More Like this

1. Retention Focused S-STEM Support Program

   Hensel, Robin ; Morris, Melissa ; Dygert, Joseph ( September 2019 , AAAS/NSF 2019 S-STEM Symposium)

   POSTER. Presented at the Symposium (9/12/2019) Abstract: The Academy of Engineering Success (AcES) employs literature-based, best practices to support and retain underrepresented students in engineering through graduation with the ultimate goal of diversifying the engineering workforce. AcES was established in 2012 and has been supported via NSF S-STEM award number 1644119 since 2016. The 2016, 2017, and 2018 cohorts consist of 12, 20, and 22 students, respectively. Five S-STEM supported scholarships were awarded to the 2016 cohort, seven scholarships were awarded to students from the 2017 cohort, and six scholarships were awarded to students from the 2018 cohort. AcES students participate in a one-week summer bridge experience, a common fall semester course focused on professional development, and a common spring semester course emphasizing the role of engineers in societal development. Starting with the summer bridge experience, and continuing until graduation, students are immersed in curricular and co-curricular activities with the goals of fostering feelings of institutional inclusion and belonging in engineering, providing academic support and student success skills, and professional development. The aforementioned goals are achieved by providing (1) opportunities for faculty-student, student-student, and industry mentor-student interaction, (2) academic support, and student success education in areas such as time management and study skills, and (3) facilitated career and major exploration. Four research questions are being examined, (1) What is the relationship between participation in the AcES program and participants’ academic success?, (2) What aspects of the AcES program most significantly impact participants’ success in engineering, (3) How do AcES students seek to overcome challenges in studying engineering, and (4) What is the longitudinal impact of the AcES program in terms of motivation, perceptions, feelings of inclusion, outcome expectations of the participants and retention? Students enrolled in the AcES program participate in the GRIT, LAESE, and MSLQ surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews at the start and end of each fall semester and at the end of the spring semester. The surveys provide a measure of students’ GRIT, general self-efficacy, engineering self-efficacy, test anxiety, math outcome efficacy, intrinsic value of learning, inclusion, career expectations, and coping efficacy. Focus group and interview responses are analyzed in order to answer research questions 2, 3, and 4. Survey responses are analyzed to answer research question 4, and institutional data such as GPA is used to answer research question 1. An analysis of the 2017 AcES cohort survey responses produced a surprising result. When the responses of AcES students who retained were compared to the responses of AcES students who left engineering, those who left engineering had higher baseline values of GRIT, career expectations, engineering self-efficacy, and math outcome efficacy than those students who retained. A preliminary analysis of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 focus group and one-on-one interview responses indicates that the Engineering Learning Center, tutors, organized out of class experiences, first-year seminar, the AcES cohort, the AcES summer bridge, the AcES program, AcES Faculty/Staff, AcES guest lecturers, and FEP faculty/Staff are viewed as valuable by students and cited with contributing to their success in engineering. It is also evident that AcES students seek help from peers, seek help from tutors, use online resources, and attend office hours to overcome their challenges in studying engineering. 

   more » « less
2. Developing two-year college student engineering technology career profiles

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--36945  

   Frady, K. ; Brown, C. ; High, K. ; Hughes, C. ; O’Hara, R. ; & Huang, S. ( July 2021 , Annual American Society for Engineering Education Conference)

   There is little research or understanding of curricular differences between two- and four-year programs, career development of engineering technology (ET) students, and professional preparation for ET early career professionals [1]. Yet, ET credentials (including certificates, two-, and four-year degrees) represent over half of all engineering credentials awarded in the U.S [2]. ET professionals are important hands-on members of engineering teams who have specialized knowledge of components and engineering systems. This research study focuses on how career orientations affect engineering formation of ET students educated at two-year colleges. The theoretical framework guiding this study is Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). SCCT is a theory which situates attitudes, interests, and experiences and links self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and personal goals to educational and career decisions and outcomes [3]. Student knowledge of attitudes toward and motivation to pursue STEM and engineering education can impact academic performance and indicate future career interest and participation in the STEM workforce [4]. This knowledge may be measured through career orientations or career anchors. A career anchor is a combination of self-concept characteristics which includes talents, skills, abilities, motives, needs, attitudes, and values. Career anchors can develop over time and aid in shaping personal and career identity [6]. The purpose of this quantitative research study is to identify dimensions of career orientations and anchors at various educational stages to map to ET career pathways. The research question this study aims to answer is: For students educated in two-year college ET programs, how do the different dimensions of career orientations, at various phases of professional preparation, impact experiences and development of professional profiles and pathways? The participants (n=308) in this study represent three different groups: (1) students in engineering technology related programs from a medium rural-serving technical college (n=136), (2) students in engineering technology related programs from a large urban-serving technical college (n=52), and (3) engineering students at a medium Research 1 university who have transferred from a two-year college (n=120). All participants completed Schein’s Career Anchor Inventory [5]. This instrument contains 40 six-point Likert-scale items with eight subscales which correlate to the eight different career anchors. Additional demographic questions were also included. The data analysis includes graphical displays for data visualization and exploration, descriptive statistics for summarizing trends in the sample data, and then inferential statistics for determining statistical significance. This analysis examines career anchor results across groups by institution, major, demographics, types of educational experiences, types of work experiences, and career influences. This cross-group analysis aids in the development of profiles of values, talents, abilities, and motives to support customized career development tailored specifically for ET students. These findings contribute research to a gap in ET and two-year college engineering education research. Practical implications include use of findings to create career pathways mapped to career anchors, integration of career development tools into two-year college curricula and programs, greater support for career counselors, and creation of alternate and more diverse pathways into engineering. Words: 489 References [1] National Academy of Engineering. (2016). Engineering technology education in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [2] The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, (IPEDS). (2014). Data on engineering technology degrees. [3] Lent, R.W., & Brown, S.B. (1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An overivew. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 310-321. [4] Unfried, A., Faber, M., Stanhope, D.S., Wiebe, E. (2015). The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineeirng, and math (S-STEM). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 622-639. [5] Schein, E. (1996). Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 80-88. [6] Schein, E.H., & Van Maanen, J. (2013). Career Anchors, 4th ed. San Francisco: Wiley. 

   more » « less
3. Refining a Taxonomy for Categorizing the Quality of Engineering Student Questions

   Goldberg, S ; Venters C ; Masnick, A ( July 2021 , 2021 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition)

   The ability to identify one’s own confusion and to ask a question that resolves it is an essential metacognitive skill that supports self-regulation (Winne, 2005). Yet, while students receive substantial training in how to answer questions, little classroom time is spent training students how to ask good questions. Past research has shown that students are able to pose more high-quality questions after being instructed in a taxonomy for classifying the quality of their questions (Marbach‐Ad & Sokolove, 2000). As pilot data collection in preparation for a larger study funded through NSF-DUE, we provided engineering statics students training in writing high-quality questions to address their own confusions. The training emphasized the value of question-asking in learning and how to categorize questions using a simple taxonomy based on prior work (Harper et al., 2003). The taxonomy specifies five question levels: 1) an unspecific question, 2) a definition question, 3) a question about how to do something, 4) a why question, and 5) a question that extends knowledge to a new circumstance. At the end of each class period during a semester-long statics course, students were prompted to write and categorize a question that they believed would help them clarify their current point of greatest confusion. Through regular practice writing and categorizing such questions, we hoped to improve students' abilities to ask questions that require higher-level thinking. We collected data from 35 students in courses at two institutions. Over the course of the semester, students had the opportunity to write and categorize twenty of their own questions. After the semester, the faculty member categorized student questions using the taxonomy to assess the appropriateness of the taxonomy and whether students used it accurately. Analysis of the pilot data indicates three issues to be addressed: 1) Student compliance in writing and categorizing their questions varied. 2) Some students had difficulty correctly coding their questions using the taxonomy. 3) Some student questions could not be clearly characterized using the taxonomy, even for faculty raters. We will address each of these issues with appropriate refinements in our next round of data collection: 1) Students may have been overwhelmed with the request to write a question after each class period. In the future, we will require students to write and categorize at least one question per week, with more frequent questions encouraged. 2) To improve student use of the taxonomy in future data collection, students will receive more practice with the taxonomy when it is introduced and more feedback on their categorization of questions during the semester. 3) We are reformulating our taxonomy to accommodate questions that may straddle more than one category, such as a question about how to extend a mathematical operation to a new situation (which could be categorized as either a level 3 or 5). We are hopeful that these changes will improve accuracy and compliance, enabling us to use the intervention as a means to promote metacognitive regulation and measure changes as a result, which is the intent of the larger scope of the project. 

   more » « less
4. Student inquiry in interesting lessons

   Nieves, Hector I. ; Singh, Rashmi ; Dietiker, Leslie ( January 2020 , Mathematics Education Across Cultures: Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education)

   Sacristán, A. I. ; Cortés-Zavala, J. C. ; Ruiz-Arias, P. M. (Ed.)

   What impact, if any, do interesting lessons have on the types of questions students ask? To explore this question, we used lesson observations of six teachers from three high schools in the Northeast who were part of a larger study. Lessons come from a range of courses, spanning Algebra through Calculus. After each lesson, students reported interest via lesson experience surveys (Author, 2019). These interest measures were then used to identify each teachers’ highest and lowest interest lessons. The two lessons per teacher allows us to compare across the same set of students per teacher. We compiled 145 student questions and identified whether questions were asked within a group work setting or part of a whole class discussion. Two coders coded 10% of data to improve the rubric for type of students’ questions (what, why, how, and if) and perceived intent (factual, procedural, reasoning, and exploratory). Factual questions asked for definitions or explicit answers. Procedural questions were raised when students looked for algorithms or a solving process. Reasoning questions asked about why procedures worked, or facts were true. Exploratory questions expanded beyond the topic of focus, such as asking about changing the parameters to make sense of a problem. The remaining 90% of data were coded independently to determine interrater reliability (see Landis & Koch, 1977). A Cohen’s Kappa statistic (K=0.87, p<0.001) indicates excellent reliability. Furthermore, both coders reconciled codes before continuing with data analysis. Initial results showed differences between high- and low-interest lessons. Although students raised fewer mathematical questions in high-interest lessons (59) when compared with low-interest lessons (86), high-interest lessons contained more “exploratory” questions (10 versus 6). A chi-square test of independence shows a significant difference, χ2 (3, N = 145) = 12.99, p = .005 for types of students’ questions asked in high- and low-interest lessons. The high-interest lessons had more student questions arise during whole class discussions, whereas low-interest lessons had more student questions during group work. By partitioning each lesson into acts at points where the mathematical content shifted, we were able to examine through how many acts questions remained open. The average number of acts the students’ questions remained unanswered for high-interest lessons (2.66) was higher than that of low-interest lessons (1.68). Paired samples t-tests suggest that this difference is significant t(5)=2.58, p = 0.049. Therefore, student interest in the lesson did appear to impact the type of questions students ask. One possible reason for the differences in student questions is the nature of the lessons students found interesting, which may allow for student freedom to wonder and chase their mathematical ideas. There may be more overall student questions in low-interest lessons because of confusion, but more research is needed to unpack the reasoning behind student questions. 

   more » « less
5. PREPARATORY DISCUSSION AND PROJECT AUGMENTED STUDENT LEARNING VIA STUDENT PRESENTATION BASED EFFECTIVE TEACHING (SPET) APPROACH

   Pawan, Tyagi ( January 2022 , EDUlearn 2022, 14th annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies Palma de Mallorca (Spain). 4th - 6th of July, 2022.)

   Instructor-led presentation-based teaching mainly focuses on delivering content. Whereas student active presentations-based teaching approaches require students to take leadership in learning actions. Many teaching and learning strategies were adopted to foster active student participation during in-class learning activities. We developed the student presentation-based effective teaching (SPET) approach in 2014 to make student presentation activity the central element of learning challenging concepts. We have developed several versions to meet the need for teaching small classes (P. Tyagi, "Student Presentation Based Effective Teaching (SPET) Approach for Advanced Courses," in ASME IMECE 2016-66029, V005T06A026), large enrolment classes (P. Tyagi, "Student Presentation Based Teaching (SPET) Approach for Classes With Higher Enrolment," ASME IMECE 2018-88463, V005T07A035), and online teaching during COVID-19. (P. Tyagi, "Second Modified Student Presentation Based Effective Teaching (SPET) Method Tested in COVID-19 Affected Senior Level Mechanical Engineering Course," in ASME IMECE 2020-23615, V009T09A026). The SPET approach has successfully engaged students with varied interests and competence levels in the learning process. SPET approach has also made it possible to cover new topics such as training engineering students about positive intelligence skills to foster lifelong learning aptitude and doing engineering projects in a group setting. However, it was noted that many students who were overwhelmed with parallel academic demands in other courses and different activities were underperforming via SPET-based learning strategies. SPET core functioning depends on the following steps: Step 1: Provide a set of conceptual and topical questions for students to answer individually after self-education from the recommended textbook or course material, Step-2: Group presentations are prepared by the prepared students for in-class discussion, Step-3: Group makes a presentation in class 1-2 weeks after the day of the assignment to seek instructor feedback and to do peer discussion. The instructor noted that students unfamiliar with the new concepts and terminologies in the SPET assignment struggled to respond to questions individually and contribute to the group discussion based on their presentation. Several motivated students who invested time in familiarizing new concepts and terminologies met or exceeded the expectations. However, a significant student population struggled. To alleviate this issue author has implemented a further improvement in SPET approach. This paper reports teaching experiments conducted in MECH 487 Photovoltaic Cells and Solar Thermal Energy System and MECH 462 Design of Energy Systems course. This improvement requires augmenting SPET with instructor-led concept familiarization discussion on the day of issuing the assignment or close to that; for this step instructor utilized exemplary student work from prior SPET-based teaching of the same course. In the survey, many students expressed their views about the improvement and reported introductory discussions were helpful and addressed several reservations and impediments students encountered. This paper will discuss the structure of the new improvement strategy and outcomes-including student feedback and comments. 

   more » « less