directly linked to student persistence. The factors outlined in thisframework will be central to understanding student success at HBCUs and enable the connectionof the present study’s findings to existing literature.MethodsThe researchers implemented an iterative, descriptive research model by including the followingaction items: (a) engaging research participants; (b) developing data collection strategies; (c)defining variables and constructs; and (d) gathering information and investigating researchquestion(s). This paper focuses on the data collected currently from one institution. The presentresearch study findings are informed by quantitative data. Data from additional HBCUs will becollected and analyzed subsequently.ParticipantsParticipants
of simulation is effective for onsite delivery mode or the onsite delivery mode; the simulation can support lower courses as well as higher level courses in the Electronic & Computer Engineering Technology (ECET) programs and Electronics Computer Technician (ECT) programs. b. Faculty feedback suggests that knowledge of simulation program and pedagogical skills are major factors for enhancing student learning. c. Students’ feedback suggests that simulation-based labs offer a safer environment for user. However, in a simulation environment there is no such threat. d. Simulation is effective when it is followed by the hands-on activity to reduce
groups. T op (“Ferris Wheel” Team): Student 1 (11y/o), Student ottom (“Boat Maze” Team): Student 1 and 2 (9y/o), Student 3 (8y/o) 2 (10y/o), Student 3 (9y/o). B The conversation of constraints went a bit differently for each group, but the facilitator guided both discussions toward the concept that they should build something that could be completed given the materials and time available. The game offers freedom for facilitators (i.e., teachers) to direct discussion based on the
5Figure 7. Participants’ rating of their knowledge on epidemiology, public health and risk analysison a scale of one to fiveAll the 32 participants completed the pre-workshop survey, while only 30 participants completedthe post-workshop survey. To match the pre-and-post survey, participants were asked to writetheir e-mail addresses in their responses. Some of the participants did not write their emailaddress and thus, their pre-and-post survey diagrams could not be matched. As a result, pre-and-post survey diagrams from only 24 participants could be matched and analyzed. Figure 8a and 8bshow examples of the pre- and post-workshop diagram from a participant. a) b)Figure 8. Example of
of the United States to create new technology for cities,and 3) the National Academy of Engineering Grand Challenges - to Restore and Improve UrbanInfrastructure.References 1. Coyle, E. J. (2016, March), Systemic Reform of STEM Education: The Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Consortium Paper presented at 2016 EDI, San Francisco, CA. https://peer.asee.org/27403 2. National Academy of Engineering. (2012). Infusing Real World Experiences into Engineering Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 3. Coyle, E. J., Krogmeier, J. V., Abler, R. T., Johnson, A., Marshall, S., & Gilchrist, B. E. (2014, October). The vertically-integrated projects (VIP) program—leveraging faculty research interests
., Illinois, 2001. 8. Vernier, M. A., & Wensing, P. M., & Morin, C. E., & Phillips, A., & Rice, B., & Wegman, K. R., & Hartle, C., & Clingan, P. A., & Kecskemety, K. M., & Freuler, R. J., “Design of a Full-Featured Robot Controller for Use in a First-Year Robotics Design Project,” Computers in Education Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 55–72, January-March 2015. 9. Kearsley, G. & Shneiderman, B., “Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning”, Educational Technology, Vol. 38, No. 5, September 1998, pp. 20-23. 10. Ossman, K., and Bucks, G., “First Year Student Team Projects Using MATLAB”, First Year Engineering Experience Conference, August 8-9
bythese topics, which is an important element in the guiding principles.The topics that emerged from the retreat were a starting point for creating sustained activityaround areas of affinity. After the retreat, faculty were invited to join one of these existinggroups for sustained engagement, switch to a different group, or propose a new group. From thisexercise, four affinity groups evolved: a. Project Spine Courses: How to align student outcomes b. Revolutionizing Math Intensive Courses c. Revolutionizing Content Heavy Courses Through Flipping – How to make it work d. Rethinking How We Teach Our Students To Communicate In WritingTo formalize the groups, each affinity group completed an online intake form documenting theirgoals, the
, along with existing self-assessments of technical and communicationsskills. Additional observations of team engagement, or a lack of it, during in-class activities,beginning early in the semester, could also be compared to student feedback about teamperformance in their project status and reflective updates, which begin with Weeks 3 and 4. References [1] M. H. M. S. A. Hakanen, "Trust in Building High-Performing Teams - Conceptual Approach," Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 43-53, 2015.[2] C. L. F. Larson, Team Work. What must go right/What can go wrong, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1989.[3] N. a. B.-L. M. Van Tyne, "Ethics for the "Me
attitudes saw some changes, shifts in attitude for the overall respondent groupwere minor; most respondents agreed with all statements to a “Moderate extent” or “Greatextent” both before and after the program (See Figures A and B).Figure A. 2010-2016 Pre-Program AttitudesFigure B. 2010-2016 Post-Program AttitudesParticipant Perceived ConfidenceParticipants were also asked to indicate their level of confidence in a specified set of skills inorder to assess if the RET ROKET program boosted their confidence in these skills. Pre- andpost-program survey responses were very comparable - 80% or more of ROKET teachersindicated that they were “Moderately confident” or “Very confident” in the specified skills, bothbefore and after the RET (See Figures C and
above. material further from 8 down to 6 hours of training sessions within SDV 101. Phase 1—Spring 2009, Summer 2009, Fall 2009, Spring 2010Method: Students enrolled in Engineering Graphics (EGR 110) were given the Mental RotationTest (Form A) (Laeng, B., Latham, K., Jackson, M., Zaiyouna, R. & Richardson, C., 1995),during the first weeks of the semester. The students who scored less than 13 (out of 24) wereinvited to participate in an intervention, playing Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, for 10 hoursover four weeks, a video game shown to increase spatial skills (Feng, Spence and Pratt, 2007).We retested all students
calculators allowedBasic Math ExamSolve the following:1) 1/2 + 4/5 =2) 1/2 x 4/5 =3)𝑓 = 𝑚 ∙ 𝑎, 𝑓 = 5, 𝑚 = 2, 𝑎 = ? 103 1074) simplify this expression: =? 10−11 1025) The following formulas are used to calculate what properties and for which shapes?y = mx + bc = 2πrA = πr2A = ½ bhA = 4 πr2V = 4/3 πr36) How long is the hypotenuse and what is the angle of a right triangle having opposite sideO = 5 and adjacent side A = 3?7) How many yards are in 6 meters? Use 1m = 100cm, 2.5cm = 1 inch, 36 inches = 1 yard8) Vector C = A + B where A = -15x - 12y and B = -3x + 9y; what are the two components, themagnitude and the angle of C?Generating data and Plotting DataFor each of the
abstracting overall themes that honor our uniqueperspectives while capturing broader areas of focus for enriching graduate education.ReferencesAdams, R. S., Allendoerfer, C., Bell, P., Chen, H., Fleming, L., Leifer, L., Maring, B. & Williams, D. (2006, June). A model for building and sustaining a community of engineering education research scholars. Paper presented at the 2006 Annual American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Chicago, Illinois. https://peer.asee.org/1003Adams, R. S., Allendoerfer, C., Rhoulac Smith, T., Socha, D., Williams, D., & Yasuhara, K. (2007, June). Storytelling in engineering education. Paper presented at 2007 Annual American Society for Engineering Education Conference & Exposition, Honolulu
be used as a covariate in analyses if significant variation is found across students.AcknowledgmentsThis project is funded by the National Science Foundation’s Improving Undergraduate STEMEducation (IUSE) program under Award No. 1505080. Any opinions, findings, and conclusionsor recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Please find more information on theauthors’ project website: http://research.engineering.ucdavis.edu/stemaerospace/.LiteratureAllen, D., Bauer, D., Bras, B., Gutkowski, T., Murphy, C., Piwonka, T., Sheng, P., Sutherland,J., Thurston, D., Wolff, E. (2002). Environmentally benign manufacturing: Trends in Europe,Japan and USA
began as a collaboration between the Metallurgical and IndustrialEngineering programs and expanded to Mechanical Engineering in year 3 of the program. Thegrant provided scholarships for students who had an unmet need not covered by family support,and the university provided mentors, advisors, and professional development activities.The program was geared to prepare the scholars to graduate and be successful in the workforce orfor pursuit of a graduate engineering degree. Key components to make women successful inengineering included helping the participants to be a) confident in their discipline, b) confidentwith their overall abilities and self, c) able to flourish in a diverse team environment, d) able toutilize their acquired engineering
subsequently train their team members. (B) Picture of hands-on clinical observation training of leaders with clinical faculty.With a small group of team leaders we are able, with support from medical school faculty, tocoordinate extended and direct access to clinical mentors in our program. The model allowed usto give limited resources to a small number of students who then translated the
. 48, 661–669 (2013).8. Sharoff, L.; J. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 5, 13–18 (2015).9. Haspel, R. L., Ali, A. M. & Huang, G. C.; J. Grad. Med. Educ. 80–84 (2016).10. Dunlosky, J., et al; Psychol. Sci. Public Interes. Suppl. 14, 4–58 (2013).11. McLaughlin, J.E., et al; Acad. Med. 89, 236–243 (2014).12. Zalewski, D. & Schneider, K. Assessing Learning Outcomes and Evaluating Graduate Student Perceptions of a Flipped Classroom. ASEE Natl. Conf. Proceedings. New Orleans, LA (2016).13. Beidler, K. & Panton, L.; J. Interact. Technol. Pedagog. (2013).14. Muzyka, J. L.; Journal of Chemical Education (2015). doi:10.1021/ed500904y15. Geetracianne, K. L. & Neilsen, B.; Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 18, 025002 (2012); doi
thelist above) included: a) The problem statement and significance of the project were clearly explained. Related theory and works in the literature were presented and cited (Outcomes 2, 4, 5, and 6). b) Potential environmental impacts, societal impacts, and safety hazards were detailed (Outcomes 2, 3, and 4). c) Potential process schemes were evaluated, including different combinations of raw materials, different reaction pathways, and configurations of unit operations. Criteria that would be used to assess these alternatives were also discussed (Outcomes 2 and 6). d) Potential profitability of the process was assessed based on raw material selection and I/O analysis. The
all) team members may have had introvertedpersonality styles. Overall the team performed well (i.e., a B grade) on a very challengingproject. There was no indication of disciplinary divergence on this team. 4 3.8 Common 4-point Scale 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 WBDS15 Project Student Team Members
-1504576 from the National Science Foundation(NSF). This support is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, orrecommendations expressed in this paper are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflectthe views if the NSF.IX. ReferencesAllen, D., Murphy, C., Allenby, B., and Davidson, C. (2006). “Sustainable engineering: a model for engineering education in the twenty-first century?” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 8(2), 70-71. 10.1007/s10098-006-0047-6.Auchey, F. L., Mills, T. H., Beliveau, Y. J., and Auchey, G. J. (2000). “Using the learning outcomes template as an effective tool for evaluation of the undergraduate building construction program.” Journal of Construction Education, 5
and problem being addressed ‐ Relevant research of your need including at least 5 in text citations ‐ Competitive Landscape of 5 products addressing your need ‐ Patent Landscape of 5 products addressing your need ‐ Include a complete bibliography with formal citations in the style of your team’s choosing citing ALL resources used (including those used for competitive and patent landscape). ‐ Brief justification for your citation style used (2-3 sentences) Quality of Work (Max 10pts) ‐ Thorough analysis of your need. ‐ Detailed descriptions of competitors and patents ‐ All citations are properly formattedAppendix B: BME 352 EX 2 Relevant Research
administrative pathways 2.50 2.00 3.33Note: The results are reported as an average on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 =agree; 4 = strongly agree).ReferencesBerk, R. A., Berg, J., Mortimer, R., Walton-Moss, B., & Yeo, T. P. (2005). Measuring the effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships. Academic Medicine, 80(1), 66-71.Blackwell, J. E. (1989). Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority faculty. Academe, 75, 8-14.Cawyer, C. S., Simonds, C., & Davis, S. (2002). Mentoring to facilitate socialization: The case of the new faculty member. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(2), 225-242.Fowler, E. J. (2009). Survey research methods
pharmacokinetics for chemicalengineers. Chemical Engineering Education. 2010;44: 262-266.22. Erzen, F. C. a. B., Gulnor, and Cinar, A. Development and implementation of an educationalsimulator: GLUCOSIM. Chemical Engineering Education. 2003;37: 300-305.23. Yerrick, R., Lund, C., Lee, Y. Exploring simulator use in the preparation of chemicalengineers. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2013;22: 362-278.24. Nicodemus, G., Falconer, J. L., Medlin, W., McDanel, K. P., Knutsen, J. S. Improvingstudent interaction with chemical Engineering learning tools: screencasts and simulations. ASEEAnnual Conference. Indianapolis, 2014.25. Finlayson, B. A. Introduction to Chemical Engineering Computing. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons, 2014.26. Davies
dynamics experienced on the construction site facilitated theacquisition and integration of engineering mechanics knowledge the essential components of a fewonline student field reports are shown in Appendix A.The students reports A to D in Appendix A demonstrate a mastery of the concepts of statics anddynamics by the students. Student A reported the application of the principles of statics anddynamics in the safe operation of the construction equipment, while student B shows an in-depthunderstanding of the mechanics of the operation of the crane. Through Student C report it is clearlyseen that the student thoroughly understands the concept of friction, while student Dcomprehensively reported the importance of safety on sites and precautions that
.” Journal of KunmingUniversity of Science and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 2: 5-10.[11] Dong, X. 1996. “The Background and Status Quo of Engineering Ethics Education in the UnitedStates.” Research in Higher Education of Engineering, No. 3: 73-77.[12] Xiao, P. 1999. Engineering Ethics [Gong Cheng Lun Li Xue]. China Railway Publishing House.[13] Yu, B., and Fan, Y. 2014. “An Overview on Engineering Ethics Research in China.” Journal ofKunming University of Science and Technology Vol. 14, No. 3: 10-17.[14] Wang, W. and Ren, J. 2007. “A New Start for Engineering Ethics in China: A Review of EngineeringEthics Conference.” Studies in Ethics No. 4.[15] Wang, Y., and Liu, Z. 2014. “A Quantitative Analysis on Engineering Ethics Education Research inChina
Piazza in one of four ways: a) posing a question or problem directlyrelated to topics covered in lectures; b) asking a follow-up question to another question; c)answering a question; or d) improving upon another response. To ensure high quality ofquestions are being asked, the teaching team (composed of the instructor and four teachingassistants) actively monitors the questions as they are being posted, and flag anything that isincorrect, repeated, or too simple. Students are encouraged to work in groups and discuss theirideas while creating the questions and/or answers. The questions that students create areprimarily concept or problem-based questions related to the course content being covered inclass (i.e., some topics are better suited for
). Sampling Designs in Qualitative Research: Making the Sampling Process More Public. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 238–254.13. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. SAGE.14. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X0528226015. Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4 edition). Boston: Pearson.16. Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2009). Women Engineering Students and Self-Efficacy: A Multi
Paper ID #20201Modifications to a Senior Capstone Program to Improve Project Manage-ment and Design-Cycle Pedagogies and Enhance Student LearningMr. Cory Mettler, South Dakota State University Cory Mettler has been an Electrical Engineering instructor at South Dakota State University since 2005. During much of that time, he was employed in industry and was acting as an adjunct for the University. He developed and managed a microelectronics division for an R&D firm who specialized in Nondestructive Testing analysis. He also was employed as the Chief Sales and Marketing Officer for a consulting firm who specialized in
expressed interest in the work we are doing. Many of our corporate partnershave content similar to the planned modules, which they use for their own internal staffdevelopment and are willing to share with our students. These partners facilitate trainings for ourupperclassmen leaders during their course meeting times, which occurs either in-person or viaweb conferences. We will continue to enlist their help in developing future modules anddelivering content whenever their schedule allows. Having this type of support from industrypartners gives validity to our efforts to make diversity competence a marketable skillset for ourengineering students. ReferencesBenderly, B. L. (2015, January). Checkered careers
, 249–265 (2013).12. Young, M.F., Slota, S., Cutter, A.B., Jallette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeono, Z., Tran, M., & Yukhymenko, M., "Our Princess Is in Another Castle: A Review of Trends in Serious Gaming for Education." Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61-89 (2012).13. Bodnar, C.A., Anastasio, D., Enszer, J.A., & Burkey, D.D., "Engineers at Play: Games as Teaching Tools for Undergraduate Engineering Students.” Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 147-200 (2016).14. Young, M. F., Slota, S. T., Travis, R. & Choi, B. “Game narrative, interactive fiction, and storytelling: Creating a “time for telling” in the classroom.” In: Garo P. Green and James C. Kaufman, eds. Video Games and Creativity
Paper ID #18442A Systems Approach to Analyzing Design-Based Research in Robotics-FocusedMiddle School STEM Lessons through Cognitive ApprenticeshipDr. S. M. Mizanoor Rahman, New York University Mizanoor Rahman received his Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Mie University at Tsu, Japan in 2011. He then worked as a research fellow at the National University of Singapore (NUS), a researcher at Vrije University of Brussels (Belgium) and a postdoctoral associate at Clemson University, USA. He is currently working as a postdoctoral associate at the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, NYU Tandon School of