container,” GitLab. [Online]. Available:https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/install/docker.html. [Accessed: 2021].AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. CNS1565314 and CNS 1939076. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.
Entrepreneurship Summer Institute at Villanova UniversityAbstract. We recently developed a multilayered mentor model for our popular EngineeringEntrepreneurship Summer Institute at Villanova University. Our multilayered mentor modellayers the experience, social capital and empathy associated with peer mentoring together withthe transfer of knowledge, skills, and ability associated with traditional mentors. Peer mentors,selected from recent graduates of our Engineering Entrepreneurship Summer Institute, werepaired with successful entrepreneurs to guide student venture teams. The multilayered mentormodel, developed to reflect current best mentor practices, included mentor matching, goalsetting, coaching and guidance. Our exit survey
and donot necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Reference[1] W. C. Lee and H. M. Matusovich, “A Model of Co-Curricular Support for Undergraduate Engineering Students,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 406–430, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1002/jee.20123.[2] M. K. Brown, C. Hershock, C. J. Finelli, and C. O’Neal, “Teaching for retention in science, engineering, and math disciplines: A guide for faculty,” Occas. Pap., vol. 25, pp. 1–12, 2009.[3] R. M. Felder, G. N. Felder, and E. J. Dietz, “A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. V. Comparisons with Traditionally-Taught Students,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 469–480, Oct. 1998, doi: 10.1002/j.2168
and second-order systems through heat transfer and beam vibration problems. Overall, theexperiments conducted were a success in allowing the students to achieve the ABET outcomesduring the process of the experiments. The students were able to research the engineeringtheories, and applied the theories through multiple variations of the experiment to find thedesired answers for the course.Assessment and Impact: Several aspects of what they have done in this course are reflected intheir Capstone Sr. design projects as well as projects in other courses that involve experimentalset-ups and using LabVIEW code, modeling and so on. Numerous groups use data acquisitionset-ups to capture signals to analyze their data. This course also helps them
shouldexplore the outcomes of women graduate students who benefit from bonding and bridgingcapital provided through S-STEM programs beyond their time in graduate school. While thisstudy investigated women students currently enrolled in a graduate program, a longitudinal studycould help to understand the long-term impact of these programs after degree completion. 7Acknowledgment: This material is based upon work supported by the National ScienceFoundation S-STEM Program under Grant No. 1930451. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the
, 2023 Determining the Efficacy of K-12 and Higher Education Partnerships (Evaluation)Abstract Engineering students and professionals in the United States do not reflect the country’sdemographics. Women and minority students remain largely underrepresented. To help diversifythe STEM pipeline, it is essential students are exposed to and engaged in STEM active learningexperiences in K-12. This is especially effective when post-secondary institutions partner withK-12 schools. Establishing the partnership can be challenging as the institutions must havecongruous objectives, determine who is responsible for what, and define success similarly. Toaddress this set of issues, a program partnership rubric was
what modifications are required, through end-of-course/workshop surveysand evaluations. For each of these surveys and evaluations, a standard rubric was prepared andprovided to the participants with consultation with the EAC members to properly reflect theproject activity objectives. These formative and summative measures are listed in Table 2. Table 2. Evaluation plan including formative (F) and summative (S) measures. Activity Description Evaluation Measure Continuous consultation and feedback from (i) New course and laboratory External Advisory Committee (F & S); Early and end-of-term
with collaboration in their education. These projectswere meaningful and relevant to their goals and offered opportunities to apply the vast range oftheir education and training to do experimental work and create effective writing for audiencesbeyond their course instructors. Part of this is the power of the applied project courses, but theother is reflective of the community built within these project courses, as well as the preparationthe students received.This feedback from past students indicates our work supports their writing in the mannerintended. However, we currently lack detailed, quantitative data for a more thorough assessment.A multiyear, post-graduation survey of alumni will provide the information we need to morerigorously
engineering education research to assess socio-emotional and cognitiveoutcomes. Additional work includes the investigation of epistemic insights gained by participants regardingimplanting AI in the K-12 environment.VI. Acknowledgment and DisclaimerThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2147625.Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.VII. References[1] C. Grant, B.J. MacFadden, P. Antonenko, and V. Perez, “3D Fossils for K-12 Education: A Case Example Using the Giant Extinct Shark Carcharocles Megalodon,” Paleontological Society Papers
$435.71imately half the cost of the overall system. Because machining work was done by students, thisis not included in the cost, but the cost to prepare the tooling and perform that machining workwould also likely represent a significant portion of the overall budget. Another factor to consideris that, sourcing metals from a local rather than online supplier can result in a lower cost. Localsuppliers were used where possible, but online sources are used for the table provided in order tobe more transparent, but still provide an approximate cost. Larger quantities may need to be or-dered, but cost was scaled so the price listed reflects the price for only the items needed to build asingle testing machine. For example, the price of the plywood listed is
understandand interrogate the programmatic barriers to student success in engineering across the nation willalso expand – leading to a cornucopia of previously unexplored questions at scale. AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.BPE- 2152441. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. References[1] F. Curry and J. DeBoer, “A Systematized Literature Review of the Factors that Predict the Retention of Racially Minoritized Students in STEM Graduate
, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), pp. 73-84, 2006.22. J.C. Dunlap, Using guided reflective journaling activities to capture students’ changing perceptions, TechTrends, 50(6), pp. 20-26, 2006.23. H. Rimm and M. Jerusalem, Adaptation and validation of an estonian version of the general self-efficacy scale (ESES), Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 12(3), pp. 329-345, 1999.24. R. Likert, S. Roslow, and G. Murphy, A Simple and Reliable Method of Scoring the Thurstone Attitude Scales, Journal of Social Psychology, 5, pp. 228-238-238, 1934.25. R. DeHaan, R. Hanford, K. Kinlaw, D. Philler, and J. Snarey, Promoting ethical reasoning, affect and behaviour among high school students: An evaluation of three teaching
engineering and as such does not provide great depth into the engineering cores. Thecourse includes students from twelve different majors within the School of EngineeringTechnology plus students from various majors across the university who are consideringchanging majors or declaring (for those who are undecided) an engineering technology major.The twelve core engineering technology majors are subdivided into four-degree programs asseen in Table 1. The course learning outcomes and in turn curriculum reflect this degree programorganization (particularly Outcome Three). As such one of the main goals of the program is forstudents to determine which degree program and major best fits them and as such this is the firstcourse learning outcome. Outcomes One
the transferrable skills course in their resume andprovided examples of how they had demonstrated skill attainment: “I'm looking for a job rightnow, and I was able to list that as I was trained. It’s been extremely helpful.” Another Cohort 1student commented that the transferable skills and the interdisciplinary aspect of the NRT hadprompted a conversation in which a potential employer emphasized the need for such skills:“He's just like ‘that's really major right now that you already understand trying to connect withother people from different backgrounds and different perspectives to work together to try to getsomething done’.” When Cohort 1 students were prompted to reflect on what additional supportsto promote development in inter
). We expect thatour work will inform future efforts to moderate behaviors and team dynamics throughinterventions such as conflict management and self-advocacy.AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by the National Science Foundation’s Research Initiation inEngineering Formation (RIEF) program under Grant No. 2106322. Any opinions, findings,conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of NSF. We also acknowledge the work of Ana Biviano, a graduateresearcher on this project. We thank anonymous reviewers to an earlier draft of this manuscript.References 5Aragon O., Pietri E. and Powell B. (2023) Gender bias in teaching
Endeavour staff was experiencing in and out of the classroom. Also, the researchers felt thatthe high frequency of the survey delivery (five times over the two-year period of the program)was leading the students to not reflect on the survey questions as deeply as was desired sincethey had seen the questions so many times before. Therefore, modifications were continuouslybeing made to the original study design with the first three cohorts (e.g., a shift to focus groupsas opposed to Liker-scale surveys). Although the initial survey data would still prove useful forachieving specific aim 3 (an engagement dashboard), engagement measures have since moved tomore qualitative methods of data collection [8]. Work is still being done by the staff to pull in
(grant number2034800). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The authors thank our project evaluator Dr. Elizabeth Litzler and advisory boardmember Diana Gonzalez for their support and guidance on this project. The authors also thankthe Year 2 participants for supporting this work by sharing their experiences in our survey.References[1] T. M. Evans, L. Bira, J. Beltran-Gastelum, L. T. Weiss, and N. L. Vanderford, “Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 36, pp. 282- 284, 2018.[2] A. K. Flatt, “A Suffering Generation: Six factors
in the Journals: Publication Patterns in Political Science,” PS: Political Science & Politics, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 433–447, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1017/S1049096516002985.[22] P. Chakravartty, R. Kuo, V. Grubbs, and C. McIlwain, “#CommunicationSoWhite,” Journal of Communication, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 254–266, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1093/joc/jqy003.[23] L. Urrieta, L. Méndez, and E. Rodríguez, “‘A moving target’: a critical race analysis of Latina/o faculty experiences, perspectives, and reflections on the tenure and promotion process,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 1149–1168, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1080/09518398.2014.974715.[24] A. A. Berhe et al., “Scientists from
this paper are those of the authors and do not, necessarily, reflect those of the National ScienceFoundation (NSF).References[1] J. Njock Libii, “Building an Infrastructure to Enhance and Sustain the Success of STEM Majors Who are Commuting Students,” presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, June 2018. 10.18260/1-2. Paper# 30128.[2] Indiana Commission for Higher Education College Completion Reports, 2022. [online] https://www.in.gov/che/files/2022_College_Completion_Report_10_03_2022.pdf.[3] National Center for Education Statistics, “Undergraduate Retention and Graduation Rates,” Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences
EPRA evaluates theirattitudes to social responsibility. But our analysis has a current gap in that we have not yetassessed differences in student work displaying their ethical reasoning on the problems of thecourse. The use of the PM evaluations will address this gap and evaluate ethical achievement onthe specific projects the courses were designed to prepare them for.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation, specifically theDivision of Undergraduate Engineering in the Directorate for STEM Education, under Grant No.2020560. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
file (102,206 records). Since there were inconsistent spellings or errorsin journal titles, spellings were cleaned up. Corresponding CiteScore was added to thepublication records as a new column. Since 36 journal titles that were not on the list wereretrieved because of a loose phrase (quotation marks around the words to allow for wildcards andlemmatization) in the search, 8,224 records of these journal titles were removed, resulting in93,982 records.Next, EIDs (Scopus assigned unique academic work identifiers) of records were uploaded toSciVal for generating research topics. SciVal defined that a publication belongs to only one“topic” [6] which is composed of three controlled terms. The author separated the "topic” intothree terms to reflect
presented, or when their idea might be perceived as contradicting another person’s idea.To help students overcome these concerns, the first skill we taught the students was to treatevery idea as having potential to contribute to a positive outcome.All team members are empowered to act this way, not just the “Team Leader” or “ProjectManager”. We discussed how to foster psychological safety by asking for input: • Ask for input from everyone. • Encourage multiple ideas from people. • Encourage out-of-the-box ideas.We also discussed how to foster psychological safety in how a person responds to teammembers’ contributions: • Affirm the value of contributions as they are made. • Reflect back the potential value of an idea.To practice this
3083Similarly, using either Pearson’s Chi-Squared test for independence or Fisher’s exact test (p-value 0.027 or 0.023 respectively) resulted in rejecting the null hypothesis that gender isindependent of student’s outcome (Pass or FW). Analysis supports that gender and the studentoutcome are not independent. Specifically, female students have a significantly higher passingrate. Predicting student success based on ethnicity, gender, and all the interactions between thosevariables using a logistic regression model is significantly better than a null model (p-value <9.83(10)-16 using a drop in deviance test). However, in this model no individual factor wassignificant in predicting student success (all p-values > 0.05).These findings reflect
Figure 2. It reflects the diversity of the collegeof ECST. 13 of 24 students responding to a question about ethnicity were LatinX. A majority of respondents(15) indicated an expected graduation date of 2023, meaning that they enrolled in the Robotics courseduring their second- or third-to last semester at college. More than half of the students (55%) werecommunity college transfer students. Figure 2. Student participants by race/ethnicity To understand the impact of the course, information on students’ previous experience with hands-onengineering projects in their major was also collected, as shown in Figure 3. Only 8 students (33%) hadtaken courses in the past that provided hands-on experience in their major
of retention. Anecdotally,one group that worked on the wind turbines suggested that the wind turbines be painted purplesince insects stay away from ultraviolet light, and therefore the birds would not be attracted toflying into the wind turbines, thus reducing bird kills. Connecting color to bird kills in a fluidmechanics course is at the “Create” level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.ConclusionThe course grades have shown significant improvement with the implementation of a semester-long group project, while the final exam grades do not reflect this. However, with three yearsrunning of the course with the project, it has been noted by the instructors that the students maynot retain each lecture topic or the material on the comprehensive final exam, but
samples of their final, revised redesigns. Students reflect on the inaccuracies in FEA and use FEA to investigate the trends in strength as they change the geometric design of the part, rather than using FEA as an accurate predictor of strength.Week 4 • Lecture: On the last day of the lab, the lecture focuses on highlighting the use of prototyping, simulations and DBT cycle in the broader engineering design or product development process. The instructor shares the broader applications of FDM, and students share their main takeaways from the lab. • Activity: Students bring 5 – 7 3D printed samples of their redesigns (Figure 4), give a short presentation on their redesign, and determine the force and location of
. Another effective solution that we came upwith was to hold the followup presentation and student Q&A session.Student Feedback and ReflectionsBased on our interaction with the students through the followup and Q&A session as well as thewritten feedback/reflection statements provided by the students, we believe that this PBL initiativehas been quite successful in its initial launching phase. Here is a sample feedback that we receivedfrom a group of four students at WPI: “Using the Nanohub software was a very educationalexperience, particularly in conjunction with Daggett’s paper and the paper by Bustamante et al.The myriad of graphs produced by the simulation were interesting to investigate and allowed forthe corroboration of several trends
their structures courses during theregular semester.Timely graduationStudents are expected to graduate in 10 semesters. It should be noted that the ChileanMinistry of Education has emphasized the importance of this indicator since it providesvaluable insight into the costs associated with professional training, and because it representsa higher cost-effectiveness ratio. For the student, the indicator reflects the hope that all theirefforts, study and dedication will enable them to become a competent professional in order toembrace to world of work following graduation [16]. Table 2. Descriptive data for each group, by timely graduation indicator. G1 G2 G3
afterundergraduate programs. This paper will provide a first-person account of one undergraduateteam’s experience during their first semester in IBL. Students will reflect on their developingself-image as student engineers, not as engineering students. Students will share their initialproject aspirations and the failures, pivots, and learning which occurred during the semester.Students’ use of tokens to manage planned work and education achievements will be discussed.Students will state their achievements from this course and contrast traditional learningstructures, such as high-stakes testing, active learning, and project-based learning, to IBLKeywords: Innovation, IBL, LMS, engineering, education, learningIntroduction: This paper’s
ability to interact effectivelywith people from different cultural backgrounds were measured using a standardized surveyinstrument. Participants reported an increase in their average research competency ratings aftercompleting the program, as indicated by the survey findings. Those improvements cut acrossdemographics such as gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and school type.Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation’s InternationalExperience for Students (IRES) Site grant. (Grant Numbers: OISE# 1952490-TAMU, 2208801-NCAT,and 195249-UNLV). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations presented are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation