transition, professional development, advancement, and satisfaction and support.Finally, the team focused its attention on institutional change versus efforts that exclusivelyfocused on new faculty, because advancement for AGEP faculty is typically limited by lack ofinfrastructure to support their needs [4], [5].3 Figure 1. Theory of Change for Project ELEVATE Our roadmap for change begins with a collaborative partnership among peer institutions,leadership buy-in, equity-minded partners, higher education expertise, and culturally responsiveevaluators, shown in Figure 1 (theory of change). The primary activities outlined in our theory ofchange include working collaboratively to meet a common goal, conducting research
, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and methodological development. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023Capturing attrition decisions in engineering graduate students using longitudinal SMS dataKeywords: Attrition, longitudinal study, SMS (Short Message Service), time series dataAbstractThis research paper reports results from a longitudinal Short Message Service (SMS) text messagesurvey study that captured attrition decisions from engineering graduate students who decided toleave their Ph.D. program or change degree objectives from Ph.D. to M.S. (Master’s-leveldeparture). While past research has investigated doctoral attrition across disciplines to
masters students, and published over 90 peer reviewed journal articles and conference papers. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2022 Powered by www.slayte.com Multidisciplinary Engagement of Diverse Students in Computer Science Education through Research Focused on Social Media COVID-19 Misinformation1 AbstractThe ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted vital elements of personal and public health,society, and education. Increasingly with the viral pandemic, misinformation on health andscience issues has been disseminated online. We developed an undergraduate training programfocused on producing and presenting research to combat the
highlighted? 2) How is HC employed as a tool for theory building and/or data analysis and interpretation, and what issues in engineering education, and specifically engineering ethics education, have been addressed using the lens of HC? and 3) What gaps can we identify in the literature on HC—again, specifically those related to ethics education—and what opportunities do these present for future research on HC and engineering ethics education?After describing our methods, we present our analysis of publications that engage with HC fromthe ASEE PEER database. We then discuss the implications of our findings, highlighting howHC may be unavoidable but could be productively repurposed in more holistic curriculumreform that
practices such as coordinated decision making in stochastic supply chains, handling supply chains during times of crisis and optimizing global supply chains on the financial health of a company. She has published her research in Journal of Business Logistics, International Jour- nal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management and peer-reviewed proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education.Dr. Mathew Kuttolamadom, Texas A&M University Dr. Mathew Kuttolamadom is an associate professor in the Department of Engineering Technology & In- dustrial Distribution and the Department of Materials Science & Engineering at Texas A&M University. He received his Ph.D. in Materials Science &
introduction to work done by professional chemicalengineers, the resources available to help them be successful at KU, the curricular requirementsand expectations of chemical engineering students, and possible career opportunities; 2) anintroduction to engineering ethics, basic safety considerations, teamwork, and technical writing;and 3) an introduction to basic material and energy balances and fluid flow. This course was theonly chemical engineering course the students took during the freshman year. While teaching the first semester sophomore Material and Energy Balance course between2009 and 2012, students often remarked that the freshman class was boring and that they still didnot understand what chemical engineers did. Based on this feedback
; for instance, Grove & Wasserman [14] examined the trajectories of college students’ GPA,while similar studies focused on undocumented youth [14] or compared students with ADHD and theirneurotypical peers [15]. These cases, however, include little or no mention of major or concentration, andso new work is needed to study GPA in the engineering context. In engineering education, many studiesthat propose a longitudinal approach to GPA focus more on between-subjects variables or treat a singlemeasure of GPA as an outcome. For instance, Durik et al. [16] and Bernold et al. [17] both include GPAas outcome variables, but they focus on students’ two-year cumulative GPA in time-delayed analysesrather than examine GPA across multiple time points
. Disseminating: The historic contribution of women in general and to the STEM disciplines, particularly, which they deemed exciting and motivating. The idea was to spread the importance of women participating in STEM to the community. 4. Sharing: With their peers organizing the event as workshop collaborators. Also, sharing knowledge and experience acquired in each of their training areas to a younger community.Concerning the above, Danny, a university collaborating student, commented, "Thanks to theposter session of the meeting, I learned about a paleontology pioneer, Mary Anning, which mademe connect and extrapolate the biological sciences with the study of creatures that have been onearth for millions of
ethics. Her book Extracting Accountability: Engineers and Corporate Social Responsibility will be published by The MIT Press in 2021. She is also the co-editor of Energy and Ethics? (Wiley-Blackwell, 2019) and the author of Mining Coal and Undermining Gender: Rhythms of Work and Family in the American West (Rutgers University Press, 2014). She regularly pub- lishes in peer-reviewed journals in anthropology, science and technology studies, engineering studies, and engineering education. Her research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the British Academy. American c Society for Engineering
learners and STEM graduates tomeet the demand for a growing STEM workforce. Globally, students in the U.S. still trail thoseof peer countries when tested in the STEM subjects.1 The underrepresentation of certain minoritygroups in STEM fields demonstrates the need for quality education that is inclusive of peoplefrom all backgrounds.2 Prosperity for the future will rest on our nation’s ability to prepare for aninclusive and diverse STEM workforce.3-5Teachers are still the drivers and facilitators of any education reform6-7 and can foster a newgeneration of STEM learners and professionals.8-9 However, teachers are struggling to teacheffectively and often need to enhance their own content mastery.10-11 The National ScienceStandards established
environment, and the expectation thattreating each student equally is the same as treating each student fairly, regardless of their priorknowledge. Returning to Greeno and Collins’ work, they write that a preponderance of studies ineducational psychology show that students’ ability to solve problems and learn new conceptsdepended heavily on what students already knew. [2] The difference between the haves and thehave-nots in terms of prior knowledge and ease of transition into college is a barrier, especiallywhen it reinforces the perceived lack of belonging by women and underrepresented minorities inengineering. The book Bandwidth Recovery by Verschelden directly addresses the impacts thatpoverty, racism, and social marginalization have on
assist women in resisting or coping with situations thatmight interfere with their completing their doctoral studies. Given differences in thedirection of the proportions of domestic and international women attaining engineeringdegrees over time, understanding how the experiences of these two groups of womenmight differ became of particular interest to us.III. Focus Groups as an Initial Research ApproachWe sought to understand the many critical incidents or interactions with faculty, peers,family members, and others that in aggregate may lead to experiencing encouragement ordiscouragement. The best way to learn these details was to speak to the studentsthemselves and to ask them what techniques had either worked or failed in
AC 2007-1694: INTRODUCTION OF VIDEO JOURNALS AND ARCHIVES IN THECLASSROOMAlexander Haubold, Columbia UniversityJohn R. Kender, Columbia University Page 12.985.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Introduction of Video Journals and Archives in the ClassroomAbstractWe report on two innovative approaches of using video recordings in project-based coursestargeted at journaling student and team performance and project progression. The first approachis strictly managed by instructors and staff, and involves periodical recording of studentpresentations, which are made available to students for self and peer evaluation. The secondapproach is loosely managed
” offemale engineering undergraduates are as good as, if not better than, those of their male peers.”14 Because the outcome of preparatory and programmatic interventions has been largely positivefor URM students while remaining, in the aggregate, neutral for women, we seek to extend thisinquiry into self-confidenc to a different group of students. While much prior research hasfocused on tying differences in confidence to different trajectories of academic study, such asselecting a major or switching out of STEM majors, we wanted to investigate the interactionamong self-confidence, gender, and majority or URM status for those who “stuck with it,”persisting as engineering majors throughout their academic career.Given the persistent gender gap between
this section, the sources of information and decisions, followedby the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the description of the data analysis process for the articles,are described. In total, 19 articles were the result of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Theprocedure used for including and excluding the papers was the four-phase flow diagram of thePRISMA Statement [12]. A recommended quality procedure is used widely in systematic literaturereviews.2.1 Data SourcesAcademic and peer-reviewed papers published in 2006 – 2020 on computational thinking in thecontext of CT assessment in higher education were retrieved. The articles reviewed were publishedin peer-reviewed journals, and three databases were used for this purpose: ERIC
demonstration to generalities, (c) engage learners in peer-discussion and peer- demonstration, and (d) allow learners to observe the demonstration through media that are appropriate to the content. iv. With respect to application, instruction should: (a) have the learner apply learning, consistent with the type of component skill, (b) provide intrinsic or corrective feedback, (c) provide coaching, which should be gradually withdrawn to enhance application, and (d) engage learners in peer-collaboration. v. With respect to integration, instruction should: (a) integrate new knowledge into learners’ cognitive structures by having them reflect on, discuss, or defend new knowledge or skills, (b) engage
objectivesto write a paragraph that will be read by peers and professors has also shown to increase theperception of learning among students (Meyer, 2003).Another advantage of online learning is the immediate interaction available through online tools.This has generated both a greater satisfaction with the course and sense of proximity to peers andprofessors (Collins, 2000; Fredericksen, Pickett, & Shea, 2000). In addition, Rabe-Hemp et al.(2010) suggest professors may enjoy a reduction in class preparation time. While it is true that thefirst time a professor teaches an online course, it requires copious amounts of time to produce thelearning materials for the course. After that first year, the professor can often reuse those materialsand make
course of one semester. We present an overview of FEAL, its administration process withinthe CLS, and a detailed account of our evaluation methodology. We also highlight key lessonslearned on the engagement and success achieved by individual activities, and outline plannedimprovements to in-class activities based on the obtained results.Assessment of Collaborative LearningNumerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of collaborative active-learningpedagogies compared to traditional lectures across STEM fields [1][2][3][4] and computerscience education in particular [5][6][7]. Active-learning techniques include think-pair-shareexercises [8][9], peer instruction [10], group problem solving, activities in CLS environmentsand extensive
scores, financial need status, involvement inextracurricular activities, recommendation letters, essay writing skills and whether the candidatewas from an underrepresented group in engineering. Each committee members’ rankings wereaggregated equally to figure out the overall student eligibility ranking.Finally, the candidates were contacted with official scholarship offer letters. The selection ofseven candidates whom all accepted the offers were realized in two rounds of selection cycle. Inorder to implement an evaluation plan with the purpose of measuring this project’s early impactin attracting and recruiting students for careers in nuclear related fields, a first semester intakesurvey of not only award candidates but their peers in the
founder head of the innovation Center. Dr Waychal earned his Ph D in the area of developing Innovation Competencies in Information System Organizations from IIT Bombay and M Tech in Control Engineering from IIT Delhi. He has presented keynote / invited talks in many high prole international conferences and has published papers in peer- reviewed journals. He / his teams have won awards in Engineering Education, Innovation, Six Sigma, and Knowledge Management at international events. His current research interests are engineering education, software engineering, and developing innovative entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs. He has been chosen as one of the five outstanding engineering educators by IUCEE (Indo-universal
students, and havingmutual respect and admiration for the academic engagement of their traditionally aged peers orfriends.” Adult students across campuses felt socially excluded due to life commitments andchallenges relating to traditional students. While class performance improved with theproportion of adult students, these students graduate at a lower rate than traditional students.Social integration was identified as a key to retention since anxiety leads to questioning abilitiesand thus stunted performance. Interviews revealed that Adult learners viewed themselves asmore experienced, more career focused, and less interested in social activities than the traditionalstudents. The authors conclude by encouraging educators to be cognizant of the
throughprocesses of community-building, organizing, and education, creating transformativeexperiences in democratic and reflective spaces that directly address root causes. This mayinclude every-day actions such as cooking, gardening, building, establishing space, as well asperformance and creative output.In conversation with Highlander’s practices of creative resistance and agency building, we alsotake from the foundational work of Imarisha Walidah and Adrienne Maree Brown regarding thepractice of emergent strategies for community organizing and enacting change [16]. Brown andWalidah have established the technique of future visioning through the writing of science fictionnarratives that enable social critique as well as creative resistance and playful
more approachable to the middle school or high school students. Thesepresentations were practiced for the group during weekly seminars. After receiving feedbackfrom peers and educators, the pairs updated their presentations and took them to classrooms toshare with students. Grad Student STEM Share program provided several leadershipdevelopment opportunities of specific and translatable skills including communication, teaching,coordination of meetings and events, follow-up, teamwork, planning, presentation skills, andnetworking, as well as optional leadership coaching. Detailed feedback from the graduatestudents and the teachers whose classrooms they visited was positive and will be presented inthis paper, as well as details on the pilot year
methods: [9] • Student-centered learning • Constructivism • Problem-based learning • Peer assisted learningElliott [8] summarizes a number of reasons why instructors have used flipped classrooms: • The amount of material introduced in the class can be increased. • It can serve as a validation that students read or view required material. • There is more time for hands-on learning in the classroom. • Students have more time to participate in collaborative or peer learning during regular class time.Bishop and Verleger [9] define a flipped classroom as a combination of interactivegroup learning activities in the classroom (prescribed by student-centered learning theories), andcomputer-based
through required online quiz questions before class. Occasionally, there willbe a short activity or tutorial that requires applying, but these are infrequent.In contrast, the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy are incorporated to the in-class activities.Lecture activities are used at University A that target the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy,specifically applying (using concepts to solve problem), analyzing and evaluating (determiningwhat method is best to solve the problem), and creating (writing the MATLAB program). AtUniversity B, most in-class activities are built around applying the knowledge from thepreparation activities. Occasionally, there will be activities and assignments requiring analyzingand evaluating. At University B, there is
and come up with potential designs that would then be presented to their peers at variousstages for feedback and critique. In one week students identified an idea, researched existing andpotential solutions, developed a design, built a prototype and presented their solution. Theprocess included competencies such as ideation and brain storming, team forming and roleassignment, project planning, critical thinking, evaluation and reflection, constructive critique,verbal and written skills, visual sketching, engineering design, prototyping and debugging,entrepreneurship, and innovation. The students were given the opportunity to work in a group orindividually. Even if students chose to work individually, they were required to participate in the
calculation and risk analysis” published by CRC Press) and more than 20 papers in international peer-reviewed journals.Dr. Bing Guo, Texas A&M University at Qatar Dr. Bing Guo is Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and a Dean’s Fellow at Texas A&M University at Qatar. He teaches introductory engineering mechanics, thermal dynamics, thermal fluid sciences, and experimentation design. Dr. Guo has been involved in teaching innovation with technology since 2013, with notable products such as an app for enhanced learning of 3-D objects and a video lecture library for statics and dynamics. Guo received his bachelor’s degree and doctoral degrees in Thermal Engineering from Tsinghua University.Dr. Bilal Mansoor
-recorded argumentation. Group I focused on the ILO “Independentlyidentify a WSP in the context of one’s future profession and describe why it is a WSP” (ILOcategory 2b in table 1). They suggested that each student in the class should choose a WSP fromthe context of their future profession. They should then write a short note to the teacher in whichthey report which problem they have chosen, including one argument for why they think it is aWSP. The teacher either approves the students’ choices, or provides feedback for why the chosenproblem may not be seen as a WSP. Once students have received approval from the teacher, theywork in pairs. Each pair records a short video in which each student describes his/her chosenproblem to the other student, and
. Data analysis, in short, proceeded in several stages using the constantcomparison method by reducing a preliminary set of codes into larger themes through aniterative process of reading, categorizing, and comparing categories/codes both within and acrosstranscripts.33 Several strategies were employed to establish credibility: member checking (i.e.,asking a participant to review his transcript for accuracy and completeness), triangulation of datasources (e.g., interviews, demographic questionnaire), and peer debriefing (i.e., researcherstalked with colleagues regularly for the purpose of exploring implicit aspects of the study).ResultsCategory 1: Confident and resilient (Buoyant Believers)Using Strayhorn’s typology as a guide for the first time
Engineering Seminar. LTC Starke has published over 10 peer reviewed research arti- cles and has presented his research at national and international meetings (most recently Portugal). Most recently, he led a service learning project with 5 students to build a latrine-based biogas system in west- ern Uganda for an elementary school of 1400 students. LTC Starke is a registered Professional Engineer (Delaware), member of several professional associations, and is a member of the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank Dr. Ed Bouwer (Johns Hopkins