technological age, the need to study and understand computation and the scholarship andteaching employed to prepare the next generation of engineers has become a priority for currenteducation researchers. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,reported in a 2018 report by stating, “It is a time for institutions to consider their missions andconstituencies they serve and to determine what role computing should play in the experience,knowledge, and skills of its graduates 2025 and beyond,” [1]. Computing has been identified as anecessary skillset for engineers entering the workforce to employ computational solutions tocomplex global issues. Computing educational researchers have embarked on the journey touncover the evidence-based
and evolve withtime; therefore, addressing the changing problems with short- and long-term goals is important. However,many students need scaffolding to assist their goal formulation activities, such as design constraints andguidelines. Engineering educators should consider including in their courses strategies that would trainstudents to gather necessary information and build scaffolding on their own through goal formulationactivities.1. INTRODUCTIONIn systems engineering, goal formulation is a crucial step in the early stages of the system development lifecycle. It involves defining and clarifying the objectives that a system is intended to achieve. The goalformulation process helps establish a clear understanding of the system's purpose
from anonymous evaluations for all the laboratory courses thelead author taught. Moreover, Indiana State University (ISU), where the lead author is currentlyteaching, allows instructors to include their own questions in anonymous evaluations. The leadauthor added two questions related to laboratories. The questions were student rated andappeared in the ISU questionnaires as: 1) Laboratory experiments help to understand theoreticalconcepts and 2) Laboratory experiments are interesting. This paper presents the ISU studentratings on these questions for various courses and also compares their ratings of questions withthe overall student ratings for each specific course.The findings of this paper shows how students perceive the laboratory
Student Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Engineering Design in Work-Integrated Learning Contexts1 IntroductionTo continue enhancing student learning, many institutions are implementing work-integratedlearning programs (WIL) to aid in the development of work-ready graduates [1]. WIL integratesacademic studies with experiences within a workplace or practice setting [2]. These experiencescan take many forms including collaborative research projects, apprenticeships, co-operativeeducation, entrepreneurship, field placements, internships, professional placements, servicelearning, or work experiences. WIL programs are very common in undergraduate engineeringprograms and have more recently expanded to graduate programs
CourseIntroductionAlmost 1/3rd (31%) of U.S. adults will experience an anxiety disorder at some point in theirlives; with females affected more than males (about 1.5:1) [1]. In 2017, 61% of college studentsseeking counseling services listed anxiety as the most frequent issue they were facing, and about23% said it was the problem causing them the most concern (Center for College Mental Health atPenn State [2]). Anxiety can impact physical, cognitive and emotional health, impacting howstudents perform in their classes and consequently in their careers.For college students, anxiety is frequently manifested in relation to exams—it is estimated that10-40% of students are affected by test anxiety. Test anxiety can impact motivation andacademic achievement and lead to
the importance of epistemology as is seen in the 2006document produced by a group of leading educators titled The Research Agenda for the NewDiscipline of Engineering Education where “engineering epistemologies” is one of five researchdirections listed [1]. That document defines epistemology as “research on what constitutesengineering thinking and knowledge within social contexts now and into the future” [1, p. 259].While there is no precise agreement in engineering education literature about what constitutesepistemology as Beddoes found by reviewing literature since the 2006 agenda [2], the concept ofepistemology as a viewpoint toward the nature of engineering knowledge will act as a definitionfor the current work. One framework for coarsely
to focustheir study time on the most important things, i.e., learning how to appropriately use theequations, data, and constants. These equation sheets are made up by the professor at times, atother times students have the option to make up their own, and some instructors use a hybridapproach where they supply some information but allow students to make up their own equationsheets as well.Equation sheets appear as a topic, in passing, in many different papers, although they may not bethe primary focus of those papers, and in fact may be mentioned very briefly (e.g., [1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). One work mentioned them as not being allowed on aspecific assessment [13], and a few mentioned specific lengths or
results indicate shifting needs for physical space, social interactions withmentors and peers, and have implications for evolving how engineering departments andprograms support low-income students to meet their changing needs for persisting inengineering.Background and MotivationEngineering fields historically have had challenges retaining low-income students, going beyondthe need for financial support. Research consistently points out that though insufficient funds areone of the most common reasons why low-income students drop out of college or transfer out ofSTEM fields, financial support alone is usually not enough to keep retention rates high [1], [2].In fact, it has been found that low-income students lose out on opportunities that would
strengths as well as bestpractices for supporting them. There is very little research that focuses specifically on studentcaregivers who are studying engineering, a field that may require extra lab time and other subjectrequirements that contribute to the unique needs in the field.Objective: The primary purpose of this study is to answer the questions (1) What does previousresearch indicate about the experiences of student caregivers? and (2) How does that knowledgeapply to recruiting and retaining undergraduate engineering students?Methods: This paper uses the Khan et al. [1] methodology for conducting a systematic literaturereview, applied to research on student caregivers, focused on (1) identifying what is known aboutthem, including their
) Sustainability in Engineering Graphics and Bicycle-Powered BlendersBackgroundThe purpose of this work-in-progress paper is to share developments related to an ASEEEngineering for One Planet (EOP) Mini-Grant Program Cohort 2 Award to the autho that beganin the summer of 2023 and ran through January 2024. The project has two objectives: 1) Use theEOP Framework (Figure 1) to modify learning outcomes in MEAM 1010 Introduction toMechanical Design, a course that is already taught every semester to classes of ~80 students, and2) Leverage the EOP Framework to create MEAM 2300, a new course on bicycle engineeringand culture. The students have identified that outside MEAM 1010, there are no othermechanical engineering courses they can
conversationssurrounding sustainability and environmental justice in engineering, and recognize the need for this to bea key feature in curricula. At the same time, active learning and notions of learner agency, informed bytheir lived experiences, are shaping classroom pedagogy. At our university, we conducted a pilot study ina graduate level engineering course: Fundamentals of Renewable Energy Processes and ElectrochemicalStorage, which involved introducing collaborative and individual case-based writing as the finalassignment instead of a traditional term-paper. We analyzed the deliverables and conducted interviewswith a sample of the learners from the class to explore how the shift impacted student learning onsustainability. More specifically, we asked: 1
-learning environment. Preliminary results from the initial offering of this course are presentedalong with the logistics involved in establishing and running the course.1. IntroductionOne of the benefits to having a Study Abroad program is contacts with faculty and instructors atinternational universities that can be leveraged in times of opportunity and need. During theCOVID-19 crisis, travel abroad by university students for study or research was not possible.However, in such cases, is an impactful “international” experience still possible for students?Perhaps if you can get creative and be flexible, it is!During the middle phase of the remote instructional period due to COVID (i.e., fall 2020), itbecame clear that travel abroad for coursework
the program [1]. Additionally, female and Black studentswho participated in the peer mentorship program had significantly stronger retention than whitemales. This study analyzes data over a three-year period. The retention of three first-year cohortswho joined the university in the fall of 2020, 2021 and 2022 is analyzed for students who did anddid not opt-in to the peer mentorship program. The career mentorship program was initiated to support career readiness. However, unlikethe peer mentorship program, the career mentorship program did not reach expected participationrates after the first year. Participation in the career mentorship program declined significantlyfrom 123 students in 2020-21 to just 27 students in 2022-23. An online
theirstudies, usually from high school to college. Summer bridge programs can vary dramatically interms of time commitment, content, goals, and program evaluation methods.Objective: The main purpose of this study is to explore the question, What does previousresearch indicate about engineering summer bridge programs?Methods: Research studies involving engineering summer bridge programs (n = 72) wereanalyzed in this systematic literature review.Results: Our findings indicate that summer bridge programs for engineering students often (1)focus on calculus skills, (2) have the goal of encouraging retention of minoritized students, and(3) occur in tandem with other interventions. While some studies use rigorous methods to assessprogram outcomes, other
used to enhance studentlearning for the retention of students [1]. This cooperative model is implemented with after classstudy sessions associated with high-risk courses. The authors define a High-Risk Course as acourse with one or more of the following characteristics: (1) a 30% or higher failure rate, (2)taken within the first two years of a traditional student study program, (3) infrequent exams, (4)large amounts of reading, (5) large class sizes, and (6) voluntary/unrecorded class attendance.These classes are commonly referred to as “gatekeeper” or “weed out” courses [2]. The SI modelwas first introduced to help the retention of a 6-year medical school program in 1973 byUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) as Peer Assisted Learning
educational and community organizations across the country to support learning for diverse communities.Smirla Ramos-Montanez˜Viviana L´opez BurgosAmy R CorbettMaria D. QuijanoDiana Contreras ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024Supporting early childhood educators in implementing and adaptingresearch-based engineering activities designed for families (Fundamental,Diversity)IntroductionExploring engineering thinking and learning with young children has been an area of increasingfocus for engineering educators over the past decade [1], [2]. The growing body of literature onearly childhood engineering has focused on a number of key areas, such as young children’sengineering thinking [3], [4], children’s
where I'm like, wow I... like really hate. ” [Ross, 4th-year Mechanical Engineering student]Undergraduate engineering schools aim to prepare their students to join the engineeringworkforce and to see themselves as engineers [1], [2], [3]. In engineering schools, students notonly acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for the workforce but they also beginparticipating in the engineering culture [4], [5], [6]. Students do “identity work” to position andreposition themselves as a certain kind of person in engineering by taking action and formingrelationships [7]. Figuring out what kind of career trajectories they want to pursue afteruniversity is an important part of their identity work as future engineers. Career considerationsrequire
freshman a more robust preparation for the challenging secondyear course: Statics. The results show an improvement in student retention, with 92% of studentspassing the introductory course in the experimental years compared to 80% in the control years.Furthermore, the percentage of students passing Statics with a C or better increased from 47% inthe control years to 54% in the experimental years. However, there was a slight increase in therate of non-passing grades in Statics for the experimental years. Analysis revealed that students’strength in math significantly influenced their success in the introductory course and Statics,highlighting the importance of sufficiently preparing students in lower-division courses forstudent retention.1
TeamsIntroduction he undergraduate engineering curriculum is made up of mostly engineering science classes, which areTclasses heavy in mathematical content with little to no application. As a result, students rarely get to improve theirengineering judgmentskills, which we define as the ability to develop and use mathematical models for analysis and design. Our research team’s focus has been on implementing open-ended modeling problems (OEMPs) into the engineering science curriculum in efforts to elicit engineering judgment. OEMPs bring real-world engineering examples into courses and leverage the use of active learning that has shown to be so beneficial to students in STEM [1]. McNeill et. al found that undergraduate
Engineering Education, 2024 Study of Thermodynamics Syllabi as A Step Toward Improving Second- and Third-Year RetentionMechanical engineering is one of the largest and most versatile engineering disciplines, whichoffers graduates opportunities to work in fields that require basic engineering, energy conversion,energy resources, engineering and technology management, environment and transportation,manufacturing, materials and structures, and systems and design [1]. Retaining students tosuccessful completion of their degree programs to support workforce development in thesevarious fields is a priority for mechanical engineering programs.An ASEE survey measured average persistence from the first to the second year of first
identified by the other model. The GPT-4 model tended to identifymore basic relationships, while manual analysis identified more nuanced relationships.Our results do not currently support using GPT-4 to automatically generate graphicalrepresentations of faculty’s mental models of assessments. However, using a human-in-the-loopprocess could help offset GPT-4’s limitations. In this paper, we will discuss plans for our futurework to improve upon GPT-4’s current performance.IntroductionAssessments are found in every engineering classroom and are an important part of our educationsystem [1]-[3]. Assessments play many different roles, including understanding studentimprovements in learning [4], acting as a tool to assist students with learning [5], [6
Paper ID #41148The Conception of Epistemic Practices of Engineering in the Home Environment(Fundamental)Amber Simpson, Binghamton University Amber Simpson is an Associate Professor of Mathematics Education in the Teaching, Learning and Educational Leadership Department at Binghamton University. Her research interests include (1) examining individual’s identity(ies) in one or more STEM disciplines and (2) investigating family engagement in and interactions around STEM-related activities.Ms. Sawsan Werfelli, State University of New York at Binghamton Sawsan Werfelli received her undergraduate degree in English from Tripoli
further the development of the survey. Thesurvey items were initially designed to address two proposed research questions: RQ1. To what degree are students aware of the importance of macroethical issues in the field of aerospace engineering? RQ2. Do aerospace engineering students feel that their undergraduate education is preparing them to address macroethical issues?While confirmatory factor analysis does not confirm these two survey constructs for which thesurvey items were designed, an exploratory factor analysis results in five factors, eachhighlighting a different aspect of students’ perceptions of macroethical aerospace engineeringeducation: 1. The criticality of the relationship between aerospace engineering and
, supporting resultsobtained quantitatively.Introduction The importance of interdisciplinary learning has become increasingly recognized inengineering education, especially in undergraduate engineering programs [1]. Conventionalteaching methods often prioritize a narrow focus on specific disciplines, with studentsspecializing in a specific field of study. However, with modern engineering challenges becomingmore complex, it is necessary to shift towards an approach emphasizing versatility andcollaboration among engineers. It has, therefore, become evident that while gaining expertise intheir field of study, engineering students must also learn to collaborate with people acrossdisciplines to navigate the complex challenges in the engineering
, such asthat stipulated by ABET, but also a critical component of engineers' success and responsibility intheir professional lives [5].In response to this need, various assessment tools have been developed to evaluate the ethicalreasoning abilities of engineering students. One such tool is the Engineering Ethics ReasoningInstrument (EERI) [1]. The EERI, rooted in the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, aims tooffer a standardized measure to assess the ethical reasoning skills of engineering students [1,2]. Itis structured similarly to the DIT-2, but is situated in engineering [6]. The development of theEERI draws upon Kohlberg's theory of moral development [4]. This theory delineates the stagesof moral evolution, from pre-conventional levels
first of many STEM courses that all students, both engineeringand non-engineering majors, are required to take at USAFA. For this study, students were givena mindset questionnaire the first week of class and at the end of the course. It was hoped thatstudents’ experiences in the course would help them develop a stronger growth mindset.Unfortunately, the students’ average mindset rating actually decreased from the pre-class to thepost-class questionnaire. What still needs to be investigated, however, is whether this result isdue to students’ fatigue at the end of the semester or due to some other reason.IntroductionPsychologist Carol Dweck developed the concept of a “fixed” and a “growth” mindset [1].According to Dweck, a mindset is a self
eliminate the requirement to submit GREscores (called “test optional”), or even to prohibit their use in admissions decisions. This papersummarizes the arguments for and against the use of standardized tests in general, and the GREin particular. The GRE provides a comparison that is at least facially objective, though scoresmay be influenced by factors such as test anxiety. GRE scores seem to predict outcomes likeGPA and degree completion, but different surveys and statistical methods lead to differentconclusions. The GRE may enable programs to better target their admission offers to studentswho can succeed, but it may also discourage minority applications.1. IntroductionEvery graduate program desires—or should desire—to admit only students who
assistance from the Kern Family Foundation, theKern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN) has developed and implemented numerousworkshops and faculty development programs. But why and where did it all begin?KEEN currently consists of 63 partner educational institutions whose collective mission is to“graduate engineers with an entrepreneurial mindset so they can create personal, economic, andsocietal value through a lifetime of meaningful work.” [1] KEEN provides access to financialand developmental resources for building quality entrepreneurial mindset education programsthat engage engineering and technical students, including grants, faculty fellowships, capacity-building workshops, networking opportunities, and resources (including
, instructors, and researchers in that it shows the importance of establishing asystem that supports PD of GTAs (administrator relevance), describes the implementation ofservice learning in a course (instructor relevance), and connects the work and findings toliterature (researcher relevance).BackgroundGTA in engineeringGraduate Teaching Assistants are pivotal to the teaching infrastructure in higher education,particularly within the STEM disciplines, such as engineering. These individuals, who arethemselves pursuing graduate degrees, undertake a variety of teaching roles, from assistingfaculty in large lectures to leading small laboratory or recitation sessions [1]. Their contributionsare especially significant in introductory STEM courses, where the
identity, with data sourcedfrom pre- and post-term surveys, with a phased deployment of the diary and reflection activitiesacross multiple semesters. Given our centering of equity-mindedness, we analyze demographicdata to identify and attend to any equity gaps in student learning and experience. In this work-in-progress paper, we include a subset of Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) focused on the designprocess and teamwork and a single measure for students’ identity as engineers. Data are analyzedusing a two-factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The factors include (1) the phaseddeployment of data-collection, diary, and reflection activities (PHASE), and (2) whether thestudent identifies as a member of a racial or ethnic group that is historically