Conference Session

FPD IV: Improving Student Success: Mentoring, Intervening, and Supplementing

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Dianne Raubenheimer, North Carolina State University; Jerome P. Lavelle, North Carolina State University; Monica Terrell Leach, North Carolina State University; Steven L. White, North Carolina State University ; Philip Albert Moses, North Carolina State University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

academic courses. • Students will become aware of University campus resources.Topics covered during the course include, (a) Self-assessment and Monitoring Tools, (b) TimeManagement and Organizational Skills, (c) Stress Management, (d) Decision-making, (e)Academic Skills and Strategies, (f) Computer Skills, and, (g) Locating and Accessing CampusResources.The course requires weekly attendance and participation, and includes both individual and groupassignments. Student journaling is a central theme in this course as a mechanism to promoteproactive thinking as well as reflection. Aside from daily assignments students are required tohave two detailed academic coaching sessions with faculty members. These sessions are used toobtain feedback on class

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division Technical Session 2B: Strategies for Writing and Communication Courses

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Wendi M. Kappers, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Daytona Beach

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

of a perceived social elementinclusion, (b) changes in learning from the perspective of the reviewer rather than the receiver offeedback, and (c) improvement in perceived information literacy. Additionally, this researchexamines Canvas attributes as identified by Sondergaard & Mulder(1) (2012) of (a) Automation,(b) Simplicity, (c) Customizability, and (d) Accessibility, which support statements from theliterature that indicate a lack of investigation of more modern peer review tools. Survey results,both qualitative and quantitative, were analyzed across three different peer-reviewed assignmentsfor this examination. Of the 91 respondents, representing a 32% response rate, descriptiveanalysis revealed themes ranging from Changes in Student

Conference Session

The Best of First-year Programs Division

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

John Charles Minor, Clemson University; Elizabeth Anne Stephan, Clemson University; Abigail T. Stephan, Clemson University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Female [n (%)] Male [n (%)] Non-White [n (%)] White [n (%)]A (n=9) 2 (22.22%) 7 (77.78%) 3 (33.33%) 6 (66.67%)B (n=27) 9 (33.33%) 18 (66.67%) 8 (29.63%) 19 (70.37%)C (n=22) 7 (31.82%) 15 (68.18%) 11 (50%) 11 (50%)D (n=6) 1 (16.67%) 5 (83.33%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%)F (n=8) 1 (12.5%) 7 (87.5%) 3 (37.5%) 5 (62.5%)Total (n=72) 20 (27.78%) 52 (72.22%) 28 (38.89%) 44 (61.11%)Research Question 1: How does engineering math performance relate to students continuing atthe university and into an engineering major?Information related to

Conference Session

FPD8 - Early Intervention & Retention

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mukul Shirvaikar, University of Texas at Tyler; David Beams, University of Texas at Tyler; Sagun Shrestha, University of Texas at Tyler

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

eligible)took advantage of the program based on the program survey compared to 37 in the previousacademic year (a 27% increase). Of these, 17 were electrical engineering majors compared to 11in the previous year (a 54.6% increase). B2B FALL 2006 SUBJECT COVERAGE TUTORS MON TUE WED THU FRI A 8:00AM B 9:00AM PHYSICS MATH C 10:00AM PHYSICS MATH D 11:00AM MATH

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Unique Projects & Pedagogies

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Michelle M. Blum, Syracuse University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

worksheetlearning goals and the concepts being taught. From reading the responses, some distinct learningtrends appeared.Activities 1&2 responses are shown in Figure 3. With Activity 1, most students were aware of,and could list examples of either the S.I. units, U.S. units or both systems, but they struggled toexplain or define the concept of a dimension (code B). In addition, they could not explain therelationship between dimensions and units (code C). The students felt the first activity really taughtthem to define the terms, compare the terms and explain their importance. For Activity 2, themajority of students could list some fundamental units (Code E). Student’s main mistakes werecalling “weight” a fundamental dimension instead of “mass.” Also

Conference Session

FPD 8: Teaching Design in the First Year

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Wallace Martindell Catanach III, Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Mary Lynn Brannon, Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Christopher Stephen Smith, Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Page 24.612.6 7 Durability X 8 Easily storable/ assessable X X 9 Ability to effectively rake leaves X Table #2 – Customer needs specifications (An example of a student’s work.)See the matrix below to convert the customer needs to metrics: Concepts A B CMetric Collect in # Selection Criteria Pull rake bag Compress 1 Heavy raking head + + + 2 Total mass

Conference Session

FPD5 -- Placement & Early Success

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Gary D. Herrin, University of Michigan; Cindy Veenstra, University of Michigan

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

in Chemistry, it would seem that theACT Science would be a good predictor. For this data discussed in this report, the ACT mathwas a better predictor than the ACT Science so the discussion is limited to the ACT math andSAT math tests in the remainder of this report.ACT Literature ReviewA literature review was conducted of research papers published on the ACT website. ACTresearchers have published a significant research paper showing that the ACT math cut- pointscan be used to predict the success of students in Calculus. In their study including a largenumber of colleges, ACT researchers established an ACT Math cut-point of 27 for studentshaving a 50% chance of earning a B or better in the first college calculus course and a 75%chance of

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Peer Mentoring

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Leila Keyvani Someh, Northeastern University; Brian Patrick O'Connell, Northeastern University; Kathryn Schulte Grahame, Northeastern University; Jake Levi, Northeastern University; Whitney Elise Hansberry; Vishrudan Swami

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

your mentor?’ question is summarized in Figure 1. In thisquestion, the students who answered ‘yes’ were prompted to write down their peer-mentor’sname. Due to the diverse nature of our student population and peer-mentors, all of the resultsfrom this section with or without proper spelling of the peer-mentors’ names were consideredvalid. Those who did not remember their peer-mentor were given a list of names to pick from ina follow up question. Figure 1 only illustrates the results for the ‘Do you remember yourmentor?’ question without prompting to choose a name from a list. (a) (b) Figure 1: Percentage of the students remembered their peer-mentor’s name - TA or

Conference Session

FPD 6: Course Content and Educational Strategies

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Brian M. Frank P.Eng., Queen's University; Behnam Behinaein Hamgini, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Queen's University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

,analysis of how assignments progress over time (process mining), and generating automaticfeedback to engineering students.11 Cloud-based documents like Google Docs have been used forcontinuous formal assessment.12,13This study presents the use of Google Docs in a large lecture environment (approximately 230students in each lecture) for bi-directional feedback on open-ended first year engineeringactivities. In this approach, the instructor may (a) observe the process students go through inaddressing a presented problem, and (b) pick out samples of student work while students areworking, rather than waiting until students have submitted it. The instructor can then presentsamples of work to the class, and provide feedback. This approach allows the

Conference Session

First-year Programs Division Technical Session 6: Hands-on Projects and Spatial Skills

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sarah Jane Grigg, Clemson University; Lisa Benson, Clemson University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

errors on two of the instructor’s course sites. In total, thisanalysis includes responses from 341 out of 616 students (55.5% response rate) enrolled in 12course sections taught by 6 different instructors using PROCESS. This sample of students wasused to evaluate the student learning outcomes and perceptions of the course and the PROCESSrubric. Instructors and graders completed a similar survey about the PROCESS rubric. Seveninstructors and 5 graders completed the survey.Sample PopulationThe distribution of final course grades of student survey respondents was representative of thedistribution found overall. The sample population has a slightly higher response rate fromstudents earning A or B grades and a slightly lower response rate from

Conference Session

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

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mary Fraley, Michigan Technological University; Amber Kemppainen, Michigan Technological University; Amy J. Hamlin, Michigan Technological University; Gretchen L. Hein, Michigan Technological University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, August 8-9, 2013.6. Yoon, S., Imbrie, P., Reed, T., “First Year Mathematics Course Credits and Graduation Status in Engineering,” 6th First Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference, College Station, TX, August 7 – 8, 2014.7. Tewari, D., “Is Matric Math a Good Predictor of Student’s Performance in the First Year of University Degree? A Case Study of Faculty of Management Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa,” Int J Edu Sci, Vol 8, No. 1, pg. 233-237, 2014.8. Hamlin, B., Riehl, J., Hamlin, A., Monte, A., “Work in Progress - What are you thinking? Over Confidence in First Year Students,” 40th ASEE/FIE Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, DC

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Integrating Computing into the First Year

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

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

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

of the Arduino boards are published under a Creative Commons license. 2. Arduino Uno Platform There are a wide variety of Arduino boards [2], in this class we used the Arduino Uno which is ahigh-performance 8-bit RISC-based microcontroller. The Arduino Uno has 14 digital input/output pins, 6analog inputs, a resonator, a USB connector, a power, and a reset button. It has everything needed tosupport the microcontroller. a) Power: The Arduino Uno can be powered via the USB connection or with an external power supply (AC-to-DC adapter or battery). Leads from a battery can be inserted in the Gnd and Vin pin headers of the power connector. The board can operate on an external supply of 6 to 20 volts. b) Input

Conference Session

FPD 1: Projects and Teamwork in First-Year Courses

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Thomas Shepard, University of St. Thomas

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

No visible or functional damage 4 30-34 mph Light to medium cosmetic damage, no functional damage 3 25-29 mph Heavy cosmetic damage and/or minor functional damage 2 20-24 mph Small piece chipped off and/or medium functional damage 1 14-19 mph Large piece broke off and/or significant functional damage 0 < 13 mph Unable/unsafe to operate againTable 2. Performance score relation to grade Performance Grade Total Performance Score A >30 B

Conference Session

FPD5 -- Placement & Early Success

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Janet Callahan; John Gardner, Boise State University; Amy Moll, Boise State University; Pat Pyke, Boise State University; Cheryl Schrader, Boise State University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Duke University and a Master’s degree in journalism from the University of California at Berkeley.Cheryl Schrader, Boise State University Cheryl B. Schrader is Dean of the College of Engineering and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boise State University. Dean Schrader has an extensive record of publications and sponsored research in the systems, control and engineering education fields. She recently received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring from the White House for an enduring, strong, and personal commitment to underrepresented engineering students and faculty

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Mathematics in the First Year

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Louis J. Everett, University of Texas, El Paso; Phillip Cornwell, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; Yirong Lin, The University of Texas, El Paso; Norman Love, University of Texas, El Paso

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs, Mathematics

properties. Any change in an extensiveproperty within the system can be accounted for by counting the amount of the extensive propertytransported across the system boundary and the amount generated or consumed inside the system[18].Given a generic extensive property B, e.g. mass or energy or momentum or charge or entropy, it ispossible to write a general accounting principle for any system. In its simplest form, the finitetime version of the accounting principle is very intuitive and can be written as: Amount of 𝐵 Amount of 𝐵 Amount of 𝐵 Amount of B Amount of 𝐵 Amount of 𝐵 inside inside transported transported generated consumed system − system = into system − out of

Conference Session

FPD 1: The Path to Engineering

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Catherine E. Brawner, Research Triangle Educational Consultants; Marisa K. Orr, Louisiana Tech University; Matthew W. Ohland, Purdue University and Central Queensland University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

interviews weregiven $20 for their participation.This paper uses a collective case study methodology to explore the motivations of those studentswe define as “accidental engineers,” those who began their studies in a non-engineering majorand subsequently switched to an engineering major. The collective case study is an “instrumentalstudy extended to several cases which…may not be known in advance to manifest the commoncharacteristic,”8 in this case being accidental engineers. Quotations have been modified toimprove readability by deleting verbal crutches, such as “um” and “you know” and false starts,and edited for clarity. We have assigned pseudonyms to the students, advisors, MIDFIELDschools (A-State, B-State, C-State, D-State), and programs to

Conference Session

First-year Programs Division Technical Session 6: Hands-on Projects and Spatial Skills

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Benjamin Emery Mertz, Arizona State University; Haolin Zhu, Arizona State University; Chao Wang, Arizona State University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

instructional designer, a web technologist, and threeinstructors teaching the on-site version of this course offered to mechanical, aerospace, electrical,and chemical engineering students at ASU Tempe campus. The development of this course tookabout two months over the summer of 2013 for the course to be launched and taught during thetwo 7.5 weeks of 2013 Fall A and B sessions. First, overall course structure and coursecomponents were discussed and determined; then delivery method and content for eachcomponent was designed, developed, and implemented; finally the course shell (viaLearningStudio, the university’s online course management system) was assembled andfinalized. During the process, a team based design project topic was also selected and the

Conference Session

Projects and Problems in First-Year Courses

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Senay Purzer, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Bhad the highest gains in self-efficacy while Team A had the lowest gains. Team B also had thehighest cumulative course grade.Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Teams Case Team Team Normalized Self-Efficacy Cumulative Team Grade Name Size Gain of the Team Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Bryan’s Team Team B 4 .46 (.26) 88.32 (5.02) Eric’s Team Team E 3 .33 (.16) 82.99 (1.21) Alex’s Team Team A 4 .31 (.22) 87.12 (5.84)Table 2 shows scores for individuals. Bryan started with the lowest

Conference Session

FPD7 -- Service Learning

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Dan Cordon, University of Idaho; Barbara Williams, University of Idaho; Steven Beyerlein, University of Idaho; Donald Elger, University of Idaho

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

the identified problem.Week 13: The activity described below occurred.Step 1 - Process analysis and application: Each team was provided a handout depicting Tool 1(Table 1) and Tool 2 (Figure 1). Each team was asked to (a) Describe two similarities between the processes of problem solving and design. (b) Describe two differences between the processes of problem solving and design (c) Recall that during the previous class, they were asked to solve a problem that their team was having within their design process. For the case study, they were asked to analyze what things seemed different during the problem solving experience that hadn’t been occurring during the design experience.Observations taken by facilitators

Conference Session

First-year Programs Division: Student Success

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Lydia Yang Yang, Kansas State University; Bette Grauer P.E., Kansas State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

and second year core science, math andcomputer science courses. The SAS program was charged with providing effectivetutoring that created a strong foundation for courses that followed in the engineeringcurriculum. The goals of the program were to help engineering students successfullycomplete first and second year engineering coursework. The SAS program employedstudents who earned a 3.0 cumulative GPA and successfully completed tutored courses,receiving a grade of either an A or B in the course they were hired to tutor. The criterionfor selection of SAS tutors was determined with input from students, faculty and staff.We wanted tutors who were highly successful in the course but were concerned that if weonly included the highest achievers

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

alignment with the screencast topics; this isreversed for negative polarity prompts.)Table 4. Survey prompts: APSC 100 survey prompts used to assess screencast impact. Screencasts Prompt Polarity Prompt text assessed Being able to complete an activity easily and without errors is a sign you A + 3,4,5,8,9 are NOT learning from that activity. B + 1 People have the ability to change how intelligent they are. It is better to go to bed on time the night before an exam rather than lose C + 6

Conference Session

First-year Programs Division Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Fahmida Masoom, University of Wisconsin, Platteville; Abulkhair Masoom, University of Wisconsin, Platteville

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

studentsAn overwhelming majority of the students felt that they were adequately prepared (81.3%) forthe first college math course, and on a scale of 1-10 they rated their math skills between 7 and10. They probably had reason to be confident since 82.5% had received a grade of either an A ora B in their last high school math course, as they had reported. Yet, roughly a third of thestudents surveyed reported that they had to repeat a math course in college. Calculus I andCalculus II were the two courses that were repeated most often with 31.4% of students reportingthat they had repeated Calculus I and 36.2% had repeated Calculus II.Perhaps a sampling of the responses to the survey question, “What was the biggest challenge inthe first math course that

Conference Session

Multidisciplinary Engineering in the First-Year

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kleio Avrithi P.E., Mercer University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs, Multidisciplinary Engineering

An ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies.Student SurveysStudents from the four groups shown in Table 3 completed anonymous surveys. Groups A and Cstudy engineering and groups B and D study engineering technology. Groups A and C are fromthe same institution and B and D from a different one. All students have completed an“Introduction to Engineering” course. Group D are transfer students from a two-year college,where they have already been introduced to engineering. All student groups are interdisciplinaryand mutually exclusive.Table 3: Surveyed student groups Group Program Class Standing Population, N A

Conference Session

Exploring Retention

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Brian DeJong, Central Michigan University; Kumar Yelamarthi, Central Michigan University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

, etc.), corresponding 1 Table 1: Grade point scale for CMU. Grade Point Grade Point A 4.00 C 2.00 A- 3.67 C- 1.67 B+ 3.33 D+ 1.33 B 3.00 D 1.00 B- 2.67 D- 0.67 C+ 2.33 E 0.00retention rates, and where the unretained students are going. In the following sections, wepresent and discuss a program overview, general retention rates

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division Technical Session 2A: Using Alternative Measurements to Look at Students and Their Success

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Nicholas Andres Brake, Lamar University; James C. Curry

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Skill SE 4.48 4.56 4.17 4.17 4.57 4.98a,b,c Tinkering 4.27 4.34 3.64 3.79 4.60 4.84b,c SE Design SE 3.70 3.96a 3.35 3.96a 4.64 4.75b,c Teamwork 4.83 4.80 4.62 4.59 4.95 5.10b,c Career 4.42 4.92a 4.38 5.07a 4.84 4.87 a Difference between pre- and post- CBIE, CBIE-civil, or PBIE population mean ranks, respectively, p ≤ 0.05. b Difference between post-PBIE and post-CBIE population mean

Conference Session

First-year Programs Division Technical Session 10: Paying Attention to Retention

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Steffen Peuker, California Polytechnic State University; Nova Alexandria Glinski Schauss, Oregon State University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

almost universally viewed as a good thing” 8.A new innovative approach has been developed to increase engineering student success andretention by linking student development focused first-year engineering courses and a projectcalled “Design Your Process of Becoming a World-Class Engineering Student”. It is importantto emphasize the “engineering” student development focused first-year courses to distinguishfrom general student development focused courses. The first-year engineering courses at theUniversity of Alaska Anchorage and Oregon State University were developed after the modelpresented by Raymond B. Landis who outlines five cornerstone objectives which will benefitengineering students: 1) improve their peer environment; 2) teach them

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division Poster Session

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Peter L.L. Walls, Dunwoody College of Technology; Jonathan Aurand P.E., Dunwoody College of Technology

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

directly reduces time for other material.However, in future iterations, we plan to leverage the design reviews to have teams practice theirpublic speaking and critical thinking skills by having the review take place with another team.The vision is to have Team A present their design to the instructor and Team B. Team B wouldget exposure to another design and be challenged to point out areas that need further thought andrefinement. After the first half, the roles would swap and Team B would present to Team A.Summary and conclusionsThroughout this paper, we highlight the successes and areas for future improvements based onthe development of a semester-long design project. The project, working on a small team todesign and build a digital balance from

Conference Session

FPD X: First-Year Design with Projects, Modeling, and Simulation

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ani Ural, Villanova University; Joseph Robert Yost, Villanova University; David W Dinehart, Villanova University; Shawn P. Gross, Villanova University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

loaded P ε = δ/L (in./in.) deformation (a) (b) (c) (d)Figure 4: (a) Axial load experiment. (b) Internal material and normal stress. (c) Stress-strain andelastic behavior. (d) Elastic-plastic behaviorBased on the discussion given above, stress and strain are recognized to be normalized forms offorce and deformation, respectively. Plotting stress verses strain yields a graph that ischaracteristic of the material, and not the size and shape of the test specimen. This leads to thedevelopment of the stress-strain diagram for steel. As the specimen is loaded the deformation

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

. Student mastery is trackednumerically and illustrated by filling in appropriate sections of the student’s progress pie chart.Faculty and graduate assistant time is available to help students with any content topics, asneeded, and the student’s grade is based completely on mastery of the pre-calculus topics.Students who master 90% or more earn an A, 80% or more earn a B, 70% or more earn a C, 60%or more earn a D, and below 60% earn an F in the mid-semester math course. As a benefit to theinstructor, ALEKS tracks each student’s assessment records, the total time s/he spent in thecourse, and the average number of hours spent each week. Instructor time is spent answeringdirect student questions about content and sending email reminders and

Conference Session

FPD XI: Assessing First-Year Programs, Experiences, and Communities

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Marie C. Paretti, Virginia Tech; Kelly J. Cross, Virginia Tech University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

developing undergraduate engineering degree program. International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007. September 3 -7: Coimbria, Portugal.Backer, P. (2007). Technology And Gender Issues: Development And Assessment Of A Freshman General Education Course In The College Of Engineering. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. June 24-27: Honolulu, Hawaii.Behrens, A.; Atorf, L.; Schwann, R.; Neumann, B.; Schnitzler, R.; Balle, J.; Herold, T.; Telle, A.; Noll, T.G.; Hameyer, K.; Aach, T. (2010). MATLAB Meets LEGO Mindstorms—A Freshman Introduction Course Into Practical Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Education 53(2): 306-317.Carberry, A., M. Ohland, C. Swan (2010), A