More Like this

1. Geospatial Technologies in Higher Education: Interactive Experiential Learning

   Ignatius, A. ( January 2019 , 2019 American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting)

   null (Ed.)

   Use of geospatial technology in higher education facilitates student engagement, promotes deeper understanding of material, and supports inquiry-based learning. However, technology must be applied strategically to generate optimal results. While use of web-based interactive modules and short video are constructive in curriculum, it is beneficial to combine this with exposure to hands-on, experimental, field-based technologies. Experiential learning with technology in the physical environment allows students to understand both the challenges and achievements of scientific investigation. This creates a more comprehensive understanding of science as an iterative process of experimentation and investigation and enrichens course material. This paper explores the uniquely advantageous opportunity Geography educators have to combine classroom-based technology with field-based educational experiences. Classroom use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Remotely Sensed data is increasingly accessible with abundant free educational resources. In addition, field-based use of technology can promote location awareness and spatial critical thinking with the use of GPS-based activities. GPS-based educational units also highlight the growing field of citizen science and can be designed as service-based learning opportunities. Use of highly affordable micro unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) demonstrates data collection procedures. In addition, exposure to Surveying techniques and the field of Geomatics highlights real-world applications of geographic technology. We discuss the use of geospatial technologies in introductory and advanced higher education courses and examine how technology can encourage access to scientific inquiry throughout the student population. 

   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. The First Year of an Undergraduate Service Learning Partnership to Enhance Engineering Education and Elementary Pre-Service Teacher Education

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35320  

   Ringleb, S. ; Kidd, J. ; Pazos, P. ; Gutierrez, K. ; Ayala, O. ; Kaipa, K. ( June 2020 , 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Online)

   This project was designed to address three major challenges faced by undergraduate engineering students (UES) and pre-service teachers (PSTs): 1) retention for UESs after the first year, and continued engagement when they reach more difficult concepts, 2) to prepare PSTs to teach engineering, which is a requirement in the Next Generation Science Standards as well as many state level standards of learning, and 3) to prepare both groups of students to communicate and collaborate in a multi-disciplinary context, which is a necessary skill in their future places of work. This project was implemented in three pairs of classes: 1) an introductory mechanical engineering class, fulfilling a general education requirement for information literacy and a foundations class in education, 2) fluid mechanics in mechanical engineering technology and a science methods class in education, and 3) mechanical engineering courses requiring programming (e.g., computational methods and robotics) with an educational technology class. All collaborations taught elementary level students (4th or 5th grade). For collaborations 1 and 2, the elementary students came to campus for a field trip where they toured engineering labs and participated in a one hour lesson taught by both the UESs and PSTs. In collaboration 3, the UESs and PSTs worked with the upper-elementary students in their school during an after school club. In collaborations 1 and 2, students were assigned to teams and worked remotely on some parts of the project. A collaboration tool, built in Google Sites and Google Drive, was used to facilitate the project completion. The collaboration tool includes a team repository for all the project documents and templates. Students in collaboration 3 worked together directly during class time on smaller assignments. In all three collaborations lesson plans were implemented using the BSCS 5E instructional model, which was aligned to the engineering design process. Instruments were developed to assess knowledge in collaborations 1 (engineering design process) and 3 (computational thinking), while in collaboration 2, knowledge was assessed with questions from the fundamentals of engineering exam and a science content assessment. Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) was also used in all 3 collaborations to assess teamwork across the collaborations. Finally, each student wrote a reflection on their experiences, which was used to qualitatively assess the project impact. The results from the first full semester of implementation have led us to improvements in the implementation and instrument refinement for year 2. 

   more » « less
4. Students Talk: The Experience of Advanced Technology Students at Two-Year Colleges during COVID-19

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--37767  

   Barger, Marilyn ; Jayaram, Lakshmi ( July 2021 , ASEE Conferences)

   There have been many questions and concerns raised by educators about how advanced technology students will adapt to remote learning during the COVID era. What will technician students’ academic engagement and persistence be like, and how will online learning affect their educational outcomes? What do technician students like about remote learning and what do they find challenging? What does online learning mean for hands-on applied and experiential learning, which are hallmarks of technical education programs? This paper explores pilot survey data collected in Florida from advanced technology students at two-year colleges. Five primary areas covered in the survey include enrollment status, access to technology, experience using a Learning Management System and learning online, impact on applied and experiential learning, and students’ background information. Key findings include decreased interaction between peers, increased reliance on instructors, and a significant decline in experiential learning such as labs, group projects, demonstrations, problem-based learning, and service-learning. The majority of students report feeling worried about making progress toward their degree, and about half worried about completing the semester. Two benefits students identified as having access to course materials all the time through the LMS and the flexibility of remote learning. Findings also show that technician students are quite diverse by way of age, partner status, having a family, race-ethnicity, employment status, and educational background. About one-third of students who responded are women. This paper concludes with several recommendations about the application of these research findings to address challenges technician students face learning online, including specific actions that instructors and programs can pursue to help retain students and provide support through the completion of degree programs. 

   more » « less
5. How can science teacher educators best prepare students to teach engineering practices?

   Gutierrez, K ; Ayala, OM ; Kidd, JJ ; Ringleb, SI ; Kaipa, K ; Pazos, P ( January 2021 , 2021 Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) Annual International Virtual Conference)

   null (Ed.)

   Teacher education is facing challenges given the recent incorporation of engineering practices and core ideas into the Next Generation Science Standards and state standards of learning. To help teachers meet these standards in their future classrooms, education courses for preservice teachers [PSTs] must provide opportunities to increase science and engineering knowledge, and the associated pedagogies. To address this need, Ed+gineering, an NSF-funded multidisciplinary service-learning project, was implemented to study ways in which PSTs are prepared to meet this challenge. This study provides the models and supporting data for four unique methods of infusion of engineering skills and practices into an elementary science methods course. The four models differ in mode of course delivery, integration of a group project (with or without partnering undergraduate engineering students), and final product (e.g., no product, video, interactive presentation, live lesson delivery). In three of the models, teams of 4-6 undergraduates collaborated to design and deliver (when applicable) lessons for elementary students. This multiple semester, mixed-methods research study, explored the ways in which four unique instructional models, with varied levels of engineering instruction enhancement, influenced PSTs’ science knowledge and pedagogical understanding. Both quantitative (e.g., science content knowledge assessment) and qualitative (e.g., student written reflections) data were used to assess science knowledge gains and pedagogical understanding. Findings suggest that the PSTs learned science content and were often able to explain particular science/ engineering concepts following the interventions. PSTs in more enhanced levels of intervention also shared ways in which their lessons reflected their students’ cultures through culturally responsive pedagogical strategies and how important engineering integration is to the elementary classroom, particularly through hands-on, inquiry-based instruction. 

   more » « less