and mathcontent by carefully adapting educational robotics technology. The work reported in this paper isbased on the collaboration of project team (consisting of engineering and education faculty,researchers, and graduate students) with 20 middle school teachers (10 pairs of science and mathteachers at 8 New York City schools) and observations of more than 250 middle school studentsin their robotics-based STEM lessons.To begin, using appropriate questionnaire design techniques, we develop a “trust vocabulary” thatelicits what the participants (i.e., teachers and students) mean by trust in the robots for their lessonsand what factors and features of robotics may affect their trust. Next, we develop a qualitative trustassessment method using a
intothe characteristics of the population. These elements contribute to individuals’ backgroundfactors and influence what might be included or omitted in the pilot survey. For instance, gender-based differences may lead male students to report a greater perceived capacity to complete anundergraduate engineering program compared to their female counterparts [13]. Consequently,both the pilot study and the ensuing questionnaire should incorporate inquiries aboutdemographic information and other pertinent details related to background factors andpersonality variables, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the surveyed population.Questionnaire DevelopmentAfter formulating a pilot survey, a comprehensive questionnaire can be constructed to delve
the language is only a meansto social gains with very little interest in the culture or the community of people who speak thelanguage. On the contrary, the integrative orientation implies a personal involvement or desireto connect with the community that speaks the language, get access to its culture or evenbecome a member of the group. The former distinction is not supposed to be taken as amutually exclusive dichotomy since there is an element of instrumentality in the integrativeorientation [21] [22]. The remaining sections of this paper will present a study on language attitudes amongundergraduate students enrolled in an engineering public university. Before moving on to thenext section, a brief synthesis of the discussion up to this
be either quantitative (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental), qualitative, or mixed methods in nature. • The article should target post-secondary students (i.e., undergraduate students and graduate students) in higher education contexts (e.g., college, university). • The article should be conducted in students’ primary or home language (L1). • The article can cover all disciplines (i.e., STEM, non-STEM, general education). • The article should be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal or conference proceedings. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals are believed to have high quality as well as demonstrate full study results, beyond pilot-test results or
questions: 1) Do engineering students who self-characterize as neurodiverse have different: innovation self-efficacy, innovation interests, or innovative work? 2) Do these innovation attitudes differ at the end of the semester among students who participated in an open-ended activity that may impact innovation attitudes?MethodsThe study was conducted under a protocol approved by the local Institutional Review Board(IRB) for Human Subjects Research (Protocol #21-0473). This pilot study was conducted withina single engineering Water Chemistry course taught at the University of Colorado Boulder in theFall of 2022. The course is required for students majoring in environmental engineering and istypically taken in the junior year
and solidify the professional identity of technical communication faculty wasarguably the primary motivation for establishing departments of and graduate programs intechnical communication, which have tended to gravitate away from a focus on engineers. So,from a professional identity perspective, technical communication and engineeringcommunication are not interchangeable terms.One distinctive aspect of engineering communication, as mentioned above, is that the group offaculty engaged in engineering communication includes many people whose primary expertise isnot in communication or writing studies. One manifestation of these circumstances is thediffusion of interest in communication throughout ASEE. While the majority of papers
simulated classroom environments can be used to help inservice and preservice elementary teachers learn to lead argumentation discussions in science and engineering.Dr. Jamie Mikeska, Educational Testing Service Jamie Mikeska is a Research Scientist in the Student and Teacher Research Center at Educational Testing Service (ETS). Jamie completed her Ph.D. in the Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy graduate program at Michigan State University in 2010. Her current research focuses on three key areas: (1) de- signing, developing, and conducting validation studies on assessments of content knowledge for teaching (CKT) science; (2) examining and understanding validity issues associated with measures designed to
is an iSTEM Fellow. He has developed 7 Computer Engineering courses which have been added to the UCF catalog as the sole developer, plus as the co-developer of 2 courses. He received the Joseph M. Bidenbach Outstanding Engineering Educator Award from IEEE in 2008.Mr. Navid Khoshavi, University of Central Florida Navid Khoshavi is a Ph.D. student in Department of Electronic Engineering and Computer science at University of Central Florida. He engaged numerous students as a Graduate Teaching Assistant through providing visual aid to help student retention of abstract concepts, utilizing in-class activity to encourage students to put the concept into use and emphasizing critical concepts repeatedly to improve student
community models. Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 581-613.[17] Astin, A. W. & Sax, L. J. (1998). How Undergraduates are Affected by Service Participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39 (3): 251-263.[18] Khorbotly, S., & Al-Olimat, K. (2010, October). Engineering student-design competition teams: Capstone or extracurricular? Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2010 IEEE, Washington D.C.[19] Gregerman, S. R., Hathaway, R. S., & Nagda, B. A. (2002). The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study. Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 614 - 631.[20] Di Lorenzo-Aiss, J
equity lens to ensure research does not perpetuate marginalization and oppression experienced by minoritized engineering populations.Holly M Matusovich (Associate Professor) Dr. Holly Matusovich is the Associate Dean for Graduate and Professional Studies in the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech and a Professor in the Department of Engineering Education where she has also served in key leadership positions. Dr. Matusovich is recognized for her research and leadership related to graduate student mentoring and faculty development. She won the Hokie Supervisor Spotlight Award in 2014, received the College of Engineering Graduate Student Mentor Award in 2018, and was inducted into the Virginia Tech Academy of Faculty
larger quantitative studies examining engineeringor technology programs specifically. In one study on retention of engineering students afterfreshman year, several pre-existing factors were evaluated quantitatively to understand if theyhad any statistical impact on engineering student success [41]. This study used a multi-universitydatabase which contained information on 87,176 students from 9 universities to predictgraduation using six variables (ethnicity, gender, high school GPA, SAT Math score, SATVerbal score and citizenship status). The results of this analysis revealed that high school GPA,gender, ethnicity, quantitative SAT scores, verbal SAT scores, and citizenship were eachsignificant predictors of graduation although different models
of the six the stages of problem solving: missing, inadequate, acceptable,and accurate. Any identification regarding group identity was removed prior to scoring andreplaced with a project-assigned ID number to maintain privacy and to mask group membershipfrom raters.A complete rating plan was proposed where four raters would use the PROCESS tool to score allsolutions submitted by all students from both cohorts. The four raters consisted of one chemicalengineering faculty member, one high school science teacher, and one graduate and oneundergraduate student in chemical engineering. All students completed ten traditional textbookproblems during the respective courses.AnalysesInitial inter-rater reliability was assessed in line with best
almost all of the engineering majors in our College(typically in their junior or early senior year). All told, we teach 600 - 700 engineering studentsper year in this class alone.Although we are housed in our own College of Engineering, we face challenges similar to thosedescribed by other non-engineering faculty or instructors with specific expertise in teachingwriting. Even where the writing-across-the-curriculum instructors have developed a fullyintegrated model for teaching communication within engineering design courses, they articulateconcerns we share. Craig, Lerner, and Poe, of the Program in Writing and Humanistic Studies atMIT, have written about these shared challenges; they ask -- how can we help students “movefrom general academic
provided in the Resources section.3. The questionnaire design and response analysisFive engineering students spent the first half of the REU program (one month) at BucknellUniversity and the second half (one month) at Virginia Tech. At Bucknell University, thestudents were introduced to some product platform and family concepts by dissecting differentfamilies of disposable cameras and refrigerators. As a small part of the program at Virginia Tech,the students were assigned to study the learning tool. Since the students have similar educationbackground and have experienced very identical environment (e.g., REU program), they wereexpected to be quite similar in utilizing the product platform and family knowledge they havestudied. This study assumes
Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Paper ID #21908Measuring Student Learning of Crystal Structures Using Computer-basedVisualizationsDr. Susan P. Gentry, University of California, Davis Dr. Susan P. Gentry is a Lecturer with Potential Security of Employment in the Materials Science and Engineering department at the University of California, Davis. In her current position at UC Davis, she is integrating computational modules into the undergraduate and graduate materials curriculum. She is specifically interested in students’ computational literacy and life-long learning of computational materi- als science tools.Dr. Tanya
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies from the University of Kansas, her M.S. in Student Affairs in Higher Education from Colorado State University, and her B.A. in Economics from Washington State University. Sylvia’s research centers on the educational attainment and schooling experiences of Mexican descent youth in the mid-20th cen- tury, higher education student success, and the principal-counselor pre-service professional relationship. She teaches foundations, research, and supervised practice courses in the Educational Leadership MA Programs and the Leadership, Research, and Policy Ph.D. Program. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 A Symbiotic Solution
during a task, and self-reflection and evaluation after a task [4].To understand how SRL plays a role in understanding and fostering engineering students’learning in entrepreneurship, we are conducting an ongoing intervention study that providesstudents with SRL support in addition to the regular teaching activities. Our main purposes of thestudy include 1) contextualizing SRL into the entrepreneurship course; 2) providing studentswith SRL practice to support their learning in entrepreneurship; 3) identifying and assessing thelearning and psychological outcomes related to SRL that indicate students’ growth inentrepreneurship and entrepreneurial mindset.The work-in-progress study is the pilot study of the ongoing intervention study. Students
’ demographics and background information.Questions focus on prior engineering-related experiences (internship, etc.), post-graduationplans, major, minor, graduation date, gender, ethnicity, and international student status.This instrument will be used as a pre- and post- assessment instrument in the Projects and EMcourses in which we will embed sociotechnical thinking. The pre-administration will providebaseline evidence as to how the general population of mechanical and electrical engineers arelikely to respond. Changes from pre- to post- assessment will help us understand the impact ofthe intervention.ConclusionA major challenge in engineering education is measuring the impact of instructionalinterventions on the target population. In our study, we
described.IntroductionAlthough calculus I is a traditional entry point for first-year engineering students, for a variety ofreasons the course generates a high failure rate. Poor performance in this “gateway” course nodoubt leads many students to reexamine their decisions to study engineering. Compounding thescenario are widespread efforts to diversify the student population of engineering with the verystudents who are statistically most likely to graduate high school underprepared for direct entryinto calculus I—minorities, women and first-generation college attendees. Thus, achievingdiversity in engineering is linked to the performance outcomes in mathematics of studentshistorically underrepresented in engineering, including the underrepresented minority (URM
student studying Industrial and Systems Engineering at The Ohio State University. In addition to working on undergraduate research in the Department of Engineering Education she is an Undergraduate Teaching Assistant for the Fundamentals of Engineering program for first-year engineering students.Amy Kramer P.E., Ohio State University Amy Kramer is a graduate student and research associate at The Ohio State University in the Engineering Education Department. She earned a B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from The Ohio State Univer- sity in 2010 and 2013, respectively. Most recently she worked as a structural engineering consultant in Columbus, OH where she specialized in the design of reinforced concrete and steel
EF327/TPTE 115 course was developed during the Fall 2022 semester and was taught forthe first time during the Spring 2022 semester. The survey and interview protocol were alsodeveloped during 2021 and pilot data was collected from students during Spring 2022. We planto begin collecting data in the Fall 2022 semester and to collect quantitative and qualitative datafor at least three semesters (Fall 2022, Spring 2023, Fall 2023). We anticipate enrollingapproximately 10 participants each semester for a total of 30 students.References: 1. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on Educator Capacity Building in K-12 Engineering Education. Building Capacity for Teaching Engineering in K-12 Education
Paper ID #21908Measuring Student Learning of Crystal Structures Using Computer-basedVisualizationsDr. Susan P. Gentry, University of California, Davis Dr. Susan P. Gentry is a Lecturer with Potential Security of Employment in the Materials Science and Engineering department at the University of California, Davis. In her current position at UC Davis, she is integrating computational modules into the undergraduate and graduate materials curriculum. She is specifically interested in students’ computational literacy and life-long learning of computational materi- als science tools.Dr. Tanya Faltens, Purdue University, West
National Endowment for the Humanities, and the British Academy. In 2016 the National Academy of Engineering recognized her Corporate Social Responsibility course as a national exemplar in teaching engineering ethics. Professor Smith holds a PhD in Anthropology and a certificate in Women’s Studies from the University of Michigan and bachelor’s degrees in International Studies, Anthropology and Latin American Studies from Macalester College.Thomas J Phelan (Associate Professor)Rosalie O'Brien© American Society for Engineering Education, 2022 Powered by www.slayte.com Teaching Students to Incorporate Community Perspective into Environmental Engineering Problem Definition through Iterative
Education, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 19–43, 2021, doi: 10.1002/jee.20377.[28] K. Moore, N. R. Johnson, F. Sánchez, and W. R. Hargrove, “The Politics of Citation Practices in Engineering Education: A Citation Analysis of Intersectionality,” presented at the 2021 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2021.Appendix A Rubric Item Notes What population(s), institutions, or organizations are analyzed through the article? What identity markers are explored? Are the above identity markers privileged? Historically oppressed? How and who is credited when describing intersectionality? How is the history of the concept studied? Is intersectionality given a cursory
reducing bias and enhancing academic integrity. The systemwas piloted in undergraduate chemical engineering courses, providing initial evidence of itsviability. Through a comprehensive analysis comparing student outcomes under traditional andanonymous grading methods, the study seeks to empirically validate the effectiveness ofanonymous grading in improving student performance and psychological well-being,contributing to the development of more equitable educational practices.IntroductionAcademic evaluation has traditionally been dominated by exams and quizzes. While widelyused, these conventional approaches have come under scrutiny for their potential to perpetuateimplicit biases. Among these, the halo and horn effects [1][2] stand out, where an
toprofessional information and networks, skills, and social networks [14]. [15] showed that STEMundergraduate students benefited from mentors who cultivated their metacognitive abilities andhigher order thinking skills. Studies of scientists, physicians, and science and engineering highereducation students found that social support, including role models, had promoted theiraspirations [16] and achievements [17,18].1.2. New Engineering Education Transformation at Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyLaunched in 2017 as a pilot initiative, the New Engineering Education Transformation (NEET)program emerged from an initiative at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to revitalizeits undergraduate engineering education. As a cross-departmental
personal cultural orientations: Scale development and validation,” J. Acad. Mark. Sci., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 787–806, 2010.[22] H. Murzi, T. Martin, L. McNair, and M. Parerti, “A pilot study of the dimensions of disciplinary culture among engineering students,” in 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, 2014, pp. 1–4.[23] C. J. Groen, D. R. Simmons, and E. D. McNair, “Disciplinary influences on the professional identity of civil engineering students: Starting the conversation,” 2016.[24] M. H. Bond, “Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies of values: The Rokeach and Chinese value surveys.,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 1009–1015, 1988, doi: 10.1037
students are accepted to study at, and indeed the decisionas to whether students can study within HE, depends almost entirely upon their qualificationsand attainment up to that point. This, of course, assumes that those with the highest grades intraditional subjects including mathematics will make the best engineers, and restricts accessto the engineering. The use of grades for admission purposes can also mean that studentsbegin to associate their worth or value with their academic success.This process continues throughout their time within HE where the function of grading is toindicate the worth of graduates to potential employers; many engineering firms within theUK specify that graduates must obtain a 2:1 (60-70% grade average) to be eligible
, draws attention to the importance of using courseassignments early in an engineering curriculum to help students appreciate and attend to socialand ethical in addition to environmental and economic aspects of sustainable development. The instructors discussed above successfully integrated learning modules on sustainabledevelopment into required technical courses in civil and environmental engineering. Myendeavor to reorient the patent assignment in STS 1500 around the SDGs builds on and extendsthe learning goals discussed in these studies by applying them to a non-technical engineeringcourse in STS specifically devoted to introducing students to social and ethical aspects ofengineering practice. Like these scholars, I hoped that aligning
engineering and business students prior to college matriculationand/or major declaration as well as after graduation to test how college contexts such as major Page 24.295.20may influence students.Along these lines, only a select number of contextual factors (supports from family and friends,contacts with mentors, and previous entrepreneurial and extra-curricular activities) wereexamined in this study. These factors showed relatively low correlations with students’entrepreneurial intent. Future studies ought to look into additional contextual factors andinvestigate how these factors may not only correlate with students’ entrepreneurial intent but