Paper ID #25680Enhancing Student Perceptions of Engineering Disciplines through Showcas-ing of Career PathsProf. Matthew B. James P.E., Virginia Tech Matthew James is an Assistant Professor of Practice in Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, and is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Virginia. He holds bachelors and masters degrees from Virginia Tech in Civil Engineering.Kacie Hodges P.E., Kacie Hodges, PE works as a Civil Engineer in Blacksburg, Virginia. She holds BS and Master’s degrees in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech. Kacie is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Virginia and
, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44(9), 1175. 13. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive career theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of vocational behavior, 45(1), 79-122. 14. Yoder, B. (2013) Engineering By the Numbers 2012-2013. American Society for Engineering Educaiton. https://www.asee.org/documents/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/2017- Engineering-by-Numbers-Engineering-Statistics.pdf 15. Yoder, B. (2017) Engineering By the Numbers 2016-2017. American Society for Engineering Educaiton. https://www.asee.org/documents/papers-and-publications/publications
Paper ID #34304WIP: Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on a First-Year Engineering CohortRanging From Learning Methods, Personal Decisions and UniversityExperienceDr. Monica B. Setien, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University Monica Setien-Grafals is a postdoctoral fellow at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University under the Revolutionizing engineering and computer science departments (RED) NSF grant. Her research interests include student learning, flipped classroom, engineering design, neural engineering and optoge- netics. She received her BS in BME from Syracuse University and her Ph.D. in Biomedical
Paper ID #26713Work in Progress: First-Year Engineering College Students: Value Createdfrom Participating in a Living/Learning CommunityDr. Krishna Pakala, Boise State University Krishna Pakala, Ph.D., is an Clinical Associate Professor at Boise State University, Idaho. His academic research interests include innovative teaching and learning strategies, use of emerging technologies, and mobile teaching and learning strategies.Ms. Kim M. B. Tucker, Boise State University Kim Tucker is currently completing her Doctoral Degree in Curriculum and Instruction and works as the Coordinator of Residential Learning for in the Living
Paper ID #15792Building Computational Thinking Skills Using Robots With First-Year Engi-neering StudentsDr. Sarah B. Lee, Mississippi State University Dr. Sarah B. Lee is an Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Computer Science & Engineer- ing at Mississippi State University and is a Gender Studies faculty affiliate. She received her BS from the Mississippi University for Women, a Master’s degree in Computer Science at Mississippi State Univer- sity, and her PhD in Computer Science at the University of Memphis. She brings software development and project management experience to the classroom from her
Paper ID #11616Characterizing Student Music Preference and Engineering Major ChoiceMr. Frank Blubaugh, Purdue University Frank Blubaugh is a graduating senior in Multidisciplinary Engineering at Purdue University. He has a diverse academic background in acoustical engineering, education, and music performance.Dr. Joyce B. Main, Purdue University, West Lafayette Joyce B. Main is an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She holds a Ph.D. in Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy from Cornell University, and an Ed.M. in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from the Harvard Graduate
., "Engineering DesignThinking, Teaching, and Learning," Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94(1), 2005.[5] Marra, R. M., Palmer, B., Litzinger, T. A., "The Effects of a First‐Year Engineering DesignCourse on Student Intellectual Development as Measured by the Perry Scheme," Journal ofEngineering Education, Vol. 89(1), 2000.[6] Knight, D. W., Carlson, L. E., Sullivan, J., "Improving Engineering Student RetentionThrough Hands-On, Team Based, First-Year Design Projects," Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Research in Engineering Education, 2007.[7] Rios, O. and Fadda, D., "A Mechanical Engineering Activity-Based Freshman Course,"Proceedings of the ASME IMECE, Tampa, Florida, 2017.[8] Rios, O. and Fadda, D., "A First-Year Design-Based
?: A Case Study of the New Start Summer Program.” Research in Higher Education, 2013: 431-498.14. Garcia, L.D. and C.C. Paz, “Evaluation of Summer Bridge Programs.” About Campus. 2009: 30-32.15. Kezar, Adrianna. “Summer Bridge Programs: Supporting All Students.” ERIC Digest. 2001: 1-7.16. Doerr, Helen M, Jonas B Arleback, and AnnMarie H O'Neill. "An Integrated Modeling Approach to a Summer Bridge Course." ASEE. 2012. 5236.17. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1995). The Seven Principles in Action: Improving Undergraduate Education. Anker Publishing Co.18. Levin, M., & Levin, J. (1991). A critical examination of academic retention programs for at-risk minority college students. Journal of College Student Development , 323-334.19
of the exam wrapper assignment. Additionally, to be eligible for participation inthe current study, students needed to complete all formal exams or assessments linked to theexam wrapper activities. These qualifications provided us with a total sample of 54 students, or71.05%, from the second cohort, compared to 78 students, or 85.71%, from the first cohort.Data CollectionThe specific pieces of student data collected for this study include all components of the examwrapper activity. These materials include several assignments associated with the first round ofexams (Exam Wrapper After-Action Review #1 Stage 1 [Appendix B], Stage 2 [Appendix C],and Stage 3&4 [Appendix D]), as well as the assignment associated with the second round ofexams
-STEM majors. Though these students move into the STEMdisciplines, many leave STEM prior to degree completion. Beggs, Bantham, and Taylor4suggested that there are basically four categories of factors that influence the career decisionmaking process. Included in these are the (a) influences of other individuals (family, friends,teachers) or media, (b) rewards of the job (extrinsic and intrinsic), (c) fit and interest in the fieldand (d) characteristics of the major/degree (ease of coursework, faculty reputation, exposure tointroductory material). The researchers implied that students made career decisions based not oneducation about the options and assessment of their personal values, interests and beliefs, but oninfluence and assumption
presents the results of faculty who have been teaching with our first year program forthree years or more and have been involved in cornerstone planning and teaching. The effect ofcontinual course improvement is exemplified in several cases presented here. Looking atindividual instructor scores from the University-administered student perception survey data, wesee the story of how capital improvements and the feedback has aided in teaching effectivenessscore improvement. For instructor A, we see a large jump in teaching score with the completionof the learning center between arrows 1 and 2. Looking at the specific case of Instructor B, wesee that with any first time teaching a course there is a drop in the students’ scoring of teachereffectiveness
oftheir ideas; (b) Question and Understand: once confronted with opposing views, uncertainty andcuriosity result, which leads to a search for clarifying information about others’ perspectives; (c)Integrate and Create: various elements of different viewpoints are incorporated into a newunderstanding of the problem; and (d) Agree and Implement: action plans are agreed upon andassigned. As might be expected, groups scoring high on CC are viewed as more innovative19 andtend to make higher quality decisions18. Aligning with the previous theories, CC emphasizesleveraging a team’s combined knowledge and mental processing potential through productive
’ mothers and 48% of their fathers have not earned a collegedegree.Figure 1 summarizes some of the demographics and academic characteristics of an averagechemical engineering graduate from our program. Graduates from our program are more likelyto have a high university GPA, transfer many science, math, and non-STEM credit requirementsfrom other colleges or universities, have an ACT score around the 78% percentile, attended apublic high school with an average B to B+ rating [13], and be a first generation college studentin their family.Figure 1: Characteristics of chemical engineering students who have graduated or will soongraduate with chemical engineering degrees from our program, examined among the cohort of2014 and 2015 first year chemical
Paper ID #16964Leadership in Practice: A Model for Building Strong Academic Foundationsin a Residential Learning CommunityMs. Noel Kathleen Hennessey, The University of Arizona Noel Hennessey is the Coordinator for Outreach, Recruitment and Retention in the College of Engineer- ing at the University of Arizona. She is responsible for first-year experience through residential education, student development and retention, and designing outreach activities and events for undergraduate recruit- ment. Noel earned a Master of Arts degree in Higher Education from the University of Arizona in 2015 and is currently pursuing a
examination of volitional personality change,” Journal of Research in Personality, vol 85, 2020.[16] A. Hira, C. Beebe, K. R. Maxey, and M. M. Hynes, “ “But, what do you want me to teach?”: Best practices for teaching in educational makerspaces (RTP),” in Proceedings, 2018 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 2018, Salt Lake City, UT.[17] B. S. Robinson, N. Hawkins, J. Lewis, and J. C. Foreman, “Creation, development, and delivery of a new interactive first-year introduction to engineering course,” in Proceedings, 2019 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 2019, Tampa, FL.
Paper ID #33450Cohort-Based Supplemental Instruction Sessions as a Holistic RetentionApproach in a First-Year Engineering CourseMiss Nisha Abraham, University of Texas at Austin Nisha coordinates the Supplemental Instruction program. She received her B.S. in cell and molecular biology from The University of Texas at Austin in 2007, her M.S. in biology from Texas A&M University in 2012 and her M.A. in STEM Education from The University of Texas at Austin in 2019. Additionally, she has over five years of combined industry and science research experience, has worked as a senior bioscience associate at UT’s Austin Technology
Assessment Form Indicate Assessment Instrument: Exam Question, Report, Quiz, etc Date of Assessment Performance Expectation: X % of Students Should Achieve a Grade of at least Y% Based Upon Assessment Instrument Grading Rubric. ME XXX Number of Students ABET Student Course Outcomes Exceeding Criteria Meeting Criteria Below Criteria Outcomes a b cA similar process is underway to align the course outcomes for the remaining courses and isanticipated to be completed spring 2016.Administration and Organization While there are
soldering, we needed to use a lab room rather thanthe usual classroom. Such classroom change was announced in the previous class in person,posted on LMS, and via emails typically at the beginning of the week as a reminder.The instructor who showed up to the classroom might be one of the three instructors, but notnecessarily the home teacher all the time. The students did not need to change their plan when adifferent instructor showed up. The instructors just needed to explain how team-teaching worked.Given the limited room capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic, the students from each sessionwere partitioned into A and B groups. Depending on how much content needed to be delivered inperson, some classes were on the AB-Potion schedule, when A group
, developing, andmaintaining the online platform through which the Parsons Problems were offered to students.References[1] B. W. Char and T. T. Hewett, “A first year common course on computational problem solving and programming,” ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc., 2014.[2] R. Bualuan, “Teaching computer programming skills to first-year engineering students using fun animation in Matlab,” ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc., 2006.[3] D. Ronan and D. Cenk Erdil, “Impact on computing attitudes and career intentions in a rotation-based survey course,” ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc., vol. 2020-June, 2020.[4] Code.org, CSTA, and ECEP Alliance, “2020 State of Computer Science Education: Illuminating Disparities,” 2020.[5
Paper ID #16190Enculturation of Diverse Students to the Engineering Practices through First-Year Engineering College ExperiencesDr. Jacques C. Richard, Texas A&M University Dr. Richard got his Ph. D. at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1989 & a B. S. at Boston University, 1984. He was at NASA Glenn, 1989-1995, taught at Northwestern for Fall 1995, worked at Argonne National Lab, 1996-1997, Chicago State, 1997-2002. Dr. Richard is a Sr. Lecturer & Research Associate in Aerospace Engineering @ Texas A&M since 1/03. His research is focused on computational plasma modeling using spectral and lattice
functional parts would expose students toother facets of design such as design clearances, geometric dimensioning and tolerancing andhow changes to their design influences design performance.References1. Duderstadt, J. Engineering for a Changing World: A Roadmap to the Future of Engineering Practice. Research, and Education, 2008.2. National Academy of Engineering (NAE). Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. (2005). Nataional Academy Press.3. French, B., Immekus, J., Oakes, W. An Examination of Indicators of Engineering Students’ Success and Persistence. Journal of Engineering Education. October 2005, pp. 419-425.4. Bonwell, C., and Eison, J. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom
and Engineering Statistics. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/[2] Bertrand, Natasha. "Here's The Average SAT Score For Every College Major." Business Insider. Business Insider, 24 Oct. 2014. Web. 28 Jan. 2017.[3] Hacker, D. J. “Definitions and Empirical Foundation” In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds). Metacognition in educational theory and practice, 1998, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.[4] Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). “Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview,” Theory into Practice, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 64-70.[5] Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E.V. “Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance,” Journal
students students students A+, A, A- 4 2 10 6 14 8 B+, B, B- 26 18 67 42 93 60 C+, C 17 13 28 16 45 29 Total C and above 47 33 105 64 152 97 C- or lower 6 1 11 10 17 11 Did not take 10 9 19 18 29 27 Total 63 43 135 92 198 135When we compared the four-semester GPAs of these two cohorts, we found differences betweenthe two groups. From this analysis, we
been an Electrical Engineering Professor. Dr. Mendoza is interested in Socioeconomi- cally Disadvantaged Engineering Students, Latino Studies in Engineering, Computer Aided/Instructional Technology in Engineering, and Entrepreneurship/Service Learning.Dr. Jacques C. Richard, Texas A&M University Dr. Richard got his Ph. D. at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1989 & a B. S. at Boston University, 1984. He was at NASA Glenn, 1989-1995, taught at Northwestern for Fall 1995, worked at Argonne National Lab, 1996-1997, Chicago State, 1997-2002. Dr. Richard is a Sr. Lecturer & Research Associate in Aerospace Engineering @ Texas A&M since 1/03. His research is focused on computational plasma modeling using
Paper ID #27235Freshman-year Initiative for a Cohort of Largely Engineering Minority Stu-dentsDr. Kamau Wright, University of Hartford Kamau Wright is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Hartford. He spe- cializes in thermo-fluids and plasma engineering. His technical research interests include applications of high voltage plasma discharges to liquids and wastewaters; plasma decomposition of carbon dioxide; foul- ing prevention and mitigation for heat exchangers; oxidation of organic matter in water; and inactivation of bacteria using high voltage plasmas. c
the program, which contribute to continued networks of encouragement andsupport (Samuelson et al., 2014). While developed and implemented to better retain students inthe Clark School, the benefits of the SEEDS programs extend beyond degree completion,through the development of successful leaders and professionals in the field of engineering.ReferencesBaier, S. T., Markman, B. S., & Pernice-Duca, F. M. (2016). Intent to persist in college freshmen: The role of self-efficacy and mentorship. Journal of College Student Development, 57(5), 614-619.Lee, W.C., Seimetz, C.N, and Amelink, C.T. (2014). Examining the transition to engineering: A multi-case study of six diversity summer bridge program participants. Proceedings of
education, and educational psychology, as well as an external evaluator and an advisory board member on several NSF-funded projects (CAREER, iCorps, REU, RIEF, etc.). c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Paper ID #23514Dr. Jacques C. Richard, Texas A&M University Dr. Richard got his Ph. D. at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1989 & a B. S. at Boston University, 1984. He was at NASA Glenn, 1989-1995, worked at Argonne National Lab, 1996-1997, taught at Chicago State University, 1997-2002. Dr. Richard is a Sr. Lecturer & Research Associate in Aerospace Engi- neering @ Texas
Learning Sciences, 2014. 32(1): p. 37-46.48. Svihla, V., How differences in interaction affect learning and development of design expertise in the context of biomedical engineering design, in Science Education, . 2009, The University of Texas: Austin.49. Svihla, V., Contingent Identification in a Biomedical Engineering Classroom, in Learning in the Disciplines, K. Gomez, L. Lyons, and J. Radinsky, Editors. 2010, International Society of the Learning Sciences: Chicago, IL. p. 913-920.50. Danielak, B. and V. Svihla, Why early courses matter for design-focused engineering capstones, in The 41st Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society. 2011: Berkeley, CA.
, basic knowledgeabout college education, educational degree expectations and plans, difficulty in cultural andsocial transitioning process, and family income and support” [3]. Likewise, Terenzini et al. [4]describe first generation students to have following attributes compared to their non-firstgeneration peers: a) have low family income; b) belong to underrepresented population group;and c) have “weaker cognitive skills in math, science, and critical thinking”. The authors alsofound a significant difference between the FG and Non-FG students with respect to their overallcollege experience. Their findings showed that the FG students had taken fewer number ofcredits hours, studied fewer hours, worked longer hours, and had overall lower academic
knowledge on the differences between FTT and Page 26.1728.3FTIC students, help transform transfer pathways and educational programs, and disputeinstitutional myths regarding the quality of transfer students from two-year institutions.B. Purpose of the StudyThis study explores characteristics of the FTIC students and FTT students and compares them interms of their demographics, the first year engineering (FYE) common course credits, andgraduation outcomes. In detail, we raised the following research questions: (a) how are thedemographic characteristics of the FTT students different from the FTIC students?; (b) how arethe FYE common course credits