Paper ID #48802Training for Peer Teaching Assistants in Engineering Classrooms: A ReviewJeremy Michael Olivar Hill, University of Cincinnati Jeremy Hill is a PhD Student and the Program Manager of First-Year Programs in the Department of Engineering and Computing Education at The University of Cincinnati. His current work seeks to maximize the impact of the experience of working as a teaching assistant (TA), both on the students’ in the classroom and on the professional and pedagogical development of the TA themselves. He is particularly interested in how TAs make sense of their jobs and their mission to their students
Paper ID #47096Fruitful Endeavors: Continuous Peer Feedback to Develop Positive TeamDynamicsBrian Patrick O’Connell, Northeastern University Dr. O’Connell is an associate teaching professor in the First-Year Engineering program at Northeastern University. He studied at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 2006 then worked in industry as a Mechanical Engineer working on ruggedized submarine optronic systems. He returned to academia in 2011 at Tufts University planning to work towards more advanced R&D but fell for engineering education and educational technologies. His research now focuses on developing
the alternatives are independent, which one(s) are acceptable? b. If the alternatives are mutually exclusive, which one(s) are acceptable?Appendix B: The Peer-Review AssignmentInstructionsPlease read through the instructions below before starting. You will watch one problem-solvingvideo and provide feedback using a designated rubric. Professionalism counts. Make sure toproofread your work and cite appropriately. 1) If you are registered for Fluids this semester, complete this assignment. If you are not taking Fluids this semester, see your professor for an alternative assignment. 2) Upload your recorded Problem-Solving Session and image/writing of your solved problem from Fluids (or alternative course assigned by
Paper ID #48209WIP: A Peer-Taught Course to Lower Barriers to Undergraduate ResearchExperiencesMs. Grace Hellen Ford, University of Virginia Grace Ford is a third-year undergraduate student pursuing her bachelors in Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia.Dr. Brian P. Helmke, University of Virginia Brian Helmke is Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia (UVA), where he teaches courses in diverse topics such as physiology, mechanobiology, biotransport, and bioelectricity. Brian also serves as Faculty Consultant to the UVA Center for Teaching Excellence, acting as facilitator
Paper ID #48224Hacking the System: A Peer-Led Cybersecurity Course for Early-CareerUniversity StudentsMr. Ian Hong Phan, University of California, Santa Cruz Ian Phan is a recent graduate in Cognitive Science from the University of California, Santa Cruz. He has been involved in the Baskin School of Engineering’s First-Year Design program for two years, serving as a student instructor and coach for teaching teams developing new courses. His work focuses on advancing collaborative STEM education, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration, and reducing barriers to success in engineering fields. Beyond the classroom, he
Paper ID #46631Novice versus Experienced Near-Peer Mentors’ Facilitation of a Discussionwith a Student Avatar Facing Logistical Challenges on a Design TeamPamela S. Lottero-Perdue Ph.D., Towson University Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue, Ph.D., is Professor of Science and Engineering Education in the Department of Physics, Astronomy & Geosciences at Towson University. She has integrated engineering into courses for PreK-8 teacher candidates, developed and directed a graduate STEM program for PreK-6 teachers, and partnered with teachers to implement PreK-8 science-integrated engineering learning experiences. She has
improve thementee’s technical writing skills and gain general guidance about college life [5]. A near-peerframework in a mechatronics camp highlighted the importance of underrepresented minoritystudents being able to identify with a mentor [4]. A study of the impact of near-peer mentoring inan introductory engineering course found that “some students gained a better sense of placewithin engineering over the course of the semester” [6].Project ApproachThe authors did not plan this project as a research study. It was a response to a perceived need tohelp students acquire skills that employers expect them to have but report that recent graduatesoften lack. These non-technical, yet vitally important, skills are not formally taught in theircourses. In
equation [2], StudyHabitsi represents the number of hours a student i spends onacademic activities including studying, reading, writing, completing homework, and conductinglab work. Xi includes covariates that measure experience with high school and college academicwork for grade in addition to the student characteristics described in equation 1.Gradesic = 𝛼 + 𝛽1Xi + 𝛽2SenseofBelongingi + 𝜀 i (3)In this third equation [3], SenseofBelongingic measures the sense of belonging of student i incourse c. This includes various measures of sense of belonging, such as peer support, facultysupport, comfort in the classroom, and sense of belonging in the classroom and STEM field. Keymeasures incorporated in
? (Likert) 4. How well do you understand the value of being a mentee, being mentored by someone? (Likert) 5. Rank order your primary learning goals for the team project. • CAD • Real-world design process • Team collaboration • Technical communication • Engineering analysis 6. How comfortable are you with working in pairs or small groups? (Likert) 7. What challenges, if any, have you faced working in a team environment in the past? 8. Rank order your preferred learning styles. • Visual • Auditory • Kinesthetic (manipulate or touch material to learn) • Reading/writing 9. Have you participated in peer-assisted learning before
thatstudents struggling in the course found the Synthesis Sheets more useful, and students whoidentified Synthesis Sheets as a part of their study process in the middle of the academic termperformed up to half a letter grade better than their peers. Future studies will use a refined SynthesisSheet based on student feedback, adjust post-exam reflections to gather more data on resource use,and further analyze links between conditional thinking and performance.II. Motivation and backgroundMotivationMetacognition served as the guiding framework for this study. Often described as being aware ofone’s thinking [1], metacognition involves the development of metacognitive knowledge, throughwhich someone learns when, why, and how to apply information [2
engineering pursue? d. Choose one of the engineering society and learn about their goalsTools & a. Visit the Writing Center What have you learned about theResources b. Tour a Library, Labs or Career Services resources available to you to c. Visit Raystown Field Station, EcoHouse assist you in meeting your d. Visit SPOT or Unity House academic or professional goals?Relationships a. Meet with an academic advisor to discuss
, information literacy, community resilience, and student peer mentorship. The interdisciplinary focus blends engineering and community-based learning to foster a holistic understanding of sustainability and inclusion. Active learning emphasized communication, teamwork, active reading, and participation to enhance student engagement and critical thinking. Information literacy promoted effective research and information evaluation skills. Community resilience addressed local and global challenges through project-based learning and the student peer mentorship was provided by a student who successfully completed the first-year community course. The paper delves into the course development
’ communication skills, both oraland written. By engaging in presentations, report writing, and peer reviews, students will developthe ability to convey technical information in a clear and concise manner to technical as well asnon-technical audiences.Furthermore, the course introduces students to the engineering design process, a systematicapproach to problem-solving by eliminating uncertainties/unknowns, is fundamental and crucialto all engineering disciplines. Students are provided multiple opportunities to brainstormsolutions, create prototypes, and test their designs, iterating as necessary to achieve results.Self-efficacy, motivation, and agency are essential components for effective student learning andacademic success. Self-efficacy, described as
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Trisha Patnaik, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Experiential Activities Demonstrating Mass Transfer in Porous Materials in an Introductory Bioengineering CourseAbstractThis Complete Evidence Based Practice paper describes how hands-on experiential learning canbe utilized in an introductory bioengineering course to teach complex topics and help studentsfeel a sense of identity and belonging to the field. Bioengineering encompasses manymultidisciplinary concepts, techniques, and applications from other disciplines; as such, studentscan feel underqualified or ‘othered’ compared to their peers. This is
Engineering Education.Jacob R Matti, Arizona State University ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Inspiring Early Engagement and Community Building Among First Year Students in a Multiyear Co-Curricular Program through A Summer Program: Successes Based on Ten Years of ImplementationAbstractThis Complete Evidence-based Practice paper describes the design and implementation of aweek-long summer program that aims to engage incoming first year students in the GrandChallenges Scholars Program (GCSP) in building a peer community on campus and learningabout opportunities to engage in work addressing global challenges at Arizona State University(ASU). The GCSP Summer Institute (SI) is a program that
they would face in ensuring they have a computerable to run the software they may need to complete their research project within the program.Alongside technical skill-building, the participants are also supported to develop communicationskills such as presenting and science writing, and are provided with peer mentors who help shareimplicit hidden curriculum knowledge. A goal of the program is to also boost students'confidence and sense of belonging within engineering, as both are key factors in the persistencein students pursuing engineering studies [1]. A program capacity for two students annuallyensures robust funding and individualized support for the participants, including post-programcareer support by program staff. To date, all eight
start the process oftheir involvement with both the professional field and their peers. This first part of thisassignment provided supportive information on how to write a professional email and requiredthem to send an email to all of the course instructors for practice and feedback. Next studentswere instructed to investigate a professional organization of their choice, preferably related totheir career interests.The second deliverable focused on professional pathways to support students in diving a bitdeeper into their intended future careers. This deliverable contained two parts: a) write aminimum of two questions you want to ask an alum or other STEM professional about theirwork and career pathway. These questions were later shared with our
, Programming Languages, Dynamic Control, Robotics, and Numerical Methods & Simulations. She has developed several undergraduate courses in the MTDE program for the first time and made significant curriculum changes to other courses in the department. Her research focuses on Computational Fluid Dynamics, numerical analysis, and applied mathematics. Dr. Shaw serves on the editorial board for two journals, successfully won an NSF I-Corp Grant in 2016 as the entrepreneurial lead for commercializing a high-efficiency, cost-effective research product, and actively reviews for several top-tier journals. She holds various leadership positions within the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and has authored 25 peer-reviewed
meetings from a summer hiatus, Alex and Lesliementioned they had already started taking field notes. 1 This was surprising to Zach, as itsuggested the work Alex and Leslie had done in previous semesters had built productive habitsthey exercised outside the context of this research project. The sustained nature of our CAEcreated the opportunity to observe this kind of change in a participant-researcher.1 Note that, while Alex and Leslie had been working on the project for over a year, Audrey and Emily had juststarted. Therefore, we did not observe—nor expect—similar self-starting reflection behavior from them.Zach asked both Alex and Leslie to write a reflection about this self-starting. He then analyzedthe reflections using process and in-vivo
new generation ofengineering leadership. Details about the application-based process for student teams to propose,design, and teach their First Year Design class under faculty supervision can be found in [2, 3].As undergraduate STEM majors representing disciplines from within and outside of ouruniversity’s School of Engineering, the authors of this paper identify areas for improvement inour curriculum. Chief among these–from our point of view–is the lack of active, collaborativelearning in most of our classes, likely due to 1) large classroom numbers discouraging collegiallearning, and 2) students being encouraged to see peers as competition. Without interpersonalrelationships and exciting projects to look forward to, classes can feel
from any college involved in the pilot study.Section enrollments were set between 25 and 26 students to allow for personal attention and theability to make connections with peers, faculty and staff who share similar interests, majors orclasses.These FYS sections were led by a diverse group of eight engaging, inspirational and energeticfaculty. Moreover, it is expected that this college-wide shared experience will immerse studentsin a growing support network of friends and people to assist with questions and provide supportthroughout their studies. Some CECS programs also come back together again with advancedtechnical electives, shared minors and certifications, and multidisciplinary senior design andcapstone projects at the end of students
likely are you to consider participating in research activities if you are given the chance? (1-5 slider scale) 9. I can conduct scholarly research on a topic. (1-5 slider scale) 10.I can explain research findings in my own words. (1-5 slider scale) 11.I can cite references appropriately in my research. (1-5 slider scale) 12.I work well in project teams. 13.I am comfortable taking feedback on my work from my peers. (1-5 slider scale) 14.I am confident that I can name three campus resources that are available for me (1-5 slider scale) 15.I know what it means to be interdisciplinary. (1-5 slider scale)Survey Block 2: Writing Assignment 16.Rate the impact that you believe your course writing assignments will have
developing a growthmindset toward learning. It also includes examining methods to enhance preparation and reduceanxiety and stress by anticipating future obstacles. The remaining course-level outcome (C04) isrelated to peer study meetings, which occur throughout the entire semester. Peer study meetingsrequire students to organize small group study sessions in preparation for each of theirengineering, chemistry, and math exams. Teams of three are assigned to prepare and submitagendas for each study session. They then carry out their agendas on pre-scheduled class daysdesignated for peer study meetings.Table 1: Summary of concepts included in each unit of the course. Habits of Professionals Habits of Learning Habits of
students’understanding of engineering through action rather than abstraction.Before we can recommend modifications to the teaching of engineering at the early college level,we need to find out how students currently describe what engineers do and what might havecontributed to their impressions. In our experience, simply asking them has resulted in asimplistic or abstract response. In order to elicit more thoughtful responses, we have designed astudy to begin to answer the following research questions: 1) How well do our first-year engineering students describe what engineers do? 2) How well can students communicate an understanding of what engineers do, when asked to write a brief story vs. answer a brief question?Background and Conceptual
peer evaluations to be used for feedback to the groups on their presentations. The instructor and TA completed a rubric for assessment of the presentation. Final Project At the end of the quarter each team turned in a final document that 45% Report described their design and process throughout the seven weeks. The report was required to contain the following sections: Introduction and Requirements, Conceptual Design, Detailed Design, Prototyping and Testing, and Future Goals/Conclusions. The report should be developed throughout the quarter as the students work through their design process
Responses from Semester Beginning to Semester EndAn initial observation is that students self-reported significant increases in ‘technical’ skills (e.g.CAD, tech writing, and hands-on skills). Relational and professionalism aspects showed mixed(i.e. belonging +0.3%, close-knit peers +7.0%, fun/enthusiasm -4.3%) or even declining (e.g.learning valuable skills -6.4%, habits and professionalism -7.2%, taking responsibility forlearning -2.4%) results. Two possible explanations are: (1) the initial survey is given at a peaklevel of enthusiasm (Approximately Day 3 of the semester) while the final survey is given duringfinal exam week, a relatively low point, and (2) as noted, initial responses may have capturednaivete, while final responses may have
to conceptualize, create, and refine their designs.Additionally, the course equips students with essential skills in computer-aided design, simulation,technical writing, oral presentations, and project management, ensuring they are well-prepared forfuture academic and professional pursuits.In this WIP paper, we propose a study to quantitatively assess the success of the cross-disciplinarycourse in motivating students at NJIT to persist in engineering, relative to the discipline-specificcourses. In particular, the study aims to answer the following hypotheses: 1. Students who complete the cross-disciplinary course are more likely to persist in their engineering studies than their peers who enrolled in a discipline-specific course. 2
engineering students. Alternative pedagogical approaches, such as peer-to-peer learning andflipped classrooms, provide more engaging and contextualized learning experiences, particularlyfor skill-based courses. The novel approach which is investigated in this research paper is the useof project-based learning as an effective pedagogy to teach an intensive theoretical course oncritical thinking. The course, titled ‘The Art of Thinking and Reasoning’, was designed andtaught to 137 first-year students, aiming to instill in them the cognitive skills of critical thinkingand scientific reasoning in an engineering context. The course was structured in two parts: thefirst part employed traditional lecture-driven pedagogy, and the second part utilised a
. Throughout the entire freshmanyear, program support services are provided to students in the form of personalized academicadvising, faculty and peer mentoring, corporate networking, academic and other student supportservices, see Figure 1.Students selected to participate in the STEPUP program must first receive an official letter ofadmission from the UF Office of Admissions. From this pool of admitted applicants, the HerbertWertheim College of Engineering (HWCOE) is provided with a list of students who haveselected an engineering field as their major of choice. Correspondence is targeted towards thesestudents both electronically and in writing to congratulate them on their success in beingadmitted to the University and to welcome them into the
-evaluated bystudents within their teams throughout the course, a process tracked through weekly billable hoursubmissions detailing time allocation across project components. The final grade was determinedby a final report (100 points), a final presentation/testing component (50 points), and thesubmission of a final peer evaluation and cumulative billable hours.The final report aimed to guide the reader through the problem-solving process the group used tocreate the final project. This report evaluation was based on effective communication, reportcomposition and presentation (title page, table of contents, figures and tables, formatting, andgrammar) and on course objectives. Reports had to clearly define design criteria, projectdevelopment