,and writing / presenting. The faculty was familiar with most students due to instruction ofprevious courses in the program. UG faculty provided pairs of student names which they deemedas complementary, while CU faculty did the same for groups of 3-4 students. These UG + CUgroupings were combined to form teams of 5 or 6 students. The program was held entirelyonline, and the official language was English. The course was a requirement for graduation forall students.The educational content and supporting activities of the course were structured as follows: Theclass was scheduled 5 days per week, for 2 hours per day. Core content to support the designprocess was delivered as “refreshers” on topics students would have practiced in detail during
challenges with teams.Nonetheless, the teams established before the pivot persisted throughout the semester andprovided students with sounding boards and peer feedback in breakout room sessions. The fearedattrition was minor, with only six students (~3%) dropping the course after the pivot to online.The most significant change was eliminating the team project and introducing two individualprojects. This change was made to avoid possible problems with teamwork in light of the pivot toZoom, such as hampered communication, team members dropping the course, or difficultysharing hardware. For the sections with 3D Printing, the individual projects were based on CADand the design of conditions for 3D Printing using slicing software. For sections
deductiveapproach to the data in which the existing theory of performance/competence was used tosupport the analysis [43]. The themes were shared with the second and last author, discussed,and refined until a consensus was reached. The other authors on this project were part of the PIteam, helped with the project's implementation, and contributed to the writing of this paper andthe interpretation of results to change programmatic features.Finally, we developed an individual narrative that illustrates a common path participants tookbetween the themes using the themes generated. This narrative presents an individual accountof identity development and brings chronological order and meaning to the data [46]. We focuson how all major themes manifest separately
areconsidered to have potential for success in the engineering program, but likely did not haveaccess to adequate preparation in math, chemistry, and/or physics prior to college matriculation. This setting allows us to examine the impact of remedial courses on the progress ofengineering students and their persistence. In particular, we are interested in whether thesestudents continue in engineering, declare their engineering major on time, and graduate in thesame length of time as their non-remediated peers. Research findings will help informengineering programs, university administrators, and other stakeholders regarding the role ofremedial education in engineering and whether it aids students from academically disadvantagedbackgrounds to pursue
Increasing Minority Presence within Academia through ContinuousTraining (IMPACT) mentoring program. The IMPACT program paired Black engineeringfaculty with primarily White emeriti faculty for career-focused mentorship, networking, andadvocacy. Mentees were primarily recruited from the Academic and Research LeadershipNetwork, a database of minority STEM faculty; the mentees mainly selected their mentors, butnone held a previous formal relationship, nor were any located at the same institution. Thementoring matches were based on the specified goal of the mentee, such as moving into adepartment chair role or seeking grant-writing support, but not disciplinary or demographicmarkers as is the traditional mentoring match rationale. Expectations were set
context. This paper describes a course derived fromthe Wright State model, which has evolved significantly over time. The course includes moderate-intensity active learning, with 1 hour of lecture, a 2-hour studio, and 2-hour lab each week. Dataon student perceptions and performance from the most recent offering of the course in Fall 2022are presented. A large number of students were batch enrolled into the course in summer 2022, butthen subsequently withdrew early. The students who dropped had lower math confidence, lowerself perceptions of science and math ability compared to their peers, and lower STEM identity,compared to students who remained in the course. Among students who earned overall coursegrades of D or F, the majority were taking
DeliverablesEach step of the design phase requires the completion of a team-based oral or written assignment.Additionally, the course requires individual assignments to fulfill program requirements in writing,peer evaluation and reflection on learning. Team-based assignments contribute 55% of the overallstudent grade, with individual assignments making up the remaining 45%. While assessment has beenidentified before as a challenge for studio models, particularly in assessing individual studentcontributions, each team and individual assignment is graded on a rubric developed for the capstonecourse as a whole, enabling consistent grading across both the traditional capstone students and thestudio students [12] [15, 16]. To ensure that students are
addition, students employed an ethical reasoningprocess to create a group consensus with their peers, supporting the overall goal of developing amore situated understanding of ethical decision-making.1. Introduction Engineers leverage a combination of skills, knowledge, and experiences to innovate andcreate technologies across domains. Through a micro-view, these technologies have the potentialto affect change by making processes more efficient or cost-effective. When taking a macroperspective, engineers can alter how society interacts with the world around them. Engineersmay work in a breadth of diverse fields, but ethical responsibility is a primary tenet thatunderlines professional engineering. When the result of engineering decision
themes were identified, the supporting text was then used to develop a deeperunderstanding of participant responses related to those themes. For example, some womenstudents described how their contributions are not always valued in team projects for theirengineering courses. These themes identified (Belonging and Climate, Diversity Imperative, andCOVID-19) through qualitative analysis were helpful in organizing the report and presenting the19 quantitative items in smaller, strategic groupings. The full extent of these groups can be foundin the larger report.Climate Study Report Writing and StructureTaking this mix of quantitative and qualitative data, the next step was to synthesize findings inthe form of a climate survey report to be submitted
conducted on how female and low-income students function in a cooperative,learner-based studio environment and advance understanding of the role different levels ofmentorship (peer, senior members, assistants, and faculty) play in the PWS model and how itimpacts the performance of female members of the cohorts. By working together in a team-basedenvironment, the PWS built strong connections among the PWS scholar cohort. The PWS isdeveloping well-rounded students who are afforded hands-on experiences, and the opportunity towork in multi-disciplinary team environments and gain exposure to real-life projects in computerscience, engineering, and technology. These experiences, combined with professionaldevelopment and mentorship, will enable scholars to
, technical support, and encouragement. • GiggleBot programming workshop. One ExCITE student volunteer demonstrated three GiggleBots [16] to the CS I students. Three CS I students and five ACM/ACM- W members participated. Among these five students, two were freshmen, and three were upperclassmen. The presenter demonstrated how to drive a GiggleBot with a pre-programmed Microbit [17] and then let the participants do the same. The students also plugged markers into the GiggleBots, to let the robots draw lines on the papers on the floor by moving. Then the students were divided into groups to write programs for the robots on the computers in the lab and then download their code to the robots to
criticism include forums where methods, ideas, assumptions, and reasoning can beevaluated and critiqued by the community. In the context of EER teams, these venues could beformal (e.g. an advisory board meeting or peer review process) or informal (e.g. a hallway con-versation or sidebar conversation during a meeting). They might be internal, only including groupmembers, or external to the group. The modes of communication in a venue may be spoken (e.g. ameeting or phone call) or written (e.g. an email or peer review). Additionally, the venue could havevaried degrees of collaboration involved in the critical activities (e.g. a team discussion regardingthe solution to a problem vs a team delegating tasks to be completed). We anticipate that
/a9WRjsG9SeE).The single short concept video approach is aligned with the new modality of receivinginformation, where students can either watch the video several times or skip it if they alreadyunderstand the topic. The learning glass represents a powerful tool that shows the instructortalking face-to-face writing on a glass board giving the sensation to the students as if they werein the same room (see figure 1), and the Solidwork animation with the problem solutions are avery effective representation of the problem (see figure 2), this later resource has been used onlyfor one term and no assessment on student perception has been done. a) Statics b) Dynamics Figure 1
and representative example problems would be a valuable learning tool. In a recentcourse assessment, students highlighted the necessity of frequent assessment: “I felt that my class should have allotted more time to complete individual board problems. We did complete a board problem as a class each lesson, but I felt that I was lost when it came time to complete lessons on my own” “I learned the most during the beam lab when [the instructor] had us go to the boards in groups and went to help each group work through the problems to completion. I learned a lot from my peers that way. Going to board by myself doesn't help at all if I don't know what I'm doing”Students also struggled differentiating
(FDP) showing their approved final designs to their peers. The FDP is done toprovide students with experience presenting formally to a large audience. It is not intended to bean opportunity for in-depth critical evaluation of designs; however, students are provided withinstructor and peer feedback on the quality and content of their presentation. The next keydeliverable in the second semester is the Acceptance Test Plan. Teams are expected to validatethe performance of their prototype against the project requirements and this is formalized in awritten test plan that is reviewed and approved by the Client.The latter half of the second semester includes the second and third internal design reviews, theProject Readiness Review (PRR) and the
difficulties with online writing tools” [7, p. 3].Computer Science faculty were surveyed in June 2020 by Bizot et al [8]. 450 faculty respondedto the survey which had been distributed to the Computing Research Association (CRA) and theACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) mailing lists. Thefaculty reported that they changed their pedagogical techniques after the move online. Beforemoving online, 250 faculty had used active learning in their classes. After moving online, 34.9%discontinued active learning, 43.4% made minor changes and 21.3% made significant changes.Collaborative projects and labs were also impacted by the move online. Of the 180 faculty whoused collaborative projects, 13.9% discontinued them, 71.7% made
develop the skills and writing habits to complete doctorate degrees in engineering. Across all of her research avenues, Dr. Matusovich has been a PI/Co-PI on 12 funded research projects including the NSF CAREER Award with her share of funding be ingnearly $2.3 million. She has co-authored 2 book chapters, 21 journal publications and more than 70 conference papers. She has won several Virginia Tech awards including a Dean’s Award for Outstanding New Faculty, an Outstanding Teacher Award and a Faculty Fellow Award. She holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University, an M.S. in Materials Science from the University of Connecticut and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Purdue University.Dr. Cheryl Carrico
skills to succeed in the workplace. Senior capstone design courses provide an opportunity for undergraduate engineering studentsto participate in project-based learning, a unique learning experience requiring hard skills and softskills [15]. Research has identified the importance of senior capstone design on student successentering an industry, rendering it a critical course in the engineering curriculum [16,17]. In priorresearch, motivation was observed to be one of the constructs contributing to student’s overallsuccess as measured by factors such as project performance, peer evaluations, and courseperformance [18,19]. 1.1 Prior Research A recent study in student retention in engineering [4] suggests retention rates between 40-60
○ I can communicate design work in writing. ○ I can communicate design work verbally. ○ I can communicate design work graphically. ● Management and Planning ○ I can monitor progress toward team goals. ○ I can divide a project into manageable components or tasks.Table 4: Engineering Identity and Belonging Survey Category Survey Item Definition ● I understand what it means to be an engineer. Interest ● I enjoy learning engineering. ● I am interested in learning more about engineering. ● I find fulfillment in doing engineering. Recognition
). At present, she has one peer-reviewed publication and has presented her work at three international con- ferences. Her computational skills include Ansys Fluent, GAMS, MATLAB, and Polymath. Her hobbies and interests are singing, cooking, and painting.Dr. Kirti M. Yenkie, Rowan University Dr. Kirti M. Yenkie is an Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering at Rowan University with 10+ years of experience working in the Process Systems Engineering (PSE) area with applications focusing on Sustainability and Environmental Resource Management. She is leading the Sustainable Design and Systems Medicine Lab (https://yenkiekm.com/), which has capabilities to work with major programming and simulation tools. She holds a
trying to learn online using new technology. In some cases, students lived in areas withlimited bandwidth. Some students lacked the use of laptops or other computing resources and oftenattended classes via mobile phones.While working in an office environment was risky and discouraged, the lack of faculty interaction withpeers left many faculty feeling a sense of isolation. Normal hallway discussions were restricted, makingcollaboration such as co-teaching multiple sections of the same course much harder. Similarly, notbeing able to come to campus not only limited faculty-student interactions (office hours, recitations,etc.), it also inhibited student-peer interaction (group projects, teamwork, etc.) and stopped most ofextracurricular experience
February 2020 the World Economic Forum published its report on the characteristics ofEducation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, of which several stand out for their relevantimpact on engineering programs. These are: (i) Global citizenship, building awareness aboutthe wider world and playing an active role in the global community; (ii) Collaborativelearning, requiring peer collaboration and a move to project- and problem-based content thatmore closely mirrors their future work; (iii) Innovation and creativity skills, includingcomplex problem-solving and analytical thinking.In March 2020, the emergence of COVID-19 forced educational institutions to abruptly adoptsocial distancing and quarantine measures, making compliance with the
dropout rates can be achieved and thus achieve good academic behavior. However, thecommitment of the Faculty of Engineering at the university, through its mission, is to incorporatethose who aspire to progress [3].ReflectionConsidering students' interests, the Construction Engineering program is developing an electivecourse based on talks by successful women engineers in working life. The program is interestedin coordinating gender and self-esteem workshops focused on career women to learn to faceconflicts in predominantly male workspaces. The program supports students to form a newstudent center, providing facilities to encourage their peers to participate in the elections. It isessential to have a student center so that the students of the
it became evident that she felt encouraged, a sense ofbelonging, and supported. Stemming from this, Kayla and Gretchen had a collaborativeconversation that was recorded over Zoom at the end of Kayla’s internship in order to understandhow her experiences were influenced by gender and how they impacted her engineering identity.The conversation also brought up memories as well as other journal entries. The frameworks ofin/authenticity and engineering identity were chosen for this paper because of their relatedness tothe research in the form of assets. When writing her narrative, we aimed to use it as a means of“gaining cultural understanding” [5, p. 125]. This helped to ensure that Kayla was not merelydescribing her life and experiences but
order for theanalysis of the sketches to be consistent. Along with the design problem, the participants weregiven sketching paper, with a section to name their concept, a section to provide a sketch, and asection to elaborate on their sketch in writing. Each participant was given ten sheets of sketchingpages and were informed before starting that extra sheets were available if needed.The design problem used mimics industry-level design challenges [27]. It is unlikely that theparticipants had any prior experience with this particular design problem, but it is a problem thatcan be easily understood without prior knowledge or given context. “Design a machine that registers a bottle to a capping station, caps it, and allows somebody to retrieve
important, individual instructors are not without tools, Anderman andKoenka suggest five things instructors can do to reduce cheating in their classes [2]. 1. “Emphasize mastery”, including retaking exams in order to improve. 2. “Don’t stress students out about grades”, don’t call exams ‘big’. 3. “Clearly communicate expectations”, and make grades fixed rather than relative to peers. 4. “Don’t publicize student grades”, even if anonymously. 5. “Talk about cheating”, define it, be clear on consequences, and talk about how it detracts from learning goals.Beyond the immediate objective of stopping cheating, professors should consider tackling thecheating problem as an educational one. College is a time when many students are
protocols and guidelines for students working athome. During in-person instruction, it is straightforward to model proper safety protocols andmonitor students to ensure compliance. For example, reminding students to wear safety glasseswhen soldering, or to disconnect a circuit from the power source when changing components.Several adjustments had to be made to minimize risk for at-home electronics work. First, weremoved the requirement of soldering from the projects. Students were provided with “plug-and-play” solutions such as solderless breadboards and jumper wires. Circuit safety instructions wereprovided to participants in writing, and students were asked not to begin working with their kitmaterials until proper technique was taught and modeled
assigned lecturesout of class, it is important to know what kind of impact this has on a student’s learning experience[6, 13]. By students managing their own time, some students will submit the required quiz morethan a day earlier than some of their peers. With the submission time of quizzes varying betweeneach student, it is important to be able to identify if this impacts a student’s overall performancein the course. A starting point for understanding student behaviors is their approach towards self-scheduling the commitments required for a flipped course. Although all students have differentschedules impacting when assignments are completed, alongside other factors, this paper strives tounderstand more about how a student’s approach towards the
pursuing their major [10] [12] [13] [14].Hutchison-Green et al interviewed first-year engineering students to determine what factors, inthe students’ first semester, begin to affect self-efficacy [15]. They found that performancecomparison (i.e., a student comparing his/her performance to his/her peers) makes a significantimpact on self-efficacy, and that depending on the student and the situation, self-efficacy couldeither increase or decrease in response to the situation. Team-based project courses can thusmitigate the possibility of decreasing students’ confidence because they do not require studentsto work individually and then compare their performance to that of their peers. Instead, studentswork together toward a common goal. Team-based
environment, establish goals, plan tasks,and meet objectives” requires a more complex assessment process. First, the new definition of“Team” requires that a team should consist of more than one person working toward a commongoal and should include individuals of diverse backgrounds, skills, or perspectives. Therefore,programs must demonstrate that the definition of Team requirements are met. SO5 requires thatmembers of a team must be able to create a collaborative and inclusive environment. Severalmethods for measuring attainment of this ability have been used by programs:10 “a. Videotaping a team meeting and evaluating the team performance using a rubric. b. Students write descriptions of their contributions and their team members