demand they interact with faculty and peers about substantive matters; typically over extended periods of time. 3. Increase the likelihood that students will experience diversity through contact with people who are different than themselves. 4. Allow students to get frequent feedback about their performance. 5. Provide opportunities for students to see how what they are learning works in different settings. 6. Help students gain a better understanding of self in relation to others. pp. 14-17.One of the teaching and learning practices Kuh (2008) identified as a high-impact experience isinternships.Internships place students in work experiences in which they have little or no control over thesequences or difficulty of
observation, experimentation, data collection, analysis,and iteration to improve their designs. This approach is aligned with the Framework forImplementing Quality K-12 Engineering which notes, “Engineers use a variety of techniques,skills, processes, and tools in their work. Students studying engineering at the K-12 level need tobecome familiar and proficient with some of these techniques, skills, processes, and tools.2” Thekits are designed to be used in different contexts, from short term demonstration experiences toactivities which involve students in partial design challenges that require them to collaboratewith their peers to solve a problem or answer a question. Recognizing that engineering hasconnections to science, mathematics and technology
. Angela Marie Jones, University of Wisconsin–Platteville Angela Jones teaches First-Year English Composition / Rhetoric and Research Writing at UW–Platteville and adds Screenwriting to the above courses at the University of Dubuque. She has worked as a Tech- nical Writer & Editor at ENGEO, a geotechnical engineering company in San Ramon, CA. She takes special care to uphold brevity in most writing instances, and has led a writing workshop for engineers and geologists that tackles wordiness and related style issues.Dr. Michael K Thompson, University of Wisconsin, Platteville Keith Thompson is an associate professor in the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at the University of Wisconsin
method of addressing the issue of variance reduction due to group evaluation inthis type of projects course is well treated by Earle and Wood12. To determine individual gradesfrom group efforts, they use a nomograph in conjunction with (a) student assigned values ofpercent contribution for each member of their own group, and (b) an overall team grade assignedby the instructor. This assumes, of course, that the students provide an honest assessment oftheir peers, and on the whole this would seem to be a reasonable assumption if it is done “in theblind”. To evaluate the initial project proposals, we used a similar concept but did not use thesame approach. We had the students rank the project proposal presentations and the instructorprovided his
engineering in her elementary and early childhood science methods courses, and has developed engineering education courses for middle school pre-service teachers and practicing ele- mentary teachers. She has provided science and engineering professional development to multiple schools and school systems in Maryland, and has significantly contributed to the writing of many integrated STEM units of instruction used by teachers and school systems. Her research has examined factors that support and those that hinder elementary teachers as they learn to teach engineering, and currently focuses on how children and teachers learn to engineer and in the process, learn to fail and productively persist. She is the Director of the
/ambitiousness, (2) completion of checkoff goals, (3) individualwork, and (4) clarity of explanation. Teams were then required to present their midterm progressin front of an audience of peers and instructors. These presentations were graded on a team basisfor time management, clarity, style, content, and organization. This was followed by two morecheckoffs that used the same grading criteria as the first one as well as a final presentation whichused the same criteria as the midterm presentation. Finally, each group was required to submit afinal report which was graded on presentation, grammar, and a heavy focus on technical content.In most groups, the grades for individual team members were very similar unless there was ateam member who was not
lose it” prevailed.The faculty responded to this situation by re-designing our undergraduate unit operations courseto include both statistics content and its direct application in the planning of laboratoryexperiments and analysis of data.The original junior-level three-credit course was comprised of two hours of lab (two 2 ½-hoursessions per week) and one hour of lecture. The course included a good blend of traditional andmodern experiments and lecture topics on lab safety, writing skills, professionalism and ethics,and a token discussion of statistics and experimental design. When a one-credit junior seminarcourse, “Chemical Engineering as a Profession,” was introduced in our curriculum, studentslearned about many of the professional topics
dualism, and the meritocracy ideology (for further details on theseideologies read: [13], [14]). Cech found that the need to meet accreditation requirements and be considered,“legitimate purveyors of knowledge” [10, p. 64] can put pressure on even the most ethically andpedagogically innovative of schools to fall into the same culture of disengagement. The study found thatwhile all four of the engineering programs studied showed a decrease in the perceived importance of publicwelfare amongst students as they progressed through their time in school, programs perceived by studentsas focusing on ethical and social issues, with a general education and writing skills emphasis, and a focuson policy implications overall found ethical responsibilities
)? Reflect and memo. Memo: how does this help us think about answering our research questions? Consider: Memo on RCG lenses 7. A. how is my RCG (including intersectionally) operating here? (Word doc) B. how is RCG (including interjectionally) operating here? Of what is this a case? Write up short case of interview using insights from passes, memos (especially the ruling relations memos (step 4) and the TOC
compriseabout 28% of the population, but their presence in nonacademic science and engineeringpositions is only about 9%[5]. Clearly, these groups represent large reservoirs of untappedpotential for new STEM professionals. We can no longer afford to waste the talent of two-thirdsof our increasingly diverse population. As stated in President Obama’s Executive Order No.13583[6]: “We are at our best when we draw on the talents of all parts of our society, and our greatest accomplishments are achieved when diverse perspectives are brought to bear to overcome our greatest challenges.”This important idea is extended in Peter Godfrey-Smith’s “Theory and Reality”, who writes thatsome female philosophers believe that “the experiences of the
Can a Body Do? How We Meet the Built World, the artist, design researcher, and OlinCollege professor Sara Hendren writes, “Engineering is not the science of the laboratory alone…It is fundamentally applied, which means its results live in the world. It belongs to people, notjust as ‘users’ but as protagonists of their dimensional lives” [1, p. 23]. Hendren’s invocation of avision of engineering as radically human-centered provided the philosophical and humanisticcore to our interdisciplinary teaching team as we embarked on designing a new course forfirst-year students at Boston College (BC). Our course, Making the Modern World: Design,Ethics, and Engineering (MMW), situated engineering practice and knowledge within its social,political, and
examines the self-reported reflections of121 preservice elementary teachers after participating in an exemplar lesson, then writing andteaching a modified or original engineering design lesson (an “Engineering Mini Unit”) to K-6students as part of their school-based field experience. The first section of this paper highlightsthe research done on the needs of preservice elementary teachers. Next, the paper describes thecontext in which the preservice teachers learned about engineering design through first-handparticipation in engineering design and the teaching of an engineering design lesson. Then thepaper examines the qualitative approach to analyzing the preservice teachers’ responses to fourquestions constructed to help them reflect on their
PI first coded using in vivo and topic codes. This was followed by grouping codes intocategories. During the categorization process the two investigators discussed the categories asthey emerged from the codes providing peer review for the study58. After an initial set ofcategories emerged, the PI examined categories having a large number (>20) of codes andlooked for sub-categories. After coding was completed for a student, codes were compared withthe previous coding resulting in a repeated process of coding a student followed by comparing tothe previous coding results. This provided an ever emerging, expanding, and contracting codeand category list throughout the process. By saving the entire NVivo record after coding eachstudent, we were
which we may develop innovativeeducational approaches to capturing, archiving, and projecting pivotal concepts in support of and incollaboration with teaching faculty. A Concept Vignette may be embodied through video media, but italso may be embodied in many other forms, such as artistic renderings, poetic verse, writings, etc. Figure2d illustrates the fourth dimension of the 4D Big-D pedagogy. The fourth dimension cannot be readilyvisualized, but instead embodies the extra-curricular and outside the classroom activities that arestrategically developed and coordinated to enrich design in the students’ experiences.II.2 Pedagogical UnderpinningsEngineering education continues to change as we encounter more interdisciplinary learning and
accounts for the differences?Literature ReviewLiterature was identified by searching various databases (Web of Science Core Collection, Webof Science Inspec, and ASEE Peer) for keywords, which included “disparities”, “academia”,“women”, “engineering”, “inequities”, and “gender”. The identified records were screened forrelevance, availability, and duplicates. In total, 110 papers were selected to be analyzed from allareas of academia in a full-text analysis. 30 papers were disqualified after review for not fittingthe scope of the study. Some of those reasons included a focus on undergraduate students and afocus on women in engineering in the industry. 18 papers focused on engineering and wereanalyzed to identify disparities for women, the causes of
engineering education. Not only can thesecommunities offer engagement opportunities through experiential education in the discipline,they also provide professional relationships that are key to supporting a sense of belonging inthe career among participants, such as mentorship connections that foster career developmentand peer networks within which engineering identity can be explored. In our most recent studyof the impacts of the Communities of Practice program [2], our analysis helped us todemonstrate that community participants were significantly more likely than non-participants toreach what we called a “crossroads of questioning” in their career development. This turningpoint of uncertainty and questioning aligns with critical thinking and
that“inclusivity” and the “presence of better educators” are not commonly cited reasons whyinternational students come to the US for higher education [4], [5].The presence of international students is often described in terms of its socioeconomic benefits tothe host countries [6], but this perspective often cloaks the associated nuances of studying abroad.One commonly cited statistic on this topic is that international students contributed more than $45billion of revenue money to the United States within one calendar year [7]. Yet, other studies haveattempted to expound on the benefits of developing interculturally competent graduates throughthe interactions between domestic American students and their international peers [8].International
one’s ability to relate new concepts and ideasto existing personal knowledge, and Cooperative Learning fosters this kind of interaction.Cooperative Learning’s broader impacts include: (1) Students develop collaboration skills thatthey can use for a lifetime. (2) There is a reduction in tutoring expenses since students beginrelying on each other for learning assistance. (3) Students experiencing academic difficulties areidentified earlier, so their peers can help them promptly.Supplemental Mentoring Opportunities for WomenAll women students had access to Peer Mentoring: University of Cincinnati’s College ofEngineering student government group organizes a “Big Brother/Big Sister” program thatmatches incoming freshmen with upperclassmen, ideally
Purdue University.Dr. D. Patrick O’Neal, Louisiana Tech University D. Patrick O’Neal is an associate professor in the Biomedical Engineering program which is part of the College of Engineering and Science at Louisiana Tech University. Prior to moving to academia in 2005, he served as PI on industrial nanomedicine-based development projects supported by NSF, NIH, and NIST funding. Given a research focus in biomedical optics, he has published peer-reviewed articles in basic and clinical cancer research, nanomedicine, and applied electro-optic instrumentation. Based on experiences instructing courses like Biomedical Engineering Senior Design and his ongoing involvement with the medical device industry, he has developed a
utilization and application of their STEM knowledge. Networking with their peers - bothwithin their program and the national network - amplifies the experience and has the potential tocontribute to future career development. Participants, in the work itself, are given the opportunityto take ownership in the development of curriculum development and classroom management,building potential for self-efficacy development. Finally, the three interconnected strands holdmany connections to the Actua Future Skills Framework; “delivering results” requiresintellectual development, “working with others” draws from networking skills and institutionalknowledge; and future readiness draws from the three strands and makes connections to theparticipant’s future
influences design cognition more broadly.Prof. Patricia K. Sheridan, University of Toronto Professor Sheridan is an Assistant Professor, Teaching Stream at the Troost Institute for Leadership Ed- ucation in Engineering (ILead) and the Institute for Transdisciplinary Studies in Engineering Education and Practice (ISTEP), and is cross-appointed to the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at the University of Toronto. Prof. Sheridan teaches teamwork and leadership in the first-year corner- stone design courses and oversees the integration of teamwork and leadership learning into the upper-year courses. She previously designed an online team-based self- and peer-assessment system that was used in multiple
methodology for making thisconversion was available, which became a key motivation for writing this paper. A number ofworks chronicled the relative advantages and disadvantages of the quarter and semester systems.Bostwick et.al. [4] contended that conversion to the semester system negatively impacts on-timegraduation rates and specifically lowers first-year grades, decreases the probability of enrollingin a full course load, and delays the timing of major choice. Johnson and Kestler [5] conducted amixed methods study, involving a sample of Midwestern university students’ favoritism towardquarters and semesters, the students’ predicted and perceived changes to their motivatedbehaviors, and their self-reported motivation/learning strategies during the
to the youth participating in engineering outreach.Keywords: Role models, engineering education, outreach, elementary, career planningIntroductionIn this paper, we use data from a three-year study of an engineering outreach program tochallenge the notion that youth engaged in engineering outreach programming readily take upnear-age peers or adults as role models. This is not to say that this does not occur in certaincases, but we do not think that it occurs as readily nor at the magnitude that we and others in thefield have believed that it does.Outreach programs for youth often attempt to position adults as role models, usually with thegoal of inspiring youth by messaging that they, too, can be like the role model or do what theydo. In
, philanthropic efforts, college courses, and research grants and publications. She currently holds the following Quality Matters Certifications: Master Reviewer, Peer Reviewer, Ac- celerated Designing Your Online Course F2F Facilitator, Accelerated Improving Your Online Course F2F Facilitator, Reviewer Course for Program Reviews, and Applying the QM Rubric Face to Face Facilitator. She is a board member of the Winston-Salem State University Foundation, National Girls Collabora- tive Project, American Association for the Advancement of Science National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists, an advisory member for Nvolve, Inc, and several grants. She is also a member of sev- eral associations, including the Alpha Zeta Omega
states have outlawed race-based AAsince the mid-1990s: California, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire,Oklahoma, and Washington. At the time of writing, the US Supreme Court had heard oralarguments in two separate court cases brought against Harvard University and the University ofNorth Carolina; the court’s decision will likely be decided in June 2023 and will have far-reaching consequences on the state of AA within the US [4].The nine state-level affirmative action bans occurred through a variety of methods in twobranches of the government: executive and legislative. The AA ban in the state of Florida is theonly ban to be enacted via the executive branch; this ban was implemented via an executiveorder by the governor in
effectively, efficiently” (9941). Somearticulated how they themselves or their peers had more difficulty with this as they had notdeveloped these capacities prior to university, contrasting those who “already are, like, whateversemi-genius person, then you'll be fine, it'll be great, like, all opportunities afforded to you”against those “in a situation where, like, for whatever reason … just random factors cause you tobe in a bit more of a sink or swim kind of situation, then that can be very difficult and painful”(9955).We also identified connections (10 participants) between lifelong learning abilities and theprogram’s emphasis on teaching from first principles or scientific and mathematicalfundamentals. There is some distinction between the
, 20-22].Various assessment approaches have been proposed and applied, in concert or individually, topromote more effective and equitable learning, such as portfolio assessment, peer review andself-assessment, appraisal of research and design work, evaluation of oral presentations,reflective essays and videos, and interviews [12, 22, 23]; yet multiple choice and traditionalwritten exams persist as the dominant mode of assessment in undergraduate STEM [24-26].Occupying a distinct position among alternatives to traditional assessment are oral exams.Although strictly speaking traditional themselves, with a history spanning centuries [21, 27], ifnot millennia [28-30], oral exams have fallen out of favor in the technical subjects, especially inthe
problems. While analytical skillsare important and are not mutually exclusive to inventiveness, curricular activities and problemsthat are highly focused on developing specific analytical skills rarely leave room for rewardinginventiveness.Evidence of Inventiveness in the Engineering Education LiteratureA keyword search of the American Society for Engineering Education PEER database for thewords “invention education” grouped together yields only 8 articles since 1996. Of those 8, thepairing of these words is not intentional in 4 articles; that leaves 4 articles applying the label“invention education” to describe a program or curriculum. However, a search for “invention”and the attributes of inventiveness described by the Lemelson foundation yields
Paper ID #37235Faculty-Student Interaction and Its Impact on Well-Being inHigher Education for STEMCortney E Holles (Teaching Professor) Cortney Holles is a Teaching Professor in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences at Colorado School of Mines where she has taught and developed the required first-year ethics and writing course for STEM majors since 2004. She also teaches science communication and service learning. She defended her educational criticism/action research dissertation on “Faculty-Student Interaction and Impact on Well-Being in Higher Education” and earned her Ed.D in 2021. She is now engaged in