based on that particular week of study. The survey received a response rateof 26.87% with a completion rate of 77.88%. This survey focuses on the perceived operationaland conceptual difficulty of course content, the nature of that content, the perception of courseassignments, deadlines and expectations, and the overall instructional experience. Data at thepoint of analysis will be anonymized and used in