An official website of the United States government
Academia or workforce development workshops can both increase the plausibility of a streamlined transition from a document-centric approach to MBSE frameworks, and aid the integration of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) within the current industry and the challenges faced, introducing MBSE concepts, tools, and languages. This paper reports on an online model-based system engineering Bootcamp conducted in collaboration with The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and The University of Texas at El Paso. The importance of MBSE is emphasized throughout the online Bootcamp to a diverse group of audience i.e., students, faculty, and industry professionals unfamiliar with systems engineering. A set of predefined questions through pre and post Bootcamp surveys aided in determining the perceptions of MBSE and the effectiveness of the Bootcamp in increasing the knowledge of MBSE amongst participants. A positive knowledge gain was observed on the importance of systems modeling and MBSE across students, faculty, and industry personnel participants indicating the effectiveness of the online Bootcamp. A set of open-ended questions were targeted specifically for industry professionals from manufacturing, aerospace, healthcare, transportation, and software domains attending the Bootcamp for capturing the perceived challenges and obstacles according to them for implementing Model-Based Systems Engineering in their organizations.
more »
« less
Barriers Faced by Coding Bootcamp Students
Coding bootcamps are a new and understudied way of training new software developers. To learn about the barriers bootcamp students face, we interviewed twenty-six coding bootcamp students and analyzed the interviews using the Communities of Practice framework. We found that bootcamps can be part of an alternate path into the software industry and they provided a second chance for those who missed computing education opportunities earlier, particularly for women. While bootcamps represented a second chance, students entering the industry through bootcamps faced great personal costs and risks, often including significant time, money and effort spent before, during, and after their bootcamps. Though the coursework of bootcamps only ranged from three to six months, career change could take students a year or more, with some students even attending sections of multiple bootcamps.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1735123
- PAR ID:
- 10107751
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ACM International Computing Education Research Conference
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 245 to 253
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Cameron, Carrie (Ed.)Grant writing is an essential skill to develop for academic and other career success but providing individual feedback to large numbers of trainees is challenging. In 2014, we launched the Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy to support graduate students and postdocs in writing research proposals. Its core program is a multi-week Proposal Bootcamp designed to increase the feedback writers receive as they develop and refine their proposals. The Proposal Bootcamp consisted of two-hour weekly meetings that included mini lectures and peer review. Bootcamp participants also attended faculty review workshops to obtain faculty feedback. Postdoctoral trainees were trained and hired as course teaching assistants and facilitated weekly meetings and review workshops. Over the last six years, the annual Bootcamp has provided 525 doctoral students and postdocs with multi-level feedback (peer and faculty). Proposals from Bootcamp participants were almost twice as likely to be funded than proposals from non-Bootcamp trainees. Overall, this structured program provided opportunities for feedback from multiple peer and faculty reviewers, increased the participants’ confidence in developing and submitting research proposals, while accommodating a large number of participants.more » « less
-
This full research paper explores students’ attitudes toward second-chance testing and how second-chance testing influences students’ behavior. Second-chance testing refers to giving students the opportunity to take a second instance of each exam for some sort of grade replacement. Previous work has demonstrated that second-chance testing can lead to improved student outcomes in courses, but how to best structure second-chance testing to maximize its benefits remains an open question. We complement previous work by interviewing a diverse group of 23 students that have taken courses that use second-chance testing. From the interviews, we sought to gain insight into students’ views and use of second-chance testing. We found that second-chance testing was almost universally viewed positively by the students and was frequently cited as helping to reduce test takers’ anxiety and boost their confidence. Overall, we find that the majority of students prepare for second-chance exams in desirable ways, but we also note ways in which second-chance testing can potentially lead to undesirable behaviors including procrastination, over-reliance on memorization, and attempts to game the system. We identified emergent themes pertaining to various facets of second-chance test-taking, including: 1) concerns about the time commitment required for second-chance exams; 2) a belief that second-chance exams promoted fairness; and 3) how second-chance testing incentivized learning. This paper will provide instructors and other stakeholders with detailed insights into students’ behavior regarding second-chance testing, enabling instructors to develop better policies and avoid unintended consequences.more » « less
-
This full research paper explores how second-chance testing can be used as a strategy for mitigating students’ test anxiety in STEM courses, thereby boosting students’ performance and experiences. Second-chance testing is a testing strategy where students are given an opportunity to take an assessment twice. We conducted a mixed-methods study to explore second-chance testing as a potential solution to test anxiety. First, we interviewed a diverse group of STEM students (N = 23) who had taken courses with second-chance testing to ask about the stress and anxiety associated with testing. We then administered a survey on test anxiety to STEM students in seven courses that offered second-chance tests at Midwestern University (N = 448). We found that second-chance testing led to a 30% reduction in students’ reported test anxiety. Students also reported reduced stress throughout the semester, even outside of testing windows, due to the availability of second-chance testing. Our study included an assortment of STEM courses where second-chance testing was deployed, which indicates that second-chance testing is a viable strategy for reducing anxiety in a variety of contexts. We also explored whether the resultant reduction in test anxiety led to student complacency, encouraged procrastination, or other suboptimal student behavior because of the extra chance provided. We found that the majority of students reported that they worked hard on their initial test attempts even when second-chance testing was available.more » « less
-
In this full research paper, we examine various grading policies for second-chance testing. Second-chance testing refers to giving students the opportunity to take a second version of a test for some form of grade replacement. Second-chance testing as a pedagogical strategy bears some similarities to mastery learning, but second-chance testing is less expensive to implement. Previous work has shown that second-chance testing is associated with improved performance, but there is still a lack of clarity regarding the optimal grading policies for this testing strategy. We interviewed seven instructors who use second-chance testing in their courses to collect data on why they chose specific policies. We then conducted structured interviews with some students (N = 11) to capture more nuance about students’ decision making processes under the different grading policies. Afterwards, we conducted a quasi-experimental study to compare two second-chance testing grading policies and determine how they influenced students across multiple dimensions. We varied the grading policies used in two similar sophomore-level engineering courses. We collected assessment data and administered a survey that queried students (N = 513) about their behavior and reactions to both grading policies. Surprisingly, we found that the students’ preference between these two policies were almost perfectly split. We conclude that there are likely many policies that perform well by being simple and encouraging serious attempts on both tests.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106176
