vignettes. A Vignette describes ahypothetic team member with specific attributes demonstrating specific characteristics meant tobe assessed with peer evaluation. Through evaluating this hypothetic person and comparingstudents’ evaluation results with results from trained experts, we expect to measure students’biases and provide a training opportunity to improve student rating skills and reduce rating bias.The theoretical framework in our study operationally defines team effectiveness asinterdependency, goal setting and potency. A vignette designed to illustrate attributes ofinterdependency, goal setting and potency was administered at different periods of the semester.Participants in the study were enrolled in the first year engineering course and
areas of (a) overall instructor effectiveness, (b) amount learned, and (c) overallcourse effectiveness in favor of those sections containing a higher variety of learning modes.Assessment of learning for the design course was documented in that recent publication.To further evaluate the macro-level outcome of the previous research, we felt it would bevaluable to “walk in their shoes” to obtain feedback from students’ perspectives on a decidedlymore micro level. To review our strategies, additional evaluation methods were undertaken inthis follow-on work. As a continuation of assessing the overall course sections, we collected dataon two aspects of each of the components of the course described above: (a) learning value, and(b) interest and
Paper ID #12655Summer Engineering Enrichment Program Results Exceed ExpectationsDr. Robert W. Whalin, Jackson State University Dr. Whalin, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Director, Coastal Hazards Center, Jackson State University. He is Director Emeritus of the Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. He received his PhD in Oceanography from Texas A&M University in 1971 and is a Registered Professional Engineer. Dr. Whalin was Director of Army Research Laboratory (1998-2003; Adelphi, MD), and Technical Director /Director of Waterways Experiment Station (1985-1998; Vicks- burg
Paper ID #33359Examining In-Person and Asynchronous Information-Seeking BehaviorInstruction Among First-Year Engineering StudentsDr. George James Lamont, University of Waterloo George Lamont is a member of the Department of English Language and Literature at the University of Waterloo. George is one of many instructors who teach first-year communications courses to engineers and sciences, in addition to courses in writing and rhetoric.Ms. Stephanie Mutch, University of Waterloo Stephanie Mutch works in Information Services and Resources at the University of Waterloo Library. Stephanie holds an MA in Criminology and
Paper ID #30080Qualitative and Quantitative Impact of Metacognitive Interventions inSupplemental Instruction SessionsMiss Nisha Abraham, University of Texas at Austin Nisha coordinates Supplemental Instruction at the Sanger Learning Center. She received her B.S. in cell and molecular biology from The University of Texas at Austin in 2007 and her M.S. in biology from Texas A&M University in 2012. During her time at Texas A&M, she was a teaching assistant for several undergraduate biology classes, worked for the Center for Teaching Excellence, and conducted research on improving student motivation and performance in
. R., & Freise, J. K., & Ringler, H., & Cortes, I. (2012, June), EngagingFreshman in Team Based Engineering Projects Paper presented at 2012 ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. https://peer.asee.org/21288[4] Gatchell, D. W., & Ankenman, B., & Hirsch, P. L., & Goodman, A., & Brown, K. (2014,June), Restructuring Teamwork Pedagogy in a First-Year Engineering Design Program: LessonsLearned and Future Plans Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,Indianapolis, Indiana. https://peer.asee.org/22981[5] Porter, J., & Wright, G., & Morgan, J. (2005, June), Managing Senior Design Projects ToMaximize Success: The Tat Team Paper presented at 2005 Annual Conference
curveswith MATLAB allows students to visually solve for the (x,y) coordinates of their intersections,thus answering actual physics concepts of trajectories.For example, students typically know that a projectile thrown at a 45° angle will travel thefurthest distance. However, if there is a sloped hill, some students mistakenly believe that 45° isstill the angle that will lead to the furthest distance travelled. In the following lab example, thecurve is a polynomial of the second degree. Yet, the graphical approach applied here is identicalto the cable tension that finds the intersection of the curves and solves for physics property of thetrajectory as shown in Figures 5 and 6. (Refer to Appendix B for the complete example of Mini-Project #2
. Page 22.346.16References1 Roy S. Czernikowski, Margaret B. Bailey, David A. Borkholder, Matthew M. Marshall, Alan H. Nye, and N.Richard Reeve. (2007) RIT’s Engineering Honors Program: Product Innovation in a Global Economy. 37thASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. T2A9-T2A152 William E. Lee III. (2002) Humanities Awareness: A Comparison Between Honors Program and TraditionalUndergraduate Engineering Students. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education AnnualConference & Exposition.3 Gregory Tonkay, E.Zimmers. (2007) Migration from a Leadership Honors Program to an Engineering LeadershipMinor. American Society for Engineering Education.4 Kathleen A.K. Ossman. (2005) Enhancing the Education of Engineering
for secondary admission to the College of Engineering. These include theintroductory calculus, chemistry, physics, engineering, and computing courses. The tutoringcenter is co-located with the academic and co-curricular program facilities and operates Sundaythrough Thursday evenings. Tutors are upper-level students who have received a grade of A-/B+or better in each of the courses they support.Both resident and non-resident persisters viewed the tutoring program offered through the CoReExperience program favorably with over 90% of respondents indicating it as a positive or verypositive experience. However, we found that residents used tutoring more often than non-residents. Nearly 54% of residents indicated they attended tutoring at least
. Although the fractionof retained students (Figure 3 (a)) in each of the groups who enrolled in Calculus I varied widely(from 37.6% for COE to 100% for FORCES), the pass rates were essentially the same for thethree groups (around 55%). For students who were not retained (Figure 3(b)), there was alsowide variation in the fraction enrolled in Calculus I (from 27.0% for COE to 100% forFORCES); however 30.2% of COE students who left engineering within the first year passedCalculus I, while none of the FIG students who left the program passed the course. Forcomparison, the pass rate for all students enrolled in Calculus I in Fall 2009 was 35.7%.Students who enrolled in Calculus I or higher were retained through the first year at higher ratesthan
psychological and academic help seekingorientation. Informed consent was given through the online survey process. Regression analysiswas used to predict cumulative grade point average (GPA) with the predictor variables of ACTmath, English, reading, and reasoning scores, high school rank, a depression rating scale andthree help seeking scales.InstrumentsHS-Tendencies scale [5]. This 23 question scale measures students’ tendencies to engage in avariety of help seeking behaviors. Karabenick and Knapp [5] classified the items of the HS-Tendencies scale into eight categories: (a) general intention to seek needed help (i.e., “If Ineeded help in this class I would ask someone for assistance”); (b) intentions to avoid seekinghelp (i.e., “If I didn’t understand
AC 2010-1278: INTRODUCING CRITICAL THINKING TO FRESHMANENGINEERING STUDENTSJames Lewis, University of Louisville James E. Lewis, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Fundamentals in the J. B. Speed School of Engineering at the University of Louisville. His research interests include parallel and distributed computer systems, cryptography, engineering education, undergraduate retention and technology (Tablet PCs) used in the classroom.Jeffrey Hieb, University of Louisville Jeffrey L. Hieb, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Fundamentals at the University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. His research interests include cyber security
students, respectively, and consisted mostly (about 90%) of ethnicminority students. Thus, a total of 218 students have participated in the program. Thedemographics of these students are as follows: (a) Gender distribution: 147 (69%) men and 71(31%) female students; and (b) Ethnicity distribution: 108 (70%) ethnic minority, 95 (27%) Page 23.533.3white Caucasians, 8 (2%) Asian American, and 7 (2%) in “other” category. As of the beginningof 2012 fall semester, a total of 154 students remain in the STEP Program. The students lostinclude those who were not meeting grade requirement to stay in CEAS, who left CEAS foranother STEM or other degree
file:///Users/Isabel/Downloads/Fast-Facts-2016 (2).pdf (accessed Jan 27, 2017).(2) Institute of International Education. Open Doors Report 2013 http://www.iie.org/Who- We-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-releases/2013/2013-11-11-Open-Doors- Data (accessed Jun 15, 2015).(3) Xia, S. Issues Appl. Linguist. 2009, 17 (2), 137.(4) Hinds, P. J.; Neeley, T. B.; Cramton, C. D. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2013, 45 (5), 1.(5) Matveev, A. V.; Milter, R. G. Team Perform. Manag. 2004, 10 (5/6), 104.(6) Ochieng, E. G.; Price, A. D. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2009, 16 (6), 527.(7) Mohammed, U.; Prabhakar, G.; White, G. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2008, 3 (5), 3.(8) Wang, K. T.; Heppner, P. P.; Fu, C.-C.; Zhao, R.; Li, F.; Chuang, C.-C
also investigates fundamental questions critical to improving undergraduate engineering degree pathways. . She earned her Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Virginia Tech. In 2013, Dr. Mohammadi-Aragh was honored as a promising new engineering education researcher when she was selected as an ASEE Educational Research and Methods Division Apprentice Faculty. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Technology Interests of First-Year ECE StudentsIntroductionTypically, university engineering study is categorized into specialty areas, e.g. civil, chemical,computer, electrical, mechanical, etc. Engineering students are asked to select a major in
. N., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2014, October). A new approach to equip students with visualliteracy skills: Use of infographics in education. In European Conference on InformationLiteracy (pp. 456-465). Springer International Publishing.Kardgar, A, Mentzer, N, Laux, D, Chesley, A & Whittinghill, D. (2017). Developing Strategiesfor Instruction and Assessment of Infographics for First-Year Technology Students. ASEEAnnual Conference & Exposition June, 2017, Columbus, Ohio.Krauss, J. (2012). Infographics: More than Words Can Say. Learning & Leading withTechnology, 39(5), 10-14.Lankow, J., Ritchie, J., & Crooks, R. (2012). Infographics: The power of visual storytelling. JohnWiley & Sons.Mendenhall, S., & Summers, S. (2015
and out of STEM fields. National Center for Education Statistics, 2013. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf[2] M. R. Vargas-Leyva and M. E. Jiménez-Hernández, “Programas acreditados y estrategias de titulación,” Revista Electrónica ANFEI Digital, vol. 2, no. 3, 2015.[3] M. Magolda, and A. Astin, “What matters in college: Four critical years revisited,” The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 22, no. 8, 1993.[4] B. N. Geisinger and D. R. Raman, “Why they leave: Understanding Student Attrition from Engineering Majors,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 29, no. 4, 2013.[5] S. Singer and K. A. Smith, “Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning
-pencil instrument. The other half of the students completed thetraditional paper-pencil instrument. Appendices A and B provide the content of these twoinstruments. We acknowledge that the administration (online vs. paper-and-pencil) and thedesign (theoretical vs. empirical) of the instruments are confounded, but we do notperceive that as a threat to our study, which focuses on the perception of students.Regardless of how the evaluations are designed and administered, student perceptions ofthe instruments, and particularly the feedback the instruments provide, are critical to therating accuracy. After the peer evaluations were completed and feedback provided to thestudents, the students were required to complete an 18-question survey to assess
application of creative thinking skills inthe process of their community service learning, and complete their final project reports topresent their projects. Detailed requirements for the problem-based service learning can beretrieved from the previously published ASEE conference paper by Zheng et al.20 The different types of scaffolding were provided to students in different class sessions Page 26.585.4during the period of their community service learning over the fall semester. The differentscaffolding is shown in Table 1. The Group A was control group and was not provided withno scaffolding. The Group B was provided with one seminar and the
improve their problem solving skills and to address their misconceptions.Acknowledgements:Portions of this project were supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) IUSE Grant(DUE-1504730). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References:[1] ACT, INC. "Profile Report-National."[2] Jacquez, R. B., et al. "Building a foundation for pre-calculus engineering freshmen throughan integrated learning community." Page 10 (2005): 1.[3] Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. Talking about leaving. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997.[4] Santiago, L., Coolbaugh, A.R., Veeramachaneni, S.S., and Morris, M.L., Board# 129
://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/toolkit/item/268-growth-mindset- for-intelligence.html.[18] G. Zhang, T. Anderson, M. Ohland, R. Carter and B. Thorndyke, “Identifying Factors Influencing Engineering Student Graduation and Retention: A Longitudinal and Cross- Institutional Study,” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Montreal, CA, 2002.[19] V. Tinto, “Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 89-125, 1975.[20] A.F. Cabrera, A. Nora, M.B. Castaneda, “College Persistence: Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention,” The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 123-129, 1993.
, gender comparison are made here based on the limited data. Figure 3 shows thepercentages of male and female students having each learning style.The percentage of female students who are reflective learners is higher than male students. Thistrend is also similar for the verbal learning style. Visual and active learning styles are the dominantlearning styles for both male and female students. However, the percentage of female students whoare verbal and reflective learners is higher than percentage of the male students in the samecategories. Figure 3: Distribution of learning styles for (a) males, and (b) femalesRelationship between personality types and learning stylesAs stated earlier, the majority of engineering students have
Paper ID #6916An Automated Approach for Finding Course-specific VocabularyMr. Chirag Variawa, University of Toronto Chirag Variawa is a Ph.D. candidate in Industrial Engineering at the University of Toronto. His research is in using artificial intelligence to maximize the accessibility of language used in engineering education instructional materials. His work on the Board of Governors at the University of Toronto further serves to improve accessibility for all members of the university community.Dr. Susan McCahan, University of Toronto Dr. Susan McCahan is vice-dean, Undergraduate, and is a professor in the Department
AC 2010-187: INTRODUCING ENGINEERING AND STRENGTHENINGKNOWLEDGE OF MATHEMATICSIsmail Jouny, Lafayette CollegePolly Piergiovanni, Lafayette College Page 15.801.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010Introducing Engineering and Strengthening Knowledge of MathematicsIntroduction and BackgroundThis paper discusses a model for an introduction to engineering course that wasdeveloped at Lafayette College and is currently being pilot tested. The model builds onan idea originally developed at Wright State University1 but is adjusted to fit a semesterlong course that serves the needs of Lafayette engineering students. In particular, thecourse focuses on specific mathematical
Paper ID #6122Novel Program for Engineering Student RetentionDr. Gail D. Jefferson, University of South Alabama Dr. Jefferson earned a B.S. in Mathematics from Spelman College in 1997, a B.S. in Mechanical En- gineering from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1997, an M.S. in Biomedical Engineering from Ohio State University in 2003 and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Florida A&M University in 2005. She served as a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace, developing models and test methods to examine the behavior of advanced non-metallic, nanostructured material systems. Dr. Jeffer- son
Paper ID #11404Assessment of Communication, Teamwork, and Engineering Motivation inInter-Disciplinary Projects Implemented in an Introduction to EngineeringCourseDr. Haolin Zhu, Arizona State University Haolin Zhu is a faculty lecturer in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State Univer- sity. She received her Ph.D. in Solid Mechanics from Cornell University. Currently she focuses on the freshmen engineering program, as well as designing and teaching mechanical engineering courses.Dr. Ryan J Meuth, Arizona State University Dr. Ryan Meuth is a Freshmen Engineering Lecturer in the Fulton Schools of Engineering, and
AC 2012-3307: COMPUTATIONAL METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING INAC-CESSIBLE VOCABULARY IN ENGINEERING EDUCATIONAL MATE-RIALSMr. Chirag Variawa, University of Toronto Chirag Variawa is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at the University of Toronto. He earned his B.A.Sc. in materials science engineering in 2009 from the same insti- tution. His multi-disciplinary research uses principles from artificial intelligence, computational linguis- tics, higher-education, and aspects of neuroscience to investigate inclusive design of engineering learning environments.Dr. Susan McCahan, University of Toronto Susan McCahan is a professor in the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at
design processAbstract:When teaching an introductory engineering design course, a typical challenge for students lies ingrasping the nature of the design thinking mindset and the often scattered nature of the designprocess. Since design is often taught as a multidisciplinary course (or as a component of one)early in the curriculum, one approach to address this in a discipline-blind manner is to focus onthe design of products familiar to students in their everyday lives. However, a drawback to thisapproach is that it typically can only be used to analyze fully-developed and commerciallysuccessful products, which can obscure the messy details and iterations inherent in the designprocess. It also strongly biases the pool of potential cases toward
Paper ID #11731Application of and Preliminary Results from Implementing the First-YearIntroduction to Engineering Course Classification Scheme: Course Foci andOutcome FrequencyMr. David Reeping, Ohio Northern University David Reeping is a junior majoring in Engineering Education with a minor in Mathematics and an un- dergraduate research assistant. He is a Choose Ohio First scholar inducted during the 2012-2013 school year and the recipient of the Remsburg Creativity Award for 2013 and The DeBow Freed Award for out- standing leadership as an undergraduate student (sophomore male) in 2014. Also, he is a member of the
AC 2007-123: INCORPORATING GLOBAL ISSUES INTO FRESHMANENGINEERING COURSELarry Bland, John Brown University Page 12.872.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Incorporating Global Issues into Freshman Engineering CourseAbstractThis paper documents the redesign of a freshman engineering concepts course to incorporatevarious global/intercultural issues that our students will face if they stay in an engineering career.Today’s engineering students graduate in a world that is becoming highly competitive asgeographical barriers are being eliminated, and engineering activities are truly global in nature.To remain competitive, students must develop global skills and