such as this. Instead, students were encouraged to reflect ontheir own strengths and challenges and make choices based on their understanding of theirabilities. Following every exam and the group project, the students were asked to respond toreflection questions, encouraging them to take ownership of their learning. For example, after themidterm II exam, the students were asked to answer the following questions among others: a)What was/were the most important factor/s behind your performance in Midterm-II exam? b)“How well do you expect to perform in Midterm-III exam? What is/are your plan(s) to achievethat?”The term group project was part of the Project-Based Learning implementation in the course andhad specific milestones for deliverables
viewing knowledge as constructed by the knower’s interactionwith surroundings such as experts, world, and texts [5].Individual experiences have been shown to reflect how people perceive and make sense of theknowledge being handed to those individuals. Individuals under authoritative governments oftenregard educators and textbooks as the primary sources of unquestionable knowledge, influencingthe shaping of their personal epistemological beliefs. The same concept applies to the culture inwhich an individual experiences. For example, when considering Youn's study in Korea, theauthor emphasizes the contrast of the cultures between the two countries in individualism-collectivism, power-distance, uncertainty-avoidance, and masculinity-femininity. Thus
which reflects long-term thinking, they could earn 3 pts. Table 2 shows thedesign evaluation rubric. The design work of each group was assessed by both the instructor andtheir peers following the same sustainable design rubric shown in Table 2. Peer evaluation is aneffective collaborative learning strategy [19]. Related to self-assessment, peer evaluationencourages students to critically examine peers’ work and reflect on the meaning of quality workin general, primarily when consulting a detailed rubric as a guide. Students themselves providefeedback to one another, while the instructor focuses on more targeted guidance toward alearning outcome. Through peer evaluation, students ultimately learn to better self-assessthemselves, which pays
2023-2024 accreditation cycle[1]. ASEE has created the Diversity Recognition Program (ADRP) which recognizesengineering schools implementing DEI initiatives [2]. Hofstra’s Engineering school underwentreaccreditation for six programs in the 2023-2024 cycle and participated in the pilot of the DEIcomponents of Criteria 5 and 6. In addition, the university was accorded renewal of Bronzestatus under the ASEE ADRP. The present paper discusses the plans and assessments utilized toreach these goals.The need to address DEI in the region where the university resides is critical in the attraction andretention of students to engineering. The region is a diverse metropolitan area in which thestudent body reflects the diversity. In addition, the
undergraduates toward advanced degrees but also help develop crucialresearch skills like data analysis and problem-solving [6], [11]. The diverse nature of UREs leads to arange of skill development and interest among participants, adding complexity to the landscape ofundergraduate research experiences. Thus, the type of UREs could develop a varying degree of skills andinterests.Theoretical Framework In the development of this research, we have applied the theoretical framework of engineeringstudent identity [17] to develop our interview protocol for a large project. In this framework, there arethree key constructs that contribute to one’s identity as an engineering student. The first is engineeringstudent interest, which reflects curiosity and
training. This can be achieved throughuniversity professional development programs such as workshops, events, courses, andadditional resources that have a DEI perspective. In addition to adopting inclusive teachingpractices that reflect the basic principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion [11], [12], it isimportant to ensure clear and objective language, conventional structure, and precise words.In the STEM field, the issue of teacher development with a DEI approach can be particularlychallenging. STEM teachers often encounter additional obstacles in identifying authenticgoals, objectives, and tasks related to DEI [13], [14]. There is often a lack of consensus orunderstanding regarding the definition of DEI activities, who should participate
signalindicating their likelihood to graduate [3][4]. Full time enrollment, grade point average, and timeto completion are also indicative of successful student support programs. But contemporaryscholars point out that these outcomes are situated within the viewpoint of how the studentsimpact the institution, and less concerned with how students are intrinsically impacted by theireducation. Outcomes such as civic engagement, leadership, critical consciousness, andbelongingness have been dubbed liberatory outcomes, a name reflective of the liberation thateducation is meant to provide [5][6].At the outset of this study, we hypothesized that a comprehensive student support programwould embody academic outcomes and support students’ access to and
to create something unique or interesting, and whileexecution was not always perfect, the attempts were rewarded for showing effort beyond theassignment requirements. Evaluating the concept and inspiration behind the design aimed toassess how contemplative students were during the assignment. The engineering team alsosought to recognize participants who invested more time into the assignment than others, as thisoften reflected in the quality of the drawing. The rubric categories were chosen based on theengineering team’s past experiences having their artistic work graded by art professionals andlooking at how their previous teachers assessed overall creativity and perceived effort in theirwork. Each category was rated as a 0, 1, or 2. After
observation underscores the importance of addressing financial barriers andenhancing accessibility to ensure broader and more inclusive participation in future FDS events.Regarding repeat participants, our impact extends to a remarkable 182 faculty members andsoon-to-be faculty who have participated in the last eight events, as illustrated in Figure 2. Thisbroad reach is reflected in the representation of over 154 universities, underscoring thesymposium's national influence and effectiveness in engaging a diverse academic community.Each year, we actively strive to broaden our reach by extending invitations to a widening arrayof institutions and faculty members. Notably, in 2023, we achieved our highest attendance in asingle event, with 46
class is being offered for the first time in the Spring 2024 semester, initial data on theeffectiveness of the proposed teaching methods is still being collected. This data will includeperformance on representative exam questions for key biomechanical concepts, lab reports fromin class hands on experiments, discussion questions from journal articles read and discussed inclass, final presentations on journal articles of the students’ choosing and student evaluations givenby the university. This year’s class consists of only two students, so further data will need to becollected on next year’s class, which is expected to increase to 4 to 6 students. However, this year’sdata will be used to inform the initial round of reflection and changes in the
number PRO-2022-237.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.2221511. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References[1] Nielsen, N., & National Research Council (U.S.). Planning Committee on Evidence onSelected Innovations in Undergraduate STEM Education. (2011). Promising practices inundergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: Summary of twoworkshops. National Academies Press.[2] National Research Council. (2011). Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation:America’s Science and Technology
. Since then, the outlook has not measurably improved 1 . A strong STEMworkforce sustains a robust U.S. economy and supports our national security 2,3 . Diversity inSTEM generates a variety of perspectives and approaches to scientific and technologicalinnovation, better reflects the global and culturally diverse economies of the 21st century, andproduces diverse science and engineering role models 4 . Because of their racially diverseenrollments, The National Academies of Sciences and Engineering Minority Serving Institutions:America’s Underutilized Resource for Strengthening the STEM Workforce report (2019)identifies that HSIs can contribute diversity to STEM.Of the estimated 569 U.S. HSIs, most are two-year institutions. 68% of HSIs are public
essential in improving students’ undergraduate experience and promotingacademic and career success [17]. Annual training workshops and other professionaldevelopment help faculty develop their mentoring skills and inspire reflection aboutpositionality, power and privilege to better support our diverse students.Adaptive Modifications of the Program and Lessons LearnedOver the last six years we have expanded the program by adding Information Technology,Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Civil Engineeringto the original list of eligible degrees–Biomedical Sciences, Environmental Science,Mathematics, and Computer Science. This has helped to provide space for our STEM-interestedpre-majors to remain in the program
you notes within a given set.Thematic Occurrence Counting (Ryan and Bernard, 2003) allowed us to generate the data thatwere used for the analysis. a. scholarshipNSF supported students were awarded up to a $10,000/year scholarship based on their need asdetermined by FAFSA and the financial aid office. COVID related loss-of income for somescholar’s families caused higher financial need which was not reflected in FAFSA. The averageneed for NSF supported students: Cohort 1 ~$18,750; Cohort 2: ~$24,000; Cohort 3: ~$24,000;Cohort 4: ~$30,500.As can be seen from the need values, there was substantial need in each of the cohorts that rosedramatically over the four cohorts, in part due to loss of financial opportunities for participatingstudents and
Final lab report 120 points Lab notebook checks 100 points total Weekly reflections 150 points total Oral Hypothesis & update presentations 50 points total communication Poster presentation Poster draft presentation 30 points Final poster presentation 100 points total TOTAL (subject to 900 points total change)2.4. Learning objectivesScientific Method: This course
and safe working conditions being ahot-button issue in graduate education for decades, nowhere in engineering education research isit discussed [15]. Should research in our field align itself more with the university than thepopulations being studied? How should we be studying doctoral engineering students? Whatproblems should we be highlighting?The Role of Doctoral Engineering StudentsTo decide what direction work in the field should take, we must first understand what roles andresponsibilities doctoral engineering students have at their universities.As existing literature and legislation reflect, the doctoral engineering student has long existed inan ambiguous space [15], [16]. Universities do not consistently classify them as either staff
encounters andexistential reflections, thereby guiding their educational philosophy and praxis [8, 9,10]. Within the scope of this study, “teaching belief” is understood as the ingrainedconvictions held by educators about their pedagogical duties, student engagements,curricular substance, and the comprehensive process of instruction, which ultimatelydirect their didactic ideologies and methodologies. The efficacy of classroom evaluation practice is well-documented, with substantialevidence highlighting its pivotal role in enhancing student achievement and fosteringan intrinsic motivation to pursue academic objectives [11, 12]. This analysis delineatesevaluation not only as a multifaceted political dynamic within the classroomenvironment but also
: Reflections and recommendations.” The Sport Psychologist, 33(4), 345-355, 2019. 15. H. Lee, S. Kim, & Y. Song “An intergenerational mentoring program for emerging adult university students.” Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 19(1), 41-56, Implementation: Pre-semester workshops prepared near- Fig. 1. Theoretical Framework of Dual- Form Mentoring Model for EL 1301 2021. 16. R
knowledge within the fAEC-KLM. Not only did they appreciate the lectures, but they also emphasized on the impact of knowing about African American female AEC professionals. AAMG11 verifies that there was knowledge gain from AEC lectures on the underrepresentation of African American females in AEC: “I would say the lecture on the AEC females or African American females gave us a bunch of like knowledge, background knowledge on AEC and what its about and also the important role models.” The exposure to role models addresses the need for women of color in STEM to see themselves reflected in the field as discussed by [21]. The statements made by these RPs on the impact of the
language and cultural resources and how students draw on differentsets of talk depending on the context, whether near or distal from the activity at hand. It contendsthat without a deeper understanding of the role of non-dominant ways of speaking in the act ofbecoming and belonging, efforts to diversify engineering will remain elusive. Ultimately, thispaper summarizes these ideas through a conceptual model for engineering learning environmentsthat value and leverage the resources that students bring from their communities. By creatingmore equitable and socially just solutions, engineering education can better serve the needs ofdiverse populations and ensure that the profession is truly reflective of the communities it serves.Keywords: language and
developmental research &implementation phases:Influencers for Transformative Education [5, 2]:1. Critical awareness of culture2. Professional identity development3. Participation in communities of mentoring and learning4. Holistic skill integration through reflection5. The development of professional integrity through affective awarenessFig. 2 [3] is a visual representation of the process of these five influencers’ impacts on studentexperiences in an electrical and computer engineering program. This model of the fiveinfluencing factors was then used in the development of the subsequent study's interventions.Figure 2. Process of Transformative Learning as Affected by the 5 Influencers: Culture,Participating in Communities, Reflection, Professional
the utility company, theengineering design team, and the installation contractors, directly affected landowners,community members either in support or opposed to the project, and other community leaders.Impacted parties with similar interests worked together to establish different arguments in favoror against the proposed project. During the final exam period, we held a mock town hall meeting.Afterward, the students reflected on why they voted as they did and how the arguments that werepresented during the hearing influenced their decision (Appendix D). This final assignment wasdesigned to help students imagine themselves as engaged citizens as they prepare to graduate andbecome working professionals in the community.ResultsInitial results
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Demographics, Graduation, and RetentionThe demographics for the Engineering Academies have been consistently thesame or higher than the full university admitted engineering students. Mostspecifically the underserved population has consistently been higher. This isdirectly related to the recruiting outreach targeting the non-traditionalstudents and bringing the “start local – save money – graduate an engineer”message to the students that didn’t previously believe they had the chance tobe engineers.The chart below reflects the total demographic from 2015-2023 as an averagethroughout the first 8 years of the academies. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2024
. By analyzingqualitative data from weekly blog post reflections and student interviews, this work aims to unpackthe complex ways global competencies are cultivated among undergraduate and graduateengineering students with varying degrees of prior research experience. The findings of thisresearch are expected to inform future engineering education practices, providing valuable insightsfor educators, policymakers, and institutions aiming to enhance the global competencies of theirstudents through international research collaborations.IntroductionGlobal competence has increasingly become a key differentiator in engineering, significantlyinfluencing an engineer’s employability and career progression [1], [2], [3], [4]. However, workingwith
people and circumstances that differ from those with which students are familiar. Frequent, timely, and constructive feedback. Periodic, structured opportunities to reflect and integrate learning. Opportunities to discover the relevance of learning through real-world applications. Public demonstration of competence.While not all HIPs address each element to the same degree, the list provides a standard forjudging the quality of implementation. It could potentially be used to assess the quality of otherevidence-based curricular and co-curricular activities as well.The most common outcome studied across all high-impact practices is student retention andacademic performance (grade point average). For both measures the result is
, examinations, and attendance (for asynchronous/flippedmodalities only) are also given in Table 1 for each iteration. Average final grades range from79.33% to 86.47% which reflects that overall the groups are demonstrating good to very goodmastery of the course material. The average final examination grade, which is the finalindividual assessment of course material, ranges from 67.63% to 79.91% over this same perioddemonstrating satisfactory (with some weaknesses) to satisfactory performance.To determine if there were differences in student course performance between iterations from2018 to 2023 a one-way ANOVA was conducted using the average course grades in Table 1.This analysis reported that the final course grade between semesters was not
(%) 40 30 30 20 20 10 0 0-3 4-6 10 and above Years of ExperienceFigure 1: Years of experience of Faculty membersThe big five personality traits were considered in the present study. Among the five, only threewere common among the faculty participants. The self-identified personality of the participantswas presented in Figure 2. The study defined conscientiousness as "reflecting the tendency to beaccountable, structured, diligent, goal-oriented, and to adhere to norms and rules" for a facultymember who self
focused onadministration and performance with the aim of effecting change within a multidisciplinaryengineering design project domain of influence [21]. Guided by the transformational leadershipmodel [20], the GED course focused on design as a humanistic process [22] while prioritizingcollaboration, communication and reflection throughout the design work. The GED course wasmandatory for second-year engineering science students with two requirements in year one thatfostered students’ leadership in team and local community settings respectively. The courseintroduced students to cultural awareness within the concept of culturally responsive design tosupport their global perspective development. The course was delivered in a hybrid format toabout 250
addnew examples to the list, for instance, examples identified by the students. If a student reportsthat they did not find relevant examples in our list, but they provided a new one, we will analyzeand consider for addition the new example provided.After the students identify a potential role model that inspires them in the course's domain (e.g.,databases or programming), each student will describe this role model on a discussion board andindicate the main criteria on which the selection was based. A moderated discussion will takeplace with feedback from the instructor and other students. The second part ends with a shortassignment serving as self-reflection for the role model identification process. In this assignmentthe students will summarize
determine the benefits of concept mapping. Weber et al. [7] 2022 Engineering Engineering undergraduates The students were given a concept indicated that the mapping module and post activity is beneficial activity survey within their to their ability to Statics course meant to reflect on their enhance career value mindset and technical creation