practice, if observed, is likely desirable, since thedifficulty arises from students’ activation of retrieval processes. Because students are forced torecall previously-learned information without any contextual cues, their memory is strengthened.Current WorkAs part of NSF Award #1912253, we implemented spaced retrieval practice in Calculus I forengineering students at the University of Louisville’s J. B. Speed School of Engineering. Thethree-year grant is currently in its second year, the study having been implemented in Fall 2020.As a preliminary analysis on the data available for the ASEE timeframe, we asked the followingresearch question: RQ: Does spacing decrease performance on retrieval practice exercises in an engineering
, and the Nature of Science and History of Science in science education.Melissa Rummel, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Educational DesignerDr. Jeffrey B. Bush, University of ColoradoJennifer Jacobs, University of Colorado Boulder Dr. Jennifer Jacobs is an associate research professor at the Institute of Cognitive Science at CU-Boulder. Dr. Jacobs has served as the PI or Co-PI on a variety of funded studies spanning mathematics and science education, with a particular focus on the development of curricular and professional learning resources for teachers and their impact on classroom instruction and student learning.Mimi Recker, Utah State UniversityMr. John Daniel Ristvey Jr., University Corporation for
research focuses on the cognitive and pedagogical underpinnings of learning with computer-based multimedia re- sources; knowledge representation through interactive concept maps; meta-analysis of empirical research, and investigation of instructional principles and assessments in STEM. He is currently a Senior Associate Editor of the Journal of Engineering Education.Jacqueline Gartner Ph.D., Campbell University Jacqueline Burgher Gartner is an Assistant Professor at Campbell University in the School of Engineering, which offers a broad BS in engineering with concentrations in chemical and mechanical.David B. Thiessen, Washington State University David B.Thiessen received his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the
, "2019-2020 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs," ABET, Baltimore, MD2018, Available: https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting- engineering-programs-2019-2020/, Accessed on: 25 January 2021.[8] D. Davis, S. Beyerlein, O. Harrison, P. Thompson, M. S. Trevisan, and B. Mount, "A Conceptual Model for Capstone Engineering Design Performance and Assessment," in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL, 2006, p. Session 1237.[9] D. C. Davis, K. Gentili, M. S. Trevisan, R. K. Christianson, and J. F. McCauley, "Measuring Learing Outcomes for Engineering Design Education," in American Society for
engineering kits through a tablet andSibme, a video-app created for professional learning, coaching, and collaboration.Aim 1The purpose of the first aim was to examine features of the program that best supportparticipation and implementation of engineering design practices among caregivers and children.To date, the areas of focus to address this aim include (a) identification of a problem andbrainstorming generation process, (b) patterns of interactions between caregivers and childrenduring the monthly sessions, (c) engagement with material and tangible resources, (d) STEMmoments of caregiver-child interactions while participating in the engineering kits, and (e) use ofdiscussion prompts from the engineering kits. Findings from each will be briefly
/her tablet at non-instructionaltime without being mentally present, they were assumed behaviorally disengaged. Table 1: Dictionary of tokens (a) (b) Figure 5: Engagement levels of the 11 students during a lecture.Percent engagement level of the 11 students during a lecture is shown in Fig. 5 (b). At thebeginning of the lecture most students were engaged. At the middle of the lecture there was aslight drop off in the students’ engagement, due to some students partially disengaged. Later, atthe end of the lecture, half of students drop off.3.3. Behavioral engagement resultsThe behavioral engagement model is developed to estimate
: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, p. 75–86, 2006. [2] J. Hattie, “Visible learning,” 2008. [3] H. Siy, B. Dorn, C. Engelmann, N. Grandgenett, T. Reding, J.-H. Youn, and Q. Zhu, “Sparcs: A personalized problem-based learning approach for developing successful computer science learning experiences in middle school,” 2017 IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology (EIT), 2017. [4] D. Brabazon, L. Donovan, M. Melia, M. P. O’Mahony, A. Egan, and B. Smyth, “Supporting problem-based learning in moodle using personalised, context-specific learning episode generation,” Proceeding of 1st
culture of learning through peer-assisted tutorials," European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 17 - 32, 2010.[9] E. J. Coyle, L. H. Jamieson and W. C. Oakes, "EPICS: Engineering Projects in Community Service," Int. J. Engng Ed., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 139 - 150, 2005.[10] D. M. Hall, A. J. Curtin-Soydan and J. H. Blackshear, "Creating a Layered Assessment Model to Engage and Retain Diverse Learners in Gateway STEM Courses," in Transforming STEM Higher Education presented by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, Atlanta, GA, 2014.[11] B. Toven-Lindsey and M. Lewis-Fitzgerald, "Assessing and Improving Persistence of Underrepresented Minorities in Science," in Transforming STEM Higher
for every unit increase collaboration) ● Are provided help by the TA (0.088 unit increase in confidence for every unit increase in TA help)Students place lower value in completing a DC when they: ● Perceive the task as difficult (0.042 unit decrease in confidence for every unit increase in TA help)Regression Analysis for ConfidenceTable 3. Regression model for confidence.Variable UnStandardized Standard Standardized t P F Degrees R2 Coefficient, Error Coefficient, of B β FreedomConfidence
, we mean a set of nodes thatshare all possible pairwise connections; with the term (induced) star, we imply a set of nodes each with aconnection to a common center and no other edges between other pairs of nodes. To find the largestinduced clique that includes a certain node and the largest induced star that includes that node as a center,we solve the integer programs presented in (1) and (2), respectively. We also present pictorial examplesof cliques and stars in Figure 1 in (a), (b), (c) and (d), (e), (f), respectively.In both mathematical formulations, 𝑥𝑖 is a binary variable that is equal to 1 if and only if node 𝑖 is in theclique/star. Additionally, in the clique formulation, two nodes are not allowed to both be in the clique,unless
same lines, it can be seen from Table 1 that afew students have not taken advantage of Professor and/or Teaching Assistant Office Hours. Ifstudents are understanding the course material, they will have less need to ask additional questionsin office hours thereby reducing the number of students visiting office hours.Table 1: Key to On-Going Program Activities, and the Number of Respondents who Did NotParticipate in Each Activity Identifier Program Activity Number of Non-Participants A Faculty Mentoring 0 B Tutoring Center 7 C S-STEM Program
using in our design? 9. What is the print of this code? a=5 b=4 if a < b print ("a is less than b" else print ("a is greater than b") 10. Where would a cube of ice melt faster: on a plastic or metal plate?The post survey included some of the above questions along with engineering self-efficacy rating questionsbelow. Participants rated each question by picking the following responses: strongly agree, agree, neutral,disagree, or strongly disagree. Given the post survey was administered through an email and after the end ofthe Academy, only N=29 responses were received. 1. I am confident with what Engineering is (72.4% Agree, 24.1% Neutral) 2. The remote
this work was provided by the USA National Science Foundation's ImprovingUndergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) program under Award No. 1836504. Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] L. Gelles, S. M. Lord, G. D. Hoople, D. A. Chen, and J. A. Mejia, “Compassionate Flexibility and Self-Discipline: Student Adaptation to Emergency Remote Teaching in an Integrated Engineering Energy Course during COVID-19,” Education Sciences, vol. 10, no. 11, p. 304, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110304[2] B. Momo, G. D. Hoople, D. A. Chen, J. A. Mejia, and S. M. Lord, “Broadening
do you define a “right triangle”? - a “foundational” question What do you mean by vector “magnitude”? 2 Question is about how to do How do I determine the third angle in a triangle if something given values for two angles? – a “procedural” question How do I make a unit vector that points from a given point A to a given point B? 3 Question is about how to do Should I always use
Technology Studies (STS) from Virginia Tech. Dr. Jesiek draws on expertise from engineering, computing, and the social sciences to advance under- standing of geographic, disciplinary, and historical variations in engineering education and practice.Dr. Carla B. Zoltowski, Purdue University at West Lafayette (COE) Carla B. Zoltowski is an assistant professor of engineering practice in the Schools of Electrical and Com- puter Engineering and (by courtesy) Engineering Education, and Director of the Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program within the College of Engineering at Purdue. Prior to her appointment in ECE, Dr. Zoltowski was Co-Director of the EPICS Program. She holds a B.S.E.E., M.S.E.E., and Ph.D. in Engineering
Foundation.References 1. T.S. Popkewitz and L. Fendler, Critical Theories in Education: Changing Terrains of Knowledge and Politics. Psychology Press, 1999. 2. P. Layne, “Diversity by Numbers,” Leadership and Management in Engineering, vol 1 ed. (4), pp. 65-71. Oct, 2001. 3. D. Riley, A. Slaton, and A. L. Pawley, “Inclusion and Social Justice: Women and Minorities in Engineering.” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri and B. Olds, Ed., Cambridge University Press 2014. 4. B.M. Ferdman, “The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations,” in Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion, B. Ferdman and B. R. Deane, Ed. New York: Wiley 2014, pp 3-54. 5. R. Jost, Benchmarks for Cultural Change in
development. Although faculty framed these as productive and necessary skills forstudents, students perceived that faculty prioritized research and that they were ‘on their own’ in:(a) developing a specialty in a BME subfield to be marketable upon graduation, (b) learningcourse content by teaching themselves, and (c) finding and pursuing professional developmentopportunities. As a result, students drew on resources outside of the program such as family andpeer social networks, high school training in STEM subjects, and other forms of social andcultural capital. As under-represented minority (URM) students and first-generation college(FGC) students are less likely to possess these forms of capital, this finding suggests that BMEcultures may raise
architectures, and computer architecture. He has a 25 year history of teaching excellence at the undergraduate and graduate levels. His teaching skills have been recognized with an Iowa State University Teaching Excellence Award, the Iowa State University Warren B. Boast Award for Undergraduate Teaching Excellence, and the MSOE Oscar Werwath Distinguished Teacher Award. Dr. Meier maintains professional memberships in the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), the ASEE Electrical and Computer Engineering Division (ECE), the ASEE Educational Re- search and Methods division (ERM),the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the IEEE Computer Society, and the IEEE Education Society. Dr
enrolled in Engineering Management (EM), Industrial and SystemsEngineering (ISE), and Mechanical Engineering (ME) degree programs at Stevens Institute ofTechnology during a third-year required engineering design course. These students make up thefirst cohort of a two-year study. The EM and ISE students are taught in a combined section of 23students (referred to as Section A), where market-driven design is highlighted throughout thecurriculum and multiple assignments are collected and analyzed. The ME students are taught intwo sections of approximately 54 students each (Sections B and C). In Section A, 43 percent ofthe students identified as female and 35 percent as non-white, which is typical of nationalengineering student ethnicity demographics
. The remaining two articles were excluded because they were theoreticaland did not pertain to the scope of the literature review. After the abstract decision process wascompleted, 24 articles were selected for the full read. Out of those 19-peer reviewed articles wereincluded in the final synthesis (see Figure 1).Figure 1: Prisma diagram including the information of the number of excluded and includedarticles in each step of the reviewing process [12] 3. FindingsDifferent strategies for assessing the development of computational thinking in higher educationwere found. These summaries of findings will be discussed in the following themes (a) tests,instruments, and portfolios, (b) makeshift environments and online games, and (c
investing and maintenance. The analysishere 1) models the makerspace in a bipartite network, 2) identifies key tools that are being usedand bring students into the space, and 3) identifies initial dependencies of tools.The bipartite network analysis used here is a network analysis technique primarily used in thesocial sciences [13] to determine and interpret underlying structures in complex social networksmade up of "actors" and "events" [14]. Bipartite networks refer to a network that can be brokeninto two separate subsets A and B, with links connecting subset A to B [15]. The bipartiteanalysis was used by NASA to determine innovation networks for the space app challenge,enabling them to identify barriers to innovation and a “catalyst” that aid in
educational psychology, 25(1), 68-81, 2000.[6] E. A. Mosyjowski, S. R. Daly, A. B. Baker, D. L. Peters, & S. J. Skerlos, “Engineering practitioners in PhD programs: Who are they and why do they return?,” In American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WA, June 2015.[7] E. A. Mosyjowski, S. R. Daly, D. L. Peters, S. J. Skerlos, & A. B. Baker, “Engineering PhD returners and direct‐pathway students: Comparing expectancy, value, and cost,” Journal of engineering education, 106(4), 639-676, 2017.[8] E. A. Gross, D. L. Peters, S R. Daly, & S. L. Mann, “Perceived self-efficacy of master's in engineering students regarding software proficiency and engineering
material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1943541. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The authors thank project advisory board members Jennifer Cromley, AllisonGodwin, and Nicola Sochacka for feedback on the survey items and interview protocol. Theauthors also thank the study participants for their insight and sharing their experiences.References[1] R. M. Simon, A. Wagner, and B. Killion, "Gender and choosing a STEM major in college: Femininity, masculinity, chilly climate, and occupational values," Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Experiential Case Study of Data Sharing and Reuse,” Adv. Eng. Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, 2016.[6] D. C. Miller and J. P. Byrnes, “To achieve or not to achieve: A self-regulation perspective on adolescents’ academic decision making,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 677– 685, 2001.[7] M. K. Orr, K. M. Ehlert, M. Rucks, and M. Desselles, “Towards the Development of a Revised Decision-Making Competency Instrument,” in Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, 2018, vol. 2018-June.[8] K. M. Ehlert, M. L. Rucks, B. A. Martin, M. Desselles, S. J. Grigg, and M. K. Orr, “Expanding and Refining a Decision-Making Competency Inventory for Undergraduate Engineering Students,” in Proceedings of the
Conference (FIE), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2014. [8] Mica Estrada, Paul R Hernandez, and P Wesley Schultz. A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1):ar9, 2018. [9] Heather Wright and Burcin Tamer. Path Ambassadors to High Success (PATHS): Comparative evaluation of pilot and cohort 1 to a national sample, 2019.[10] Linda J Sax, Hilary B Zimmerman, Jennifer M Blaney, Brit Toven-Lindsey, and Kathleen Lehman. Diversifying undergraduate computer science: The role of department chairs in promoting gender and racial diversity. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 23(2):101–119, 2017.[11] Linda J Sax
program, they now had enoughinformation to (a) ask more and better questions and have conversations in their schools; (b)better infuse things into their own CS curriculum; and (c) help others better understand theneed for technology and computer science.3.2. Cohort 2Similar to procedures for Cohort 1, Cohort 2 teachers completed a comprehensive end-of-courseevaluation. Quantitative results are shown below in Figure 10. In addition to the morequantitative ratings, open-ended questions probed individual reflections. Respondents wereappreciative of the opportunities to work with colleagues in small groups with the assistance andguidance of group facilitators along with the help provided for them outside of class time.Respondents indicated they
these two people that I’m talking about, well I can those two real friends. (Student A) I have learned that it is okay to make friends in college. I did not expect to make so many these last two years especially because of my introverted personality. I prefer to struggle on my own and get through everything by myself but some of the current friends forced themselves into my life and I appreciate it. They are funny, cool, and good people at heart. (Student B) I did not expect to make many new friends through my college years. I expected semester friends however with this two-year program, many of the cohort members have become close friends of mine that I hope to keep.Growing in Possible
. aDue to unspecified responses, the numbers are inconsistent with the total number ofparticipantsB. AssessmentSince 2018, pre- and post-program surveys have been administered to evaluate the effects of theI-Corps Site program on students and adjust the program to ensure program goals are met. Indetail, the online program evaluation consists of the pre-program survey with four sections andthe post-program survey with five sections: (a) current knowledge, (b) a scale on perceptions ofentrepreneurship, (c) practice, (d) team and business model, and (e) program evaluation (post-program survey only). The format of the assessment included both open-ended questions andseven-point Likert scales, which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
Hewlett Foundation, and the Arizona Department of Education, among others. Areas of expertise include evaluations of engineering education curricula and programs, engineering commu- nities of practice, informal education and outreach programs, STEM teacher development, and climate change education programs.Dr. Claire L. A. Dancz, Clemson University Dr. Claire L.A. Dancz is a Research Associate for Education Systems at the Watt Family Innovation Cen- ter and Adjunct Faculty in the Department of Engineering and Science Education at Clemson University.Dr. Yushin Ahn, California State University at Fresno Yushin Ahn received the B. Eng. Degree in civil engineering and the M.Sc. degree in surveying and digital
), and co‐op/internship experience Figure 2. Figure 2: Seniors with greater makerspace involvement tend to produce higher quality ideas. Makerspace involvement Acknowledgements to the grant Carberry, A. R., H. S. Lee and M. W. Ohland (2010). "Measuring engineering design self‐efficacy." Journal of Engineering Education 99(1): 71‐79. Levy, B. D. (2017). Equivalent design problems, an experimental study, Georgia Institute of Technology. Linsey, J., J. Murphy, A. B. Markman, K. Wood and T. Kurtoglu (2006). Representing analogies: Increasing the probability of innovation. ASME 2006 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and