from Purdue University. Her research characterizes front-end design practices across the student to practitioner continuum and studies the impact of developed front-end design tools on design success.Ms. Leah Paborsky, University of Michigan Leah is a graduate from the University of Michigan with a B.S.E. in Mechanical Engineering and minor in Space Sciences and Engineering. She served as an undergraduate research assistant in the Daly Design and Engineering Education Research Group focusing on engineers’ beliefs about social aspects of engineering work. She is currently pursuing a M.S. in Aerospace Engineering Sciences at University of Colorado- Boulder.Dr. Sara L. Hoffman, University of Michigan Sara Hoffman
Paper ID #8492Analysis of the Impact of Participation in a Summer Bridge Program onMathematics Course Performance by First-Semester Engineering StudentsDr. John R. Reisel, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Dr. John R. Reisel is an associate professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee (UWM). He serves as associate director of the Center for Alternative Fuels, and co-director of the Energy Conversion Efficiency Lab. In addition to research into engineering education, his research efforts focus on combustion and energy utilization. Dr. Reisel was a 2005 recipient of the UWM Dis- tinguished
content canbe tested in multiple choice, fill-in-the-blanks exams and essay-type questions. These examstend to be less bulky than engineering exams as no additional attachments are needed. In bothfields, unstructured and semi-structured case testing can also be formulated. In the engineeringfield, a case-structure exam can be created to design an item under specific constraints, while inthe business field a case-structure can be created to determine the best strategy in pursuing profitincrease for a corporation.Research StatementThe aim of this research is to study the difference in performance between open-book andclosed-book testing in the business field and in the engineering field. These two environmentswere chosen for comparison as these two
AC 2012-4880: MEASURING ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ CONTEXTUALCOMPETENCEDr. Hyun Kyoung Ro, Carnegie Mellon University Hyun Kyoung Ro is a Research Designer and Analyst in the Institutional Research and Analysis at Carnegie Mellon University.Dr. Lisa R. Lattuca, University of MichiganDr. Dan Merson, Pennsylvania State University Dan Merson is a Postdoctoral Fellow for the Center for the Study of Higher Education and the College Student Affairs program at Penn State. He received his Ph.D. in higher education from Penn State in the summer of 2011. While at Penn State, he primarily worked on the NCAA-funded Student-Athlete Climate Study (SACS), a nation-wide project to assess student-athlete’s perceptions and experiences
ability to acquire and apply newknowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies.Model Refinement and Discussion The internship conducted over this past summer enabled collaborative model refinementbetween the two centers. The dimensions of the CF cell and overall design of the spacers weremodified based on recent research development. Some of the changes included modification tothe inlet and outlet positions and chevron size within the CF cell. The CF cell model’sadjustments were made to better match the stainless steel CF cell more precisely as the primarycell for use in future experiments. The entire engineering design process was used to create themodel in SolidWorks that portrayed the hydrodynamic conditions within a CF
that involved combining fiveeducation best practices of recruitment, formal mentoring through peer mentors, summer campengineering math preparation and workshops, academic year stipends, and summer internships atlocal and regional companies.The Just in Time Math (JITM) strategy was implemented to increase the interaction betweenfreshmen and engineering faculty and peers during the first semesters of study. As a result, moreengineering students have shown greater enthusiasm for the field of engineering which resultedin better retention and graduation rates. The JITM course included lecture, lab and recitationcomponents and an application-oriented, hands-on approach. The JITM course addressed mathtopics specifically used in the core entry-level
courses commonly occur near the end of abaccalaureate program. Large demands on time are made at a time when students are preparingto graduate and extrinsic motivators are low; grades are not critical to students who have alreadyfound a job or been accepted to graduate school. For these reasons motivation is hypothesized tobe critical to success and the peer evaluation is analyzed using constructs of motivation theory.Following previous research on the role of goals in academic achievement this work assumesthat students in the capstone design course set goals for themselves which they work to achieve.Achievement goals are generally divided into either mastery goals or performance goals 18.Mastery goals are inwardly directed toward developing ones
best answer their research question, hypothesis, orpurpose of the study [1]. A mixed methods research methodology that a researcher may select isQ methodology. Q methodology is a social science research methodology focused onsystematically studying subjectivity utilizing both qualitative and quantitative researchtechniques [2]–[6]. While Q methodology has had limited use in engineering education research,it has been used in studies regarding the career paths of engineering education doctoral graduates[7], competencies for nanotechnology [8] and IT [9], curriculum design for information systems[10], construction engineering technology program assessment [11], and undergraduateengineering students’ out-of-class activities [12]. However, Q
) What is the impact on the trained advisors? Our research mentors demonstrated growth intheir ability to engage with students due to their participation in CAPS. During early focusgroups, mentors reported a benefit of having dedicated time to discuss the mentorship with theirpeers and borrow best practices from each other. For example, 2 out of 4 mentors reportedimmediate success in establishing relationships with their mentees, building on their expertisedeveloped in roles as mentors in previous programs (Winter 2018 focus group). However, theother two mentors mentioned initial struggles connecting with students. These latter mentorscited discomfort around discussing the personal lives of their students, fearing the student’sperception that
GTP content and impart skills to faculty teams from these institutions inorder to strengthen their capacities and arm them with additional resources to support theirefforts in recruiting and retaining students in STEM programs offered at their institutions.The objectives are as follows:Objective #1: Increase the number of STEM faculty from San Antonio College with enhancedprofessional development experiences via the proposed trainings in green energy andsustainability topics as well as best practices in pedagogy and culturally effective instruction. Activity 1.1: Design and develop a permanent renewable energy research and education lab at the Eco Centro. Activity 1.2: Provide training workshops for the faculty, staff, and selected
careers and how different experiences within the practice and culture of engineering fos- ter or hinder belongingness and identity development. Dr. Godwin graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in Engineering and Science Education. Her research earned her a National Science Foundation CAREER Award focused on characterizing latent diversity, which includes diverse attitudes, mindsets, and approaches to learning, to understand engineering stu- dents’ identity development. She has won several awards for her research including the 2016 American Society of Engineering Education Educational Research and Methods Division Best Paper Award and the 2018 Benjamin J. Dasher Best Paper Award
). Experience and shared practice: Design engineers’ learning at work. Jyvaskyla Studies inEducation, Psychology and Social Research, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.15. Krupczak Jr., J. & Green, C. W. (1999). The perspective of non-engineers on technological literacy. AmericanAssociation for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference Proceedings.16. Meyers, C. (1995). Restructuring Engineering Education: A Focus on Change. Report of an NSF Workshopon Engineering Education, Division of Undergraduate Education.17. Tilli, S. & Trevelyan, J. P. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Australian Engineering Graduates: PreliminaryResults. American Association for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference Proceedings.18. Shaffer, D. W. (2007
they performed experimental research oncombustion of non-conventional bio-derived fuels for hybrid propellant rocket engines. Such aproject requires self-learning of new material on two-phased combustion and flows, chemicalthermodynamics, and analysis and research on current papers. As a result of this project,students are required to write a research report and submit and present the research paper atnational or international research conferences. Thus they get valuable skills and developcompetencies applicable in their future engineering practice and or graduate studies.Research Topics, or Open-Ended Design problems in Engineering DynamicsEngineering Dynamics is a sophomore level course at Central Connecticut State University(CCSU). The
prepares Engineering/Technology candidates for teacher licensure. Dr. Mentzer’s educational efforts in pedagogical content knowledge are guided by a research theme centered in student learning of engineer- ing design thinking on the secondary level. Nathan was a former middle and high school technology educator in Montana prior to pursuing a doctoral degree. He was a National Center for Engineering and Technology Education (NCETE) Fellow at Utah State University while pursuing a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction. After graduation he completed a one year appointment with the Center as a postdoctoral researcher.Dr. Allison Godwin, Purdue University, West Lafayette Allison Godwin, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of
for their profession, create a hypothetical scenario portraying an ethical dilemma thatinvolves issues covered by the code, resolve the dilemma, and explain why their resolution is thebest course of action based upon the code of ethics.14Several important issues are evident in the discussions of how best to develop ethicalcompetence among undergraduate students. One concerns how to conceptualize, define, andmeasure the desired – or feasible – outcome. While there seems to be consensus that allprograms hope to shape students who will behave ethically as adults, we have found no studiesthat link undergraduate educational experiences to measurable ethical behavior after graduation;the study that most nearly tried to assess the impact of
overarching themes to deepen the participants’ understanding oftheir experience: 1) perception of experience and 2) application of new knowledge. From thosethemes, the six reflection prompts were designed to facilitate higher-order cognitive processes[1]. Each prompt captured an aspect of the associated theme [see Appendix A.]. Fellows wereallowed to select the one that best fits their experience for that week. Prompts can be selected nomore than twice. This flexibility allowed for contextualized growth and personalized meaning-making. Questions varied from self-analysis of daily tasks and recognizing the benefits ofstruggling with a task to highlighting the differences between knowledge garnered in theclassroom versus in the research environment
engineering content and learning from a traditional on-site learningenvironment to a web-based environment.As part of this experiment, two of the modules from the design sequence in the AerospaceEngineering and Engineering Mechanics program were converted to web-based delivery.Modules entitled ‘Design Modeling with Parameterization for Optimization’, and ‘FiniteElement Analysis for Practicing Engineers’, were selected since they are both important topicsfor practicing engineers in industry and popular with the students.Re-thinking the Content for the On-line EnvironmentThe goals for the project were carefully developed prior to delving into the details of the work.The instructors examined the content and reflected on their experiences, both in the
first time this semester. 4 Measuring teamworkis crucial if we are to evaluate the extent to which we are, in fact, developing teamwork skills,and to assess the impact of interventions designed to enhance teamwork skill learning. However,as Immekus et al. pointed out 2, the measurement of teamwork is especially challenging, sincethe sub-domains used to represent teamwork are inconsistent across studies, and most of theliterature on teamwork comes from industry-based rather than academic teams. Probably because effective teamwork is so important to workplace success, a good dealof research has focused on the personal qualities of team members, the kinds of interactionscharacterizing various types of teams, and the functional outcomes of
classroom. 4th ed. 1984, Edina,Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.9. Gates, A., et al. A Cooperative Model for Orienting Students to Research Groups. in 29th ASEE/IEEEFrontiers in Education. 1999.10. Fullan, M., The school as a learning organization: Distant dreams. Theory into Practice, 1995. 34(4): p.230-235.11. Fullan, M., The new meaning of educational change. 4th ed. 2007, New York: Teachers College Press.12. DuFour, R. and R.E. Eaker, Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancingstudent achievement. 1998: National Education Service.13. Sergiovanni, T., The story of community, in Learning communities in education: Issues, strategies andcontexts. 1999, Routledge: London. p. 9-25.14
relevance ofstudent engagement to the desired outcomes of educational institutions. However, all of thisresearch has been directed at civilian institutions, generally within one or both of the objectivesof academic performance and persistence. This study uses a convergent parallel mixed methodsapproach to examine engagement by cadets at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) todetermine whether the mediators of student engagement developed by researchers are applicableto a military academy that has identified specific outcomes other than performance andpersistence as developmental objectives for graduates who will go on to become officers in theAir Force. Specifically, the objectives of the Air Force Academy go beyond the commonuniversity
at New York University.Dr. Bruce Ankenman, Northwestern University Bruce Ankenman is a Professor in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences at Northwestern’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He received a BS in Electrical Engineering from Case Western Reserve University and after working in the automotive industry for five years, returned to graduate school for an MS and PhD in Industrial Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research interests primarily deal with the design and analysis of experiments that are used to build models for physical systems or metamodels for simulated systems. Professor Anken- man is the co-director of the Segal Design
besuccessful in the workforce of 2020. Producing graduates with the attributes of the engineer of2020 (hereafter referred to as the “E2020 attributes”) who are prepared for this dynamic,competitive global workforce is the current challenge for engineering education. Researchers aretasked to empirically identify ways in which undergraduate engineering programs can adjusteducational offerings to reach such a goal.Studies to date have largely focused on ABET criteria and the policies and practices that fosterthe development of each of these student outcomes. Given the newness and non-mandatorystatus of the E2020 attributes relative to the ABET accreditation criteria, little research hasinvestigated engineering student outcomes vis-à-vis the Engineer of
. 4. Mazur, E. (1992) Qualitative versus quantitative thinking: are we teaching the right thing? Optics and Photonics News, 3,pp 38-39. 5. Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, pp 64-74. 6. Strevler, R., Miller, R., Reed-Rhoads, T. & Allen, K. (2007) Best Practices in the Design and Use of Concept Inventories. Workshop presented at 2007 ASEE Annual Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii. 7. Notaros, B. M. (2002). Concept inventory assessment instruments for electromagnetics education. Proceedings of the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International
, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1002/sce.21477.[37] D. L. Hosking, “Critical Disability Theory,” presented at the 4th Biennial Disability Studies Conference, Lancaster University, UK: Lancaster University, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/disabilityconference_archive/2008/papers/hosking2 008.pdf[38] D. C. Beardmore, R. Sandekian, and A. Bielefeldt, “Supporting STEM graduate students with dis/abilities: Opportunities for Universal Design for Learning,” presented at the 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN, Aug. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/41796
design and led multi-institution teams in the development and testing of curriculum materials and assessments for engineering design learning. He is also the owner of Verity Design Learning LLC, a publisher of instructional materials for design reviews and teamwork development. He is a Fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education. Dr. Davis received his PhD in Agricultural Engineering at Cornell University.Ms. Sarah Winfree, The Ohio State University Sarah Winfree is an undergraduate research assistant in the Department of Engineering Education at The Ohio State University. She joined the University in August 2013 working towards a Bachelor of Science degree in Food Engineering. Her career includes
effective when theinstructor recognizes that there may be multiple approaches and understandings and that forcingstudents towards a solitary solution path may not be beneficial. Due to the open-ended nature ofMEAs, students and TAs are encouraged to be creative and unique in their methods for solvingproblems.This study is part of a larger research effort to develop pedagogical approaches around feedback Page 14.742.3on open-ended problem solving that (1) improve instructor and peer feedback and (2) helpstudents learn to interpret and respond to feedback. In this paper, we begin to investigate theexperiences of Graduate Teaching Assistants who
problems. This wasachieved by using a variety of active learning and pedagogical techniques such as, annotatedtextbook readings of current journal publications, oral presentations highlighting the balancebetween nature and technology, laboratory demonstrations, and a semester-long group projectmotivated by student interest in nature and chemical engineering.In this paper, the opportunities and challenges associated with developing a new course in anemerging multidisciplinary research area will be addressed. In addition, suggestions for bestpractices in course development will be provided for instructors who seek to develop similar newresearch-based elective courses.BackgroundIn 2014, a new graduate-level course intended for Master’s students on
engineering course through a course project that focused on mobile sourceemissions. Six of the eight students enrolled in the course were third and fourth year mechanicalengineering students. Two graduate students from other engineering schools were also enrolled. To formulate my ideas for the project, I collaborated with staff at the City of ChicagoDepartment of the Environment, the Region 5 EPA office, and EPA headquarters. The resultingproject had two elements. Both originally focused on Pilsen, a Chicago neighborhood that isboth a trucking hub and a population center for working class families. As part of the firstelement, students assumed the role of fleet managers of small trucking firms in Pilsen seeking tojoin EPA’s SmartWay Transport
Education, 2007 The Current Generation of Integrated Engineering Curriculum - Assessment After Two Years of ImplementationAbstractIn September of 2004 our university adopted the Multidisciplinary Engineering FoundationSpiral Curriculum as the basis for disciplinary engineering programs in Chemical, Civil,Electrical, Mechanical and General Engineering. The curriculum includes a sequence of firstand second year engineering courses, matched closely with the development of students’mathematical sophistication and analytical capabilities and integrated with course work in thesciences. Students develop a conceptual understanding of engineering basics in this series ofcourses which stress practical applications of these principles.The
students to choose engineering and stay in engineering through their careers and how different experiences within the practice and culture of engineering foster or hinder belongingness and identity development. Dr. Godwin graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in Engineering and Science Education. Her research earned her a National Science Foundation CAREER Award focused on characterizing latent diversity, which includes diverse attitudes, mindsets, and approaches to learning, to understand engineering students’ identity devel- opment. She is the recipient of a 2014 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Educational Research and Methods Division Apprentice Faculty