manners”. ASEE Prism. American Society for Engineering Education. 2005. vol. 15. no. 4. pp. 45.[10] B. Horn. “A reflection on leadership: A comparative analysis of military and civilian approaches,” 2014, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, vol 15. No. 3.[11] Y. Xue, R. Larson. “STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes”. 2015. Website. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5800410/ (Accessed November 7, 2019)[12] A. Barr, A. “From the battlefield to the schoolyard: The short-term impact of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill”. The Journal of Human Resources, 2015. vol. 50. no. 3. pp. 580-613.[13] A. W. Radford, A. Bentz, R. Dekker, J. Paslov, J. “After the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill: A profile of military service
subgroups.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grantnumbers DUE #1834425 and DUE #1834417. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe NSF.References[1] O. Ha and N. Fang, "Spatial Ability in Learning Engineering Mechanics: Critical Review," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, vol. 142, no. 2, p. 04015014, 2015.[2] J. G. Cromley, J. L. Booth, T. W. Wills, B. L. Chang, N. Tran, M. Madeja, T. F. Shipley and W. Zahner, "Relation of Spatial Skills to Calculus Proficiency: A Brief Report," Mathematical Thinking and Learning, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 55-68, 2017.[3] S. A. Sorby
January 6, 2020.[13] S. M. Lord, “Retention and Persistence in Engineering: Data, Issues, and Ideas,” Benton Lecture for Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, April 18, 2019.[14] S. M. Lord, “Persistence in Engineering: Research and Reflections,” UCI Education Research Initiative Invited Seminar, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, CA, May 23, 2019.[15] M. W. Ohland, “We value what we measure: Exploring data quality and the challenges of working with pre-existing data structures,” Florida International University, School of Universal Computing, Construction, and Engineering Education, Miami, FL, November 13, 2019.[16] M. W. Ohland, “Lessons
resistance. The study also hopes to provide answers of if students are actuallyresisting active learning, as well as the instructors’ perception of this resistance.AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant NoDUE-1821488. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References[1] Dancy, M., Henderson, C., &; Turpen, C. (2016). How faculty learn about and implementresearch-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction. Physical Review PhysicsEducation Research, 12(1), 010110.[2] Gradinscak, M. (2011). Redesigning engineering
, while I had not made up my mind on going to graduate school before,I now am certain that I want to get a masters.” Increased interest in Graduate schools is also seenin Figure 6, which shows the participant responses to survey questionnaire before and afterparticipation. Figure 6. Student responses to pre- and post-participation survey questions (average of 2017, 2018, and 2019 ratings).3. Lifelong Learning Skills and Acquisition of Interdisciplinary KnowledgeFigures 5 and 6 also show that the program has been able to instill lifelong learning skills in theparticipants and increase their knowledge of other disciplines. Mentor and participant qualitativefeedback reflected the value of participant exposure to the
.[9] R.M. Felder and R. Brent, Teaching and Learning STEM: A Practical Guide. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass, 2016.[10] S.B. Merriam, Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Jossey-Bass, 2001.[11] J. Saldana, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2013.AcknowledgementThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1347675 (DUE). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.
our third funding cycle. The crucial information for our SURGE program is providedin Table 1 below, where the figures reflect the status quo [2] as of February 2020. We supported123 students; 2 of whom quit without getting a bachelor’s degree, 101 have obtained theirbachelor’s degrees, and 20 making timely progress toward their bachelor’s degrees. About 32%of the supported students have been URMs. 123 scholars supported 101 degree recipients 20 continuing 45% women 43% women 55% women 55% men 57% men 45% men 32% URMs 30% URMs 45% URMs Table 1. The supported student
) demonstrated – 1 point; or not – 0 points 3 options (levels) fully – 2 points; partially – 1 point; or not demonstrated – 0 points 4 options (levels) fully – 3 points; some – 2 points; less – 1 point; or not demonstrated – 0 pointsIn the development of this rubric, reflection on the previous implementation of a similar problemwere considered – findings discussed by Rodgers et al. [28]. The two biggest changes were: (1)rubric items related to the shareability dimension were incorporated in and (2) some rubric itemshad more levels rather than having as many dichotomous rubric items. The first change was toadd another dimension of analysis in the study. The second change was primarily based on thedifferent context of the problem aligned better with
Junior Year Participant Comparison Discussion and Conclusions We are grateful to the National Science Foundation for supporting the SustainableBridges project. Please note that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theNational Science Foundation. The data presented here on the first three cohorts of theEngineering Ahead first-year bridge program for pre-major Engineering students is part of thelarger Sustainable Bridges project (#1525367). The preliminary results are promising for the first three cohorts of the first-year
was supported with funding from the National Science Foundation. Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] Arendale, D. (1997). SI (SI): Review of research concerning the effectiveness of SI from theUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City and other institutions from across the United States.[2] Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014). “On the effectiveness of SI: Asystematic review of SI and peer-assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and 2010” Review ofEducational Research, 84 (4), 609–639.[3] Scott Steinbrink, Karinna M. Vernaza, Barry J. Brinkman
was above 4.0/5.0 across all topics in both manufacturingexcellence session and manufacturing quality excellence session [25]. That being said, averagescore for the non-destructive evaluation (NDE) module in Manufacturing Quality Excellencesession was slightly lower (approximately 3.75/5.0) than those for other modules. The lowerscore for NDE could be explained due to the larger amount and more technical nature of thelearning materials as reflected in the participant’s open-ended comments. In overall, the higherthan target (3.5/5.0) course evaluation scores demonstrated that the professional developmentsessions were able to meet course objectives in terms of renewing/enhancing participants’ HVMskills set.5. ConclusionsThe National Science
pertaining to female and minority hiring and participation. The unit of analysis is the transcript of each interview or focus group. Researchers will also calculate the extent of match between AM educators’ perceptions and AM standards/certifications as well as use established instruments to measure the extent to which the new professionals report entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions [27-29].Sampling NoteRural NW Florida is highly diverse, with over 30% of residents reporting that they are black,Hispanic, or of multiple races; the enrollments of the participating state colleges reflect theircommunities. Because an intent of this project is to increase participation in AM education andcareers, the research team will reach out to
-Fitzpatrick and G. D. Hoople, “Cultivating an Entrepreneurial Mindset: An Interdisciplinary Approach Using Drones,” Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 7, no. 3, 2019. www.advances.asee.org/wp-content/uploads/vol07/issue03/Papers/AEE-25- Hoople.pdf15 G. D. Hoople, A. Choi-Fitzpatrick, and E. Reddy, “Drones for Good: Interdisciplinary Project Based Learning Between Engineering and Peace Studies,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1378-1391, 2019. https://www.ijee.ie/latestissues/Vol35-5/12_ijee3801.pdf16 E. Reddy, G. D. Hoople, and A. Choi-Fitzpatrick, “Interdisciplinarity in Practice: Reflections on Drones as a Classroom Boundary Object,” Journal of Engineering Studies, vol. 11
lower than expected correction rates,indicating the necessity to enhance undergraduate solid mechanics education. Considering overallperformance by category provides additional evidence with regards to the limited understandingamong students on the multi-scale nature of materials and linkages to observed mechanicalbehavior and properties, Figure 5 (f). The collected student data indicates that although most ofthe students were able to identify the meaning of each keyword and categorize them properly inthe “materials processing” category (77% of students correctly categorized the keywordsbelonging to “materials processing” category), the macro-scale mechanics parameter resultsindicate significant misconceptions as reflected by the observation
pre-and post-test surveys as well as program activity attendance, course enrollment, and mentoringteam constellation will be used.EQ3, “To what extent are student and faculty competencies and interdisciplinary andtransdisciplinary skills changing over the course of the training program? Additionally, to whatextent are these changes reflected in longer-term outcomes?,” is an outcome evaluation questionfocusing on competency, technical, and professional skills change over the programimplementation. Data from or about NRT trainees, students attending open activities, andstudents receiving no program exposure (retrospective cohort) data will be compared usinginstitutional research sources, faculty-administered student competency assessments, and
1, 33 < 0.001 0.319D. Learning Environments and Course EvaluationAs shown in Figure 8, students were all positive in describing the learning environment createdduring the course, such as collegial, motivating, productive, innovative, and positivelychallenging. While the course was neither harsh nor exhausting, it might be somewhat stressful,considering the rate of 4.28 over the neutral point.Figure 8. The Site learning environmentStudents all positively reflected the delivery of the Site program as shown in Figure 9.Figure 9. Overall delivery of the Site programThe effects of the Site program were all positive in their future plans, as presented in Figure 10.Figure 10. Impact of the Site program on future plansIV. DiscussionAfter
career following the REU experience.Acknowledgement: This research was supported by a REU Site grant from the National ScienceFoundation (# EEC 1757882). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendationspresented are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References 1. Aggies Invent : Solving Problems in 48 Hours, Engineering Entrepreneurship program, College of Engineering, Texas A&M University, https://engineering.tamu.edu/student- life/aggies-invent/index.html (accessed, May1, 2020). 2. Nepal, B., Pagilla, P. R., Srinivasa, A., Bukkapatnam, S., Moturu, P., 2019, “Preparing Next Generation of Manufacturing Leaders: A case of REU site in Cybermanufacturing
Center 5. Continue the engineering specific tutoring and provide the engineering cohort leadership opportunities and a community in which they feel they can belong. 6. Create a programmatic pre-engineering track. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1832553. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Approved by the City Colleges of Chicago IRB (IRB2018007). 11[1] T. D. Holmlund, K. Lesseig, and D. Slavit
of the students at ASU, though some students there were also challenged by them.It may be desirable to introduce more features to customize the level of the exercises to differentstudent populations and to give instructors more flexibility on which levels they can choose toassign. Such adaptations will be explored in future work.The biggest differences between institutions appeared to be on the preference between CircuitTutor and other options, which may reflect the use of different electronic homework systems atdifferent institutions. For example, WileyPLUS is used at ASU and Pearson’s Fig. 5. Results of an end-of-semester survey at three different institutions in Fall 2019 covering the entire Circuit Tutor system (not just the topics
projects course on student retention,” in Proceedings ASEE Conference and Exhibition, 2003.[19] C. B. Zoltowski and W. C. Oakes, “Learning by doing: Reflections of the epics program.” International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, vol. 9, 2014.[20] National Academy of Engineering, Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. National Academies Press, 2005.[21] J. A. Mejia, D. Drake, and A. Wilson-Lopez, “Changes in latino/a adolescents engineering self- efficacy and perceptions of engineering after addressing authentic engineering design challenges,” in Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, 2015, pp. 1–14.[22] C. B. Zoltowski, W. C. Oakes, and