varyconsiderably and we found no evidence of programs sharing the same assessment instruments orprotocols. A few examples are below. They describe evaluation from different viewpoints and we presentthem here to show examples of the diversity of methods employed, and some research outcomes andreflections. • One paper described the use of specific assessment methods including competency rubrics, individual development plans, and ePortfolios for evaluation (Chang, Semma, Fowler, & Arroyave, 2021). The rubrics encompassed professional and technical skills including: 1) interdisciplinary knowledge generation, 2) collaboration, 3) conflict resolution, 4) oral communication, 5) written communication, 6) self-reflection, 7
perspective, we assume the following principles: problematize status quo,look at the use of language as clues to how ways of thinking and behaviour are structured, lookfor existing mechanisms of inequality, and look for creative alternatives for a more just/equitableoutcome.First, in order to describe what mechanisms of exclusion exist and become significant in studentexperiences, we looked for student accounts of their direct experiences (e.g. of barriers to fullparticipation in engineering education). Students also reflected on their observations on thecontrast between exclusion and inclusion. This resulted in the identification of: the location ofrepresentation gap that became influential; socially-mediated mechanisms that actually lead
STEM Education (IUSE) program under Award Numbers DUE-1562773 and DUE-1525112. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authorswould like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and encouraging feedback on improving thepaper.References [1] C. Ebert and S. Counsell, “Toward software technology 2050,” IEEE Software, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 82–88, 2017. [2] H. Krasner, “The cost of poor quality software in the us: A 2018 report,” Consortium for IT Software Quality (CISQ), September 2018, https://cra.org/data/Generation-CS/ (retrieved August, 2020). [3] R. Florea and V. Stray, “A global view on the hard skills
included teachers explaining how to usestudents’ computational models to test their designs or guiding students to reflect on their priorknowledge to consider how certain materials may or may not be accessible to students withphysical disabilities.Table 4. Epistemic, practical, or not practice-based teacher talk by class. Epistemic Practical Not Practice-Based Lesson Orange Blue Orange Blue Orange Blue All Lessons 7% 17%+ 66% 67% 27%+ 16% Design 6% 15%+ 66% 75%+ 28%+ 10% Test 0% 11%+ 82% 79% 18%+ 11% Communicate 12
iGens or not. The observations of the authors thus farsuggest that many STEM university students reflect the iGen trends and are no different.Helping iGen Prepare for the Workplace and LifeAs students enter the university, there is an implied requirement to help students mature fromwhere they are to where they need to be upon graduation. Van Treuren and Jordan addressed therole of the university in the formation of student maturity [18]. The university is a communitywhere personal development occurs. A function of the university is embodied in the phrase “inloco parentis.” Legally, it means “in place of a parent” and refers to the obligation of a person ororganization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. At any
exploring constructionist learning for a new generation of young people. In after-school and out-of-school settings, educational robotics became uniquely supportive for applyingconstructionism to engineering design education [22]. Similar to the early promotion of Logo,the hands-on engineering design affordances of educational robotics is purported to advance stu-dents’ knowledge and skills by flattening the hierarchy between concrete and formal thinking[23], [24], [25], [15]. As children engage in robotics activities they are given the opportunity to learn-by-doing,a foundation to constructionist design that reflects real world enterprises and encourages the ma-terial exploration of “big ideas” [26], [12], [2], [27]. Robotics kits for out
undergraduate mentors to reflect on theirassumptions. They re-conceptualized learning as a collaborative action as opposed to thetransmission of knowledge from a teacher to students [23] and overcame their frustrations andstruggles with the program. Accordingly, they began to play the role of a collaborator and partnerwith children and developed productive and meaningful learning experiences for themselves andthe children.In our work, for several years, we have been implementing workshops for teachers and theirstudents, to allow them to jointly learn the fundamental concepts, engineering design, andengineering practices through hands-on learning with robotics. Using the characteristics ofinformal learning [16], we identify our workshops as a semi
differences in the mean between the two samples. In thisstudy, statistical significance is assumed to be referring to a significance level of 5%. It isclarified that, although a more accurate statistical analysis that would account for properprobability distributions and sample sizes is possible, the analysis presented here is consideredsufficient to identify trends within the context of this study.According to these tables, the proposed assessment model clearly improves the quality of courseinstruction and learning environment during the semester and results in higher studentsatisfaction, particularly as this latter is reflected in the overall rating of the course and instructor(Q7/Q8 and Q16 in Tables 1 through 6, and several questions in Tables 7
: “Compared to other PD I participated (not a part of the SfT PD series),the amount I learned in this PD was:” 66.4% answer Much more, 23,7% Somewhat more and8.6% About the same. This affirmative answer is also reflected in the responses of the open-ended questions.When asked the question: “Overall, the course was:” 71.1% answer Excellent and 25.7%answerVery good.4.2.1.3 – Open-ended questionsAfter reviewing the response of the open-ended questions, it is possible to see some patterns.These common constructs are presented below:To the question: "What elements of the PD most contributed to your learning?", the vastmajority expressed that the use of hands-on activities to develop the concepts. Also, to constructthe artifacts involved in each module was
level contributes to this vision. Despite some gains in recent decades, women faculty inengineering are still underrepresented. Between 2006 and 2016, the proportion of women facultyin engineering grew from 16% to 23% at the assistant level, from 11.9% to 18.3% at theassociate level, and from 3.8% to 10.6% at the full professor level [2], [3]. While the proportionof women faculty at the lower ranks has increased significantly, the limited representation ofwomen at higher faculty ranks limits their potential for reaching leadership roles andcontribution with significant decision-making to influence engineering education [4]. Althoughthe presented gains are of value, and may already reflect the effect of multiple initiativesimplemented to support
change their institution’s policies and practices, they are also seeking out mentors [10],[12], and [23]-[27], and networks of mentors [11], [12], [19] to provide strategies and support asthey move through their academic lives. This paper provides four examples of conferencesdeveloped by universities as an avenue to build communities for women of color who are currentor prospective faculty members. Goals, strategies, outcomes, and lessons learned from each ofthe conferences are described. The strategies reflect the varying cultures of the institutions andindividuals involved in developing them. The paper concludes with a summary of actions theseuniversities are taking forward to continue to build communities and networks for current
and flagged to generate a listing of internally consistent, discretecategories (open coding), followed by fractured and reassembled (axial coding) of categories bymaking connections between categories and subcategories to reflect emerging themes andpatterns. Categories were integrated to form grounded theory (selective coding), to clarifyconcepts and to allow for interview interpretations, conclusions and taxonomy development.Frequency distribution of the coded and categorized data were obtained using a computerizedqualitative analytical tool, Hyperrresearch® version 3.5.2. The intent of this intensive qualitativeanalysis was to identify patterns, make comparisons, and contrast one transcript of data withanother during our taxonomy and CPPI
correctly. Also, those who did not know the rules regardingfriction force could not predict correctly or changed their ideas to correct ones after engagingwith the PMT. These findings are aligned with prior studies that claimed that the PMT is not asufficient tool itself to improve physics content knowledge (Triona & Klahr, 2003; Zacharia, andOlympiou, 2011). Identifying false affordances that leads to misconceptions and perceptible affordances of PMT,can help to inform the design of visuo-haptics simulations that considers the learner as the centerof the design process. For instance, a perceptible affordance of the PMT we identified was thatthe sense of touch helps participants to explain and reflect about their reasoning of each scenario.We
curriculum.AcknowledgementsThis project is supported by the National Science Foundation through the ImprovingUndergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) program, Award No. DUE ########. Any opinions,findings, and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.REFERENCES President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25- 12.pdf National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering (2012). Community
programdifferentiates it from clubs and extracurricular activities. Participation in VIP earns studentscredits toward their degree requirements, engaging students who might not otherwise have timefor extracurricular activities. The grading aspect holds students accountable for theirperformance, with letter grades maintaining a higher level of engagement than do pass/failgrades. In support of the grading and evaluation, VIP programs require students to maintainrigorous documentation of their efforts, typically in the form of VIP notebooks or institution-approved electronic portfolios. VIP programs also involve peer evaluations, reflecting the team-based nature of the course. Georgia Tech has developed a web-based peer evaluation tailored toVIP, which will soon
questions. First andforemost, the responses emphasize the importance of investing time and resources in educatingyour own undergraduates about the options available to them at their home academic institution.As reflected in the data, a number of students will opt to stay an additional fifth year to obtain amaster’s degree especially when they are not considering continuing on to a Ph.D. Furthermore,keeping faculty informed of your programs will pay dividends during the recruiting season. Evenin this advanced technological age, quality students continue to reach out to faculty members foradvice on where to attend graduate school. The combined response totals for interactions withfriends or program alumni as a significant factor in their decision to
balanced to prevent overrepresentation ofstudents from a single high school or program to reflect the demographics of New York City.Students typically had a grade point average of 87-93 out of 100. Scholarships were providedbased on family income after the student was accepted.Survey LogisticsAn entry (presurvey) and exit (postsurvey) questionnaire pair for 2018 was designed to evaluatestudent development through the use of Likert scale, checkbox, and open-ended questions,approved by the Cooper Union Institutional Review Board. The questions and selectableresponses to the presurvey are recorded in Appendix B, while those to the postsurvey arerecorded in Appendix C. Participants were students in the summer STEM program, with studentand parent
offering.AcknowledgementsThis material is based in part upon work supported by the National ScienceFoundation General & Age-Related Disabilities Engineering (GARDE)Program under grants CBET–1067740 and UNS–1512564. Opinions, findings,conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authors acknowledge the students that participated in this effort and their work in termsof example images and data that they provided for this paper. This material was included withthe written permission of the students. References[1] "iHealth Feel Wireless Blood Pressure Monitor," iHealth Labs Inc., 2017, https://ihealthlabs.com/blood-pressure-monitors/wireless
, hispassion for the arts led him to launch a business where he could combine his engineeringknowledge and skills with music. Unlike Alejandro, he did not see a disconnect with engineeringand the work that he is doing; rather, he wishes that his formal engineering education could havebeen extended to include developing interpersonal skills and business skills to enable people toleverage their ideas and pursue their goals. According to Cane, his future will include continuingto make the things he is making, to expand his business to other products, and to get involvedwith teaching again. Cane’s pathway reflects one that was driven by early childhood experiencesand a pursuit to use his engineering education to implement his art.Stephen’s pathway is
included as a category to reflect a team’s effort; an equivalent scoringrubric was developed for the report. These scores were used in the final grades of teams. In mid-2000’s both the scoring rubrics were revised again to include References and Bibliography, andFigure and Tables. These rubrics, used for proposal and report, are presented in Appendix A.1and A.2, respectively. These rubrics would hereafter be referred to as “original rubrics.” By2007 all CEE faculty advisors were grading the proposals and reports of all teams and using thescores to decide on the final grade.In 2013 the authors decided to revamp the scoring rubric for several reasons which are discussedbelow with the presentation of the proposed rubric.Research GoalsGiven the wide
whenplaced within the context that considers the professor’s specific objectives, the complexity ofthe subject matter, the physical setting of the classroom, and the capabilities of the learners.The challenge is to choose a suitable method at the appropriate time. Understanding the prosand cons of the lecture method is a helpful starting point.Lectures have a number of characteristics that does make them, for the right subject matter,desirable in the classroom (14) .It does, to a great extent, depend on the abilities andexperience of the lecturer. An able and committed lecturer can accomplish the following: 1. Relate the material proficiently and effectively, in a manner that reflects lecturer’s personal conviction and grasp of the subject
acquisition systemand a computer, allows the registration of position, velocity and acceleration. Data can beworked in distinct ways highlighting a set of concepts and measurable values. Using differentsuspended masses there are a lot of possibilities to explore.Figure1. Kinematics experiment.Along the semester all of the groups worked on all of the experiments. At the end, eachstudent had to make a public presentation about one of the experiments. Each one was totallyfree to choose how to do it. This is an important issue because, on the one hand, studentshave to reflect about the concepts involved, the results obtained and conclusions drawn. Onthe other hand, they can develop skills related to analysis, synthesis and communication suchas, the
comparisons known asvicarious experiences when asked about the experiences that influenced their confidence insuccess in an engineering course. By comparison, second-year chemical engineering studentsretained this tendency to reflect on vicarious experiences; however, their perception of theexperiences illustrated a gradual shift from seemingly competitive comparisons to comparisonsthat led to feelings of camaraderie and the formation of peer support networks. Moreover, CHE205 students were also influenced by an experience described much less frequently by first-yearstudents: personal mastery of material.One of the first longitudinal, qualitative investigations of engineering students’ efficacy beliefs,this study supports the tenants of self-efficacy