aims to provide national data and trends amongABET-accredited undergraduate engineering programs. (a) (b) Figure 2. (a) Summary of Retention Benchmarks (BM) 1 through 3, among student ethnicities and genders, legend is shown on the left and data points or fluctuations between the two years are not shown (b) Benchmark 4, showing interquartile ranges of BM1 through BM3. The bottom and top blue lines indicate lower and upper quartiles respectively, while the middle red lines indicate medianThe data from the first 3 benchmarks are summarized in Figure 2(a); it
of the ten winning teams in Verizon’s ’5G EdTech Challenge’, contributing in the development of several educational virtual reality applications.Dr. Nikos Makris, University of Thessaly Nikos Makris is a Research Engineer working for University of Thessaly, Greece. He received his B. Eng. in 2011, his M. Sc. degree in Computer Science and Communications in 2013 and his PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering in 2019 from the same department. Since 2011, he has been participating in several collaborative research projects with University of Thessaly. During the summers of 2018 and 2019, he was a visiting scientist in New York University (NYU) working in the outreach activities of the COSMOS project. His
2020].[2] "Closing the Skills Gap 2019," Wiley Education Services & Future Workplace, Louisville, KY, 2019.[3] C. Richard, K. Ramachandran and I. Pandoy, "Looming talent gap challenges semiconductor industry," Deloitte-SEMI, 2018.[4] "The Skills Gap in Wireless Infrastructure Training and Education: A Strategy for Improvement," Wireless Infrastructure Association , 2016.[5] "TUEE Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering Phase I: Synthesizing and Integrating," ASEE, Arlington, VA, 2013.[6] B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, New York: Longmans, Green, 1956.[7] D. R. Krathwohl, B. S. Bloom and B. B. Masia, Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives, Handbook II
. A. N. Amaral, “Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance,” Science, vol. 308 no. 5722, pp. 697-702, Apr. 2005.[4] D. A. Harrison, K. H. Price, and M. P. Bell, “Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 96-107, Feb. 1998.[5] B. Mazur, B. Mazur, and P. Biatosticka, “Cultural diversity in organisational theory and practice,” Journal of Intercultural Management., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 5–15, 2010.[6] K. J. Cross and S. L. Cutler, “Engineering faculty perceptions of diversity in the classroom.” In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition
, C. (2018). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/12/about-three-quarters-all-faculty- positions-are-tenure-track-according-new-aaup[3] Ginder, S. A., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Mann, F. B. (2019, January). Enrollment and Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2017 and Financial Statistics and Academic Libraries, Fiscal Year 2017. Retrieved February 1, 2020, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019021REV.pdf[4] Rogers, C. B., McIntyre, M., & Jazzar, M. (2010). Mentoring adjunct faculty using the cornerstones of effective communication and practice. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(1), 53–59.[5] Smith, C. (2003). Working systemically
C. Ifstudents apply the knowledge to a project, they are at a B grade level. Finally, if students achievehigh external value with their project, they will receive the grade of an A.Choosing a Team and TopicAs students decide on learning objectives, most of the learning is based around an innovationproject that teams choose. At the beginning of the semester, students look atcardiovascular-related funding opportunity announcements from agencies like National ScienceFoundation and National Institute of Health to determine projects of interest. From there, studentspitch project ideas and form teams based around the projects [20]. Students are not evaluatedbased on their ability to solve the problem presented in the funding opportunity
tools included can be found in Table 2) was deemed sufficient toconduct a modularity analysis capable of producing non-obvious makerspace design advice. Thisassumption is based on a modularity analysis done by ecologists Oleson and Bascompte onplant-pollinator networks where the authors found nested and modular structures developed fornetworks larger than 50 species [36]. The 23 tools include things such as general computing andprinting, hand tools, electronics, benches, lathes, mills, and senior design workstations.Figure 1: A small-scale representation of the makerspace network (a), the resultant digraph made of the interactions between students and tools in the space (b), and the documentation of interactions into
120 100 * * 80 60 40 20 0 Appl Eng S Chem Eng Civil Eng Env Eng Math OtherFigure 9. Comparison of grades between 2015 and 2019, shown by topic (A), year (B) andmajor (C) for exam one. Those significantly different (two-sided students t-test, p<0.05)between years are annotated with an asterisk. Page 15 of 21
in BCCalculus at a high school in a mid-sized city in the intermountain west of the United States. Atotal of 17 students participated in filling out each survey, although four students onlyparticipated in one portion of the data collection. The pre-activity survey and part 1 of the post-activity survey asked students to define,describe, and diagram how they think mathematicians/scientists/engineers create a mathematicalmodel (see Appendix B for survey questions). The analysis of these questions involved adirected content analysis approach [20]. One researcher used the six steps of the GAIMMEmodeling process [15] for the theoretical framework. Student responses were divided intophrases (subsections of responses separated by punctuation
Technology Degrees”. References[ 1] A. W. Dean, R. Landaeta, K. B. Sibson, V. Jovanovic, C. Tomovic. “A pathway to completion for pursuing engineering and engineering technology degrees”, National Science Foundation Award # 1742118, funded by the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE), Website. https://nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1742118 (accessed January 30, 2020)[ 2] Department of Veterans Affairs “EducNation 2017 - Department of Veterans Affairs education program beneficiaries: FY2000 to FY2016”. 2017. Website. https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/Utilization/EducNation_2017.pdf (accessed January 30, 2020)[ 3] L. M. McAndrew, S. Slotkin, J. Kimber, K
, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Fundamentals in the J. B. Speed School of Engineering at the University of Louisville. His research interests include paral- lel and distributed computer systems, cryptography, engineering education, undergraduate retention and technology (Tablet PCs) used in the classroom.Dr. Brian Scott Robinson, University of Louisville c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020Employment of Active Learning Pedagogy Throughout a Makerspace-Based, First-Year Introduction to Engineering CourseAbstractThis Complete Evidence-based Practice paper is focused on the development and implementationof active learning pedagogy applied within
each behavior:1) student behavior without UORs, 2) instructors’ beliefs about students’ behavior without UORs,3) student behavior using UORs, and 4) instructors’ beliefs about students’ behavior using UORs(Fig 1a). Student and instructor responses for each item in List 2 were accrued (Fig 1b). (a) (b) (c)Fig. 1. Plots of survey results. (a) Histograms of student (left, red) and instructor (right, blue) responses for copying textbook homework solutions(List 1, question 7) without using UORs (top) and using UORs (bottom). The left and right vertical axes are normalized to the total number of validstudent and instructor surveys
expectedlearning outcomes mentioned above.To understand these tasks, let us describe a typical 2-day week: a) quiz on the reading of theweek followed by lecture with added examples on that topic (Tuesday); b) in-class activities(ICAs) where students practice the part of the UX process taught that week (Thursday); c)project group meetings with the facilitation of the TAs (in lieu of office hours). Lecture timeis augmented with complementary activities, such as ungraded polling questions (usingmentimeter.com [36]), real-world examples with some brief activity, and mini individualpresentations of good-bad-ugly UX examples (GBUX). In-class activities (ICAs) arecomplemented with sharing design artifacts to the whole class (using sharypic.com [37]) andmini
provided results similar to those of Fig. 2(b). Here, the studentswere also asked to calculate a representative Biot number and justify the use of a one dimensionalheat transfer script for their materials selection. (a) Conduction Only (b) Conduction, Convection, and Radiation Fig. 2, Superimposed Results of SolidWorks and MATLABThe Open-Ended DeliverableUpon completion of the well-defined deliverables, the students were asked to implement anygeometry of interest. They were also asked to find a way to compare their results to those of thewell-defined deliverables if applicable. No other constrains were given to the students forcompleting this open-ended deliverable
12 12 12 Nº Students per 10 or 11 9 or 10 7 or 8 Team 6 or 7 6 or 7 6 or 7There is no consensus on how many members should a team have. While Oakley, B., Felder, R.M., & Brent, R [14] recommend three to four people, Slavin, R.E [15] recommends teams ofbetween two and six members. In this course students present their outcomes throughout thesemester to the rest of the class (three instances during the semester). Each of these presentationstake place during one week in periods of three 80 minutes class sessions. Because there are 12teams per section it is possible to revise four teams in each of the 80 minutes classes. This leavesus with a fair
(.80) group (n=63)Table 7. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA for design self-efficacy and explicit designknowledge constructs, ill-structuredness and framing. Significant differences are bolded. Source of variance SS df MS F p η2 Design self-efficacy Between-subject effect Base. vs. Impl. (A) .00 1 .00 .01 .95 .00 Error 114.66 123 .93 Within-subject effect Semester Start/End (B) 1.93 1 1.93 5.03 .03 .04 A*B .79 1 .79 2.05
workforce. The SEECS implementation of that grant programprovides scholarships to selected undergraduate students of engineering and computing sciences atGannon University. Students are recruited as incoming freshmen, and are eligible for retention in theSEECS program so long as program requirements are met, including maintenance of a minimum 3.0GPA. As the grant activity has proceeded, it has been noted that students who fail to achieve a grade of“B” or better in Calculus I, Calculus II or Physics 1 have typically failed to maintain an overall 3.0 GPAas well. There is thus an interest for SEECS in providing additional academic assistance to our studentsin support of GPA maintenance, leading to better employment and/or graduate school opportunities
modulesare completed in the spring quarter and the third module in the summer session.(b) Goal and Learning Objectives: The course seeks to cultivate students’ abilities to designsolutions to complex social problems on an international level. Students completing the coursewill be able to:(i) identify and evaluate the complexities of a social problem/design challenge by deconstructingits cultural, historical, political and socioeconomic domains;(ii) employ design thinking for social justice principles and asset-based methodologies indesigning for community capacity building(iii) demonstrate critical consciousness and cultural humility in working on multidisciplinary andmulticultural teams and(iv) produce clearly articulated, written and oral reports
work is to determine which themes relate to the gendermakeup of the team; for example, do female students take on more stereotypically female taskswhen they are the only woman on a team? Do women feel more competitive on their team whenthey are paired with one or more other female students? Ultimately, the aim is to determineexactly why women who are isolated on teams have been found to be more satisfied than womenwho are paired on teams. Eventually, these findings can be used to inform team formation, tobetter scaffold team projects, and to better understand female students’ negative experiences inorder to make teamwork a better experience for all students.References[1] B. Oakley, R. M. Felder, R. Brent, and I. Elhajj, “Turning student
mentions of unfamiliar vocabulary words and confusing wording unrelated tovocabulary were coded but did not lead to any modifications on the test. Most words that wereidentified as unfamiliar (angular acceleration, linear acceleration, position vector) are consideredto be standard physics vocabulary and therefore did not need to be clarified.One of the distractors in question 28, choice B, was identified by three students as implausible, a“throwaway answer.” The question and its answer choices are shown in Fig. 3. For one studentthe similarity of answers B and C became a substantial distraction. “I feel like B and C are the same and you can only pick one answer. I think it’s a trap. Because I feel like the spiral is a complex curve or
topics related to "comfort in the ChemE major", camp attendeesentered the camp (Pre-Camp) with approximately the same average rating that non-campersentered the sophomore year (Pre-Sophomore). However, from Pre-Camp to Pre-Sophomore, therating of campers increased by 0.31 points (p=0.02), so campers entered the sophomore yearwith a 0.34 point higher composite rating than non-campers on average. Over the course of thesophomore year, both the campers and non-campers showed a similar small, non-significantdecrease in the average rating (0.09 point decrease, p=0.47 for campers and 0.12 point decrease(p=0.27 for non-campers). Figure 2. Average student survey ratings of (a) "curriculum preparedness" and (b) "comfort in ChemE major". Error bars
: Personality, well-being, and self-efficacy,” Scand. J. Psychol., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 43–48, Feb. 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00826.x.[9] Y. Tong and S. Song, “A study on general self-efficacy and subjective well-being of low SES-college students in a Chinese university.,” Coll. Stud. J., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 637–643, 2004.[10] M. Sherer, J. Maddux, B. Mercandante, S. Prentice-Dunn, B. Jacobs, and R. Rogers, “The Self-efficacy Scale: Construction and Validation,” Psychol. Rep., vol. 51, pp. 663–671, 1982.[11] P.-H. Hsieh, J. Sullivan, D. Sass, and N. Guerra, “Undergraduate Engineering Students’ Beliefs, Coping Strategies, and Academic Performance,” vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 196–218, 2012.[12] C. Vogt, D. Hocevar, and L. Hagedorn, “A
-3] and engage with teachers to identify methods that can be used toidentify elementary students’ funds of identity and current perceptions of engineering. Thisinformation can then be utilized by PLC members to develop place-based engineering-focusedinterventions for students.Research DesignThe research goals during this portion of the study were to a) develop and refine a photo novellaprompt that can be used to collect data on individual’s funds of knowledge related toengineering, and b) identify differences in the ways engineering and education professionals andstudents view engineering in their communities.Our FoI work relies heavily on the photo novella projects. There is a rich history of usingphotography in qualitative research [4] and
Paper ID #28270Addressing Gender Disparities in Computing Majors and Careers:Development and Effects of a Community Support StructureProf. Shaundra Bryant Daily, Duke University Shaundra B. Daily is an Associate Professor of Practice in Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science at Duke University. Previously she was an associate professor at the University of Florida in the Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering as well as an Associate Professor and Interim Co-Chair in the School of Computing at Clemson University. She received her masters and doctorate from MIT. Her work involves
time to answer requestsfor this information.I also identified the liaison librarian to Mechanical Engineering Technology from eachinstitution, by searching the institution’s library web site. Where an explicit MET liaison wasnot indicated, a likely candidate was identified (e.g., if there was only one STEM librarian in thelibrary), and as a last choice, the library director was identified as the point of contact. A surveywas distributed to the so-identified library representative of each institution, using the Qualtricssurvey program (see Appendix B). An email invitation to the survey was sent as well as onereminder.The information provided by MET departments varied in depth and type, so a systematicanalysis was challenging. Thus, the results
currently serves as an editorial advisory board member of Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, an editorial board editor of Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, an associate editor for the IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine (an international peer-reviewed journal), a handling editor for the Transportation Research Record and is a member of the Transportation Research Board’s Committee on Traffic Flow Theory and Characteristics (AHB 45), where he serves as a paper review coordinator. He has been recognized with multiple awards for his research and teach- ing activities, including the Dwight D. Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship, Gordon F. Newell Award for Excellence in
] P. G. Katona, “Biomedical engineering and the whitaker foundation: A thirty-year partnership,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 904–916, 2006.[16] Z. O. Abu-Faraj, “Bioengineering/biomedical engineering education and career development: Literature review, definitions, and constructive recommendations,” Int. J. 14 Eng. Educ., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 990–1011, 2008.[17] T. C. Pilkington, F. M. Long, R. Plonsey, J. G. Webster, and W. Welkowitz, “Status and Trends in Biomedical Engineering Education,” IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 9–17, 1989.[18] N. L. Ramo, A. Huang-Saad, and B. Belmont, “What is Biomedical
. Table 1: Treatment Group Test Matrix No. of No. of Group Activity Activity Grade Type of students sketches Course Instructor ID location frequency value students (n students) (n sketches) I-A Engineering Every Sophomore 16 91 A In class None Mechanics class - Senior II-B
. degrees in Applied Mechanics from Caltech. Dr. Krousgrill’s current research interests include the vibration, nonlinear dynamics, friction-induced oscillations, gear rattle vibrations, dynamics of clutch and brake systems and damage detection in rotor systems. Dr. Krousgrill is a member of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). He has received the H.L. Solberg Teaching Award (Purdue ME) seven times, A.A. Potter Teaching Award (Purdue Engineering) three times, the Charles B. Murphy Teaching Award (Purdue University), Purdue’s Help Students Learn Award, the Special Boilermaker Award (given here for contributions to undergraduate education) and is the 2011 recipient of the ASEE Mechanics Division’s Archie
these knowledge" Dutta A. et al., 2017 building a permanent technology library "provide a place to host the classes for students gained "technical entry-level India high school [23] the cyber classroom" employment" in a nearby city Hendrix B. et al., 2-hour library workshop "introduce students to 3-d printing, "workshop was a positive first USA (ID) high school 2017 [29] electronics, and programming" and experience with electronics and "provide a positive