collaboration with industrial and governmental agencies, and academic partners. She has published her work in peer-reviewed international conferences and journals. Her current research interests include data management, data valuation and AI and engineering educa- tion. Her teaching/mentoring activities focus on developing and offering classes in project-based learning environments as well as, advising and mentoring students working in industry-driven problems. Before joining Virginia Tech, she was tenured Associate Professor at the Computer Science Department, Aalborg University, Denmark, a Senior R&D Engineer in industry and academic research centers in USA and Europe, and the founder and Director of DataLab, George
population that ought to be explored (Gardner & Gopaul, 2012). Of the research on part-time doctoral students, these students have been shown to be lessengaged in their studies, less satisfied with their Ph.D. experiences and viewed as less motivatedthan their full-time student peers (Gardner & Gopaul, 2012). Studies have found factors that limitthe participation of these part-time students include socialization barriers, structural constraints,negative encounters, feelings of otherness, feelings of being treated less favorably thantraditional students, longer completion time, and beliefs of not having the same opportunities astheir peers (Graham & Massyn, 2019, p.192). Furthermore, part-time students are less likely tobe
and satisfaction. The formative evaluation helps determinewhether project goals were met and what hampered their implementation. A summative reviewassessed this program's impact on student's professional abilities for global employment. TheGlobal Perspective Inventory [20] and Engineering Global Preparedness Index were used tocreate a survey (e.g., the belief that one can make a difference through engineering problem-solving). The evaluator used a Likert scale to poll students before and after IRES. The surveytool examined research skills and global perspective inventory professional skills. Research Skill Development - Pre v/s Post Survey Peer review and publication process Report writing and poster presentation Result
, and have developed and/or co-facilitated several faculty development workshops, including UBC’s three-day course design institute, and, under the guidance of Bill Oakes, the one-day ASEE Service Learning workshop. I am a trained peer reviewer of teaching, and have over 10 years experience providing both formative and summative peer reviews. Currently, in addition to being curious about how best to train engineering students to work effectively in transdisciplinary teams, I am working with the Municipal Natural Asset Initiative to embed natural asset management techniques into engineering education.Dr. Peter M Ostafichuk P.Eng., University of British Columbia, Vancouver Dr. Peter M. Ostafichuk is a professor of
completed his PhD in CivilEngineering at Clemson University, where he also received his MS and BS degrees in Civil Engineering. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Infrastructure Education in Unprecedented Times: Strengthening a Community of PracticeAbstractCIT-E (the Center for Infrastructure Transformation and Education) was founded in 2013,catalyzed by a National Science Foundation grant. During the grant, faculty members fromaround the country gathered for six workshops to co-create an entire model introduction toinfrastructure course. These materials have been peer-reviewed and are available at no charge toanyone who wants to use and/or adapt
culminatingsenior experiences. These activities demand students’ time and effort, interactions between facultyand their peers, especially for students from different racial or ethnic backgrounds. Short-termgoals are also essential for engineering students' academic success as they influence learningstrategies for tasks related to students' courses [12]. Research has shown that self-efficacyimproves learning and understanding in introductory (“Gatekeeper”) engineering courses [5].Methods“The NSSE survey, launched in 2000 and updated in 2013, assesses the extent to which studentsengage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development. NSSEannually collects information at hundreds of four-year colleges and universities about
Paper ID #33060Collaborative Learning in an Online-only Design for ManufacturabilityCourseMiss Taylor Tucker, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Taylor Tucker graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a Bachelor’s degree in engineering mechanics. She is interested in engineering design and lends her technical background to her research with the Collaborative Learning Lab, exploring how to improve ill-structured tasks for engineering students in order to promote collaborative problem solving and provide experience relevant to authentic work in industry. She also writes for the Department
more girls in STEM to make it the new norm. She has also architected SFAz’s enhanced Community College STEM Pathways Guide that has received the national STEMx seal of approval for STEM tools. She integrated the STEM Pathways Guide with the KickStarter processes for improving competitive proposal writing of Community College Hispanic Serving Institutions. Throughout her career, Ms. Pickering has written robotics software, diagnostic expert systems for space station, manufacturing equipment models, and architected complex IT systems for global collaboration that included engagement analytics. She holds a US Patent # 7904323, Multi-Team Immersive Integrated Collaboration Workspace awarded 3/8/2011. She also has
Paper ID #35200Instructing Lab Courses VirtuallyDr. Zhen Yu, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Dr. Jenny Zhen Yu is an Associate Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. She has expertise in the areas of Nanotechnology with application in nanomaterial synthesis, electronics devices fabrication and characterization, low cost and robust manufac- turing processes, 3D printing of energy storage device for UAVs and water contamination treatment. Her research has resulted in several patent applications, peer-reviewed journal papers and book chapters, and
making. 1 The SCCT model posits thatperson-centered variables of domain-specific self-efficacy coupled with interests and realisticoutcome expectations about the field propel individuals to pursue particular careers. Careerchoice is further influenced by a combination of supportive and inhibiting contextual factors.Supportive factors associated with pursuing computing include: early exposure, access to highquality learning experiences, supportive parents, and peer groups.2, 3 Inhibiting factors includelimited access, subtle and not-so-subtle racism and sexism, geographic location, and lower socio-economic status.3, 4 Importantly, SCCT incorporates gender and race/ethnicity explicitly in its model, whichrenders it appropriate for work with
instance SI in history coursesstresses skills to improve literature analysis and essay writing while SI in calculus coursesstresses heuristic problem solving skills. As administrators developing this program, weencountered limited literature pertaining to the implementation and resulting effects of SI inengineering courses at other universities. To adapt this pilot SI model to fit the needs of studentsin engineering coursework, we designed this study to gain understanding of the studentpopulation, their motivations for attending SI, and whether or not SI attendance was linked toincreased academic performance.Another objective was to provide feedback to the instructors of this course (and other freshmencourses) regarding the level of student
program requirementsand higher expectations of academic preparedness, particularly in mathematics and sciences. Asignificant number of students enrolled in a minority institution like a Historically Black Collegeand University (HBCU) are still first-generation college students in their families. Hence, thechallenges they have to overcome as the first-year students are greater than their peers. Thissituation warrants a first-year course that is specifically designed to help the first-year studentwho intends to pursue an engineering major to successfully navigate their academic life withinthe campus. The first-year students are challenged with a number of issues including financialmanagement, time management, student advising and alcohol, and drug
%)Program Likes/Dislikes: For both runs of both communities, residents were surveyed at the end of the fallsemester as to the aspects of the community that they liked best and least. This survey was Page 12.763.8administered by passing out 3x5 inch lined index cards and asking the students to write whatthey liked least on the lined side and what they liked best on the blank side of the card. TheseTable VI. The frequently cited best and least liked aspects of the living-learning communities. Hypatia Women Galileo Men Community 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06
groups project grade. The weighed factor is calculated as shown inTable 5.Table 4. Peer Rating of Team Members Name__________________________________________ Project Group _________ Please write the names of all of your team members, INCLUDING YOURSELF, and rate the degree to which each member fulfilled his/her responsibilities in completing the project assignments. The possible ratings are as follows: Excellent Consistently went above and beyond—tutored teammates, carried more than his/her fair share of the load Very good Consistently did what he/she was supposed to do, very well prepared and cooperative Satisfactory
would have helped me more if those goals were more streamlined… I think it is a good idea that should be used in the future.The post-semester survey focused on the effectiveness of the RST as a learning environment thataddresses Bandura’s three social principles. The survey presented five statements (Table 5) rated Page 12.336.7on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Responses to questions 2 and 4, connected to Bandura’ssecond principle (social models), indicated that the RST provided peer models and a constructivesocial environment. Responses to questions 1 and 3 pointed to a supportive environment inwhich help from other team members
interventions the class works in small teams. To facilitate the team, peer facilitatorsand teaching assistants (whenever they are available) help during class periods. To provide an incentive to encourage the students to help each other, they wereoffered extra credit on exams. After scoring the first exam, the students were allowed tore-form their teams of three and the team composition remained fixed for the balance of Page 11.255.3the term. Extra credit for exam N was determined as follows. The team summed theirpoints on exam (N-1) and they summed their scores on exam N. If the sum on exam N isgreater than or equal to 30 plus the sum on exam (N-1) then
outside of the classroomincluding a local planning commission meeting, and a field trip to Washington D.C. to meet withdecision makers involved in technology policy. The agenda for the 2004 trip to D.C. includedvisits at the EPA, Congressional Research Service (CRS), and with congressional staff members.There are also often relevant guest lectures on campus.Group Projects and DebatesThe last outcome relates to the student practice of their verbal, written, graphical, and teamworkskills with special emphasis on verbally communicating technical information. This is achievedthrough group projects, presentations, class debates, and peer reviews including a peer-review ofvideotaped presentations. To enhance the quality of these presentations and
understand which characteristics of team development during the eventhad the highest correlation with team success. Knowledge of which characteristics best predictteam success amongst focused peers could influence the development of targeted interventionsaimed at increasing team cohesion and potential for success.BackgroundJim Clifton, in his book “The Coming Jobs War”, writes that “Entrepreneurship is moreimportant than innovation. Innovation is critical, but it plays a supporting role to almightyentrepreneurship… [I]t’s far better to invest in entrepreneurial people than in great ideas.”(Clifton, 2011) . Clifton’s central argument is that entrepreneurship is about creating jobs andthat for countries, particularly the US, it is critical that
than simply an “obedient engineer”. The framework proposes that theentrepreneurial mindset of students is increased by promoting curiosity, encouragingconnections, and creating value. The results from this work provide insight into the impact andimplications resulting from applying the KEEN framework to the engineering classroom viaonline discussions.Keywords: writing, journals, reflections, assessment, KEEN, curiosity, connections, creatingvalue.1 IntroductionThe entrepreneurial mindset is a “growth-oriented perspective through which individualspromote flexibility, creativity, continuous innovation, and renewal” [1]. While theentrepreneurial mindset can be useful in starting a new company, this mindset is also critical toexisting
instillstudents’ drive to gain new knowledge (Kuh, 2007). Astin (1993, 1999) found that frequentstudent-faculty interaction is more strongly related to student satisfaction in college than anyother type of involvement. Lin and Tsai (2009) and Holt et al. (2007) observed that engineeringstudents valued a learning environment that was student-centered, peer-interactive, and teacher-facilitated, and favored both classroom and laboratory instruction. Chen et al. (2008) echoedAstin’s (1999) call for educators to be more focused on student engagement, advocating highlevels of faculty engagement in the design, revision, and improvement of undergraduateengineering programs, and teaching that effectively addresses students’ cognitive and affectivestates of mind
Professional Skills module wherein the benefitsof volunteering within the engineering discipline, both in terms of making a difference tosociety but also with regards to promoting individual employability and self-directed learningwill be emphasized.Additionally, working with colleagues, a number of mentoring opportunities aimed atfoundation students were offered and supported by the School. One such opportunityinvolved students going into inner city schools to offer mentoring in mathematics. Whilstother students were recruited for a foundation level Peer Assisted Learning project, providingmaths mentoring for their peer group. At graduate level, finding time outside of thecurriculum to enable the students’ to participate in such activities proved to
selected for the program, not of the specifics of the project they will be working on,or who they will be working with.The final reveal is performed at our May poster session and graduation ceremony for ourdeparting fellows who completed the program. The new fellows are invited to the poster session,and have the opportunity to talk to their peers who have just completed the program. The postersession culminates with the graduation ceremony for the prior fellows and an initiation ceremonyfor the new fellows. It is at this ceremony that the fellow is paired up with their graduate studentmentor and the faculty advisor. The expectation is that the mentors and advisors will take thetime to get to know the new fellows, talk about the project, and
) enrollments over the past six years (2013-2019)[2] in contrast to the minor decline inother student groups. This growth has resulted in over 1060 military affiliated students enrolled inFall 2019[2]. The university Veteran Service Office (VSO) supports these veterans and familymembers through a wide variety of student services. The office has many programs which includea veterans specific orientation programs, counseling sessions (individual and group), and GreenZone Training for faculty. The office also maintains a veteran lounge and conference room. TheCollege Of Engineering veterans program, Veteran Education Continued Through EngineeringResearch (VECTER), provides additional services to veterans which include peer to peer tutoring,a faculty
orientation8, 9. According to the recentresults published by the National Survey for Student Engagement (NSEE), there are four performanceindicators for student engagement: academic challenge, learning with peers, experiences with faculty andcampus environment10, 11. While there are several ongoing efforts to improve engagement in engineeringclassrooms12-18, this paper reports the results from the implementation of a blended teaching model at SanJose State University.“Tailored Instructions and Engineered Delivery Using Protocols” (TIED UP) is a media-rich blendedmodel used for teaching engineering concepts. Developed at Tuskegee University, this model is reportedto be effective in improving student grades and their engagement in the classroom19. This
and discussions over fifteen weeks covering 1) anintroduction and overview of STEM and STEM literacy, 2) guiding principles in STEM Education,3) typical components of STEM, 4) workshops on developing an instructional STEM unit(curriculum unit), 5) STEM instruction from an integrated approach, and 6) pre-service teacherresidency peer experiences (Appendix A).Evaluation Approach and Method Reflection in engineering education has become highly regarded as an evaluation approachinvolving the concept of “doing and reflecting on the doing” [8]. Supported by several engineeringeducation researchers, “reflective techniques” are important in fostering effective teaching andstimulating student learning [9-13]. Turns [9] defines reflection “as
offensive competitions, the use of peer instruction [10] and mentoring[11] have also been proposed. Other approaches include professional certification-drivencurriculum development [12], challenge based learning [13] and systems [14] and multi-disciplinary based approaches [15]. To help determine what approaches are best for thischallenge, Mirkovic, et al. [16] propose a protocol for evaluating cybersecurity educationinterventions that is outcome driven and combines skill assessment, self-assessment andlongitudinal follow-up. Harris and Patten [17] suggest the use of Bloom’s and Webb’sTaxonomies as another approach for driving curriculum development.The use of a variety of learning technologies has also been proposed. These have includedvirtual
teaching practices [13]. Kuh et al. [15] studied theeffect of engagement in meaningful academic activities on retention of first year students andshowed statistically significant impacts on GPA and persistence. They also noted a proportionallyhigher impact of educationally engaging activities on students from underserved groups. Acommon theme in the literature on engagement is academic challenge, faculty-student interactions,and peer interactions. In this regard, Carini, Kuh, and Klein [16] conducted a survey of over 1000students and determined a positive impact of engagement on critical thinking skills and grades.Empirical evidence resulting from research on strategies for engagement indicates that activelearning such as problem-based learning
movie and television examples are becoming dated anddo not resonate with new faculty. Additionally, determining one’s place in Lowman’s modelremains difficult. As evidenced by the authors’ experience writing this paper, debating where anindividual sits in a category, while entertaining, is not a simple task. This paper describesdevelopment of a rubric to assess teaching in both of Lowman’s dimensions and applies therubric to contemporary movie and television teachers.In this paper, the authors present a summary of Lowman’s Two Dimensional Model of EffectiveCollege Teaching1. Next, development of a rubric to assess which style of instruction bestdescribes an instructor is presented. The rubric is applied to several contemporary teachers
practiced in other projects throughout the semester.IntroductionThere are many challenges in STEM education, including stimulating student interest, retainingstudents of diverse abilities and backgrounds, and preparing students to address the realities ofthe post-academic world and work-space. Many novel approaches have been developed toaddress these challenges, including problem- and project-based learning [1], entrepreneurship[2], and flipped classrooms [3].First-year engineering students face many unique challenges, including a heavy academic load ofprimarily technical courses. Engineering student success has been shown to be helped byincreasing students’ peer-to-peer instruction [4], and increased efficacy [5] and increasingstudents’ personal
Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, ICER ’18, pages 60–68, New York, NY, USA, 2018. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-5628-2. doi: 10.1145/3230977.3231000. [7] Briana B. Morrison, Lauren E. Margulieux, Barbara Ericson, and Mark Guzdial. Subgoals help students solve parsons problems. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, SIGCSE ’16, pages 42–47, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-3685-7. doi: 10.1145/2839509.2844617. [8] Barbara J. Ericson, Lauren E. Margulieux, and Jochen Rick. Solving parsons problems versus fixing and writing code. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research