stories as a group. The thematicanalysis section of the paper is useful when considering the larger implications of this research.For example, by examining how all participants reflect on their graduate school experience andwhat they wish would have been different, we can provide insight to current graduate studentsand their advisors. Graduate students might feel empowered to pursue a teaching opportunitydespite it taking away time from research, and advisors might consider different ways ofsupporting their graduate students to achieve their career goals.Six new engineering assistant professors, two females and four males, were interviewed as partof a larger research project exploring the pathway to and current experiences of faculty membersat
more amenable to theirlearning than in a classroom full of other students at a set time. These advantages addressmultiple levels of diversity amongst learners.The newly found “class time” gained by delivering content outside of class rather than in theclassroom is then often used in F2F courses for activities that help students learn and retaininformation better. Some of these in-class activities could potentially be just as well done by astudent on their own; working on a calculation problem, reading and interpreting a passage,studying and interpreting a figure or graph, reflecting and writing a minute paper, to name a few.Other activities benefit significantly from the interactions between students or students andlearning facilitators
% program I feel like I am successful in my 25% 43% 31% 2% engineering program I doubt my abilities to succeed in my 2% 8% 66% 25% engineering program*In my engineering classes, I feel like I 31% 34% 31% 3% matter. Always Most of the time Sometimes Never Findings from the focus group interviews are presented in order to reflect the majorfoci of the interviews: (1
of Liberal Arts Education [23], [31]. • Engineering work/practice considerations (7 items): respondents rated the importance of seven considerations relevant to engineering based on ABET criteria (e.g., technical, environmental, social, economic, health/safety, manufacturability, and ethical) [1].• Macro-ethics (8 items): Comprised of items about the obligations, duties, and social responsibilities of engineers, including in relation to the technologies they create.• Moral Attentiveness (7 items): A scale intended to measure the extent to which students perceive and reflect on moral issues in their day-to-day experiences [32]. • Moral Disengagement (24 items): A scale that measures students’ tendency to morally
the participants' workshop experience--a testament to the effort put forth bythe workshop coordinators and staff. ASCE will offer three ETWs in 2018, reflecting thecontinued strong demand for the program as its 20th anniversary approaches. The third workshopis made possible through generous funding from the Durham School at the University ofNebraska, Omaha where the third workshop will be hosted. The ExCEEd demand as defined bynumber of applications received is shown in Figure 2 as well as in Table 1.In total, 267 different institutions have sent faculty members to ETW. The eleven universitieswith the most ETW graduates are listed in Table 2. Given these institutions’ high level ofparticipation in Project ExCEEd, it is evident that ETW
from the participants should be succinct, and the designteam should analyze the feedback without reflecting their own bias (Delp et al., 1977). Selectingparticipants for the Delphi method is considered one of the crucial steps in designing the researchas the output mainly will be based on the opinions of the selected experts. Skulmoski et al.(2008) recommended four criteria for the selection of the experts: 1) their knowledge andexperience with the research topic, 2) they voluntarily agree to participate, 3) they have adequatetime to participate, and 4) they have proper communication skills. Based on these criteria, theparticipants for this research were selected from four different groups of people who wereinvolved in the engineering
(STEM).Dr. Tamara Ball, University of California, Santa Cruz Dr. Tamara Ball is a project-scientist working with several education and research centers at the Univer- sity of California, Santa Cruz. Her work with the Institute for Science and Engineer Educators focuses on informing efforts to redesign undergraduate STEM education to reflect workplace practice and engage stu- dents in authentic scientific inquiry and problem solving through design. Her work Sustainable Engineer- ing and Ecological Design (SEED) collaborative at has focused on developing programmatic structures to support interdisciplinary and collaborative learning spaces for sustainability studies. She is the program director for Impact Designs
transferrable skills in contrast to the content andknowledge-based approach taken in most classes where the emphasis is on facts, memorization,and rote problem-solving that reward correct (and singular) answers. The need for 21st centuryskills has evolved to focus on “learning progressions (that) reflect typical trajectories of specifiedlearning domains that describe how skills or concepts might be demonstrated, both in their earlyforms and in increasingly advanced forms.” [16, p. 19] Important in this approach is acombination of “scaffolding” – providing a means to deal with knowledge or skills not yetavailable to the students – and guided learning transition from “unknown” to “known” or“inexperience” to “experienced.” What is then rewarded is the
improvement in student learning, however it had itsown issues, the most troubling being the long waits that the students tended to encounter whentrying to get their pre-labs checked. The following is the Reflection section from the FCAR: What worked well: Needing to get the pre-labs 100% correct helped the students understand the concepts better and certainly made the post-labs drastically better. I felt that the students learned more and fewer were just going through the motions when doing the experiments. My post-lab grading time was cut to almost nothing. The field trip was great. What didn’t work as well: I spent A LOT of time checking and re-checking pre-labs and helping students. The lines were long
aremore frequently placed in the role of a passive spectator, it can often be difficult to get studentsto participate in class1-3. Despite some of its drawbacks and difficulties, discussion can also be used as a tool foractive learning when applied in an online discussion forum. During discussion, participants havethe opportunity to interact and collaborate with one another to fulfill and meet their learningneeds8. Furthermore, moving discussion to an online venue has several advantages. First,instructors and students have the convenience of being able to add to a discussionasynchronously. They have the time to reflect on discussion prompts and to formulate a well-thought out response. Second, online discussions can increase the amount of
reflection aboutindividual career goals. It is reasonable to expect that students need to complete multiple GCDELI units in order to get a broader perspective on engineering as a career choice.Research question #2: Which components of the GC DELI unit impact student learning in apositive way?We analyzed students’ responses to two survey questions to answer this research question. Page 26.811.11Students were asked to rate how important the following factors were in forming an opinionabout their GC DELI unit: the online content, the hands on projects, the details and lecturematerials added by the instructor, and the interest they had in
, there are“marked differences in the responses of boys and girls” in topic interest. For example, “girls’priorities lie with topics related to the self and, more particularly, to health, mind and well-being.The responses of the boys reflect strong interests in destructive technologies and events.”14 Theseand similar findings, as well as research in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science,have suggested the existence of “epistemic differences between men and women from theirstandpoint in life” and that these differences provide “differential interaction with the nature ofscience, and hence their participation in the field.”15In response, some researchers and educators in this area call for re-evaluation of the “values andstandards of
grad-ing scheme is used in which students must demonstrate mastery of specific concepts to pass theclass. Mastery of additional outcomes beyond these specific concepts leads to a higher grade.This paper focusses on the outcomes-based grading used in the course and the students reactionsto the grading scheme.Results of preliminary assessment indicate that outcomes-based grading may create greater un-certainty in students regarding their final grades and can lead to the perception that final gradesdo not reflect their true knowledge of the material. Outcomes-based assessment can help stu-dents to better anticipate what they will be tested on, but a well-organized traditional “points-based” grading scheme can accomplish this just as
-related practices for one of thesurvey questions, which asked the participants to rate 41 learning activities on how often theyhappen in their own undergraduate teaching (Very Often/Often/Sometimes/Never) and howimportant they perceive them to be in the undergraduate engineering curriculum as a whole(Very Important/Important/Somewhat Important/Not Important). The 41 learning activities,which in particular went through many iterations as part of the overall survey design process,reflect the 6 STSE Currents2 and the literature on Engineering and STSE-related practices as afoundation. It should be noted that several items represent more than one current, to represent theintermingling that occurs between the currents in practice, which is described
, physical, and mechanical properties and durability performance of infrastructure materials, with a focus on sustainable concrete materials technology. He also researches new strategies to improve STEM education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Implementation of a laboratory experience in reinforced concrete coursesIntroduction College students enrolled in an engineering curriculum learn in a variety of ways (e.g.,sensory vs. intuitive, visual vs. verbal, inductive vs. deductive, active vs. reflective, or sequentialvs. global). In a reinforced concrete design course, where students learn how to designcomponents of large structures, it can be
/eliminate thisundesired effect, quasi-random number (QRN) sequences are introduced. The generators of thesesequences are so designed and developed that they produce more uniformly distributed randomnumbers. The study of uniformly distributed RNs was started in 1916 by Weyl [5]. Heintroduced the notion of discrepancy that reflects clustering and that measures the quality ofuniformity of a random point set. Hence the QRNs are also known as low discrepancysequences. An ideal QRN sequence is one where discrepancy/clustering is nonexistent. Forinstance, if we generate K, say 1000, random points over a finite area having A, say 10, unitsquares, then in each of the A=10 unit squares we should have exactly K/A = 100 points for anideal QR sequence. If we
asmeasured with the Likert scale questions of Part 2 of the survey. Limitations of the survey werethat even though the survey was designed to measure conception, the respondent was limited andsomewhat guided by the options listed on the survey. These may not fully reflect therespondent’s conception of engineering design. To help address this, the survey did provide theoption for the respondent to provide additional comments and add design activities. The questions used in the survey addressed content validity in that they presented astudent’s knowledge of design; construct validity in that selection of the most and least importantdesign activities gave some insight into the student’s reasoning; and criterion validity in that wealso gained
BOK2 and Blooms Taxonomy before providing that assessment, an effort that takes time away from their research. The second is that the assessment is hypothetical, it reflects the authors sense of the extent to which BOK2 outcomes are presently being achieved and commentary about what would be required if the department were to make these outcomes a driving force in its curriculum development. Other faculty members, in the same department, might have opinions which are different, and even perhaps more informed, especially those that are directly involved in the day today delivery of the undergraduate program. Where NC State stands relative to BOK2 is presented in assessment
researchers have argued that this model does not provide a complete picture ofengagement. They pointed out that it does not consider the commitment of psychological energyor the relationship between the quality of student effort and student learning.30 Other theorieswere developed to explain the impact of engagement on student development. For example,experiential learning theory took a dynamic view of learning entirely separate from the IEOmodel. Instead, it was based on a learning cycle which in turn was driven by the resolution ofdual dialectics which it defined to be action/reflection and experience/abstraction.24 Regardless of the model, it has been well established that engagement has a positiveeffect on student outcomes and development
found thatpersistence rates and levels of engagement varied significantly from institution to institution.They also reported that engineering students have the same level of engagement as students inother majors and, despite heavier course loads, reported levels of satisfaction with the collegeexperience and involvement with campus organizations and volunteer work at levels similar tostudents in other majors. One notable difference reported by engineering students in that study;however, was that those students rated themselves lowest in terms of personal and socialdevelopment, as well as in regard to reflective and integrative learning, when compared to theirpeers in other majors. The authors of that study speculated that this perceived lower
State University (MSU) recognizedthe need for restructuring its curriculum in part to modernize its undergraduate program andincrease enrollment which had begun to decline rapidly since 1990 following nearly a decade ofsteady growth as indicated in Fig. 1. This decline in enrollment was in most part a reflection ofcareer opportunities available to ASE graduates and was not necessarily unique to MSU. In fact,Mississippi State University is on par with the national average* in the percentage of enteringfreshmen choosing ASE as a major (1.8% compared to national average5 of 1.6%), thepercentage of engineering BS degrees awarded to ASE majors (2.25% compared to the nationalaverage6 of 2.2%), and has exceeded the national average in recent years in
StudyThe first study was conducted as part of a Pilot Program for Internet Based Reflective Learningfor Cooperative Education Students which was funded by a University InstructionalDevelopment Fund Grant and an Asa Knowles Research Grant7. . During the 1997 winter andspring quarters, Canale and Duwart conducted 11 focus groups in which more than 80% of the Page 5.145.14ECE students, sophomores through seniors, participated. Within a written survey, they wereasked to identify the learning that took place in each of the 11 attributes as a result of theirclassroom, laboratory, and co-op learning. Each group of students then discussed
reduction of design fixation26. In the experiment, student groups were given differenttasks across multiple design stages. Some were allowed to build one or more prototypes early onand then reflect upon what they had built, some were allowed to consistently improve theirprototypes, some were only allowed to start working on physical prototypes at the end, and somewere not allowed to build any prototypes. All groups received technical critiques of their designsin between the three design stages. The overall takeaway is that early prototyping efforts that arenon-continuous are likely to quickly settle on one concept and perfect it. Allowing for constantprototyping allows a team a chance to develop entirely new concepts with time to evaluate
has been known to significantly increase success, retention, and graduationrates. We noticed the differences in the level of preparedness and its influence on the student’sperception of their journey. We also explored the influence of soft skills, outlook, scholarlyattributes, and support on the perception of the journey through the program. Although ourparticipants have reported that they did not perceive any overt sexism or racism, we present thefindings correlated with gender and race/ethnicity.Our future work will include fine-tuning the protocol to explore intersectionality and reflect uponthe situations where the students might feel minoritized. Additionally, the students in the futurestudy will be purposefully selected to examine