different from many other invention competitions in that teamwork isstrongly encouraged and the teacher is a vital part of facilitating the process. When studentsparticipate in the InVenture Challenge, they do not work alone at home; rather, they arecollaborating with up to two other student peers and their teacher is guiding them through anengineering design process. As a result, the InVenture Challenge is inclusive and diverse—abouthalf of K-12 participants are female and nearly 40% are underrepresented minorities.The contributions of this paper are two-fold. First, a model is provided for a K-12 innovationprogram housed at a university that is aimed at empowering underrepresented groups in STEMdisciplines by looking further down the pipeline
has a Ph. D. in Materials Engineering (1998) and Graduate Diploma in Computer Science (1999) from Uni- versity of Wollongong, Australia and holds Bachelor of Engineering (Metallurgical Engineering) degree from Pune University, India (1985). He has worked as a post-doctoral fellow at Carnegie Mellon Uni- versity, Pittsburgh (2001 – 2003) and BHP Institute for Steel Processing and Products, Australia (1998 – 2001). Dr. Manohar held the position of Chief Materials Scientist at Modern Industries, Pittsburgh (2003 – 2004) and Assistant Manager (Metallurgy Group), Engineering Research Center, Telco, India (1985 – 1993). He has published over 55 papers in peer-reviewed journals and conferences including a 2007 Best
. This could beachieved by showing graders how the grades they assign align with their peer graders (in termsof average and distribution), which tends to influence more extreme graders to become moremoderate25. Alternatively, calibration rounds can be used to establish complex formulas to adjustfor different tendencies4.MethodsContext and data collection. This study investigated grading in the second of a two-semester,first-year engineering course sequence that is required for all engineering undergraduates at alarge Midwestern university. The course employs standards-based grading using a set of 19major learning objectives, each with a set of minor learning outcomes, collectively accountingfor 88 total learning outcomes.The course was offered
U.S. and several countries. More than 75 authored or co-authored peer-reviewed publications, 100 conference papers and project reports, and several software packages and databases have been produced from this research. Dr. Burian’s enthusiasm for student learning has led to numerous teaching awards and the creation of new pedagogical approaches directed toward multi-institution collaborative learning. He has also sought to advance teaching effectiveness of engineering educators by serving as mentor at the American Society of Civil Engineers ExCEEd Teaching Workshop and as the developer of a vari- ety of teaching and curriculum development workshops, including the recent Wasatch Experience at the University of
environments with the goal of improving learning opportunities for students and equipping faculty with the knowledge and skills necessary to create such opportunities. One of the founding faculty at Olin Col- lege, Dr. Zastavker has been engaged in development and implementation of project-based experiences in fields ranging from science to engineering and design to social sciences (e.g., Critical Reflective Writing; Teaching and Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, etc.) All of these activities share a common goal of creating curricular and pedagogical structures as well as academic cultures that facilitate students’ interests, motivation, and desire to persist in engineering. Through this work, outreach, and
Paper ID #26352Factors Influencing the Interest Levels of Male versus Female Students goinginto STEM Fields (Evaluation)Dr. Murad Musa Mahmoud, Wartburg College Murad is an Assistant Professor at the Engineering Science Department at Wartburg College. He has a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Utah State University. Research interests include recruitment into STEM, diversity in STEM as well pedagogy and instruction.Ms. Jessica Marie Faber, Wartburg College Jessica is a student at Wartburg College studying Engineering Science with a minor in Creative Writing and Mathematics. She is active with soccer at Wartburg and works
experience with ABET accreditation. Healso has lead the preparation of self-study reports for the various engineering programs in thecollege in the past. The committee members include both full time tenured/tenure track and non-tenure track faculty, including the department chair. All members contribute to the committeefunctions and several are involved in writing various sections of self-study report. Thecommittee meets as needed and more often in the summer to prepare for the fall semester. It isestimated that 8 meetings in the summer, 12 meetings in the spring/fall semester. A total of 20meetings of 2 hours each, involving 8 faculty occur per year, representing a 320 person hoursefforts devoted to meetings and at least double this effort for
projects, which required them to do additionalanalysis and research on a topic of their choosing and, importantly, incorporate site visits and theknowledge gained from those visits into the project.Finally, we borrowed some aspects of the Montessori Method17 that we felt might proveadvantageous. Engineering Rome is (1) a multi-level, course (i.e., appropriate for Freshmanthrough graduate students) designed to foster peer learning, and (2) the final project is a guidedchoice work activity with the instructor serving in the role of Montessori’s “directress.” WhileMontessori’s writings generally concern early aged learning (and not college students), we feltthere was substantial evidence that these ideas would be beneficial. For instance, Katz et al
Affairs, and International system, Officer of Diversity, Latina/o Affairs Education Policy (PhD)6 Human Development, Assistant professor of education, coordinator of STEM emphasis on reading and education for teacher preparation; currently planning a literacy (PhD) collaborative proposal with other faculty and administrators for a STEM Center at the request of the institution. Over the course of the last two years, collaborated with faculty in Engineering to write grant proposals for programs that would provide professional development for teachers
forced requirement of her large introductory STS course. At the same time, they weresignificantly less skilled at reading and writing than Wylie had anticipated. Their open laptops,poor attendance, missing assignments, and silence in response to her discussion questions wereperhaps all signs of their intimidation at this foreign subject, which may have heightened orcreated their resistance to learning about it. In response to students’ inability or unwillingness toread the assigned sources – a widespread cause of poor class discussions – Wylie began showingcartoons about issues relevant to the day’s lecture topic. After all, cartoons demand only basicliteracy skills, require no homework preparation, are fun and silly, and yet nonetheless manage
Students (IRES) projects funded by the NSF. He has published over 90 papers in peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Dr. Kang Xia, Virginia Tech Kang Xia received her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1997), M.S. from Louisiana State University (1993), and B.S. from Beijing Agricultural University (1989). She was a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1997-1998), an Assistant Professor at Kansas State University (1998-2001), University of Georgia (2002-2005), and Assistant Professor, Dept. of Chemistry, Mississippi State University (2006-2010), an Associate Professor at Mississippi State University (2010- 2011) and at Virginia Tech (2011-2016). She also served as Director for Re
Sociology at Marquette University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The courses she teach include Social Problems, Race & Ethnicity, Social Strati- fication, and the Sociology Senior Seminar. She was an Association for the Study of Higher Education /Lumina Fellow in 2003. Dr. Smith’s primary research interests include examining racial and class dispar- ities within the higher education system. She also writes on policy issues dealing with mentoring, access, retention, equity, and diversity in higher education. She has over 10 years of experience researching how colleges and universities can assist underrepresented students with understanding and navigating the insti- tutional
Accelerator is the Design Thinking Process developed by the Hasso-Plattner Institute ofDesign at Stanford, in which students are encouraged to empathize, define, ideate, prototype, andtest their inventions [5]. The learning objectives for students in the Summer Accelerator mirrorthose set out for students participating in the year-long program, including: choosing a problemand writing a problem statement about how people experience this problem; ideating solutions tothat problem that are better or less expensive than devices that are currently available; sketchingand making a prototype of their idea; obtaining feedback through conferencing and user surveys;and presenting their project to an audience through a “pitch.”Students in the Summer
has published over 55 peer-reviewed or invited papers and is the recipient of numerous teaching and advising awards including the WPI Trustees’ Awards for Outstanding Teaching and for Outstanding Advising. From 2004 to 2010 he served as a Senior Science Fellow of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.Prof. Kent J Rissmiller, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Associate Dean, Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Associate Professor, Social Science and Policy Stud- ies Page 23.874.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 Long-Term
includes comments from members of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Professional Advisory Committee (CEEPAC).The direct paraphrasing and teacher-designed feedback surveys were created by the evaluator formid-term and final course assessments. Out of fifty assessment techniques that passed a seven-question peer review (Appendix A)22, seven were selected by the evaluator for a finalcomparison of their applicability to the EPSC course (Table 3). These two assessmenttechniques, direct paraphrasing and teacher-designed feedback forms, were chosen as courseassessment tools because: Page 10.683.7 “Proceedings of the 2005 American
achieved when informed byethically motivated technology experts, including engineers, as injecting ethics into theformation of policy begins with those who write it. For these reasons, it would be valuable tounderstand the relationship between the variables that may influence a technology expert in theirpursuance of a policy career path, such as the development of their various identities (personaland social, engineering, and ethical identities) of these engineers. Discussions have taken placeregarding public policy engineering workforce expectations and development and the use ofthese various identities, particularly ethics identity, in establishing a policy career pathway forengineers. There is not an explicit connection between the influence of
differentfrom their advisor’s approach) for their thesis or dissertation projects. One additional purposethese graduate students had for searching was to more broadly find literature in their disciplinaryfield. This was especially the case for graduate students whose labs held journal clubs ormeetings where they were expected to regularly share and report out on current literature.The five faculty participants also had multiple reasons for searching the scholarly literature.Some were actively engaged in writing grant proposals and needed literature to demonstrate therelevance of their proposed projects. Faculty also searched the literature to keep tabs on whattheir academic competitors were doing, as well as to look for inspiration from peers in their
ofoutreach program goals, by setting a goal of the program to increase students’ level ofknowledge and clarity around the engineering domain and career trajectory. This wouldresult in a better student-field fit, thereby increasing the likelihood of continued participation inthe program. In addition, it could potentially decrease their likelihood of future attrition from ormigration within a four-year degree program. It can also help inform program activity design -for example including peer-connections and panel events to connect outreach programparticipants with current students and researchers from various engineering domains allied to theoutreach participants’ selected field of study. This provided the outreach program participantswith a richer
goals and objectives, researchtasks, and time schedule for their project. The second through seventh weeks were primarilydevoted to: developing materials, components, structural assemblages, and test equipment;testing; test data synthesis; and interim report presentations. Every alternate Friday afternoonwas devoted to student presentations. Each team submitted a written report and gave an oralPower Point presentation in which each participant participated in some capacity. This approachpromoted teamwork, and provided an opportunity to each student to lead the discussion andrespond to queries. When the goals of a project were nearing completion, the students wereassisted in writing the work as a Technical Report and prepare a Display Poster. On
. Students will then be required to utilize themin their projects, and improvements can be suggested through the engineering test planintermediate deliverable.4. Instructing students on how to perform a peer-reviewed literature search.Currently, engineering students at SRU are only required to take Critical Reading and CriticalWriting, neither of which emphasize technical communication. As a result, class time will bededicated to instruction on how to properly conduct background research and write a literatureand patent search, class time will be dedicated to. The STEM librarian at SRU will join thecourse and highlight what resources are available to students, which sources are to be consideredreliable, and how to properly cite others’ work. An
). A problem with this approachis that due to the timeline of the course, the course ends up focusing more on the develop-ment than on the testing part (the author reports that 55% of the time is spent developingwhile only 33% of the time is spent testing, and the remaining 12% is spent writing a shortreflection paper).There have also been experiences using “real-world” (industrial) software under test in test-ing courses8, as a mean to effectively teach students how to test real software. The majorrisks of this approach are confidentiality and technical support on software that is under de-velopment by others. Garousi8 states that this approach requires and leads to strong academ-ia-industry partnerships, but points out that it is necessary
expected roles and competencies—a key factor in becoming a successfulprofessional.5 Professional identity development can be influenced by interactive, intellectual, Page 23.1058.3and concrete experiences during professional training, and often relies on verification fromrelevant others. 5 Through interactions with faculty, mentors, and peers, both in and out of the classroom, students begin to engage in professional behavior as they start to master technicalknowledge and practical competencies and learn to develop a confident demeanor. 5
, and practice of teamwork and intercultural communication are taught inengineering classrooms; in short, they are not. Although engineering programs work towardhelping their students develop teamwork competencies, teamwork in engineering classrooms hasbeen largely bereft of direct teaching about the communication-rooted components of teamwork(Kedrowicz & Nelson, 2007), tending instead to focus on the process and organizationalelements of teamwork and various levels of assessment, such as peer-assessment and observation(Chowdhry & Murzi, 2019). Intercultural competency in engineering classrooms suffers asimilar fate (Warnick, 2011; Ndubuisi, et al., 2020) and is often discussed in essentialist termswherein intercultural competency is
questions and how they interacted with their peers during thediscussion. The students held steadfast to the discussion guidelines, exhibiting respect andconsideration for their fellow students, allowing for a deeper conversation. As the class consistsof senior engineering students, the expectation was that they would be able to identify theengineering failures, but may struggle with the discussion on racial inequities due to a lack ofexposure in previous engineering courses. Surprisingly, the students understood and articulatedthe impact of institutional discrimination on the events leading up to and response to HurricaneKatrina.However, not all of the students reviewed the reading material prior to class. Since a largeportion of the class had not
synonymously in the literature; however, postgraduate can either refer to aperson who has earned a high school diploma or who has also earned a collegiate-level degree.Graduate students and undergraduate students often follow different paths in the academicenvironment. They serve divergent roles, face separate challenges, and have differentexperiences. Graduate students face obstacles beyond the classroom—in their ability to meetwith advisers, attend conferences, and develop social support from their peers—thatundergraduate students may not face [3]. Even in the classroom graduate students may beexpected to meet different expectations than their undergraduate counterparts. This may includea greater volume of reading and reading assignments provided
provide an environment where social modeling can take place. Similarly, the effectsof social persuasion may be attenuated in a remote setting where the connection betweenstudents and instructor is more difficult to forge; and where it is more difficult to connectstudents with their peers. Lastly, the transition to remote instruction meant a significant portionof the student body were not co-located on the university campus; many remained at home withtheir parents. While this means some have the support of their parents during the academic term,not all home environments are the same, and students who are not on campus have little access toall the supports that have been put in place to help students succeed at university. Clearly then,remote
, Thames & Phelps, 2008; Gess-Newsome, 1999; Grossman, 1990). The educator’s ability to explainand show should not be tacit knowledge. According to Shulman (1986; 1987) an effective educatorshould be “held responsible for explaining what they do and why they do it, to their students, theircommunities, and their peers” (Shulman, 1987, p. 12). In design education, this involves the transitioningof the design educators from grasping the subject matter themselves so that they can elucidate it from thestudents “in new ways, reorganize and partition it, cloth it in activities and emotions, in metaphors andexercises, and in examples and demonstrations” (p. 13).The emphasis in the development of the PCK framework is on transformative comprehension
: results will be shared in the LLL-III course 4. Share presentations and writings with peers, seeking feedback and demonstration of newly developed competencies 5. Deepen her/his understanding of the global environment on technology strategy, and 6. Develop competencies with social and ethical responsibilities.LLL III (ETLS 850) 1. Identify leadership intentions for his/her future, based on a broad understanding of leadership style, competencies and character 2. Share her/his portfolio of learning with the class, demonstrating how this will be used in his/her workplace
theconcepts and each new lab assignment. We also presented strategies for approaching the labassignment and writing the report. Unfortunately, this approach does not scale well with theincreasing class size. Hence, we wanted to find a strategy for student success that scales wellwith the growing number of students, without compromising on instruction and that helps free upthe lab time that may be used to provide one-on-one time with students.1.1 Discovery of the Issues in Fall ’18 and Spring ‘19The motivation for using the flipped class delivery method for the lab instructions is based on theobservation of student performance and outcomes in Fall 2018 and Spring 2019. We analyzedthe lab assignment submission rate and earned lab grades. Figure 1 shows
“guides” or “consultants.” A guide is afaculty member who is the primary mentor for the project. He or she is the most intimatelyinvolved with the entire process, and remain with the team for both quarters of MSD. The guideis also ideally an expert in the field of the project’s subject matter. He or she meets with theirteam weekly, helps resolve technical issues, provides advice on resolving personnel conflicts,and grades the team on its deliverables. The final individual student grade is also adjusted up ordown by the guide. After reviewing the logbooks, peer evaluations, and looking at the overallparticipation, the grade can be modified to reflect the student’s overall contribution.The guide most often acts as the administrative point of