titles, 48 papers passed our inclusion criteria;further qualitative analysis of abstracts yielded 31 papers, which underwent a full paper review.Our ongoing findings suggest the following: a) research on the retention of women inengineering professoriate is being supported by grants and funding opportunities; b) the reviewedliterature documented six barriers faced by women in the engineering professoriate: isolation ofwomen faculty, work/life balance, inequitable distribution of service, underrepresentation ofwomen faculty, implicit bias, and departmental resources; and c) although journal scholarship onthis topic is not limited to popular engineering education publishing venues, conferencescholarship are mainly from those popular in the field
Association Conference, Jun. 18-21, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/14145[12] P. Sharma, K. Kumar, and P. Babbar, “Embedded librarianship: Librarian faculty collaboration,” Journal of Library & Information Technology, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 455-460, Nov. 2014.[13] M. Stoeckle, B. Lenart, and J. E. Murphy, “A Text Analysis of Four Levels of Librarian Involvement and Impact on Students in an Inquiry-Based Learning Course,” Partnership, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2022, doi: 10.21083/partnership.v17i1.6574.[14] B. Pati, and S. Majhi, “Pragmatic implications of embedded librarianship in academics: A review of eminent literatures,” Library Hi Tech News, vol
Review Quality. The study teamcontains two sections, one for the evaluated the quality of each review on a three-point scale for each ofcritic and one for the critiqued, and the following elements: appropriateness, specificity, justification, andcovers areas such as utility, suggestion. This rubric was used for six of the seven standards (all except teamwork which was evaluated separately).assessment of training/gradercalibration, impact on future work, and emotion (Appendix B). We investigate correlations withproficiency levels of both the critics and critiqued using Spearman’s Rho. This study (IRB#STU00214218) was deemed exempt from continuing oversight by the institutional IRB.ResultsAs shown in
. https://peer.asee.org/40962 8. Ricks, R., Kowalchuk, R., Nicklow, J., Graceson-Martin, L., Gupta, L., Mathias, J., ... & Pericak-Spector, K. (2009, June). An Evaluation Of A New Engineering Residential College Initiative. In 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 14-185). 9. Baxter, K., & Yates, L. (2008, June). Addressing freshmen retention through focused advisement and seminar programs. In 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 13-155). 10. Blair, B. F., Millea, M., & Hammer, J. (2004). The impact of cooperative education on academic performance and compensation of engineering majors. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(4), 333-338. 11. Thompson, M., Oakes, W., & Bodner
Jared Markunas who assisted in the development of the survey that will inform the engagementguide prototype.References[1] D. R. Fisher, A. Bagiati, and S. Sarma, “Developing Professional Skills in Undergraduate Engineering Students Through Cocurricular Involvement,” J. Stud. Aff. Res. Pract., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 286–302, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1080/19496591.2017.1289097.[2] G. Young, D. B. Knight, and D. R. Simmons, “Co-curricular experiences link to nontechnical skill development for African-American engineers: Communication, teamwork, professionalism, lifelong learning, and reflective behavior skills,” in 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, Madrid, Spain, Oct. 2014, pp. 1–7. doi: 10.1109/FIE
students opportunities to do hands-on experiments in small groups.The combination of these factors has provided impetus for developing hands-on experiments thatare inexpensive and easy to implement in a traditional lecture hall with 90 students, and take nomore than 20 minutes of class time including set-up. The purpose of these activities are three-fold: a) give students opportunities to link theory and practice in a hands-on fashion; b) formconnections amongst each other and c) keep the hands-on component of each activity withinclass time. With these constraints, the activities are designed for groups of 2-3 using acombination of materials that students already own and others that are easily obtainable and canbe readily taken to class and
lifeFirst, student self-reported answers stated that after completing the first-year course theyconsider that the engineering curriculum can be accessible to understand and fun to learn.For example, one student stated, “My knowledge has expanded a lot, I learned in a simple wayfrom the technical names on construction to the participants involved in the development ofconstruction projects.” Furthermore, students feel confident in what they have learned during thecourse: “I know a lot about construction materials”, “I think that one of the most importantcharacteristics after finishing the course is the fact of knowing how to differentiate thematerials”, “It seems funny to me to think that the roads seek to connect a point A with a point B,but for
, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2007, pp. 763–804.[4] F. Lester and P. Kehle, “From problem solving to modeling: The evolution of thinking about research on complex mathematical activity,” in Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, pp. 501–517.[5] H. W. Coleman, W. G. Steele, and H. W. Coleman, Experimentation, validation, and uncertainty analysis for engineers, 3rd ed. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.[6] A. J. Keane and P. B. Nair, Computational Approaches for Aerospace Design: The Pursuit of Excellence, 1st ed. Wiley, 2005. doi: 10.1002/0470855487.[7] A. Downey, Modeling and Simulation in
. Figure 3 Teaching Byte Ordering in CSE 12 in the classroom through (a)Transmission vs (b) Inquiry The traditional Transmission method would find the instructor explaining the relevance of ByteOrdering including the 2 types, Least Significant Byte (LSB) first and Most Significant Byte (MSB) first.Often, the instructor would then directly work through examples in class (Figure 3(a)), and studentswould observe and take notes. The lecture on Byte Ordering would conclude with the instructorexplaining compatibility of the two different types of Byte Ordering. Now, by contrast and as an effort to adopt Inquiry (Figure 3(b)), the work begins before theshared lecture time when students are asked by the instructor to prepare for the
: Graphs that captures the grade distribution. If the grading system would take the bestthree categories among quizzes, homeworks, exams, and projects, the grade change would nothave been significantly different. Each grade level includes + and - level grades. For example, B-is one grade level above a C+. Finally, the last graph show the category in which students receivedtheir lowest grade, which was the category that determined their final grade. Students whose gradewould not change because of one categoryFigure 3 shows the grade distribution for the course in the Fall 2021 and Spring 2022 semesters.In Fall 2021, student grades show inflation. One of the main reasons for this is that the HPquestions in the homeworks did not account for the fact
) 5. Synthesize and Integrate the Best Evidence into a Joint Position: The four members of the group drop all advocacy to synthesize and integrate what they learned. Each group creates a synthesis of what is now known; our experience is that they do not have difficulty with this, possibly because of the dual perspectives they have taken. They summarize a joint position to which both sides agreed. Subsequently, they (a) prepare a cooperative report with each member of the group selecting a topic supporting the synthesis and writing a paragraph supported by the research; (b) combine their paragraphs into a single paper and refine the flow of the paper; (c) present their conclusions to the class
qualitative analysis. Sage, 2006.[27] I. B. Rodriguez-Calero, S. R. Daly, G. Burleson, M. J. Coulentianos, and K. H. Sienko, “Using practitioner strategies to support engineering students’ intentional use of prototypes for stakeholder engagement during front-end design,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1923–1935, 2022.[28] K. M. Castelle and R. M. Jaradat, “Development of an instrument to assess capacity for systems thinking,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 95, pp. 80–86, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.296.[29] C. D. Mote Jr., D. A. Dowling, and J. Zhou, “The power of an idea: The international impacts of the Grand Challenges for engineering,” Engineering, vol. 2, no
-or-african-americans (accessed Feb. 12, 2023).[3] D. Wormley, “Engineering education and the science and engineering workforce,” in Panorganizational summit on the US science and engineering workforce: Meeting summary, 2003, pp. 40–46.[4] B. A. Nagda, S. R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J. S. Lerner, “Undergraduate Student-Faculty Research Partnerships Affect Studen Retention,” Rev. High. Educ., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 55–72, 1998, doi: 10.1353/rhe.1998.0016.[5] M. J. Graham, J. Frederick, A. Byars-Winston, A.-B. Hunter, and J. Handelsman, “Increasing persistence of college students in STEM,” Science, vol. 341, no. 6153, pp. 1455–1456, Sep. 2013, doi: 10.1126/science.1240487.[6] K. Chang et al., “Engaging Community
theoriginal part without increasing the mass, volume, size, or manufacturing time. The DBT labsequence concludes with a written report and an oral presentation. The lab provides the studentswith a DBT sequence while investigating a specific additive manufacturing method. Theinvestigation allows students to apply and learn the engineering design process, the use ofsimulations in engineering design, experimental tensile testing, quality assurance methods, andsophisticated statistical analyses. The feedback from the students indicates that the DBT labsequence; a) provides an appropriate level of challenge, b) keeps students engaged, c) enhanceslearning, and d) equips students with multiple, different tools for a successful DBT cycle,without a
“verycomfortable”. B) Number of students at each time point who indicated the degree to which theyagreed “the course will increase (pre-course)/increased (mid-course and end-of-course) mycomfort in discussing ARDEI concepts”. Course impact survey questions at each time point wereconducted using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.The course increased student confidence in connecting social justice topics to their researchand daily lives but confidence level plateaus at the mid-course pointIncreasing student confidence in connecting social justice topics to their research and daily lives,from the lab to implementation, will facilitate willingness and ability to engineer consideringsocial justice. This increased
University of Maryland. She has expertise in physics education research and engineering education research. Her work involves designing and researching contexts for learning (for students, educators, and faculty) within higher education. Her research draws from perspectives in anthropology, cultural psychology, and the learning sciences to focus on the role of culture and ideology in science learning and educational change. Her research interests include how to: (a) disrupt problematic cultural narratives in STEM (e.g. brilliance narratives, meritocracy, and individualistic competition); (b) cultivate equity-minded approaches in ed- ucational spheres, where educators take responsibility for racialized inequities in
]. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cta. [Accessed July 22, 2022].[14] The Grainger College of Engineering (2022). WYSE summer camps. Worldwide Youth in Science and Engineering Program. https://wyse.engineering.illinois.edu/summer- camps/[15] C.E. Hmelo-Silver and C. A. Chinn, “Collaborative learning,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology. Routledge, 2016.[16] B. Barron and L. Darling-Hammond, “Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning,” George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2008.[17] S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, “Active learning increases student performance in
following themes: a) questions with the useof a diagram; b) questions related to everyday contexts familiar to students; c) questionsinvolving geometric/measurement problems related to cultural work including shapes andpatterns; d) questions involving transformations and e) questions related to the cultural situationrelated to AI/AN experience. This work demonstrated to the authors the importance of bothemploying a respectful approach to research and the impact of a culturally-relevant curriculum totruly understand the assets of students.Demmert and Towner’s review [7] pointed to a new curriculum, “Math in a Cultural Context”(MCC), developed by Lipka and Adams [8] truly highlights the case that culture matters- evenwhen teaching mathematics. The
such as MATLAB and ANSYS in engineering classrooms. In Spring 2022, Soheil joined Colorado State University as an assistant professor of practice in the department of Mechan- ical Engineering. His research is currently focused on the long-term retention of knowledge and skills in engineering education, design theory and philosophy, and computational mechanics.Dr. Lisa Bosman, Purdue University at West Lafayette (PPI) Dr. Bosman holds a PhD in Industrial Engineering. Her engineering education research interests include entrepreneurially minded learning, energy education, interdisciplinary education, and faculty professional development. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023
mobilization and social and political movements," inHandbook of political citizenship and social movements, H. van der Heijden, Ed. MA: EdwardElgar Publishing, 2014, pp. 205-232.[3] R. Tarlau, “From a Language to a Theory of Resistance: Critical Pedagogy, the Limits of“Framing,” and Social Change,” Educational Theory, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 369-392, Aug. 2014.[4] N. Slate, ““The Answers Come from The People”: The Highlander Folk School and thePedagogies of the Civil Rights Movement,” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2, pp.191-210, May 2022.[5] D. B. Cornfield, J. S. Coley, L. W. Isaac, and D. C. Dickerson, “The Making of a Movement:An Intergenerational Mobilization Model of the Nonviolent Nashville Civil Rights Movement,”Social Science
, not white, that experience the fullest brunt of sexism in Black and white spaces. [6, p. 170].Beddoes and Borrego define the “intersectional branch” of feminist theory succinctly as onewhere “gender must be understood in relation to other identities or hierarchies that form complexintertwining of identity and oppression” [12, p. 285]. At the same time, intersectional feminismis a complex set of ideas that are difficult to define in a sentence. Moradi and authors [10]summarize these complex ideas from the voices of Black women and WOC as: key ideas that (a) race, class, gender, sexualities, and other axes are systems of power; (b) these systems of power are interconnected and function together to result in inequalities
during the process through observations and metrics which utilize Keller’sARCS motivation model which analyzes a learner’s attention, relevance, confidence, andsatisfaction of educational materials [14]. The Van Hiele model of geometric learning will alsobe evaluated for its practicality and usefulness. The goal of this research is to raise student’sengagement levels and overall performance. This research hopes to revolutionize mathematicseducation in the world and transform mathematics from being “nobody’s favorite subject”, to asubject met with resounding excellence.References[1] F. Biocca and B. Delaney, “ Immersive virtual reality technology “ in Communication in theage of virtual reality, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc
* = p-value < .05While there were no significant differences across the periods of pre-COVID, transition,COVID/online, and post-COVID/return to in-person (Figure 1), the means of all the CATMEvariables dropped from the pre-COVID semesters to Spring 2020; whereas depending on thevariable, the means either increased or decreased again. However, following the return to onlinelearning in Fall 2021 and Spring 2022, teamwork effectiveness skills seemed to have anincreasing tendency.Figure 1. Plots of Means of the Treatment and Comparison over the several semesters forteamwork effectiveness categories a. Contributing to the team’s work b. Interacting with teammates c. Keeping the team on track d. Expecting
. It is worth noting, that while students anticipate using fluidmechanics (26%), thermal sciences (32%), and electronic integration and control (41%) least,these are at similar levels. This relatively even distribution of lower usage is likely informed bythe types of jobs our students did on their Co-op the summer prior to this survey. A BFig 1. A) Thematic coding shows that students have a high-level understanding of mechanical engineering at the start of this project B) The majority of our student expect to use solid mechanics in their future careers more than other sub-disciplines.Despite this clear weighting of the importance of solid mechanics in
physical movement when you add energy• Plastic tubing• Mold• Mold release spray• String• Zip ties• Tablecloths• Silicone• CAD files (see QR code)Before• Instructors prepare silicone (follow instructions on QR code #1) Additional Resources• Prepare classroom: set up tablecloths, each SDM Actuator How to Instructions Make Molds desk gets one supply kitDuring• Each scout gets two cups of part A and part B silicone, one popsicle stick, two gloves, and one prepped mold Materials• Mix both parts of silicone with
across six ‘technical’ skills and six ‘non-technical’ skills were foundto be moderately correlated (Spearman’s rho 0.4522, p10 1 B 15 / 16 ; 6 / 25 5 0 C 14 / 16 ; 13 / 20 3 0When historically teaching a course in a previous fall semester with 50%-100% of Pre-Engineering students, Instructor A noted that problems would typically arise after week 5 ofclass, around the time that the students were receiving their first midterm grades in other courses(e.g., calculus and physics). A negative experience during the first midterm may have led somestudents to believe that engineering was not the right
measurement of impacts,” in 122nd annual conference & exposition of the American Society Engineering Education, Seattle, WA., June, 2015. 2. M. E. Andrews, M. Borrego, and A. Boklage, “Self-efficacy and belonging: the impact of a university makerspace,” International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1- 18, 2021. 3. R. M. Marra and B. Bogue, “Women engineering students' self efficacy--a longitudinal multi-institution study,” Women in Engineering ProActive Network, 2006. 4. N. A. Mamaril, E. L. Usher, C. R. Li, D. R. Economy, and M. S. Kennedy, “Measuring undergraduate students' engineering self‐efficacy: A validation study,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 366-395
. T. Puente, and F. Torres, “Hands-on experiences of undergraduate students in Automatics and Robotics using a virtual and remote laboratory,” Comput. Educ., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 2451–2461, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.003. [Accessed April 28, 2023].[3] C. S. Cheah, “Factors contributing to the difficulties in teaching and learning of computer programming: A literature review,” Contemp. Educ. Technol., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1–14, 2020, doi: 10.30935/cedtech/8247.[4] B. Bettin, M. Jarvie-Eggart, K. S. Steelman, and C. Wallace, “Preparing First-Year Engineering Students to Think About Code: A Guided Inquiry Approach,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 309–319, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TE.2021.3140051
?,” Bioscience, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 159–165, Feb. 2006, doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0159:ITARAN]2.0.CO;2.[7] S. E. DeChenne, K. Lesseig, S. M. Anderson, S. L. Li, N. L. Staus, and C. Barthel, “Toward a Measure of Professional Development for Graduate Student Teaching Assistants,” J. Eff. Teach., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 4–19, 2012.[8] K. A. Richards, J. D. Velasquez, and L. B. Payne, “The Influence of a College Teaching Workshop Series on Teaching Assistant Perceptions of Preparedness and Self-efficacy.” ASEE Conferences, San Antonio, Texas, doi: 10.18260/1-2--22072.[9] S. L. Young and A. M. Bippus, “Assessment of Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) Training: A Case Study of a Training Program and Its Impact on GTAs
systematic review of the literature from 2011 to 2021,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 114, pp. 1–17, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101996.[4] E. Seymour, A.-B. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and T. DeAntoni, “Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study,” Sci. Educ., vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 493–534, 2004, doi: 10.1002/sce.10131.[5] H. Thiry, T. J. Weston, S. L. Laursen, and A.-B. Hunter, “The Benefits of Multi-Year Research Experiences: Differences in Novice and Experienced Students’ Reported Gains from Undergraduate Research,” CBE—Life Sci. Educ., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 260–272, Sep. 2012, doi: 10.1187/cbe.11-11-0098.[6] R. Taraban, E. Prensky, and C. W