critical reflection is a reasonable approximation of evaluation given the moremodest goal of this research—to serve as an example of how computer science researchers andeducators could integrate justice-centered approaches within an undergraduate curriculum.Given these methods, this research makes no claims about how students or faculty receive thecourse plan. Future evaluations would be largely qualitative, surveying students’ capacitybuilding and reception of the course through interviewing.4. Course DesignTitled “Power, Equity, and Praxis in Computing” (PEPC), the course plan is discussed throughthree facets: the course’s purpose, its content, and its (intended) learning environment. Thepurpose of the course is to make space for undergraduate
without implicitly placing theonus for change on students” [8, p. 576]. A focus on student success within institutions thatweren’t built with them in mind is important for reframing the narrative regarding “achievementgaps,” but this theory can also be helpful for illuminating misalignment between assets possessedby students from groups systemically marginalized in STEM fields and the capital valued byacademic institutions. In doing so, we can identify levers for institutional transformation thatcould help elevate the value of community cultural wealth beyond counterspaces/ethnic enclaveswithin the university setting.By identifying areas of misalignment between student assets and institutional values reflected inpolicies, we can illustrate the
Reflection in Engineering Education. Helen holds an undergraduate degree in communication from UCLA and a PhD in communication with a minor in psychology from Stanford University. Her current research and scholarship focus on engineering and entrepreneurship education; the pedagogy of portfolios and reflec- tive practice in higher education; and redesigning how learning is recorded and recognized in traditional transcripts and academic credentials.Dr. Swetha Nittala, Stanford University Swetha is currently a Lecturer and a Science and Engineering Education Fellow at the Mechanical Engi- neering Department, Stanford University. She recently completed her PhD from the School of Engineering Education at Purdue where she
procedures using Labster (Labster ApS, Copenhagen DK) virtual simulations orsmartphone accelerometer apps. While this offering was considered successful given thecircumstances of development, feedback and observations from students, teachers, and graduatestudent mentors highlighted limitations of this format. Some of these challenges centered aroundthe clarity of project instruction and lack of discretized scheduling to help guide students throughthe completion of projects. However, most prominent upon reflection was the loss of student-centred, open-ended, and iterative problem-solving opportunities typically afforded byDiscovery.To address these limitations and challenges, program structure for remote Discovery wasredesigned and implemented in
AbstractIn this research paper, we explore student responses to Utility Value Interventions in staticscourses. Introductory engineering mechanics courses (e.g., statics, dynamics) are critical pointswithin a curriculum, and student performance in these courses can have a strong influence onfuture success. And while these courses are often thought of as “weed out” courses, the ubiquityof these courses for engineers is what makes them an important place for students to develop themotivation to persist through their engineering education. One particularly promising tool for thisdevelopment has been Utility Value Interventions (UVIs) in which students are given opportunitiesto reflect on how their coursework aligns with their lives through short writing
mastery are the fundamental elements of intrinsic motivation. 3. Interdisciplinary: Our future challenges are increasingly interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. This means that a stable and well-defined range of subjects is becoming obsolete. We need to provide a structural overview in their field of study that will enable them to integrate the knowledge they are constantly acquiring. It will be our job to provide this framework. 4. Mode of Assessment: Standardized tests or general exams are useless. Student assessment should be based on their individual reflection of their own learning progress and their contributions to the collective learning process. 5. Source of Knowledge and Information: Our students have numerous
point. Try to come up with different ways to meet the needs you identified, not just minor variations of the same solution.After 10-15 minutes, ask a few participants to share their beneficial ideas, including whether theynoticed something about the problem they had not previously thought about.ReflectReflection is an important part of the learning process [46]. Whether participants are learningabout the problem or how to do the process, reflection deepens the learning. The facilitatorshould guide a reflective conversation or ask participants to reflect in writing. Consider questionssuch as: • Can you share a little about how you felt as you went through the process, from defining the problem, to posing harmful &
to 12 total, 4-hour days of in-class instruction, scattered over thecourse of 3.5 weeks. As a result, this transition process and the resulting course provides a uniqueopportunity for both personal reflection and for future research. This work-in-progress paper combines literature on study abroad programs and acceleratedlearning with instructor and student feedback regarding this instance of accelerated Statics offeredabroad through PUWL. More specifically, it examines the successes and shortcomings of thecourse in light of the logistical and pedagogical decisions made by the instructors, the students’own experiences abroad, and the literature-based best practices reviewed after the course’scompletion. By observing stand-out successes
engineering studentsrecounted and reflected on their experiences from a brainstorming session. We emphasize theirinsight on obstacles encountered and recommendations to overcome these challenges. Thisresearch therefore offers a student-centered viewpoint on the issues in engineering education thatmight hinder students’ brainstorming abilities or prevent full exploration of the design space. Byexploring these topics, we hope to offer recommendations for more effectively incorporatingbrainstorming practices into engineering education in ways that better suit student needs.In the following sections, we review literature concerning various design processes, ideationchallenges, and recommendations for increasing creative output. Next, we outline our
-aligned practices in another, and effective communication andconsideration of social and cultural context in the third. The structure and activity of each club wasfundamental to the learning that occurred [10]. Another study focused on the co-curricularexperiences of African-American students reported gains in teamwork and reflective behaviorthrough involvement in engineering clubs compared with their non-participating peers [11]. Theyalso found that more engagement led to higher gains [11].Other co-curriculars that are not necessarily limited to engineering, like makerspaces, have beenshown to provide important educational benefits. Co-curricular activities, including non-engineering activities, that involve multidisciplinary design elements can
influence – often negatively – their pursuit of careers in engineering and computerscience [2], [5]–[9].While at one time, computer science was seen as a profession that was both welcoming and open todiverse membership [10]–[15], this vision was either never realized or quickly lost [16]–[19]. Culturaland gendered expectations (what everybody `knows` and commonsensically `performs`, but fewactually think about) that have been part of the lived reality of this technological society seem to havefound their way into computer science, and it is not working in everybody’s favor. Faced with claimsthat computer science’s `face` as stereotypically white or Asian, and male, is somehow reflective of asort of evolutionary inevitability – `that’s just the way
opportunitiesguaranteeing stimulating lifelong career-development opportunities. These benchmarks forsuccess include: “an ability to learn how to learn, an ability to form learning communities,and an ability to collaborate in distributed corporate settings, across countries, continents andcultures”[3].Universities attempt to capture the demand for the new skillset by revising and extending theexistent intended learning outcomes (ILOs) to include references to the meta-competencies.Biggs and Tang[5] note that the most effective ILOs will challenge students to go further than‘solve’ or ‘explain’, asking instead to ‘apply to professional practice’, ‘hypothesise’,‘reflect’, even ‘relate to principles’, in short to demonstrate the so-called higher-orderthinking skills
) aremeasure relevant available to students and public, library of exemplars available [39, 40, 42, 43]content/practice Authenticity: Reflects real world content in context [30, 39, 44] Meaningfulness: Includes worthwhile educational activities, includes stakeholder voices [39, 40, 45, 46] Quality: Content reflects field, as judged by content experts [39]Criterion validity: degree to Systematic validity: Assessment induces changes in educational system thatwhich the assessment tasks are enhance its ability to foster learning [37, 41, 46, 47]systematically related to an Fairness/Bias: Equitable
, arguing that the education system and cultural capital reflect the norms ofprivileged racial and ethnic groups [12]. Thus, students within the education system are expectedto know and operate within this set of cultural norms. However, students from different class,race, or ethnic backgrounds are less likely to know these cultures, and therefore operate at adisadvantage within education settings, such as “predominantly White universities [that]typically reflect White, male, middle-class perspectives” ([12], p. 95). As Dumais [13] explains,these students: might not be viewed as favorable by teachers, they might not understand materials or assignments that were based on the dominant culture, and they might opt out of education
hypotheses rather than conclusions. First, PIsexpect undergraduate lab workers to express “interest” and “excitement” about research. Weworry that assessing students according to how a professor perceives their “enthusiasm” canunintentionally exclude students who differ from the professor, such as by gender, race, class, orculture. Second, members of the two labs tell stories about failure to undergraduates in differentways, which serve as powerful modes of socialization. Discourse styles as reflected incommunities’ storytelling may influence undergraduates’ sense of belonging. Third, we tried anew methodology of inviting students to discuss their different kinds and levels of expertise withregards to the concept of T-shaped expertise, i.e., having
novices offered a greater proportion of factors from thenatural and social frames of reference, versus technical and logistical frames, which indicated arather broad approach the problem. We argue that this may reflect the novices’ relativeinexperience with engineering concepts. While the four experts’ responses differed in terms oftheir representations through a “breadth of problem scoping” coding scheme, two of theresponses echoed a characteristic top-down, breadth-first approach to design. The difference inprotocols presents challenges in comparing expert and novice behavior, and methodologicalissues of collecting less information from a greater number of subjects versus collecting moreinformation from fewer subjects were addressed. Because
/building at a higher rate than men. As Felder et al. have argued, allengineering students tend to be visual rather than aural learners, so these differences in definitiondo not necessarily reflect any actual gender differences in learning style.10 Rather, they could bea reflection of gender differences in perception. Furthermore, it is quite interesting that a greaterproportion of men than women included improving humankind in their definitions ofengineering. Considering the weight of women’s development literature that documents theirsocialization as caregivers and connected knowers, we wonder if women engineering studentscontinue to set the study and practice of engineering apart from other activities that they wouldconsider to be in service to
these mentoring relationships can be extraordinarily productive, they also can behighly variable in quality because of the individualized nature of the experience.A different approach is to incorporate senior graduate students as a resource for mentoring lessexperienced graduate students, especially in relation to teaching practices. Some peer-mentoringprograms arrange graduate students into pairs, where the pair can establish a long-term, one-on-one mentor-mentee relationship. Bollis-Pecci and Walker point out that this kind of pairingbenefits not only the mentee, but also the mentor in the form of opportunities for reflection, aswell as original perspectives and ideas coming from the less experienced GSI.8Centralized mentoring programs
graduate course work ancillary to the research experience, participants were askedto make predictions. Many of the efforts outside of the core charge of research revolved aroundthe transferability piece, which took on the form of an instructional unit. This instructional unitwas to capture the essence of the participants experience within a research facility. To gaugeparticipant sentiment, reflection was requested according to two writing prompts. The first,"make an in-depth prediction of success for the proposed instructional unit,” gets participantsthinking about some of the unplanned difficulties that may arise during the course of theinstructional unit. The second had participants "complete a 1-2 page paper reflecting on thetransferability of
categories. The first categoryreflects the impact of the OST Clubs on the students’ and teachers’ knowledge andgrowth in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields (Figure 5). Thesecond category reflects the impact of the OST Clubs on the students’ and teachers’relationships in the academic environment (Figure 6). Does Participation in an OST Club Positively Affect the Students or Teachers... (1=Not at all, 2=not much, 3=some, 4=a little, 5=a lot) 5.00
framework is the alignment of the elements of development model, observation tasksin the assessment instrument, and interpretation of assessment responses. Diagrams of thisframework and the development model are given in Appendix A and B, respectively.The model represents the first leg of the assessment triangle and has been broadly defined basedon typical capstone course outcomes44. Outcomes are divided into two distinguishable areas ofstudent learning objectives: Learner Development and Solution Development. LearnerDevelopment includes outcomes relating to the professional attributes important to students in adesign project, such as ethics, reflection, personal growth, professional development, andteaming skill. These are broadly classified into
,departments, and backgrounds. Ultimately, we began the study with eleven cadet participants andfive faculty participants, who logged their activities and hours with our spreadsheets reflected inAppendix 1D and Appendix 2 at the end of each week of the study. As a reminder of how the weekwas structured, we added to each worksheet tab a snapshot of the USMA academic calendar forthat week as shown in the table below.Table 5. USMA Academic Calendar for Week 1 of Study (Fall Semester) We also classified participants into only the two groups of cadets or faculty. Even though somefaculty are more senior than others, some studies demonstrate that the time effects of teaching donot tend to vary significantly between faculty experience levels (Moore
the semester, just after the Teaching Assistants have provided feedback tostudents on their first draft solution to the Paper Plane Challenge MEA, and near the end of thesemester, just after giving students feedback on their first draft solutions to the third MEA,Student Travel Modes. These interviews were conducted with individual Teaching Assistants,lasted approximately 30 minutes, and were audio-recorded. The interview protocol for the firstsemi-structured interviews is presented in Appendix B. The second interview followed the sameprotocol, but the interview participants were also asked to reflect on any changes (in theirexperiences with grading the MEAs, such as changes in what they found challenging aboutgrading the MEAs, changes in
the single most important dis-criminator between a correct and incorrect forecast [25]. At the current time, student activities are numerous. Computing algorithms are studiedand implemented that convert radar data from the phased array radar into environmentalmeasurements known as spectral moments – very similar to previous researchers associatedwith conventional rotating weather radars [26, 27, 28]. Spectral moments (reflectivity, radialvelocity, and spectrum width) are the essential, required radar meteorological measurementsthat are used to make decisions about cloud locations, storms, rain fall, tornados, downbursts,hail and other interesting weather phenomena. Microbursts are strong downbursts of airfrom evolving rain-clouds which can
changes should only reflect on the variance of quality and notimplicitly introduce new criteria. Each descriptive indicator for a criterion should avoid bothunclear and unnecessary negative language use. Additionally, the descriptive language usedshould be sufficiently rich to allow for student self-evaluation, and it should be reliable such thatit enables consistent scoring across both judges and time. This requires that evaluative language(“excellent,” “poor”) and comparative language (“better than,” “worse than”) is transformed into Page 11.1409.4highly descriptive language that specifies the distinctive features of each performance level
educators attending to studentemotion within an engineering design environment. Our research setting takes place in a 3-creditpedagogy seminar (EDCI488E) for undergraduate engineering peer educators who are teachingconcurrently in a first-year engineering design course (ENES100). The pedagogy seminar ismodeled after the Learning Assistant Program developed at University of Colorado-Boulder. Theseminar focuses on engineering content and pedagogy relevant to teaching engineering design(i.e. design thinking, reflective decision-making, and teamwork and collaboration). Our researchanalyzes for how empathy impacted peer educators’ teaching practices in the seminar. Usingfield notes, coursework, and videotapes of the pedagogy seminar, we analyzed the
clarity and reflect the scientific nature ofthe content10. As part of the in-class discipline specific activity, the students were divided intogroups by the instructors and were asked to collaborate with group members in dealing with theengineering challenge at hand. This grouping was done to emphasize the importance andnecessity of teamwork in engineering where cooperation impacts the productivity andperformance of the team and also to implement the concept of cooperative learning2,14. Based on feedback collected from program participants, instructors, and counselors duringthe 2015 program, some changes were made to the 2016 program. The theme for 2016 was CO2capture, which apart from being a global problem was chosen in part because the
reflection exercises and interactivetheatre sketches on the importance of diversity19,20.MethodologyCritical ethnography and IntersectionalityEthnography, a primary tool of anthropologists, is a common method used to understand culturefrom the perspective of insiders of that culture. Ethnographic methods include participantobservation, field memos, interviews, and focus groups interviews21,22. Our research is rooted incritical ethnography, which “begins with an ethical responsibility to address processes ofunfairness or injustice within a particular lived domain” (p. 5)23. Critical ethnographers take anactive social justice position in making visible oppressive power relations within a culture andapplying their findings to have positive impacts on
and AcademicDiscipline on Design Prototype Variability” [12] discussed using EEG as part of the pilot butreported no results and instead focused on artifacts from the prototyping activity and the resultsof survey instruments to measure cognitive style. One paper, “Critical Thinking, ReflectivePractice, and Adaptive Expertise in Engineering”, had a small section discussing the need forfMRI studies to be conducted while participants “solve problems that are expected to promotecritical thinking, reflection, or transfer” but again is not an empirical study. The vast majority ofremaining hits for EEG or fMRI were discussing engineering instrumentation labs orcoursework, signal processing, or in briefly referring to how a finding in neuroscience
second iteration of this class, we experimentedwith adding a second mouse to some desktops to promote sharing and turn-taking practicesbetween partners when working collaboratively. At the afterschool workshop, students usedlaptop carts provided by the school. Students had access to Windows laptops with 11-inchconvertible touchscreens.Google Drive: Google Drive [10] is a free online office productivity suite. Google Drive wasused at both sites to facilitate activities/assignments. Each student had access to their ownGoogle Drive folder that consisted of places for them to (1) access instructions, (2) work on non-modeling activities (3) write reflections, and (4) store files.Autodesk Tinkercad: Tinkercad [11] is a free cloud-based computer aided