More Like this

1. Engaging Civil Engineering Students through a “Capstone-like” Experience in their Sophomore Year

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34539  

   Sarasua, Wayne ; Kaye, Nigel ; Ogle, Jennifer ; Benaissa, Mehdi ; Benson, Lisa ; Putman, Bradley ; Pfirman, Aubrie ( June 2020 , 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference)

   Many university engineering programs require their students to complete a senior capstone experience to equip them with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed after graduation. Such capstone experiences typically integrate knowledge and skills learned cumulatively in the degree program, often engaging students in projects outside of the classroom. As part of an initiative to completely transform the civil engineering undergraduate program at Clemson University, a capstone-like course sequence is being incorporated into the curriculum during the sophomore year. Funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation’s Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (RED) program, this departmental transformation (referred to as the Arch initiative) is aiming to develop a culture of adaptation and a curriculum support for inclusive excellence and innovation to address the complex challenges faced by our society. Just as springers serve as the foundation stones of an arch, the new courses are called “Springers” because they serve as the foundations of the transformed curriculum. The goal of the Springer course sequence is to expose students to the “big picture” of civil engineering while developing student skills in professionalism, communication, and teamwork through real-world projects and hands-on activities. The expectation is that the Springer course sequence will allow facultymore »to better engage students at the beginning of their studies and help them understand how future courses contribute to the overall learning outcomes of a degree in civil engineering. The Springer course sequence is team-taught by faculty from both civil engineering and communication, and exposes students to all of the civil engineering subdisciplines. Through a project-based learning approach, Springer courses mimic capstone in that students work on a practical application of civil engineering concepts throughout the semester in a way that challenges students to incorporate tools that they will build on and use during their junior and senior years. In the 2019 spring semester, a pilot of the first of the Springer courses (Springer 1; n=11) introduced students to three civil engineering subdisciplines: construction management, hydrology, and transportation. The remaining subdisciplines will be covered in a follow-on Springer 2 pilot.. The project for Springer 1 involved designing a small parking lot for a church located adjacent to campus. Following initial instruction in civil engineering topics related to the project, students worked in teams to develop conceptual project designs. A design charrette allowed students to interact with different stakeholders to assess their conceptual designs and incorporate stakeholder input into their final designs. The purpose of this paper is to describe all aspects of the Springer 1 course, including course content, teaching methods, faculty resources, and the design and results of a Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) survey to assess students’ learning outcomes. An overview of the Springer 2 course is also provided. The feedback from the SALG indicated positive attitudes towards course activities and content, and that students found interaction with project stakeholders during the design charrette especially beneficial. Challenges for full scale implementation of the Springer course sequence as a requirement in the transformed curriculum are also discussed.« less
2. NSF S-STEM Scholarship Program Initiative via Recruitment, Innovation, and Transformation: SPIRIT Program Year-One Results

   https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25808  

   Ferguson, Chip ; Yanik, Paul ; Yan, Yanjun ; Kaul, Sudhir ( June 2016 , American Society for Engineering Education)

   The NSF S-STEM funded SPIRIT: Scholarship Program Initiative via Recruitment, Innovation, and Transformation program at Western Carolina University creates a new approach to the recruitment, retention, education, and placement of academically talented and financially needy engineering and engineering technology students. Twenty-seven new and continuing students were recruited into interdisciplinary cohorts that are being nurtured and developed in a community characterized by extensive peer and faculty mentoring, vertically integrated Project Based Learning (PBL), and undergraduate research experiences. The SPIRIT Scholar program attracted a diverse group of Engineering and Engineering Technology students, thus increasing the percentage of female and minority student participation as compared to the host department program demographics. Over the last academic year, fifty-four undergraduate research projects/activities were conducted by the twenty-seven scholars under the direction of twelve faculty fellows. Additionally, peer-to-peer mentorship and student leadership were developed through the program’s vertically integrated PBL model, which incorporated four courses and seven small-group design projects. Academic and professional support for the student scholars were administered through collaborations with several offices at the host institution, including an industry-engaged product development center. The program participants reported strong benefits from engaging in the program activities during the first year. Specifically, this paper presents resultsmore »from the program activities, including: cohort recruitment and demographics; support services; undergraduate research; vertically integrated PBL activities; and the external review of the program. Similar programs may benefit from the findings and the external review report, which contained several accolades as well as suggestions for potential continuous improvement.« less
3. Active Learning and Student Engagement via 3D Printing and Design: Integrating Undergraduate Research, Service Learning, and Cross-Disciplinary Collaborations

   https://doi.org/10.1557/adv.2016.82  

   Porter, Lon A. ( January 2016 , MRS Advances)

   ABSTRACT In order to provide students with the training required to meet the substantial and diverse challenges of the 21 st Century, effective programs in engineering, science, and technology must continue to take the lead in developing high-impact educational practices. Over the past year, faculty across several departments collaborated in the establishment of a campus 3D printing and fabrication center. This facility was founded to offer opportunities for exploring innovative active learning strategies in order to enhance the lives of Wabash College students and serve as a model to other institutions of higher education. This campus resource provides the infrastructure that will empower faculty and staff to explore diverse and meaningful cross-disciplinary collaborations related to teaching and learning across campus. New initiatives include the development of courses on design and fabrication, collaborative cross-disciplinary projects that bridge courses in the arts and sciences, 3D printing and fabrication-based undergraduate research internships, and entrepreneurial collaborations with local industry. These innovative approaches are meant to open the door to greater active learning experiences that empower and prepare students for creative and practical problem solving. Furthermore, service learning projects, community-based opportunities, and global outreach initiatives provide students with a sense of social responsibility, ethical awareness,more »leadership, and teamwork. This paper shares initial successes of this effort and goals for future enrichment of student learning.« less
4. Design Educators’ Conceptions of Prototyping in Engineering Design Courses

   Ali, Hadi ; Lande, Micah ( June 2019 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   This is a research study that investigates the range of conceptions of prototyping in engineering design courses through exploring the conceptions and implementations from the instructors’ perspective. Prototyping is certainly an activity central to engineering design. The context of prototyping to support engineering education and practice has a range of implementations in an undergraduate engineering curriculum, from first-year engineering to capstone engineering design experiences. Understanding faculty conceptions’ of the reason, purpose, and place of prototyping can help illustrate how teaching and learning of the engineering design process is realistically implemented across a curriculum and how students are prepared for work practice. We seek to understand, and consequently improve, engineering design teaching and learning, through transformations of practice that are based on engineering education research. In this exploratory study, we interviewed three faculty members who teach engineering design in project-based learning courses across the curriculum of an undergraduate engineering program. This builds on related work done by the authors that previously investigated undergraduate engineering students’ conceptions of prototyping activities and process. With our instructor participants, a similar interview protocol was followed through semi-structured qualitative interviews. Data analysis has been undertaken through an emerging thematic analysis of these interview transcripts. Early findingsmore »characterize the focus on teaching the design process; the kind of feedback that the educators provide on students’ prototypes; students’ behavior while working on design projects; and educators’ perspectives on the design course. Understanding faculty conceptions with students’ conceptions of prototyping can shed light on the efficacy of using prototyping as an authentic experience in design teaching and learning. In project-based learning courses, particular issues of authenticity and assessment are under consideration, especially across the curriculum. More specifically, “proportions of problems” inform “problem solving” as one of the key characteristics in design thinking, teaching and learning. More attention to prototyping as part of the study of problem-solving processes can be useful to enhance understanding of the impact of instructional design. Challenges for teaching engineering design exist, and may be due to difficulties in framing design problems, recognizing what expertise students possess, and assessing their expertise to help them reach their goals, all at an appropriate place and ambiguity with student learning goals. Initial findings show that prototyping activities can help students become more reflective on their design. Scaffolded activities in prototyping can support self-regulated learning by students. The range of support and facilities, such as campus makerspaces, may also help students and instructors alike develop industry-ready engineering students.« less
5. Investing in Instructors: Creating Intelligent Feedback Loops in Large Foundational Courses for Undergraduate Engineeringg

   Grohs, J.R. ; Knight, D.B. ; Soledad, M.M. ; Case, S.W. ; Murzi, H.G. ; Smith, N. ( June 2018 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   The drive to encourage young people to pursue degrees and careers in engineering has led to an increase in student populations in engineering programs. For some institutions, such as large public research institutions, this has led to large class sizes for courses that are commonly taken across multiple programs. While this decision is reasonable from an operational and resource management perspective, research on large classes have shown that students suffer decreased engagement, motivation and achievement. Instructors, on the other hand, report having difficulty establishing rapport with their students and a growing inability to monitor students’ learning gains and provide quality individualized feedback. To address these issues, our project draws from Lattuca and Stark’s Academic Plan model, which incorporates a thorough consideration of factors influencing curricular activities that can be applied at the course, program, and institutional levels, and assumes that instructors are key actors in curriculum development and revision. We aim to revitalize feedback loops to help instructors and departments continuously improve. Recognizing that we must understand both individual and systems level perspectives, we prioritize regular engagement between faculty and institutional support structures to collaboratively identify problems and systematically establish continuous improvement. In the first phase of this NSF IUSEmore »Institutional Transformation project, we focus on specifically prompting and studying the experiences of 8 instructors of foundational engineering courses usually taught in large class sizes across 4 different departments at a large public research institution. We collected qualitative data (semi-structured interviews, reflective journals, course-related documents) and quantitative data (student surveys and institution-provided transcript data) to answer research questions (e.g., what data do faculty teaching large foundational undergraduate engineering courses identify as being useful so that they may enhance students’ experiences and outcomes within the classes that they teach and across students’ multiple large classes?) at the intersection of learning analytics and faculty change. The data was used as a baseline to further refine data collection protocols, identify data that faculty consider meaningful and useful for managing large foundational engineering courses, and consider ways of productively leveraging institutional data to improve the learning experience in these courses. Data collection for the first phase is ongoing and will continue through the Spring 2018 semester. Findings for this paper will include high-level insights from Fall interviews with instructors as well as data visualizations created from the population-level data characterizing student performance in the foundational courses within the context of pre-college characteristics (e.g., SAT scores) and/or other academic outcomes (e.g., major switching within or out of engineer, degree attainment).« less