material, withmany students viewing any given video multiple times. Students took advantage of the outcomebased assignments to progress at their chosen rate, with several students finishing the course oneor two weeks prior to the end of the term.IntroductionIf one is seeking information on the best teaching practices in higher education, or engineeringeducation, you do not need to go far to find a vast library of resources. Terms such as “activelearning”, “flipped classrooms”, “hybrid courses”, “reflective thinking”, “standards-based grading”,and others run through the literature (for examples see Felder et. al, 2011[1]). As an engineeringprofessor, I find the number of options and recommendations to be somewhat daunting. Myneeds are not for more
system to collect AssignmentReview data every fall and spring, but only on about 1/6 of our courses each semester. Wemodified the formal requirements for the Assignment Review to reflect this change. Theseprocedures are in effect for our 2016-2022 ABET cycle. With 1/3 of courses being reviewed each year (1/6 in fall, 1/6 in spring), the matchbetween assignments and targeted SOs are reviewed twice in the ABET accreditation cycle. Forthe Assignment Review assessment, the instructor is required to submit a copy of an assignment(+ solution) that targets each SO associated with his/her course. It is recommended that, ifpossible, one assignment be designed to target multiple student outcomes. This serves todiminish the volume of data collected
had observed from using TeachEngineering curricula;student engagement was commonly mentioned: “I am a physics teacher that has been looking for a more creative way to introduce vectors. My honors physics [students] are having a blast with the vector voyage activity!” “Students are engaged and thinking. That’s a definite plus!” “My students are engaged in critical thinking, they have a lot to say about it and my principal is impressed.” “My students have loved using this curriculum. They have been so engaged and excited. They meet me at the door asking what we’re going to do in science today!” “Students are more engaged and excited about learning. Their conversations reflect what they are
Foundationunder Award No. DRL-1440446 Teachers and Engineers Collaborating in STEM ElementaryTeacher Preparation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation, nor of Iowa State University. The authors also thank other project membersand cooperating faculty for their support, including Dr. Monica H. Lamm, Dr. Kristina M. Tank,Dr. Anne T. Estapa, Dr. Adah Leshem, Dr. Joanne K. Olson, Dr. Rohit Mehta, Dr. Mollie H.Appelgate, and Jennifer Lillo. Special thanks to Program for Women in Science and Education atIowa State University for allowing the authors to conduct IE outreach activities with femalemiddle school students.
diversity efforts with ETSscholarships and matriculation activities. The targeted transfer institutions and communitycolleges had high student enrollments of African American and Hispanic American students, twohistorically underrepresented groups in STEM fields in the US. Twenty-two (22) of the thirty-five (35) ETS participants were underrepresented minority (URM) students. Almost half (17/35)of ETS participants transferred to TAMU as electrical and computer engineering (ECE) (13) orcomputer science (4) majors. Ultimately, 29 of the 35 (about 83%) ETS participantscompleted bachelor degrees after transferring to TAMU. This paper discusses activities,successes, and challenges during the project implementation and reflections on importantfindings
do not reflect the official policy orposition of the Air Force Institute of Technology, United States Air Force, Department of Defense,or United States government.
process by not only identifying needs, but also reflecting on them in thecontext of exploring appropriate solutions.Methods:Program Structure: The CIP is a six week long immersion experience designed to familiarize students withneeds identification as part of the engineering design process. Since 2016, students are placedinto interdisciplinary teams comprised of two BioE (rising seniors) and two IMED (rising secondyear) students. Each week, student teams participate in a Monday workshop (six hours) andspend Tuesday-Friday in clinical immersion (35 hours). This program year, teams spent all sixprogram weeks in a single clinical environment and supplemented their experience with needsidentification by including initial concept exploration
Pathways17. The newly developed courses providestudents with skills in mechatronics, automotive mechatronics, electro-hydraulics, simulation ofmechatronics systems, and are complementing already existing courses in the MET curriculumthat are focused on automation, industrial robotics, computer integrated manufacturing, computernumerical control. Along with developing new courses, some existing courses have beenmodified to reflect electrified mechanisms, such as a Solid Modeling course 18. Through thesecourses, students were exposed to areas specific to electrical engineers, such as electronicshardware, microprocessors, and microcontrollers programming and coding. While MET studentsget exposed to some topics in electrical engineering technology
. Johnson, and D. Lee, “How to Engage More African Americans in STEM,”Sigma XI Today, 2016.[38] N. O’Neill, “Internships as a high-impact practice: Some reflections on quality,” 12(4), 4-8,2010.[39] P. Orchowski, “Minorities Flatlined in STEM Fields,” 18(23), 21, NACME 2008.
experience for theirengineering learning and development.AcknowledgmentThis work was made possible in part by Motorola Solutions Foundation Innovation Generationgrants, by National Science Foundation award 1432416, by ONR STEM grant 11884065. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those ofthe author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.References[1] Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Report to the President: Realizing the full potential of government-held spectrum to spur economic growth,” Tech. Rep., 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports[2] Defense
Teaching Model1 recommends that instructors use the ideas of Interpersonal Rapportand Intellectual Excitement as guides towards becoming an effective professor. These categoriesare broad and it is apparent that the assessment of performance is unavoidably subjective. Eachindividual brings a unique perspective to a classroom experience, which influences theirperception of the communication skills, organization, and caring spirit of the professor. Whilethe proposed rubric does not eliminate the subjectivity of a professor’s teaching performance, itdoes provide a tool for young professors to reflect on performance and identify focus areas thatare shown to improve teaching.Final Credits – AcknowledgementsThe inspiration for this collaboration began at
environment. MEERCatPurdue REDProject Data Collected Data Collected Freeform Department relationships and trust Faculty approaches to teaching Project Online resource usage tracking Faculty, staff and student climate Faculty role and identity Semi-structured interviews Focus group discussions Weekly instructor reflection Instructor practices and engagement Student self-efficacy survey
providing reflection, mentoring, and professional growth. 2) The timing of the process was geared towards the class registration process and its deadlines and not the student’s calendar of professional development. The current process takes place near the end of each semester when students are most focused on final exams, projects, and finishing up course work in general rather than their future development and growth. 3) Within the Engineering Leadership department, the department has grown and gained students and faculty with diverse interests and backgrounds. This has created an advising process that requires modifications to maintain the individualized feel that originally existed but was lost as the
(fNIRS). fNIRS monitors brain activity by measuring the changeof hemoglobin in human cortex, which is associated with cognitive activities [24]. fNIRSsensors (including sources and detectors) placed on a wearable cap or band emit near infraredlights (wavelength 700-900nm) into the cortex and the detectors receive the light which is notabsorbed and reflected back. Oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) and deoxygenated hemoglobin(HbR) absorb more light than other tissues in the brain and they have different absorptionspectra, therefore, the relative change of hemoglobin, or Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent(BOLD) response can be captured by the use of light attenuation at multiple wavelengths.As a non-invasive, safe and portable technique, fNIRS can be used
, the STEM elements that are inherent in making can be made all the moreobvious. This could be attributed to one of three ways. First, it situates making in contexts thatare personal, culturally, socially relevant to students. Second, it can encourage students to be partof a production pipeline and contribute to something novel and useful to society. Third,involvement in this form of making places students in long-term scenarios acting as Makers fullyengaging in STEM. We believe this approach to making can enable students to gain a holisticview of their making ability as well understand how developed knowledge can be transferred.This reflects Grotevant’s process of identity formation as arising out of continual exploration andevaluation 9
question was phrased to be too general, the feedback would be short ofclarity. On the other hand, if the question was phrased to be too specific, it would trigger awide range of feedback (i.e., a normal distribution curve with a high deviation).According to the instructor, the P2P platform was somehow functionally coupled with thelearning management system (LMS). From time to time, students needed to visit the LMS towatch the lecture recordings to reflect the previous concepts during the self-study of newconcepts. Once students developed a routine habit of using the platform, it was also used bythe instructor to make important course announcements and conduct course surveys.Conclusion, Limitation, and Future WorkThis paper presents a new learning
provide additionalcomments. A surprisingly large number (40 of 73) elected to provide some sort of writtencomment. The comments are of particular interest as they come from working engineers, some ofwhom have been in industry for as long as five years. Selected responses have been sorted intothe generally positive, the somewhat critical, and others that may be of general interest.Generally Positive Alumni Comments • I believe the Project Manager "position" helped keep tasks in sight and scheduling reflected real-world goals and missed deadlines. Utilizing programs such as Asana or Microsoft Project was good preparation for real-world project management software that is used in larger corporations • I think the experience
-enhanced courses understanding topics covered understanding the topics to traditional courses”; and learning the course covered and preparing me for N=94, 35% agree/strongly material”; N=94, 77% the lab”; N=94, 71% agree, but 23.5% agree/strongly agree (test cohort agree/strongly agree (test disagree/strongly disagree during one academic year). cohort during one academic (test cohort during one year). academic year). The result from figure 6 (answers to “I prefer web-enhanced courses to traditionalcourses”) reflects experience seen elsewhere [11], in that students prefer traditional instructionformats
custom robotic platform, theEbot, that students incrementally build and enhance each week. Initially, students build an Ebotthat they can manually drive forward and backward. By the end of the module, students create anautonomous line following robot. Throughout the process, students are asked to reflect upon howthey could improve upon the previous week’s design. As part of this process students areintroduced to various electrical/electronic devices, such as a digital multimeter, a DC powersupply, SPST and SPDT switches, a phototransistor, DC motors and a microcontroller. However,the primary goals of the module are to introduce students to aspects of electrical and computerengineering and engineering methodology related to design, and to
(which changes semesterto-semester). Notably, both projects have a final event that is framed as a competition. Winningthat competition is worth a few extra credit points, as well as bragging rights. These elementsmight work to induce a performance orientation.MethodsWe will report on a subset of the results from a larger study investigating individual differenceson teams, collected in Spring 2017 (n=60), Fall 2017 (n=50), and Spring 2018 (n=60). Before theproject started, students completed a trait goal orientation instrument modified from [15] tomeasure their state achievement orientation. As part of a reflection on each project and their teamexperience, students completed a wrap-up survey with items addressing their individual
for students [7]. Best practices in assessing teamwork supportusing tools like the “Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME)” toallow students to evaluate and reflect on team members [8].Shepard has noted that when students are interested in the subject area of projects, students tendto have higher satisfaction [9]. In non-discipline specific courses, it can be challenging to designa project that piques the interest of all students. Some, like Shepard, will opt for giving thestudents a choice of projects. Most professors do not allow students to design and choose theirprojects, as it can be tough to achieve engineering learning and grading rubrics can bechallenging. Even having a few options for students, can be a
are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authorsacknowledge the students that participated in this effort and their work in termsof example images and data they provided for this paper. This material was included with thewritten permission of the students. Table I. Comparison of Fall 2017 and Fall 2018 student self-perceptions of learning as related to learning objectives (mean values are shown). Differential results are shown as mean (stdev). 2017 2017 2018 2018 Pre- Post- 2017 Pre- Post- 2018 Learning Objective
teaching assistant. The design project assignment wasworth 30% of the students’ final course grade.The Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) is an art and design school, also located inBaltimore, Maryland. The design project assignment was part of two separate 3-credit FYEcourses: Body/World/Machine, in which students (2 male, 14 female) explore the role of thebody, social space, and the media through intensive studio production in a range of formats, andPrototype/Situate/Fabricate, in which students (6 male, 12 female) create, represent, respond,and reflect on form, function, and structures in space. Each course met on Thursdays from 9am-3pm, and each had one instructor and one teaching assistant.The buildings in which the JHU MechE Freshman
is that women in academia are often seen as lessaccomplished and less capable than their male counterparts regardless of their achievementsand as a result, receive lower ratings [16]. Most evaluations do not reflect the faculty’sknowledge, clarity and organization, but show students’ attitudes towards the class andinstructor instead of information on teaching performance, resulting in some instructorsreceiving higher rating by offering students extra grades [14], [17].There are fewer studies conducted on minority faculty research, especially females and racialminorities, compared to studies on faculty evaluations [18]. Furthermore, females typicallyspend more time on teaching and advising, reducing the time that could be used for
[36, 37]. Furthermore, decision-making was mostly provided by thegroup leader which in the context of this group enhanced the group process. Unsurprisingly,team relationship obtained a higher score which reflects the group’s main trait of agreeableness. The Pearson correlation of the eight dimensions demonstrated various significantcorrelations. As figure 3 shows, purpose and goals were significantly and positively correlatedwith team relationship. Team relationship is related to how each member appreciates each other,listening to each other, communicate with each member and so forth. One interpretation for thesignificant statistically results within these domains is that the further members appreciate eachother’s input the more likely
have collectively achieved appropriate learningrequirements and met departmental standards. Example work from three representative students(good, average, poor) is included with an Embedded Indicator summary that provides anassessment of student performance and is mapped to reflect linkage with appropriate 1-22program outcomes and Bloom’s Taxonomy.Pedagogical Techniques Employed in CourseStudents learn more effectively by actively analyzing, discussing, and applying content inmeaningful ways rather than by passively absorbing information [13]. Various teaching andlearning techniques were employed to improve the student learning of key concepts inengineering management.To assist students with learning course material, each student was required
with 11% and 16%,respectively. Generally speaking, students felt that their capstone project helped them tobecome more resilient with only 6% of the LSS students disagreeing with this. The last questionin this section reflects their perception of the overall execution of the project which is highlydependent on how they approached and dealt with the changing challenges as the projectunfolded. 94% of the LSS students did not think that the way their capstone project wasexecuted was inefficient whereas only 60% of the non-LSS concurred.Regarding employability, 81% of LSS students agree or strongly agreed with their capstoneproject experience helping get the job they wanted. As for non-LSS students, only 18% agreedwith this statement. 87% of the
student-teams to reflect the real-world workingenvironment where most projects are done in a team. Teamwork also encourages innovation throughteam-member interactions.In the first capstone course, student teams research a project, gather initial data and define a project withclear objectives (Figure 1). Review and Approval by Instructor, Advisor, Program Director and Sponsor Capstone Course 1: Capstone Course 2: Team Proposal with Capstone Project objectives
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 [28-30].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 minority graduates and business owners forinterviews and focus
image from a web-based version of the original writing exercise described in [16].Figure 2: An image of the main problem page from the writing application. The text field where studentsenter their responses has been greatly reduced from the default size to facilitate presentation of the entirepage in the figure.Several notable changes have been made in transforming the writing exercise from how it isdescribed in [16] to its web-based counterpart. In the original writing exercise, after reflecting andreporting on their perceived understanding of the question and ability to answer it, students werepresented with the following question: “How will you start the problem and what prior knowledgedo you have to answer the question?” The initial self