Reflection on the Road: How Recent First Year Students Exhibit Reflection During a Short-Term Study Abroad ExperienceAbstractStudy abroad experiences augment college and university curricula and expose students to aninternational setting with lectures, tours, and cultural activities. These studies raise awareness ofprofessional, social and cultural differences among countries. Students recognize globalchallenges to the engineering profession when they discover that another country faces similartechnical, social, cultural and resource-limiting challenges. They also learn that solutions tosimilar challenges in the U.S. may, or may not, be suitable in another country. Reflection is oneway to for students to derive
. Can this first day activity help raise customer awareness, an importantattribute of an entrepreneurially minded engineer in first year students? To answer this question,a survey was conducted prior to the activity to gauge students’ understanding of how to approachdesign problems. After the first lab, students individually submitted reflections about their firstlab experience and these reflections were analyzed qualitatively. Themes that emerged during thequalitative analysis of the reflections were noted and the frequencies at which they appearedwere counted and tabulated.In the paper, the course and the activity will be described. Findings from the qualitative analysiswill be presented and discussed. Possible improvements to the activity
student while in their expert groups. Thus, the cooperative Jigsaw group consistsof students with the same numbers but different letters and therefore different readingassignments. The objective of the Jigsaw groups is to learn instructional materials from eachexpert member in the number group by actively listening, intentionally taking notes and askingquestions for clarity (time allowed ~ 20 minutes). The fourth stage focuses on reflection on allthe reading assignments materials. Instructor poses pre-formulated questions to all students toassess comprehension and clarify any misconceptions (time allowed ~ 10 minutes).Figure 1: The four stages of Flip-J process for teaching first-year engineering design course.During the expert group meeting
detached from such a situation. We intentionally developed activities thatchallenge students’ thoughts and beliefs, so they connect their actions as students to their lives asworking professionals.We first examine ethics on a global scale by considering engineers’ roles in promoting globalhealth and wellbeing through sustainability. Students learn about green design andmanufacturing strategies through assigned readings, a video on cradle-to-cradle design, andgameplay. Students play the In the Loop ® board game, which teaches players about the finiteresources necessary for devices such as LCD screens, MRI machines, and wind turbines [1].Throughout the game, players develop strategies to manage limited resources using circulareconomies. A reflective
undergraduate degrees. Giventhe general lack of hands-on design experiences in lower division coursework across the Collegeof Engineering (COE) departments and the need for an oral communication elective prior tosenior year, the Introduction to Engineering elective was piloted in Fall 2016.The 4-unit active-learning project-based course was targeted towards lower division engineeringstudents across all majors with emphasis on oral communication skills through a hands-on team-based design project. Communication and engineering design content was delivered in the twiceweekly larger lecture sessions where discussion and reflective activities where emphasized.Hands-on design and team-based activities were facilitated during the weekly studio sessions forup
being successful in their courses and their co-opexperiences.As part of the retention program, students are required to perform fifteen (15) hours ofcommunity service each semester, complete and essay related to their experience, completereflections after the monthly socials to share their learned experiences, meet once per semesterwith their Choose Ohio First Program coaches and track their progress using our e-portfoliosystem. We monitor the students’ experiences through surveys and self-reflections and well asthrough progress reports from their professors. Our results are then compared to other students inthe College of Engineering.Successes and opportunities for improvement, program compliance data and next steps will beshared in the
of themethodology and a thorough discussion of the results and are formally addressed to the campusFacilities staff.Through this activity, students familiarize with skills and concepts that will be further developedin upper level engineering courses, aiming to increase their curiosity to learn more aboutparticular engineering subjects, and expand their interest in developing and using technology toaddress problems that have a direct impact on the community, and resonate with their personalinterests. At the end of the semester, students reflect on the project, contemplating perspectivesfrom diverse engineering fields and roles. Feedback from student evaluations indicates that theyenjoyed developing their teamwork skills while working in
area of the project that connectswith their academic goals. Students must navigate an assessment objective with competingfactors. A low-stakes (3% of final grade) competition includes several conflicting factors:project cost, vehicle speed, trajectory accuracy (straight-line travel), load-carrying capacity, andpercentage of reusable parts. Students record and reflect on the struggle of balancing cost andreusability against performance goals. Should the car be light and fast, or focus on carrying alarger mass and reliably following a straight line? Should they invest in expensive remote-control car wheels or use old CDs?The higher the percent of the reusable cost (ratio of cost of reusable parts to total cost), the bettertheir performance score
their individual strength profile, they can make their work more enjoyable andthereby achieve improved outcomes. Students become more effective at communicating theirtalents on resumes and in cover letters. They also share their personal reflection on strengthswith their faculty advisors and others, which makes it easier for those mentors to write powerfulreference letters and personalized guidance. The exposure to Strengths Finder in theIntroduction to Engineering course, enriches the student experience across all four years and intotheir professional life.References[1] T. Rath, StrengthsFinder 2.0, New York: Gallup Press, 2007.[2] R.A., M.L. Loughry, M.W. Ohland, and G.D. Ricco, G. D. “Design and validation of a web- based system for
really good lesson for the class. The class talked about how she should havespoken up more during the team part of the exercise and how she hurt her team by not doing so.This allowed everyone to see both the power of the team and also the importance of eachindividual on the team. Thank goodness for that one high scorer!Another of the activities was an escape room type exercise. Escape rooms are physical games inwhich teams must solve a series of puzzles or challenges using clues, teamwork and strategy tocomplete all objectives. In the developed escape room, teams were given a time limit in whichto successfully complete all objectives.Students were required to complete a reflection after each team building activity. This reflectionserved to bring
to explore cultural differences, varying age groups, etc. Pushing students to consider extreme users and less familiar stakeholder groups will help them to explore alternative use cases and develop a broader perspective on engineering design challenges. Designing for “extreme” or “lead” users is common practice in professional engineering design, and designing for such users can lead to increased empathy and improved design outcomes [4,5]. Incorporate Reflection on Big Picture Concepts. As part of EDSGN 100, students should come away with a holistic understanding of what it means to be a practicing engineer in an age of increasing globalization and project scale. A successful engineering design project should
all PennState campuses, there are over 50 instructors teaching 70+ sections annually. Over the past twoyears, the course has been significantly revised to reflect changing academic and industry needs.This paper describes the current state of the course, highlighting newly developed coursematerials that leveraged the expertise of a team of interdisciplinary instructors.Prior to recent efforts, the curricular objectives for EDSGN 100 were formally updated mostrecently in 1995 when the course was changed from Engineering Graphics (EG 50) toEngineering Design and Graphics (ED&G 100), signifying the shift from a predominatelygraphics-based course to one incorporating team-based design projects. In 1998, the course wonthe Boeing Engineering
from one’s own and degree of emotional confidence when living in Affect complex situations, which reflects an “emotional intelligence” that is important in one’s processing encounters with other cultures Social Responsibility 0.73 Level of interdependence and social concern for others Interpersonal 0.70 Degree of engagement with others who are different from oneself and Social Interaction degree of cultural sensitivity in living in pluralistic settings*Cronbach’s alpha is an
) educational programs and careers [1]. This underrepresentation is reflected in the normsand culture existing in STEM fields. The perception of a white-men dominated environment canoften result in unfair stereotypes and biases imposed on women and people of color. These studentscan face assumptions of inferiority and be considered as part of the STEM field only as part of arequirement or quota [2],[3],[4]. Group based project learning is a common tool used in the engineering classroom topromote the acquisition and development of skills that prepare students for engineering careersrequiring significant collaborative effort. Working in groups and collaborating towards acommon goal allows students to develop their communication, leadership
appreciate what an engineering degree, and engineering itself,entail. Students drawn to engineering because of high school success in math and science shouldleave first year informed about the other skills they will need if they are to thrive as engineers.Our first year must also prepare students for second-year specialization, both technically and inregards to the choice of department. Departments expect a certain level of readiness innumerical literacy, ability to use software tools, presentation and interpretation of data ingraphical form, and ability to critically reflect on the reasonableness of results. To achieve thesegoals, an engineering practice and preparation half-course called “Thinking Like an Engineer”(TLE) has been developed. The
, noticing and reflecting on the results, and possibly getting feedbackfrom someone else” (Felder & Brent, 2016, p.3). We understand that the assumption underlyingthe rubric will not hold in all cases in all courses. We reason, however, that the target EMbehaviors are performance-based and therefore can only be internalized through practice.Therefore, weighting skill development over lecture is appropriate. We reason that assessmentincreases impact. Gibbs (1999) argues that “assessment is the most powerful lever teachers haveto influence the way students respond to courses and behave as learners” (p. 41). Grades raisethe stakes of student learning, particularly when assessment is preceded by skill development,which increases reinforcement of
within people as connections are made toother knowledge. The academic theory of service-learning has been used for both types ofconnections. Service-learning connects people through the “service” that is done and currentexperiences to previous ones through reflection upon that service[1], [2]. It is through theseconnections that service-learning can be used to make STEM education less superficial.Oftentimes, STEM educators want to provide cross-cutting experiences and higher levels ofcognition—primarily because the nature of today’s world requires solutions to complexproblems. Instead of just remembering or understanding facts, experiences should lead toanalysis, evaluation, and creation. Connections between academic learners and practitioners
Paper ID #27970Leveraging Algae to Inspire Curiosity, Develop Connections, and Demon-strate Value Creation for First Year Engineering StudentsDr. Kevin D. Dahm, Rowan University Kevin Dahm is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Rowan University. He earned his BS from Worces- ter Polytechnic Institute (92) and his PhD from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (98). He has pub- lished two books, ”Fundamentals of Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics” and ”Interpreting Diffuse Reflectance and Transmittance.” He has also published papers on effective use of simulation in engineer- ing, teaching design and engineering
[2 hrs] one component (the dowels constitute one component). II. While building, students should note errors (e.g., missing dimensions, missing hidden lines) in the sketches using provided red pens. [in class]III. Students paint and assemble character.IV. Reflect on lessons learned (e.g., value of measuring twice, cutting once; usefulness of dimensions; confidence in using a new tool; teamwork). i Student Part 3: (i) Design 3D models of accessories* in SolidWorks for character &
choice,and research existing systems and/or technologies. They were asked to advance one of thosesystems or technologies in a small way, consider the feasibility of their concept, and explain howit would add value to the world.The most popular among students was the FabLab project. It required students to not onlydesign, but also build an object. Students had to learn about the equipment available to them,decide which equipment they wanted to use for their project, design a UTA branded item, learnhow to use the equipment required for their project, and then actually create the item. Studentsturned in a blog of the design and build process. They were also required to include a section intheir blog reflecting on lessons learned. The full
attend an event on campusand write about their experience at the event. The reflection paper included the requirement toelucidate how attending the event may help the student to build their network at the University.In addition to this assignment, course instructors were focused on building in additional groupactivities and in-class assignments that encouraged students to share ideas with peers, thusbuilding their in-class peer network. A final group project was replaced with a final reflectionpaper.undeclared studentsThe greatest adjustment to the delivery of this course was the increased focus on supportingUndeclared Engineering students. During AY 1718 Undeclared Engineering students wereintegrated into sections that were major-specific. The
multiple times (n > 3).The codes were developed based on semantic reflections of the explicit content, such assentences that started with “engineering is”. Labels were identified for inferred concepts aboutengineering (e.g. “I am anxious about taking the higher-level math courses required”). Theconcepts then were examined and collated together into broader patterns of meaning. Thesepatterns of meaning were checked against the greater data to refine into specific themes.ResultsStudents’ preconceptions of engineering centered around five key thematic areas: knowledge,perception, impact, method and performance (Figure 1). Students often eluded to contentknowledge that they expected engineers to know. Oftentimes this was more broadly addressed
) 2. Brainstorm infrastructure and layout of google site 3. Work on marketing flyers 4. Flow diagram Team Final version of 1. Presentation (~5 min) on work so far – include how each puzzle works with puzzle Reflection of your fabricated object AND two other groups fabricated objects committee’s 2. Work on final version of puzzle (chosen by flow committee), 3D printed object, and progress and how 3 3D printed object
Departmental Presentations Question and Answer Session with Students and/or Faculty from each Engineering Department Engineering Ethics Case Study Discussions in Small Groups Introduction to Design Small Group Project Work and Student Presentations Reflection and Going Forward Individual Semester ReflectionsThe intent of the COE course designers was that each section of the class contain students from amixture of disciplines. It was even hoped that students could be grouped by extra-curricularinterests, e.g., soccer, Anime. The DSS cohorted students into Learning Communities (LC)which meant scheduling the same 25 students in 3 classes together, with one of these LC classesbeing within
teach my students to think about the why and not just the how”. Similarly, Naomidescribed how she uses reflection activities to help students get over the fear of failing which oftencomes from prior learning experiences that espouses always having one right answer. Engineeringpractice, all participants discussed, cannot be explained by a single path to a right answer. Oftenthere is no right answer or a single way to get to a solution and the first-year experience shouldprepare students for this reality.Overall, participants agreed that the learning environment should provide a space for theconstruction of knowledge while guiding students in the development of autonomy over their ownlearning without causing undue stress and anxiety. Additionally
data like that in Figure 2but is also reflected in the qualitative policies set forth by each institution, holding students tohigher standards as time progresses. These increasing academic standards have accompaniedmore clearly defined policies over time. With a few exceptions, schools have become morestandardized with their catalogs, and have become more responsible with publishing relevantcatalog information every year. Two years of general engineering student
Science Foundation (NSF) GraduateResearch Fellowship. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.References:[1] P. J. Denning, “Viewpoint Remaining Trouble Spots with Computational Thinking,” pp. 33–39, 2016.[2] U. Ilic, H. I. Haseski, and U. Tugtekin, “Publication Trends Over 10 Years of ComputationalThinking Research,” Contemp. Educ. Technol., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 131–153, 2018.[3] C. Concepts, A Framework for K-12 Science Education. 2012.[4] J. M. Wing, “Computational Thinking : What and Why ?,” no. November, pp. 1–6, 2010.[5] T. T. Yuen and K. A. Robbins, “A Qualitative Study of Students’ Computational ThinkingSkills in a
understanding of their stories and get additional information about their identitiesand community development as they progress through their engineering degree pathways. Wewill see if the similarities in their stories persist or begin to diverge, how well they adapted tocivilian life, and how they are affected by the design of FYE courses.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNos. 1664264 and 1664266. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.References[1] N. A. of Engineering., “Educating the engineer of 2020 : adapting engineering education
self-contained, transportable maker cart system, toengage cornerstone engineering design students with AM’s design opportunities. The portability of the system discussed in this paper makes it capable of both formal andinformal learning contexts and allows students to directly observe and reflect on themanufacturability of their designs. Similar, but less extensive, carts have been steadily growing inpopularity among libraries and K-12 institutions across the nation [9–11]; however, they are oftenlimited to spectacle, without proper curriculum to support their use. Section 2 of this paperdescribes in more detail the design of the maker cart system, including the key componentsincluded in the system and how they support design and AM
Education Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, July. PaperID: 1894[4] Anderson-Rowland, M. (2009) “Understanding Engineering Freshman Study Habits: TheTransition from High School to College.” American Society of Engineering EducationAnnual Conference. Austin, TX, June 14-17. Paper ID 2236.[5] Saldana, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. Sage,Washington DC.[6] Myers, K. L, Silliman, S. E., Gedde, N. L., and M. W. Ohland. (2010) “A comparison ofEngineering Students’ Reflections on Their First-Year Experiences.” Journal of EngineeringEducation. April 2010. 169-178.