Conference Session

NSF Grantees Poster Session

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Rebecca Bates, Minnesota State University, Mankato; Deborah Nykanen, Minnesota State University, Mankato; Marilyn Hart, Minnesota State University, Mankato; Mezbahur Rahman, Minnesota State University, Mankato

progression of a student through the programprovides valuable opportunities for “stepping stone peer mentoring” and individual studentdevelopment. Our selection process addresses diversity issues by factoring in major, gender,year, eligibility for subsidized financial aid (a program requirement), community collegebackground and first-generation status. In addition, we ask students to write a brief essaydescribing how they will contribute to the program diversity given a broad definition thatincorporates such things as race, religion, socioeconomic status, and breadth of experience incommunities. We strive to select students who are motivated and who could have an improvededucational experience given the opportunity to be a member of the cohort, to

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Student Perceptions and Perspectives

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Lea Wittie, Bucknell University; James Bennett, Cornell University; Carly Merrill, Bucknell University ; Jove Graham, Geisinger; Troy Schwab, Bucknell University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Paper ID #32312Bias in First-Year Engineering Student Peer EvaluationsLea Wittie, Bucknell University Lea Wittie is an Associate Professor in the department of Computer Science in the Engineering College at Bucknell University. She has spent the past 4 years coordinating the first year Engineering student Introduction to Engineering and over a decade participating in the program before that.James Bennett, Cornell University James Bennett is a biomedical engineer specializing in medical device design and development. He has earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biomedical Engineering from Bucknell University and is currently

Conference Session

Embedded Computing

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Rathika Rajaravivarma, Central CT State University

Tagged Divisions

Computers in Education

2006-1382: PEER ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES FOR ALABORATORY-BASED COURSERathika Rajaravivarma, Central CT State University Page 11.987.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006Peer Assessment Methodologies for a Laboratory-Based CourseAbstractAdvances in technology and the explosive growth of the Internet have called fornew ways of learning environment. The content delivery is no longer the passiveapproach of lecture emanating from the teacher to the student. It is imperativethat computer networking courses taught at the undergraduate level containadequate hands-on implementation based projects and experiments in order tobetter train students. The computing curricula 2001 (CC2001

Collection

2000 Annual Conference

Authors

Matthew Ohland; Richard Layton

Session 2330 Peer Evaluations in Teams of Predominantly Minority Students Richard A. Layton, Matthew W. Ohland North Carolina A&T State University / University of FloridaAbstractThis paper presents an analysis of student peer evaluations in project teams where the majority ofthe students are African-American. Peer evaluations were used to assign individual grades fromgroup grades for design projects in a junior-level mechanical engineering course taught byLayton for three semesters in 1997-99. This study is similar to and complements a 1999 study byKaufman, Felder, and Fuller. The results of the two

Collection

2001 Annual Conference

Authors

Matthew Ohland; Richard Layton

Session 2230 Peer Ratings Revisited: Focus on Teamwork, Not Ability Richard A. Layton, Matthew W. Ohland Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology / Clemson UniversityAbstractIn a previous study, we determined that student peer ratings used to assign individual gradesfrom group grades showed no effects relating to gender but significant effects relating to race. Alikely explanation of this result was that students seem to base ratings on perceived ability in-stead of real contribution to the group effort. To overcome this tendency, we modified the peer-rating instrument, instructed students on the

Conference Session

First-Year Programs Division Technical Session 2: Peer Mentoring/Learning, Teaching Assistants, and Career Mentorship

Collection

2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jill Davishahl, Western Washington University; Audrey Boklage, University of Texas at Austin; Madison Andrews, University of Texas at Austin

research focuses on creating inclusive and equitable learning environments through the development and implementation of strategies geared towards increasing student sense of belonging.Audrey Boklage (Dr.)Madison E. Andrews © American Society for Engineering Education, 2022 Powered by www.slayte.com Peer Mentors Forging a Path in Changing Times “When I first started thinking about inclusivity, I recognized that I wanted to share what I was learning. I also want to spread word about my department and even more I want to spark more interest for STEM and/or engineering, keep working on inclusive practices, and work on

Conference Session

Faculty Development Toolkit

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jerry Samples, University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

Good Teaching: As Identified by Your PeersAbstract:The literature on teaching is replete with definitions and examples of good teaching. Theyinclude the traits and characteristics of the best instructor/teacher/professor. They have examplesof methods and results of surveys that quantify teaching: bad or good. In recent years, theliterature included the impact of teaching on the student learner; thus, coming full circle, fromteacher to learner. The literature provides good information, but it is the analysis of the currentclassroom experience of one’s peers that provides reliable information on the teaching of today’sstudents.Since 1998, over 1000 faculty have pondered over 5 questions concerning good teaching. Theyhave pair-shared the results

Conference Session

FPD VI: Presenting "All the Best" of the First-Year Programs Division

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Chris Smaill, University of Auckland; Gerard Rowe, University of Auckland; Lawrence J. Carter, University of Auckland

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

slightly aware that someone is going to have to mark their work and Idid witness some students think about how they lay it out and are aware they will lose marksfor insufficient working. So hopefully this ended in them constructing better answers in testsand exams.” “The student learning did improve as a result of peer marking exercise as it allows them toknow how others think”. “It forces the students to grasp the material at early stage of (the) course which results inbetter understanding of the course.” “I marked (a) few exams and found that most of the students did write the UNITS of thequantities in (their) solution. It was definitely due to peer-marking exercise.” “I think peer marking exercise is a good practice to do and it adds an

Conference Session

Assessment in Multidisciplinary Learning Environment

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Ryan Striker P.E., North Dakota State University; Mary Pearson, North Dakota State University; Ellen M. Swartz, North Dakota State University; Enrique Alvarez Vazquez, North Dakota State University; Lauren Singelmann, North Dakota State University; Stanley Shie Ng, Biola University

Tagged Divisions

Multidisciplinary Engineering

. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2019.[18] “FERPA | Protecting Student Privacy.” https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/ferpa (accessed Apr. 07, 2021).[19] USPTO, “USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Title 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.,” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx- l.html#al_d1d85b_11e72_2ee (accessed Apr. 07, 2021).[20] R. Lu and L. Bol, “A Comparison of Anonymous Versus Identifiable E-Peer Review On College Student Writing Performance and the Extent of Critical Feedback,” p. 17.[21] C. Bauer, K. Figl, M. Derntl, P. P. Beran, and S. Kabicher, “The student view on online peer reviews,” in Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM

Conference Session

Diversity Research - Session I

Collection

2018 CoNECD - The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity Conference

Authors

Jacklin Stonewall, Iowa State University; Michael Dorneich, Iowa State University; Cassandra Dorius; Jane Rongerude PhD, Iowa State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity, Diversity Research

Paper ID #242512018 CoNECD - The Collaborative Network for Engineering and ComputingDiversity Conference: Crystal City, Virginia Apr 29A Review of Bias in Peer AssessmentJacklin Hope Stonewall, Iowa State University Jacklin Stonewall is a Ph.D. student in the Departments of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engi- neering and Human Computer Interaction at Iowa State University. Her research interests include: gender HCI, decision support systems, sustainability, and the creation of equitable cities and classrooms.Prof. Michael Dorneich, Iowa State University Dr. Michael C. Dorneich is an Associate Professor at Iowa State

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Victoria Gallagher; Tracey Weldon; Cynthia R. Haller; Richard M. Felder

Session 2630 Dynamics of Peer Interactions in Cooperative Learning Cynthia R. Haller, Victoria J. Gallagher, Tracey L. Weldon, Richard M. Felder North Carolina State UniversityAbstractAlthough many recent studies demonstrate that cooperative learning provides a variety ofeducational advantages over more traditional instructional models, little is known about theinteractional dynamics among students in engineering workgroups. We explored these dynamicsand their implications for

Conference Session

FPD 4: Peers and Perceptions

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Angela Thompson P.E., University of Louisville

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

scores using an instructor-created rubric. Following the assessment activity, rather than simply revising the individualreports, students worked in teams to develop a single improved team report using what they hadlearned from peer assessment. Students were surveyed to assess perceived learning gains.Results of the survey combined with instructor observations suggest that the peer assessmentactivity met the desired goals. Peer assessment will likely be utilized in future versions of thecourse and expanded to other writing assignments though some modifications may be necessaryto address current limitations.Introduction All first-year engineering students at the University of Louisville are required to take anIntroduction to Engineering

Conference Session

Teaching Styles and Peer Review

Collection

2003 Annual Conference

Authors

Charles McIntyre

semester. Provide meaningful feedback to your peer related to his or her syllabus. Provide meaningful feedback to your peer related to classroom observations of his or her teaching strategies. Provide meaningful feedback to your peer related to the evidence of student learning that your peer collects from his or her students.Step 2.): Attend group meetings with your PRT leader. Page 8.103.3 “Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education”Step 3.): Write three reflective

Conference Session

FPD 4: Peers and Perceptions

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jeff Johnson, LeTourneau University; Alan D. Niemi, LeTourneau University; Matthew G. Green, LeTourneau University; Lauren Elise Gentry, LeTourneau University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Paper ID #9195Management and Assessment of a Successful Peer Mentor Program for In-creasing Freshmen RetentionMr. Jeff Johnson, LeTourneau University Jeff Johnson is an Instructor at LeTourneau University. He received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering Technology from LeTourneau in 1994 then proceeded to spend 16 years in industry focusing on machine and civil design as well as project management. In 2010 he began his teaching career at his alma mater to share his experiences with engineering and technology students. He is currently a co-PI on the schools NSF-STEP retention grant.Prof. Alan D. Niemi, LeTourneau University

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Peer Mentoring

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Noah Salzman, Boise State University; Ann E. Delaney, Boise State University; Catherine Rose Bates; Donna C. Llewellyn, Boise State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

, she collaborates with the Institute for STEM and Diversity Initiatives at Boise State to organize the RAISE summer program (Recreation and Academics In a Summer Experience) for incoming first-year STEM students. She also teaches courses for first-year engineering students. Ann graduated with her Masters in Materials Science and Engineering with an interdisciplinary emphasis in Public Policy and Administration from Boise State University in 2016.Mrs. Catherine Rose Bates Catherine Bates received a bachelor’s degree in Women’s Studies and Creative Writing from Florida State University and a Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing with an emphasis in fiction from Arizona State University. She serves as the Program

Conference Session

FPD 4: Peers and Perceptions

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sudhir Kaul, Western Carolina University; Robert D. Adams, Western Carolina University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

-assessment.It is important to note that outcome III has a performance indicator of 63 (Table 5), considerablylower than the indicator for all other outcomes, and also well below the established limit of 75. Asample of the student self-assessment for this outcome can be seen in Fig. 1 (for survey question# 4), 27% of the students feel that they did not improve their written communication skills. Theaggregate for outcome III in Table 4 yields the highest mean and the highest COV, bothindicative of student dissatisfaction with the achievement of this outcome. This could beattributed to the fact that students were only required to write three status reports and two projectreports for this course, and that each of these reports was a group activity. It is

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Peer Mentoring

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Leila Keyvani Someh, Northeastern University; Brian Patrick O'Connell, Northeastern University; Kathryn Schulte Grahame, Northeastern University; Jake Levi, Northeastern University; Whitney Elise Hansberry; Vishrudan Swami

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

your mentor?’ question is summarized in Figure 1. In thisquestion, the students who answered ‘yes’ were prompted to write down their peer-mentor’sname. Due to the diverse nature of our student population and peer-mentors, all of the resultsfrom this section with or without proper spelling of the peer-mentors’ names were consideredvalid. Those who did not remember their peer-mentor were given a list of names to pick from ina follow up question. Figure 1 only illustrates the results for the ‘Do you remember yourmentor?’ question without prompting to choose a name from a list. (a) (b) Figure 1: Percentage of the students remembered their peer-mentor’s name - TA or

Conference Session

FPD5 - Teaming and Peer Performance

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Arlisa Labrie Richardson, Arizona State University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

you how to use the….”Discouraging verbal statements directed to team members would not promote the involvementwith tinkering tasks. Such statements could be implicit and include redirecting team members tonon-tinkering tasks such as gathering materials’ taking notes, writing reports and completingwritten assignments. Verbal discouragement may be very explicit and include the followingstatements: “You can’t operate that equipment” “You don’t know what you’re doing” “You’re taking too long to ….”For the modeling category, the participant’s observation of the team member must be a directand attentive observation and does not include casual glances. The modeling can be either ofsuccessful completion or failure to complete tinkering tasks

Conference Session

First-Year Programs: Peer Mentoring

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Lakshmy Mohandas, Purdue University; Nathan Mentzer, Purdue University; Aparajita Jaiswal, Purdue University; Shawn Farrington, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

across students and across sections.Qualitative data suggest four themes of highly effective UGTAs: they are easy to interact with,they are qualified, they immerse themselves in the work of their peers and they are overtlycollegial with the instructor of the course.KeywordsUndergraduate Teaching Assistant, First Year Student Learning Experience, Active Learning,Design ThinkingIntroductionResearch suggests that undergraduate teaching assistants are considered valuable to theinstructors and students. Deploying UGTAs in undergraduate classrooms motivates students andhas been shown to increase student grades [1]. According to Filz and Gurung [2], UGTAs assistwith many in-class activities such as taking attendance and tutoring students, answering

Conference Session

FPD 4: Peers and Perceptions

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Joseph Pow, Chester F. Carlson Center for Imaging Science, RIT; María Helguera, Rochester Institute of Technology; Elizabeth Pieri, Chester F. Carlson Center for Imaging Science, Rochester Institute of Technology; Sadie Wolters; Michael Glynn Augspurger, Chester F. Carlson Center for Imaging Science, Rochester Institute of Technology; Briana A. Neuberger, Chester F. Carlson Center for Imaging Science, Rochester Institute of Technology; Victoria Scholl, Rochester Institute of Technology; Elizabeth Bondi, Rochester Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

could do to improve their performance. By the end of the yearthere were almost none.6. When providing written comments, the rater almost always talk about the ratee, and virtually Page 24.1252.11never talk to the ratee. This was an interesting observation. Although the students all knew thepurpose of the peer evaluation was to give some of their classmates feedback about theirperformance, the comments were virtually always written as if the rater was communicating withtheir instructor, and not their classmate. So rather than writing, for example, “you could havedone a better job preparing for the design review,” almost all raters would have

Conference Session

Architectural Engineering Education II

Collection

2005 Annual Conference

Authors

Joseph Betz

students develop complex theory papers starting with "low-stakes" writing activities that leads to "high-stakes" formal papers. This process incorporates acontinuous improvement plan that uses several types of peer review. A campus-wide committee,referred to as the Writing in the Discipline Committee, also reviews and approves thepedagogical writing process used in the course. Student survey data is presented to measurestudent attitudes and perceptions. Sample grades are presented to show trends. Analysis,recommendations and conclusions are given. The goal here is to present a useful case study forfaculty interested in teaching a writing intensive or WID course.BackgroundThere are two important background points that should be made. One, what type

Conference Session

Materials Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Reihaneh Jamshidi, University of Hartford; Kamau Wright, University of Hartford; Paul E. Slaboch, University of Hartford

Tagged Divisions

Materials

further develop students’ technical writing skillsthroughout the semester by introducing a three-part strategy: (1) Focused instruction time –Allocating select times throughout the semester to focus on one section of lab report; (2)Reviewing samples as a group – determining which samples or attributes of samples wereeffective or ineffective; and (3) Peer review – Students reviewed each other’s lab reports andgave feedback. The goal of focused instructional time and reviewing samples was to allowstudents to improve their writing skills by focusing on one section of lab report at a time, andthus learning the writing techniques more effectively. The peer-review part of the strategy wasdesigned to draw students’ close attention to quality of writing

Conference Session

Innovations in Design within BME Curricula

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Richard Goldberg, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Kevin Caves, Duke University; Julie A. Reynolds, Duke University

Tagged Divisions

Biomedical

, we first designed a rubric that would help students understand theexpectations for each section of the final report. We also imposed frequent deadlines for sectionsof the report to keep students engaged with their writing. To minimize the burden for the coursefaculty, we conducted several in-class “writer’s workshops” in which students learned what wasexpected for each section of the report. Based on these workshops, students then peer reviewedeach other’s writing. Finally, we implemented more efficient methods of providing feedback onwriting, such as using digitally-recorded audio feedback.As a result of these strategies, the quality of writing in the final reports has improvedsignificantly. Feedback from students indicates that they

Conference Session

Emerging Trends in Engineering Education

Collection

2004 Annual Conference

Authors

Stephanie Nelson

organization,completeness, clarity, grammar and punctuation, and understanding of documentationconventions for the disciplines. While assignments as well as findings vary per discipline, thereare enough commonalities in terms of the weaknesses that the findings as well as relatedrecommendations are presented for the all engineering students. Three pedagogical approachescan bring significant improvements to the writing products produced by these students:assigning jointly written reports, providing training on documentation conventions forprofessional reports, and requiring students to draft early and undergo multiple peer reviewsand revisions.Index Terms  Engineering writing, engineering writing pedagogy.IntroductionThe most recent ABET visit to Cal

Conference Session

New Trends in ECE Education I

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Susan Lord, University of San Diego

Tagged Divisions

Electrical and Computer

” ofgathering data, conducting experiments etc. and the “rhetorical space” of writing to communicateto an audience of their peers, they create their own knowledge.Students are more likely to see the value of writing when it is tied to the technical content. As Page 12.582.3Pesante says “Learning is most effective when it takes place in context and when it is reinforcedthrough the students’ course of study.”13 In all of the examples in this paper, an engineeringprofessor rather than a writing professor grades the writing. Thus the quality of the writing andthe technical accuracy of the work are inseparable. This adds legitimacy to the claim that writingis

Conference Session

Multidisciplinary Endeavors: Engineering and Liberal Arts

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Alyson Grace Eggleston, The Citadel; Robert J. Rabb P.E., The Citadel

Tagged Divisions

Liberal Education/Engineering & Society, Multidisciplinary Engineering

coordination with other faculty.The first research question examined by this paper is to determine if students can be objectiveand constructive through peer assessments to make a positive difference in team members’leadership skills. It is important to point out that students enrolled in the sophomore levelTechnical Writing Course are mixed with students from four different engineering majors andtwo science majors. Additionally, these students are primarily residence-only students and sharemany campus activities: dorm life, dining facility meals, etc., and have increased contact witheach other.A quick comparison of the averaged individual score at week one and five indicates over 37.5%of the students had improvements in their overall peer leadership

Conference Session

Student Teams & Active Learning

Collection

2004 Annual Conference

Authors

Chris Daubert; Steven Peretti; Paula Berardinelli; Deanna Dannels; Chris Anson; Lisa Bullard

Session #3: Interpersonal Aspects of Teaming Module Session #4: Preparing and Delivering Collaborative Presentations The content of these modules can be found at the project web site(http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/project/actionagenda/pages/revisecourse/tws_instructional_materials/jr_lab_instruct_materials.html.) The target learning proficiencies are listed in Table 1.Table 1: Junior-level TWS proficiencies and corresponding skillsProficiency Corresponding skillsCollaborative technical • write collaborativelywriting • function as a peer editorCollaborative technical • convey technical material orally as a team in a way appropriatepresentation

Collection

2006 Fall ASEE Middle Atlantic Section Conference

Authors

Alfred A. Scalza

stakes writing in the time span of one semester. Howmuch does “peer review” influence the student’s writing. Additional areas of interest would bethe effects of requiring an oral presentation and/or defense on the writing ability of the student,and the pros and cons of keeping a journal.IntroductionFew faculty members would deny the importance of writing in their academic discipline or therole writing plays in mastering material, shaping ideas, and developing critical thinking skills.Writing helps students learn the subject matter: “they understand and retain course materialmuch better when they write about it.” 3 “Proceedings of the 2006 Mid-Atlantic Conference of the American Society for

Collection

2005 ASEE Midwest Section Conference

Authors

Judith Collins; Alysia Starkey; Beverlee Kissick; Jung Oh

TAC ABET criteria encouraged technical writing faculty/librarians to instructdatabase use beyond the offerings in Engineering Compendex and IEEE. Students wereshown how to place technology issues in a broader social and industrial context, forexample, by utilizing peer-reviewed journals in academic, business and industry fields inExpanded Academic Index or Business and Industry indexes. The technical writingfaculty incorporated IL outcomes into her syllabus in the fall of 2002. (Other colleges,for example Arizona State University-East, have also experienced successful integrationsof IL into a polytechnic curriculum by focusing on course outcomes in a technical writingcourse, where partnerships between technical communication and the library

Conference Session

Supporting the Capstone Experience

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Kun Zhang P.E., California State University-Chico; Pablo K. Cornejo, California State University-Chico; Chris Fosen, California State University-Chico

Tagged Divisions

Civil Engineering

to practicethe entire writing process (e.g. drafting, revising, and proofreading) and facilitating instructors tograde manageable reports to provide timely feedback. The specific objectives of this study are to(1) assess the effectiveness of one-page letter report assignments and associated activities, suchas technical writing instruction, individual practice, peer review, faculty feedback, and use of agood writing sample to improve students’ technical writing and (2) assess the improvement ofthe new ABET outcome 6 by using the one-page letter report at a Hispanic Serving Institution(HSI). Direct measurements were assessed based on scores of students’ reports following arubric, which was created according to the ABET outcome 6 and basic