United States moves toward minority-majority status, that change isnot reflected in the number of graduate degrees being awarded to underrepresented minorities.The Preparing Engineering Graduates Students for the 21st Century (PEGS21) project at UCDavis seeks to look at the transition from undergraduate to graduate study and extend priorresearch that identifies barriers to graduate degree attainment in first generation students.PEGS21 scholars participate in weekly seminars and a series of professional developmentworkshops in the UC Davis GradPathways program and are asked to reflect on the value of eachworkshop on their learning. Analysis of the results from these reflection assignments suggeststhat GradPathways workshops have the potential to
reflected in all of these identities indifferent was; however, additional work is needed.Work Completed to Date and FindingsTo date, we have completed a series of three baseline surveys related to engineeringcommunities and engineering identities across the first-year engineering experience with onecohort of students from two different universities. This was detailed in our pervious poster [4].Institution 1 approaches first-year engineering through a discipline specific model whileInstitution 2 uses the FYEP approach. Information from these surveys was used to inform thedevelopment of an interview protocol related to engineering communities and engineeringidentities. That protocol was used during our first of three rounds of interviews which
Thinking content, and 3)industry trips to be made relevant to life as a future engineer. The grant team reflected on thestudent feedback with respect to the existing course elements and program structure and agreedthat improvements could be made. Table 1 provides a summary of the changes implemented inthe ENGR 189B course for the Summer 2018 Program, including the addition of course threadsthat were not present during the Summer 2017 Program. Student reactions to the revised ENGR189B professional development course were obtained through the annual evaluation survey, andtheir reception to the revised content was very positive. 1Table 1. ENGR 189B
-‐based activities to address students’ common misconceptions in heat transfer. These activities involved three parts – first, a description of a situation and a request for students to individually make a written prediction about how that situation would resolve. For example, predict which lowers the temperature of a cup of water more: a single large ice cube, or an equal mass of chipped ice? Then students worked in small groups to replicate the experiment as described and record observations. Finally, after discussing what they had experienced, students would complete an individual written reflection on what they’d observed and how it
validation of the research instruments, and the Concord Team focused oncalibration of the process analytics. These initial qualitative studies were designed to inform thelarger study in three ways. First, the classroom observations, interviews, and discussions with theteachers allow a deeper understanding of student cognition. These then inform the design ofpre/posttests. Second, the qualitative analyses of student design behaviors and reflective notescaptured through Energy3D provide information on students’ approaches to design. Third, thesecombined insights help inform the development and validation of models for the process analyticssuch as time series mining, association rule mining, and combined action-note analysis. The initialdesign of pre
thesemeetings was invaluable as we transitioned to more integrated self-direct learning for studentsand faculty. Through this learning initiative, the faculty built the capacity to reflect and examineassumptions. We also believe that an important part of this experiment was the availability of thestudent community voice as feedback to the faculty.Students took between half and three-quarters of their course load with faculty who taught pre-existing general education courses. The difference for the students was that they took courseswith a cohort and that faculty attempted to integrate content across disciplines. Courses includedEnglish, communications, humanities (ethnic studies, history, sociology), STEM (physics,biology, and engineering). Students
collecting autoethnographic, ethnographic, and interviewing data of designteams working in makerspaces over the course of two years.The undergraduate engineering students joined the research team as sophomores and participated in year-long training in methods of autoethnographic writing and ethnographic methods of participant observationthe year prior to the onset of data collection. As part of that methodological preparation, student researchersspent considerable time reflecting on their own identities as nascent engineers, critically interrogating whatbrought them to the engineering major and what aspects of engineering most interest them. This earlyreflective process prepares students to understand and situate their identities within the maker
., pre-entryengineering identity); Time 2, reflecting engineering identity at the end of the first semester; andTime 3, reflecting engineering identity at the end of the spring semester.Demographic control variables, including gender, age, and ethnicity, were gathered throughuniversity records.ResultsIn the fall semester, 24 (2.0%) students engaged in research, 7 (0.6%) served as engineeringstudent ambassadors, 6 (0.5%) were peer mentors, 10 (0.8%) engaged in internships, 300(25.0%) participated in student organizations directly related to engineering, and 212 (17.7%)participated in student organizations outside engineering. In the spring semester, 68 (5.7%)students were involved in research, 20 (1.7%) served as engineering student ambassadors
-contextualize engineering science engineering courses to better reflect and prepare students for the reality of ill-defined, sociotechnical engineering practice. Their current projects include studying and designing classroom interventions around macroethical issues in aerospace engineering and the productive beginnings of engineering judgment as students create and use mathematical models. Aaron holds a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from U-M, and a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Prior to re-joining U-M, he was an instructor in Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder.Prof. Rachel Vitali, The University of Iowa Dr. Rachel Vitali is an
scientific phenomena [28-29]. The effectiveness of writing-based interventions to learn domain specific content hasbeen documented across scientific fields including, but not limited to: biology, chemistry,ecology, and physics [29-37]. These and other studies have shown that writing-based STEMinterventions can improve students’ reasoning and conceptual understanding [33, 38-41] and thatwriting becomes even more effective when it includes formative feedback and reflection (p. 84,[42]). For example, a meta-analysis by Bangert-Drowns et al. [43] across 47 studies consideredthe effects of writing-to-learn with feedback compared to writing with no feedback. Feedbackwas more effective than no feedback for academic achievement, with an effect size
into STEMfields through the cultivation of their mentor support networks. Rising Scholars students wereprovided with a scholarship and had a defined path of activities in college designed to enhancetheir professional mentoring network. They were prearranged to participate in a pre-freshmanacademic bootcamp, an on-going faculty-directed research project, a self-directed researchproject, and an internship. Students attended seminars and produced written reflections of theirvarious individual experiences on the path to a professional career. Three cadres of 21 studentstotal, who had expressed a previous interest in engineering, were admitted to a general studiesprogram and provided intensive guidance and an active social group. The Rising
). • Work as a member of a team in constructing, testing, evaluating and reporting on a simple piece of process equipment. 2.2.4. Context 4: Completion of third year chemical engineering coursesThe INSPIRES Heart Lung system design challenge was first tested with freshman engineeringstudents at the UMBC in an introductory engineering design course. This first year course is amixed lecture/lab course like that described in context 2 above; however, the emphasis here is ona reflective activity that took place two and a half years later, after the same students hadofficially matriculated into the chemical engineering program and completed their junior levelcourses in Transport Phenomena I (Fluids) and II (Heat and Mass Transfer). As part of
internalizingand effectively communicating insights from these experiences later. We conjecture thatproviding an engineering problem typology and reflection framework as context for studentexperiences will improve students’ ability to internalize and communicate the professionalrelevance of those experiences. In this NSF PFE:RIEF sponsored research project we are usingmixed-methods to collect pre / post data on students’ engineering epistemological beliefs, writtenreflections that consider the professional aspects of engineering projects, mock interviews, andgroup problem-solving discussions. Between the pre / post data collection, an intervention takesplace; students participate in a professionally relevant project experience (engineeringintramural) with
students.Dr. Emily Dringenberg, The Ohio State University Dr. Dringenberg is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Ohio State Uni- versity. She holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (Kansas State ’08), a M.S. in Industrial Engineering (Purdue ’14) and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education. Her current career purpose is to learn about and reveal beliefs that are widely-held as an implicit result of our socialization within systems of oppression so that she can embolden others to reflect on their assumptions and advance equity in their own ways.Dr. Elif Miskioglu, Bucknell University Dr. Elif Miskioglu is an early-career engineering education scholar and educator. She holds a B.S. in Chemical
informs the culture, climate, and discourse of engineering education,leading to an exclusionary culture within engineering as reflected by the lack of diversity andlower retention of students and faculty of color, and contributes to systemic barriers negativelyimpacting racial equity. Moving towards racial equity in engineering education requires afundamental shift in thinking in two important ways: 1) we must reframe how we think aboutunderserved populations from minority to minoritized by a dominant discourse, and 2) to beginto dismantle the impacts of Whiteness, we must first make this barrier visible.In the first year of this project, the diverse team of PIs began to explore scripts of Whiteness inengineering education by conducting a
vouchers.OrientationPrior to the start of the program, an orientation meeting introduced the available researchprojects and allowed students, faculty, and the graduate student mentors to meet each other. Anoverview of Research Contracts, which were used to structure the individual summer researchprojects of each student, a brief introduction to the online communications platform (Basecamp),where students turned in materials and engaged in weekly reflections on the program and theirresearch projects, and a Lab and Campus Safety information session were also covered in theorientation meeting.Program Website https://stem.northeastern.edu/summer/reu/pathways/Arduino/SparkFun WorkshopThrough this workshop series and a 10-week long engineering design project, students
extant model of empathyin engineering design on which the initial instrument was founded, then we invited critique of theinstrument and identification of parts missing from their pre-reflection stories. We leveragedMiro and this extant model and asked participants to share their stories within the extant model.We also prompted participants to expand the model, naming parts of the model that failed tocapture their pre-reflection stories. In this way, we began prompting participants to help usexpand the model to other design phases, other empathy types, or other directions. For example,similar to the first co-creation workshop, some participants focused on empathy within the team,with one participant considering this a predecessor or affordance to
experience, teachers benefit professionally through integrateddevelopment activities and cultivate greater self-awareness and understanding of culture.First, this paper will summarize the project to date. Then, we present observations fromparticipants’ reflections, semi-structured interview, and pre/post intercultural assessments. Next,we highlight the collaborative outreach and capacity-building efforts which resulted in a newcommunity partner and immersion site. Finally, we discuss the unique opportunities andchallenges associated with navigating international travel and immersion experiences during theCOVID-19 pandemic.Project SummaryThe Global STEM Research Experience for Teachers (RET) is a collaborative program betweenCentral State University
- andpost-STEM interviews with a member of the research team. Of these 16 students, four alsoparticipated in the mentoring experience. The interviews (conducted remotely) focused onstudents' career interests, understanding of what STEM entails, and reflection about the 3Dprinting unit. Students (n=214) completed a STEM Interest survey consisting of four sets ofquestions, each set focusing on one element of STEM. Students took this survey twice, once atthe start of the quarter (pre) and once at the end of the quarter (post). The survey was takenverbatim from Kier et al. (2013) [7] with eight additional negatively worded questions to checkfor response consistency. Additionally, following each mentoring session, students (n=16),mentors (n=12), and
differences among individuals and groups6. Protects human health and physical safety of users and society7. Promotes human well-being and enhances quality of life for usersand society8. Evaluates economic impacts of environmental design criterion9. Evaluates economic impacts of a social design criterion10. Considers affordability for users and/or demonstrates costcompetitiveness or cost reduction for client/sponsor11. Evaluates economic costs and benefits to inform decisions12. Final design impacted by trade-offs among environmental, social,and economic criteria and reflects balance of dimensions13. Uses and/or creates innovation(s) in its specific field to achievesustainability14. Worked with experts from other disciplines (i.e., outsideengineering
, two are administered in the first year for a cohort: (1) an introductionto computer science course where teachers learn fundamental CS topics and programming in ahigh-level programming language (e.g., Python), and engage in problem solving and practicecomputational thinking, and (2) a course in pedagogy for teachers to learn how to teach K-8 CS,including lesson designs, use of instructional resources such as dot-and-dash robots, andassessments. Then, the following academic year after the summer, the PD program holds a seriesof workshops on five separate Saturdays to support teacher implementation of their lessonmodules during the academic year, reflect and improve on their lessons, reinforce on CSconcepts and pedagogy techniques, review and
At the culmination of the 5-week program, a focus group and exit survey were used togather descriptive and interpretive information on the students’ feelings of self-efficacy,valuation of engineering knowledge and skills, and engineering identities. The exit surveycontained items developed by Walton and Liles [15] and Walton et al. [3] to measureEngineering Values, Self-efficacy, and Identity. The Engineering Values Scale (EVS), contains8 items arranged on a 7 point Likert scale. The items assess both general and specific aspects ofthe field of engineering with higher scores reflecting greater valuation. The Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES), contains 14 items arranged on a 7 point Likert scale. The items assess ageneral form of self
between 2007 and 2014. Research sites include four of the top ten producers of U.S.Hispanic/Latino engineers; the framework of transfer student capital was used to organize thisstudy's data collection and analytical plan.For our 2018 ASEE poster, we explore engineering transfer students’ reflective responses toquestions about their perceptions of the transfer processes; it represents an area of investigationthat falls under the Transfer Student Capital component of Laanan’s research framework.Through our analyses, we identify emergent constructs and explore differences across subgroupsof transfer students (i.e., type of institution - selective versus open enrollment; type of transferpathway - lateral versus vertical; student status as Hispanic
biases and increasing active learning in the classroom, with the ultimate goal of increasing student engagement, success, and retention. Further, these positive effects are projected to be strongest for underrepresented minority (URM), women, and first-generation students. The project period is March 1, 2017 to February 29, 2020. Regarding social cognitive biases, ISE-2 focused on two major components. Implicit bias consists of attitudes, beliefs, and stereotypes that we are not aware that we hold and, in turn, influence our actions in an unconscious and unaware manner. Implicit biases often reflect broader stereotypes and cultural narratives about groups and therefore behavior based in implicit biases seems correct
pairs to solve problems or complete 50% assignments. Have students work on real‐world problems or contextual examples. 50% Hold all students in a group accountable for group projects. 50% Moderate Change Provide means for students to ask questions outside of class (i.e., discussion forum, chat). 50% Use peer mentors to support student problem solving and/or reflection. 50% Big Change Teach strategies for solving problems rather
the “spiral approach” for course redesign.Lessons learned from previous semesters are incorporated into any needed redesign and/orrefinements of the HIPs as part of the process for updating each course syllabus each semester.Two courses serve as examples to demonstrate how to implement HIPs in basic STEMengineering courses.IntroductionKuh asserts that college degrees are valued by society and empower the individual; however,persistence and completion of the degree is reflective of the quality of the learning experience[1]. To strengthen academic success, faculty development in effective teaching strategies, suchas High-Impact Educational Practices (HIPs), is needed [2]. HIPs ensure that students haveaccess to well-designed, engaging academic
research experiences. Theseactivities include reading journal articles, running experiments, preparing materials forexperiments, writing up the results of their work, presenting research findings, repeatingexperiments, developing plans for data collection and analysis, and analyzing data. Some of theseactivities are epistemic practices because they are directed towards gaining knowledge orincreasing understanding. Through reflection, epistemic metacognitive skills (EMS), on theirresearch activities and social interactions, students build and refine their knowledge of howresearch works. This knowledge of how research works affects students’ existing and developingbeliefs and perceptions about what a researcher does and about knowledge and knowing
foundational experiences for all engineering students.Well-designed laboratory experiences can make engineering concepts come to life, givingstudents a real-world confirmation of the theory and concepts from lecture classes. Conversely,the effectiveness of hands-on learning can be reduced if there are inadequate levels of studentengagement and reflection [1] - [3]. Due to advances in portable data acquisition devices, laptopcomputers, and an array of affordable sensors, there is an unprecedented opportunity to bringhands-on experiments out of the centralized labs, and into lecture classrooms, and even studentdorm rooms. While such mobile hands-on experiments have had substantial inroads in the fieldsof electrical and computer engineering (ECE
was intended to be arefresher of selected curriculum design models and an enhancer of evidence-based teachingpractices. The workshops blended learning theories, formative assessment strategies, activelearning techniques, and effective use of technologies that teachers could experience and takeback to their own class. Each workshop was approximately two hours. The topics covered by theworkshop series include: (1) Team building activity, (2) Reflections on engineering education,(3) Curriculum standards, (4) TPACK design framework [8] and the Backward Design model[9], (5) Raising meaningful questions and engineering challenge, (6) Writing measurablelearning objectives, (7) Formative and summative assessment strategies, (8) The art ofstorytelling
engineering edu- cation, the professional formation of engineers, the role of empathy and reflection in engineering learning, and student development in interdisciplinary and interprofessional spaces.Dr. Stephen Secules, Purdue University-Main Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Paper ID #27026 Stephen received a PhD in education at the University of Maryland researching engineering education. He has a prior academic and professional background in engineering, having worked professionally as an acoustical engineer. He has taught an