noperfect solution, different universities across the United States, Columbia and Germany haveattempted to improve students' success rate by adopting 42 different interventions. 22 of theseinterventions had a positive impact on the students, 12 had a negative impact on the student’ssuccess, and while 8 were categorized as having no effect on improving the outcomes of thecourse. Examples of these interventions included “the introduction of flipped learning style,writing for conceptual understanding, additional exposure, the use of hands-on laboratories,the incorporation of online resources, constant review of in-class structure by including rapidfeedback or in-class concept checks, [and] the use of supplemental instruction such as the useof peer
, knowledge, and confidence to meet industry demands. As Bil, Hadgraft, andRuamtham observe, the “…American industry needs the engineers who are able to solve openended problems and produce quality design work whilst engineers schools are producing greatscientist but average engineers”[4]. Studying student experiences and expectations providesinsight into their perspectives on the aviation industry and the skills they believe are valued most.Identifying common pitfalls and misconceptions can be a way to ensure students feel prepared toenter the workforce. Student expectations have been shown to affect performance even whentheir abilities are deemed to be on par with their peers. Students with higher expectations havebeen shown to have a higher level
learning. o Effective feedback and continuous improvement. o Self-assessment and peer assessment in the engineering context • Module 4: Communicate, Disseminate and Socialize. o Reading, writing, and speaking in teaching contexts. o Writing to publish in engineering and be part of the engineering community as a teacher, student, and/or professional. o Engineering writing standards: norms, styles, etc. • Module 5: Science and Knowledge in Engineering Education o Scientific processes in engineering education. o Bibliographic bases and academic scientific research in engineering. o Open science in engineering education.DurationThe program will have a duration of 140 h
engineering students are often notconsidered [4, 13].As described by Polkinghorne [20], narrative research commonly includes two forms of analysis:narrative analysis, in which structured narratives are built from existing data, and analysis ofnarratives, in which data already exists in narrative form. This outcome of the analysis ofnarratives technique often consists of a set of themes that the researcher can use to makeinferences about the sample they studied. Meanwhile, the outcome of the narrative analysistechnique is a story, ordered chronologically, that synthesizes various data into a cohesiveelement. This form of narrative analysis can be thought of as writing an account of someone'slife, such as a biography. The researcher may interview the
to measureP-V-T relations for an ideal gas. The second part was a solar-powered hydrogen fuel cell vehicleand focused on energy conversion and efficiency concepts. The third is a project where studentsworked in teams to propose a project in their choice of one of two topics: one is a design projecton solar thermal energy and the other is a research project using calorimetry.The course consists of a 1-hour weekly lecture on Monday morning to discuss theory needed forthat week and present skills such as using MATLAB, uncertainty analysis, writing lab reports, etc.Students then meet in the afternoon on one day (Monday-Thursday) for a 3-hr lab session. Duringthis session, they are divided into breakout rooms to meet and work with their peers on
(e.g., Critical Reflective Writing; Teaching and Learningin Undergraduate Science and Engineering, etc.) All of these activities share a common goal of creat-ing curricular and pedagogical structures as well as academic cultures that facilitate students’ interests,motivation, and desire to persist in engineering. Through this work, outreach, and involvement in the com-munity, Dr. Zastavker continues to focus on the issues of women and minorities in science/engineering. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Work in Progress: Transformation through Liberal Arts-Focused Grand Challenges Scholars ProgramsAbstractThe National Academy of Engineering’s Grand Challenges Scholars Program
scenarios, described in more detail in section 5.Students need to develop communication skills. Communication skills include the ability to read,understand, and express concepts from the technical and professional literature, the ability toclearly and accurately present technical information to a variety of audiences in written and oralform, and the ability to effectively and efficiently work in a team. Communications skills areconsidered a component of students’ learning that will benefit them in the workplace, and oneplace to learn such skills is through software development projects [7,14,18]. Traditionally,software development courses have focused on writing skills (e.g., [20]), but typically littleattention has been paid to how other
contributions to the collective team effort) reflected student awareness of associatedlearning gains, e.g. • ”Although teamwork felt like the greatest scourge, it's valuable to have the experience of working with a team, particularly in the context of design and report-writing. It's a valuable lesson to learn what dynamic you fit into in a team and how you can work to improve and work more effectively in teams...having a high/low GPA doesn't always mean you're a good/poor worker and certainly doesn't say anything about your ability to work effectively on a team...peer assessment was also a fantastic idea feedback...should be mandatory to justify the marks given to each student
a student encountering other students with diverse backgrounds, it does notguarantee a high-quality interaction. Gurin et al. [1] discuss two other forms of diversity:informal interaction diversity and classroom diversity. The former involves interaction withdiverse students outside of the classroom, and this is where most meaningful interaction happens,while the latter involves learning about diverse people and interacting with such peers in theclassroom. Informal interaction diversity and classroom diversity generate the impact oneducational outcomes, but structural diversity is required for the other two to exist.Piaget [3] states that encountering diverse students results in differing perspectives and equalityin relationships, and both
Du Boisian double-consciousness as black French colonial subjects—and counteract it with both awareness and education about the systems that impacted the ways in which they interacted with the white world and other black people. (p. 31)Davis explains how Fanon identified the social structure of his patients as the root of theirpathology, and he sought to raise their consciousness by helping them understand this socialstructure and pursue changing it. Fanon’s location of the dysfunction within the society and notthe individual is significant because he’s writing in a colonized society, and in that context anydisplay of dysfunction by the colonized people justifies their subjugation in the eyes of thecolonizers. Moreover
Mathematics (STEM) fields, particularly in engineering. This studyconducted a systematized literature review to identify these challenges, guided by the researchquestion: "What challenges affect Arab women's engagement in STEM fields, particularlyengineering?" A search was conducted using databases such as ERIC, Education Source from theEBSCO platform, and Compendex, Inspec from the Engineering Village platform. After applyinginclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of twelve peer-reviewed articles were selected and analyzedto examine the challenges that Arab women encounter in these fields. The analysis revealed threemain themes: The inherent nature of Arab culture and society and the role of family support in theEngineering field, gender
study the effectiveness of online lab experiences with the goal of improvingstudent success and self-efficacy. Online lab sessions must offer active learning experiences,which may include ample opportunities for students to interact with their peers and instructors,and tackle real problems by experiencing trials and errors. This research on the online labs cangreatly contribute to enhancing EE engineering student learning. Further, it will address thecritical component of EE engineering - experiential learning - with a lot of hands-on lab learningexperiences that can lead to a deeper understanding of engineering concepts. Well-designedonline labs can help students maintain enthusiasm for engineering fresh and can also increase theretention rate
their peers Be graded based on the performance of my group Study course content with classmates outside of class Make and justify assumptions when not enough information is provided Find additional information not provided Involves students thinking and by the instructor to complete assignments figuring out problems
institutions opted to rapidly transition courses to online instruction in an endeavorto protect faculty and students from the public health emergency caused by COVID-19.Unfortunately, this change had the potential to create new inequities in education and exacerbatepreexisting inequities ones. The purpose of this study is to share and learn from the experiencesof students during these unprecedented times. In particular, we focus on the experiences ofundergraduate students participating in the Learning Assistant program [1-2].Learning Assistant programs are unique amongst peer leader programs because LearningAssistants receive formal pedagogical training and are integrated into the fabric of the course byinstructional faculty. This integration gives
research has appeared in peer-reviewed journals, such as the Journal of Counseling and Development, Professional School Counseling, The High School Journal, and Urban Education. Equally important, Dr. Hines is an ACA Fellow and received the Al Dye award for co-editing the special issue, Group Work with African Americans Children and Adolescents published in the Journal for Specialist in Group Work. Dr. Hines received his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, College Park in Counselor Education with a concentration in Urban School Counseling. Finally, he has worked as a counselor in various K-12 settings and for the Ronald E McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program.Dr. Ayesha Boyce, University of North Carolina
, technology failures created significant resistance to widespread adoption [2, p. 29]. Theability to have robust communication and interaction between students and educators is essentialto getting buy-in from both parties. This section explores the current technologies in use fortoday’s online courses, current and emerging grading technologies, and considers the keyemerging technologies required to enable online learning to continue to improve its deliverymethods and expand in scope. The current online learning environment relies heavily on technology to enable thesharing of information and to provide feedback to students. For students to interact with facultyas well as peers, the proliferation of conference call and video conference call
course involve technical communication, team writing, and analysis of thedata collected in lab. While creation of devices and collection of data occurred in the lab spaces,the rest of this work typically occurred outside of lab. As such, it is perhaps no surprise thatmoving from UOL to MIL had no statistically significant impact on student project scores. Whileteam projects were scored higher on average in MIL than in UOL, the p value was only 0.088.Furthermore, it may be worth noting that the same observations could be made for student peerevaluations of their team members. In the test course, students switch teams for each of their sixprojects and they tend to work with almost every peer in their section. Part of the score for theirteam
Fellows from each yearindicated that they would recommend the professional development to their peers. Table 5contains a few comments from each year as to why they would recommend it to their peers. Acommon theme was the how much was learned about they learned about the topics andacademia. Table 4. ACADEME Fellows perceptions of the quality of the professional development workshop % Strongly %Disagree %Agree % Strongly Disagree Agree Cohort year 17 18 19 17 18 19 17 18 19 17 18 19 Content was useful for my 0 8 0 0 4 0 20 0 26 80 88 74 professional
and Management at Arizona State University, Cornell University’s Science of Earth Systems major, the University of New Hampshire’s Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space, and the Center for Integrated Earth System Science at the University of Texas at Austin.5,6,14,17 Resources for modeling the Chesapeake Bay were developed from various peer-reviewed literature sources and information reported
12 African-American 2 9th Grade 6 Asian 2 For 2016, the ninth graders shown in Table 2 were miniGEMS Peer Mentors. All thepeer mentors participated in the 2015 miniGEMS camp and had the opportunity to share theirexperiences and, acting as group leaders, provided further assistance to the 2016 campers for theduration of the camp.miniGEMS Program Content Each day of the camp was different and fun-filled with interesting and engaging studentactivities that emphasize active learning with minimal lectures and extensive collaborativelearning. The purpose was to encourage the students to actively participate in the camp andthereby to
management, program assessment, university-industry partnerships, grant writing, and student development in the co-curricular learning environment with a special focus on recruiting, supporting, and graduating students from groups historically underrepresented in engineering.Dr. David B Knight, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University David Knight is an Assistant Professor and Director of International Engagement in the Department of Engineering Education and affiliate faculty with the Higher Education Program, Center for Human- Computer Interaction, and Human-Centered Design Program. His research tend to be at the macro-scale, focused on a systems-level perspective of how engineering education can become more
have external barriers to learning.Therein, focus tends to be on additional resource deployment or encouragement to perseverethrough challenge for specific students. However, not all strategies need focus exclusively on theindividual student; a powerful means to enhance a student’s academic interest and performanceis through the culture and environment of the classroom [7-8]. In fact, one could speculate thatindividual focus on particular students by an educator need be optimized, as social implicationscould have detriment to equitable goals. Therefore, this sum of interpersonal interactionsbetween students and the educator, in its optimal form, would allow for shared experience andachievement between students, spurring peer support and
their teaching. Faculty noted 1) theimportance of soliciting additional student feedback beyond traditional student evaluations at theend of the semester; 2) the need for more data regarding student retention and transfer ofconcepts learning in class; and 3) the potential for soliciting additional peer feedback fromcolleagues and educational researchers. At the same time, some faculty were satisfied withcurrent approaches to teaching evaluation and did not perceive anything to be missing. Findingspoint to the opportunity to collect more in-depth, qualitative feedback regarding faculty teachingeffectiveness. In particular, expert consultation and creating more spaces to solicit writtencomments from students might help faculty obtain evaluation
Wealthmodel. We discuss the role of financial support, navigating a predominantly white institution(navigational capital), a smoother transition into university life (Social Capital), peers as socialsupport (Social Capital), and aspiring to make a social impact (Resistance Capital).It is our hope that this paper gives voice to these students who have brought with them assets asthey maneuver this predominately white institution. It is our hope the insights from this paperwill help all of us develop support structures that will transform our institutions and others like it.IntroductionIt has been four years since the first cohort of students in the S-STEM PEEPS grant started at CalPoly. There are only 13 of them, but we wanted to capture their
disciplines at a large southwestern university. The project,funded by the Kern Family Foundation, began in fall of 2018 with the aim of institutionalizingthe entrepreneurial mindset (EM), improving and expanding evidence-based pedagogicalstrategies in capstone courses, and creating a faculty Community of Practice to share resourcesand best classroom practices.Sixteen capstone faculty from multiple engineering disciplines participated in three workshopsand three coaching sessions in the fall semester. The workshops promoted the EM andevidence-based pedagogical best practice and covered topics including: (a) ‘cultivatingcuriosity’ for opportunity recognition, (b) writing measurable student learning objectives, (c)‘making connections’ in the design
research haselucidated that such homework intensive courses do not benefit learning of all students. Effortsto shift student practice from individual homework assignments to group problems-solvinglearning communities [3] benefits different style of learners. Bernold surveyed engineeringstudents and classified them into “why” learners (14%), “what” learners (21%), “how” learners(49%), and “what-if” learners (19%) [3]. The research further determined that many lecture andhomework intensive courses tend to “weed out” students who prefer to think “outside” the box,and favor students who excel at solving small rote problems. Small learning communities enablepeer-to-peer communication of concepts to benefit a broader spectrum of learners
interactions such as receiving and responding to feedback to build competence andsupporting the learning of their peers to support relatedness. To again promote students’ autonomy after the completion of their first projects, studentswere given the option to maintain or dissolve their teams for the remainder of the semester. Allstudents opted to maintain their teams. Students completed two more projects with these teamswith five weeks devoted to each project. Students were given increasing levels of autonomy indetermining the topic and deliverables for each successive project, further promoting students’senses of autonomy. At the end of the semester, all students were required to take a final examination perdepartmental policies and norms
teaching project; to initiate expert andpeer observations of the teaching lesson, peer consulting, and peer tandems.Additional offersParallel courses and other offerings are recommended: a lecture series on academic teachingmethods offers regular open access to information on latest the developments in thediscussion about good teaching in higher education. National and European experts areinvited to talk about their perspectives and share experiences about their professionalbackground on teaching matters. This is completed by informal monthly meetings forcounseling, consultation hours, and a telephone hotline for teaching questions.Especially for teaching professors, we have established individual coaching packages andexpert observation of
ERM Division, and a past Chair of the Gulf Southwest Section of ASEE. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Mobile Devices and Lifelong Learning: The Students’ PerspectiveIntroductionAlvin Toffler, writer and former associate editor of Fortune magazine has often been quoted assaying that, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, butthose who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn”.1 With rapid advances in information andcommunication technologies (ICTs) that include devices becoming more portable, moreintuitive, and not particularly costly, the process of pursuing knowledge for a lifetime hasbecome more impelling. With advanced technical tools readily