Center at The Pennsylvania State University, University Park campus. She obtained her Masters degree in Education from Millersville University and her B.S. from DeSales University iJana Bontrager Auman, Penn State UniversityDr. Christine B. Masters, Pennsylvania State University Christine Masters is the Assistant Dean for Academic Support and Global Programs and a Teaching Professor in the Engineering Science and Mechanics Department at the Pennsylvania State University. In between raising 4 great kids with her husband of 35 years, she taught large enrollment statics and strength of materials courses for 12 years and has been leading the efforts focused on support, global engagement, and academic integrity as
. Eng. Humanit. Eng. Soc. Entrep., vol. 3, no. 2, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.24908/ijsle.v3i2.2103.[8] L. A. Cooper, D. Kotys-Schwartz, and D. T. Reamon, “Project-Based Service-Learning and Student Motivation,” in ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, 2011, pp. 47–53.[9] B. D. Jones, “Motivating Students to Engage in Learning: The MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation,” Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 272–285, 2009.[10] J. Thompson and B. Jesiek, “Motivation of Community Partners and Advisors to Participate in Community Engagement Engineering Programs,” in 2014 ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition Proceedings, Indianapolis, Indiana: ASEE Conferences, Jun. 2014,p. 24.916.1
the college for freshman-level math and sciencecourses. Upperclassman that completed a course with B- or higher tutor freshmen in criticalfoundation courses for engineering majors. Students in the program have improved their scoresin their freshman STEM courses over students not in the program.The implementation of these programs for CoE majors at LSU are impacting the retention ofstudents and creating a connected community of students and new student leaders. This paperwill present more of a case study assessment of the three programs designed to help engineeringstudents reach success.Project ApproachDiscussion here will surround the execution of each of the programs mentioned above includingitems learned along the way. These programs were
.• Roundtables with the Program Chairs – Students were assigned to two breakout groups of 20 minutes each: one to meet with the Chair or faculty representative from the student’s intended major, plus one other major.• Ethics Game – A Jeopardy-like game was created that required students to look up answers in codes of ethics such as the one provided by NSPE for engineers [20] or by the ACM for computer scientists [21].• Effective Communication – Written and oral communication activities were included throughout the course, including: o Written Communications – K’Nex instructions. One half of the class was given “Kit A” with 6 K’Nex pieces, while the other half of the class was given “Kit B” with 6 different
://www.suitable.co/products/guided-pathways (accessed 14 January 2024).[2] “Möbius MAA Placement Test Suite by DigitalEd”, Mathematical Association of America,https://maa.org/node/259 (accessed 14 January 2024).[3] J.L.M. Wilkins, B.D. Bowen, and S. B. Mullins, “First mathematics course in college andgraduating in engineering: Dispelling the myth that beginning in higher-level mathematicscourses is always a good thing”, Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 110, Issue 3,https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20411, 2021.[4] Daniel W. Knight, D.W., L. E. Carlson, and J. F. Sullivan, “Staying in Engineering: Impact ofa Hands-On, Team-Based, First-Year Projects Course on Student Retention”, Proceedings of the2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
48.4% 17.0% 31.3 PP Limited Incomed 34.2% 20.1% 14.1 PP CO Resident 78.8% 65.3% 13.5 PP Racially Minoritized 40.8% 24.8% 15.9 PPTable 4: Overall SURE Persistence & Demographics with Reference GroupTable 4 Notes:a Data and interpretation for table A and B provided by Nicole Ross of CSU’s Office ofInstitutional Research, Planning, & Effectiveness.b The WSCOE reference group includes all full-time new (summer and fall start)s and transfer(fall starts) undergraduates in entering cohorts FA17-FA22 whose entering
. Todd R. Hamrick, West Virginia University Dr. Todd Hamrick, Ph.D. is aTeaching Professor in the Fundamentals of Engineering Program at West Virginia University Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, a position he has held since 2011.Dr. Carter Hulcher, West Virginia University Dr. Hulcher is a Teaching Assistant Professor in the Fundamentals of Engineering Program in the Benjamin M. Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University in Morgantown, WV. He has been in his current role at WVU since 2020. Dr. Hulcher holds degrees in Civil Engineering, as well as Mathematics.Dr. Akua B. Oppong-Anane, West Virginia University Akua Oppong-Anane is an Assistant Professor of
interdisciplinarynaturally fosters connections between various engineering disciplines and their tangibleapplications in the real world. The entire project is based on the central theme of Creating Valuefor the future habitation of Mars.Project ModulesIn a six-team structure with a maximum of four members each, students engaged in six modulesover six weeks, intricately designed to align with specific engineering majors. Figure 1 showsstudents’ final prototypes and simulations, the pictures were taken during class, and were presentedby students in their posters. a) b) c) d) e) f)Figure 1 – Final Prototypes and Simulations a
access in the rest of the document to use as theyprepare. The document specifies that during the simulation session, NPMs will have theopportunity to have three one-on-one discussions with Ciara, Jordan, and Stephanie,respectively. NPMs are advised that their goal is to understand the perspective of each studentavatar with whom they have a one-on-one discussion rather than to give advice or fix theproblem. NPMs are asked to use the provided student information, CATME data, and studentcomments to prepare for the discussions. Additionally, NPMs are informed that a student whoothers suspect is not doing their part for the team may be (a) having logistical issues that make itdifficult for them to contribute to the team, (b) feeling marginalized by
. Porter and M. Kilbridge, Eds., Cambridge, MA: MIT Laboratory of Architecture and Planning, 1978, pp. 551–660.[7] S. Dinham, “Research on Instruction in the Architecture Studio: Theoretical Conceptualizations, Research Problems, and Examples,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-America College Art Association, 1987.[8] NCTQ, “Classroom Management.” National Council on Teacher Quality, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.nctq.org/review/standard/Classroom-Management[9] B. M. Dewsbury, “Deep teaching in a college STEM classroom,” Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 169–191, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11422-018-9891-z.[10] A. Thompson, B. Sattler, and J. Turns, “Understanding a studio environment: A complex
are amixed population representing all engineering majors. The 15 weeks of the semester are splitinto three modules, and instructors move round-robin through each of the three sections. Majortopics include (a) adoption of best practices for success in college and for studying engineeringspecifically, (b) examination of each sub-discipline within each major, and (c) cultivation ofskills required to be successful as a practicing engineer.After each of their three modules, students were surveyed regarding their understanding of theirchosen discipline, their awareness of adjacent disciplines, their confidence in their selection of atechnical major, and their enthusiasm for their chosen discipline. The evolution of the student’sattitudes across
<5 5-7ResultsValue of Personal PerspectiveThe personal perspective has three main components: psychological safety, teaminterdependence, and team satisfaction. The psychological safety survey was administered duringPeer Evaluation 1. Table 3 shows two examples of the student ratings on the psychologicalsafety of their teams. According to the CATME guideline, the students who receive peer ratingof less than 4.71, would need faculty’s attention. A common approach is to set up a one-on-onemeeting with the student, allow the students to explain the situation in detail, and makeappropriate suggestions to the students. For example, for Student B, choose “Slightly Inaccurate”in “People on this team reject others for
designed to enhance any of the three dimensions.II.4.A. Resume Writing and Mock InterviewIt usually only takes 6-8 seconds for recruiters to decide whether an applicant will be given aninterview or not [31], so the resume must represent the applicant well. However, resumes are noteasy to write and are not often taught in engineering classrooms. The ESS provides students withtraining to write good resumes that will get them the interview. After students complete aresume, students are asked to volunteer for a mock interview in front of the class. The entireclass is introduced to the STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) method of the behavioralinterview [32] and is also given tips on technical interviews.II.4.B. Idea ProjectThe "Idea Project" is a
the remainder of this paper wediscuss the action research process we undertook to identify an instructional challenge (assessingteam performance), the solution our CoP developed (the design habits rubric), our experiencesimplementing this assessment tool, and our analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this tool.We present two of the multiple versions of this assessment instrument to highlight the iterativeand methodological process undertaken.Practical Implementation Details and DiscussionHistory of Rubric ImplementationThe ENES100 instructional teaching team created a working group during the spring of 2019with three goals: a) more closely align the course activities and assessments with the courselearning outcomes, b) reward student
in a First-Year Design Course," in 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, 2020.[4] A. Phillips, K. M. Kecskemety, and D. A. Delaine, "First-year Engineering Teaching Assistant Training: Examining Different Training Models and Teaching Assistant Empowerment," in 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2018.[5] L. B. Wheeler, C. P. Clark, and C. M. Grisham, "Transforming a Traditional Laboratory to an Inquiry-Based Course: Importance of Training TAs when Redesigning a Curriculum," Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 94, no. 8, pp. 1019-1026, 2017/08/08 2017.[6] C. Robinson and J. Collofello, "Utilizing undergraduate teaching assistants in active learning environments," in 2012
center. Figure 4. Circuits used in the system. a) Analog circuit in the testing center. b) Digital circuit controlling the conveyor belt.The overall functionality process is depicted through a sequence of strategic positions and sensorinteractions, as outlined below: 1. Initiation: The robot arm, mounted on a linear rail, moves to the Home Position for calibration. After the calibration is completed, the robot slides to the Start Position (P1). 2. Picking a bulb up: Bulbs are placed in a student-designed 3D-printed holder, shown in Figure 3When sensor S1 detects a light bulb in the Bulb Docking Area, the robot slides to the P2 position and moves the arm griper over to the Bulb Docking Area (P3) to
Teacher Education , vol. 53, no. 2, 2002.[4] J. O. &. C. B. Jeanne M. Hughes, "The Power of Storytelling to Facilitate Human Connection and Learning," IMPACT: The Journal of the Center, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 18-26, 2022.[5] J. Davishahl, "Centering Social Justice in Engineering: A new course model for first year engineering education," in American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD, 2023.[6] O. Hargie, Skilled Interpersonal Communication, London: Routledge, 2011.[7] C. M. &. M. Poston, "Self-Disclosure and Interpersonal Communication," in Exploring Communicaiton in the Real World, College of DuPage Digital Press, 2020.
further enrich the educational experience and maximize thebenefits of LinkedIn Learning Pathways for all students.References[1] Galbraith, A., & Schluterman, H., & Massey, L., & Crisel, B., & Rainwater, C. (2022, August), Exploring the relationship between initial mathematics course in college and engineering graduation rates Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN. 10.18260/1-2--41507[2] Massey, L. B., & Galbraith, A. L. (2021, November), Retaining Over-Prepared Students in a Common First-Year Engineering Program Paper presented at 2021 ASEE Midwest Section Conference, Virtual. 10.18260/1-2-1130.1153-38334[3] https://learning.linkedin.com/for-higher
that form of analysis was possible.Grade Distribution AnalysisComparison of grade distributions for UNIV 1201 and GEEN 1201 during the three years inwhich GEEN 1201 existed was completed to determine whether there was a difference inacademic performance. There were adequate cumulative counts of students to ensure that theimpact of variance would be minimized and to arrive at general patterns as grades for nearly 450GEEN 1201 students and 4000 UNIV 1201 students were considered, counts sufficient todecrease the impact of variability and random fluctuations. A summary of the results appears inTable 4. Table 4 Comparison of Grade Distributions: UNIV 1201 to GEEN 1201 Course n A B C D
-7795.2010.00725.x[7] M. Y. Ahn and H. H. Davis, “Sense of belonging as an indicator of social capital,” Int. J.Sociol. Soc. Policy, vol. 40, no. 7/8, pp. 627–642, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-12-2019-0258.[8] De La Garza, B. (2019). Experiences of college students in a first-year seminar course (OrderNo. 22584104). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.(2300629507). Retrieved fromttps://proxy1.library.jhu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/experiences-college-students-first-year-seminar/docview/2300629507/se-2[9] First Year seminars. Office of the Provost. (n.d.). https://provost.jhu.edu/education/second-commission-on-undergraduate-education/cue2-implementation-progress/first-year-seminars
choose to do so.References[1] J. E. Mills and D. F. Treagust, "Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer," Australasian journal of engineering education, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 2-16, 2003.[2] M. Quezada-Espinoza, A. Dominguez, and G. Zavala. "How Difficult are Simple Electrical Circuit Conceptions? New Findings." European Journal of Educational Research 12.3 (2023).[3] P.V. Engelhardt, R.J. Beichner; Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. Am. J. Phys. 1 January 2004; 72 (1): 98–115.[4] Sparkfun Inventor’s Kit (SIK) Guide: http//sparkfun.com/SIKguide (accessed Feb 8, 2024).[5] R. Jain, K. Sheppard, E. McGrath, and B. Gallois (2009, June), “Promoting Systems Thinking In
; Development, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 2020-2033, 2022, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2021.1945547.[4] P. Dwyer, “The neurodiversity approach(es): What are they and what do they mean?” Human Development, vol. 66, pp. 73-92, 2022, doi: 10.1159/000523723.[5] N. Doyle, “Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults,” British Medical Bulletin, vol. 135, pp. 108-125, 2020, doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldaa021.[6] B. Mirfin-Veitch, N. Jalota, and L. Schmidt, “Responding to neurodiversity in the education context: An integrative review of the literature,” 56 pp., Dunedin: Donald Beasley Institute, 2020.[7] K. Gillespie-Lynch, D. Bublitz, A. Donachie, V. Wong, P.J. Brooks, and J.D’Onofrio, “’For a long time our voices have been
, doi: 10.5539/elt.v5n9p78.19. C. Schau, N. Mattern, M. Zeilik, K. W. Teague, and R. J. Weber, “Select-and-Fill-in Concept Map Scores as a Measure of Students’ Connected Understanding of Science,” http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971112, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 136–158, Feb. 2001, doi: 10.1177/00131640121971112.20. E. Cartwright, M. E. Ita, and K. M. Kecskemety, “Analyzing Various Scoring Methods for Fill-In Concept Maps,” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.18260/1-2--41498.21. J. D. Novak, D. B. Gowin, and J. B. Kahle, Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press, 1984. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173469.22. M. A. Ruiz-Primo, “On the Use Of Concept Maps As An Assessment Tool in
perceptions, thestudents might connect it to their engineering identity in any of these three ways. Path A, theinterest path, is the potential that a student may be interested in the specific empathic skills,enjoy that work, and/or want to learn more about empathy in engineering. Path B, theperformance/competence path, is the potential that they may feel that they performed well duringthe empathetic communication exercises and are competent in the material. Path C, therecognition path, students may feel that they are recognized as an empathetic person by theirrelatives, peers, or by their instructors during the lessons debriefs and exercises. This frameworkgrounds this proposed research in two previously developed frameworks, Empathy inEngineering
century skills in engineeringstudents. The Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 38-49.7. Lloyd, B., & Palmer, S. (2000). A systems approach to the engineering workforce.Proceedings of the First International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management,Geelong, Australia.8. Lingard, R., & Barkataki, S. (2011, October). Teaching teamwork in engineering andcomputer science. In 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. F1C-1). IEEE.9. Ercan, M. F., & Khan, R. (2017, December). Teamwork as a fundamental skill for engineeringgraduates. In 2017 IEEE 6th International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learningfor Engineering (TALE) (pp. 24-28). IEEE.10. Martinez, M. L., Romero, G., Marquez, J. J., & Perez, J. M. (2010
-CollegeRelationship, and Alumni Support,” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 3,pp. 21–44, May 2001, doi: https://doi.org/10.1300/j050v10n03_02.[3] S. Gaier, “Alumni Satisfaction with Their Undergraduate Academic Experience and theImpact on Alumni Giving and Participation,” International Journal of Educational Advancement,vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 279–288, Aug. 2005, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ijea.2140220.[4] Hoyt, J. E., & Winn, B. A. (2004, Spring). Understanding retention and college studentbodies: Differences between drop-outs, stop-outs, opt-outs, and transfer-outs. NASPA Journal,41(3), 395-417[5] Melguizo, T., Kienzl, G. S., & Alfonso, M. (2011). Comparing the educational attainment ofcommunity college transfer students
ratings reduced by nearly 50%, indicatingthat fewer students did not participate in the project. This study indicates that scaffolding teamassignments helps first-year engineering students with teamwork.References 1. D. Woods, R. Felder, A. Rugarcia, and J. Stice, “The future of engineering education III. Developing critical skills,” Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 34(2), pp. 108-117, 2000. 2. M. Prince, “Does active learning work? A review of the research,” Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 223-231, July 2001. 3. K. Smith, “Cooperative learning: effective teamwork for engineering classrooms,” Frontiers in Education Conference, session 2b5, pp. 13-18, 1995. 4. B. Oakley, R. Felder, R. Brent, and I. Elhajj
Paper ID #44416Work in Progress: Development of a Bootcamp for Freshman Student SuccessDuring COVID-19 TransitionDr. Noe Vargas Hernandez, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Noe Vargas Hernandez researches creativity and innovation in engineering design. He studies ideation methods, journaling, smartpens, and other methods and technology to aid designers improve their creativity levels. He also applies his research to the desDr. Arturo A Fuentes, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Dr. Fuentes is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley where he has worked since 2001
envision contributing to the eradication of the ‘weed-out’culture in collegiate engineering education, supporting students, and encouraging them to pursuetheir goals without fear of roadblocks.This evidence-based research paper identifies the successes of curricular changes made to a first-year engineering program using the Content, Assessment, and Pedagogy (CAP) model andbackwards design. The primary goal of this research is to identify whether the changes made tothe course (a) increased students’ sense of belonging to the engineering community, (b) assistedin identifying engineering skills, and (c) support their self-recognition as engineers. Throughcollection of survey data across three groups of students, those that took the course between
Associate Dean and Director of Engineering at the R. B. Annis School of Engineering at the University of Indianapolis. He and his coauthors were awarded the Wickenden award (Journal of Engineering Education, 2014) and Best Paper award, Educational Research and Methods Division (ASEE, 2014). He was awarded an IEEE-USA Professional Achievement Award (2013) for designing the B.S. degree in Engineering Education. He is a co-PI on the ”Engineering for Us All” (e4usa) project to develop a high school engineering course ”for all”. He is active in engineering within K-12, (Technology Student Association Board of Directors) and has written multiple texts in Engineering, Mathematics and Digital Electronics. He earned a PhD in