More Like this

1. Workshop development for New frontier of mechatronics for mobility, energy, and production engineering

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35709  

   Chen, J. C. ; Liao, G. Y. ; Lo, R. C. ; Shankar, P. ( June 2020 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   The emerging convergence research emphasizes integrating knowledge, methods, and expertise from different disciplines and forming novel frameworks to catalyze scientific discovery and innovation, not only multidisciplinary, but interdisciplinary and further transdisciplinary. Mechatronics matches this new trend of convergence engineering research for deep integration across disciplines such as mechanics, electronics, control theory, robotics, and production manufacturing, and is also inspired by its active means of addressing a specific challenge or opportunity for societal needs. The most current applications of mechatronics in automotive are e-mobility (electric vehicles, EV) and connected and autonomous vehicles (CAV); in manufacturing are robotics and smart-factory; and in aerospace are drones, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), and advanced avionics. The growing mechatronics industries demand high quality workforces with multidiscipline knowledge and training. These workforces can come from the graduates of colleges and universities with updated curricula, or from labors returning to schools or taking new training programs. Graduate schools can prepare higher level workforces that can carry out fundamental research and explore new technologies in mechatronics. K-12 schools will also play an important role in fostering the next-decade workforces for all the STEM area. On the other hand, the development of mechatronics technologies improves the tools for teaching mechatronicsmore »as well. These new teaching tools include affordable microcontrollers and the peripherals such as Arduinos, and Raspberry Pi, desktop 3D printers, and virtual reality (VR). In this paper we present the working processes and activities of a current one-year ECR project funded by NSF organizing two workshops held by two institutes for improving workforce development environments specified in mechatronics. Each workshop is planned to be two days, where the first day will be dedicated to the topics of the current workforce situation in industry, the current pathways for workforces, conventional college and university workforce training, and K-12 STEM education preparation in mechatronics. The topics in the second day will be slightly different based on the expertise and locations of the two institutes. One will focus on the mechatronics technologies in production engineering for alternative energy and ground mobility, and the other will concentrate on aerospace, alternative energy, and the corresponding applications. Both workshops will also address the current technical development of teaching methods and tools for mechatronics. VR will be specially emphasized and demonstrated in the workshops if the facilities allow. Social impacts of mechatronics technology, expansion of diversity and participation of underrepresented groups will be discussed in the workshops. We expect to have the results of the workshops to present in the annual ASEE conference in June.« less
2. Work in Progress – The Development of a K-12 Integrated STEM Observation Protocol.

   Roehrig, G.H ; Ring-Whalen, E.A. ; Wieselmann, J.R. ; Dare, E.A. ; Ellis, J.A. ( January 2019 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   This WIP presentation is intended to share and gather feedback on the development of an observation protocol for K-12 integrated STEM instruction, the STEM-OP. Specifically, the STEM-OP is being developed for use in K-12 science and/or engineering settings where integrated STEM instruction takes place. While the importance of integrated STEM education is established through national policy documents, there remains disagreement on models and effective approaches for integrated STEM instruction. Our broad definition of integrated STEM includes the use of two or more STEM disciplines to solve a real-world problem or design challenge that supports student development of 21st century skills. This issue is confounded by the lack of observation protocols sensitive to integrated STEM teaching and learning that can be used to inform research of the effectiveness of new models and strategies. Existing instruments most commonly used by researchers, such as the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), were designed prior to the development of the Next Generation Science Standards and the integration of engineering into science standards. These instruments were also designed for use in reform-based science classrooms, not engineering or integrated STEM learning environments. While engineering-focused observation protocols do exist for K-12 classrooms, they do not evaluate beyond anmore »engineering focus, making them limited tools to evaluate integrated STEM instruction. In order to facilitate the implementation of integrated STEM in K-12 classrooms and the development of the nascent integrated STEM education literature, our research team is developing a new integrated STEM observation protocol for use in K-12 science and engineering classrooms. This valid and reliable instrument will be designed for use in a variety of educational contexts and by different education stakeholders to increase the quality of K-12 STEM education. At the end of this project, the STEM-OP will be made available through an online platform that will include an embedded training program to facilitate its broad use. In the first year of this four-year project, we are working on the initial development of the STEM-OP through video analysis and exploratory factor analysis. We are utilizing existing classroom video from a previous project with approximately 2,000 unique classroom videos representing a variety of grade levels (4-9), science content (life, earth, and physical science), engineering design challenges, and school demographics (urban, suburban). The development of the STEM-OP is guided by published frameworks that focus on providing quality K-12 integrated STEM and engineering education, such as the Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education. Our anticipated results at the time the ASEE meeting will include a review of our item development process and finalized items included on the draft STEM-OP. Additionally, we anticipate being able to share findings from the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on our video-coded data, which will identify distinct instructional dimensions responsible for integrated STEM instruction. We value the opportunity to gather feedback from the engineering education community as the integration of engineering design and practices is integral to quality integrated STEM instruction.« less
3. Scholarship Program Initiative via Recruitment, Innovation, and Transformation (SPIRIT): S-STEM Program Initiatives and Early Results

   Ferguson, C. ; Yan, Y. ; Yanik, P. ; & Kaul, S. ( June 2018 , American Society for Engineering Education)

   This paper describes the structure, project initiatives, and early results of the NSF S-STEM funded SPIRIT: Scholarship Program Initiative via Recruitment, Innovation, and Transformation program at Western Carolina University (WCU). SPIRIT is a scholarship program focused on building an interdisciplinary engineering learning community involved in extensive peer and faculty mentoring, vertically-integrated Project Based Learning (PBL), and undergraduate research experiences. The program has provided twenty-six scholarships and academic resources to a diverse group of engineering and engineering technology students. Results from several project initiatives have been promising. Recruitment efforts have resulted in a demographically diverse group of participants whose retention rates within the program have held at 82%. A vibrant learning community has organically developed where participants are provided both academic and non-academic support across several majors and grade classes. Since May 2014, SPIRIT undergraduate research projects have resulted in forty-five presentations at seven different undergraduate and professional conferences. Twenty-seven PBL and five integrated open-ended design challenges have been completed, involving several corporate sponsors and encompassing a wide-range of engineering topics. Results from a ninety-question participant survey revealed several perceived program strengths and areas of possible improvement. Overall, the participants agreed or strongly agreed that the program had been a positivemore »experience (4.0/4.0) and had helped them to prepare for a career in engineering (3.8/4.0). Undergraduate research activities conducted through the program have helped the participants to understand the steps involved in research processes (3.8/4.0), to appreciate the need for a combination of analysis and hands-on skills (4.0/4.0), and to become more resilient toward academic challenges and obstacles (3.8/4.0). The program’s learning community helped participants build relationships with other students outside of their major (3.1/4.0) as compared to normal course communities. Several participants believed that they were more comfortable with seeking advice from upper class students within the program (3.7/4.0) as compared to upper class students outside the program (2.7/4.0). Vertically-integrated PBL activities helped participants in understanding project management techniques (3.8/4.0), teaming techniques (3.7/4.0), and to assume a leadership role on projects (3.6/4.0). Indicated areas of program improvement included the desire and need for a system of peer-review for the students’ undergraduate research papers; a perceived hindrance to benefit from “journaling” about their program experiences (3.6/4.0); and a need for continued strengthening of activities associated with graduate school application processes as well as preparations for job interviews and applications. This paper presents details of the program initiatives, a compilation of survey results with necessary discussion, and areas of possible improvement going forward.« less
4. Situating Engineering Education in a World Impacted by COVID-19

   De Pree, Thomas ; Appelhans, Sarah ; Cheville, Alan ; Akera, Atsushi ; Shuey, Melissa ( July 2021 , ASEE annual conference exposition)

   In June 2020, at the annual conference of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), which was held entirely online due to the impacts of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), engineering education researchers and social justice scholars diagnosed the spread of two diseases in the United States: COVID-19 and racism. During a virtual workshop (T614A) titled, “Using Power, Privilege, and Intersectionality as Lenses to Understand our Experiences and Begin to Disrupt and Dismantle Oppressive Structures Within Academia,” Drs. Nadia Kellam, Vanessa Svihla, Donna Riley, Alice Pawley, Kelly Cross, Susannah Davis, and Jay Pembridge presented what we might call a pathological analysis of institutionalized racism and various other “isms.” In order to address the intersecting impacts of this double pandemic, they prescribed counter practices and protocols of anti-racism, and strategies against other oppressive “isms” in academia. At the beginning of the virtual workshop, the presenters were pleasantly surprised to see that they had around a hundred attendees. Did the online format of the ASEE conference afford broader exposure of the workshop? Did recent uprising of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests across the country, and internationally, generate broader interest in their topic? Whatever the case, at a time when an in-person conference could not bemore »convened without compromising public health safety, ASEE’s virtual conference platform, furnished by Pathable and supplemented by Zoom, made possible the broader social impacts of Dr. Svihla’s land acknowledgement of the unceded Indigenous lands from which she was presenting. Svihla attempted to go beyond a hollow gesture by including a hyperlink in her slides to a COVID-19 relief fund for the Navajo Nation, and encouraged attendees to make a donation as they copied and pasted the link in the Zoom Chat. Dr. Cross’s statement that you are either a racist or an anti-racist at this point also promised broader social impacts in the context of the virtual workshop. You could feel the intensity of the BLM social movements and the broader political climate in the tone of the presenters’ voices. The mobilizing masses on the streets resonated with a cutting-edge of social justice research and education at the ASEE virtual conference. COVID-19 has both exacerbated and made more obvious the unevenness and inequities in our educational practices, processes, and infrastructures. This paper is an extension of a broader collaborative research project that accounts for how an exceptional group of engineering educators have taken this opportunity to socially broaden their curricula to include not just public health matters, but also contemporary political and social movements. Engineering educators for change and advocates for social justice quickly recognized the affordances of diverse forms of digital technologies, and the possibilities of broadening their impact through educational practices and infrastructures of inclusion, openness, and accessibility. They are makers of what Gary Downy calls “scalable scholarship”—projects in support of marginalized epistemologies that can be scaled up from ideation to practice in ways that unsettle and displace the dominant epistemological paradigm of engineering education.[1] This paper is a work in progress. It marks the beginning of a much lengthier project that documents the key positionality of engineering educators for change, and how they are socially situated in places where they can connect social movements with industrial transitions, and participate in the production of “undone sciences” that address “a structured absence that emerges from relations of inequality.”[2] In this paper, we offer a brief glimpse into ethnographic data we collected virtually through interviews, participant observation, and digital archiving from March 2019 to August 2019, during the initial impacts of COVID-19 in the United States. The collaborative research that undergirds this paper is ongoing, and what is presented here is a rough and early articulation of ideas and research findings that have begun to emerge through our engagement with engineering educators for change. This paper begins by introducing an image concept that will guide our analysis of how, in this historical moment, forms of social and racial justice are finding their way into the practices of engineering educators through slight changes in pedagogical techniques in response the debilitating impacts of the pandemic. Conceptually, we are interested in how small and subtle changes in learning conditions can socially broaden the impact of engineering educators for change. After introducing the image concept that guides this work, we will briefly discuss methodology and offer background information about the project. Next, we discuss literature that revolves around the question, what is engineering education for? Finally, we introduce the notion of situating engineering education and give readers a brief glimpse into our ethnographic data. The conclusion will indicate future directions for writing, research, and intervention.« less
5. A systematic review of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) research in medical and other engineering fields

   Milani, A.S. ; Cecil-Xavier ; A., Gupta ; Cecil, J. ; Kennison, S. ( October 2022 , International journal of human computer interactions)

   This article provides a systematic review of research related to Human–Computer Interaction techniques supporting training and learning in various domains including medicine, healthcare, and engineering. The focus is on HCI techniques involving Extended Reality (XR) technology which encompasses Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality. HCI-based research is assuming more importance with the rapid adoption of XR tools and techniques in various training and learning contexts including education. There are many challenges in the adoption of HCI approaches, which results in a need to have a comprehensive and systematic review of such HCI methods in various domains. This article addresses this need by providing a systematic literature review of a cross-s Q1 ection of HCI approaches involving proposed so far. The PRISMA-guided search strategy identified 1156 articles for abstract review. Irrelevant abstracts were discarded. The whole body of each article was reviewed for the remaining articles, and those that were not linked to the scope of our specific issue were also eliminated. Following the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 69 publications were chosen for review. This article has been divided into the following sections: Introduction; Research methodology; Literature review; Threats of validity; Future research and Conclusion. Detailed classifications (pertaining to HCImore »criteria and concepts, such as affordance; training, and learning techniques) have also been included based on different parameters based on the analysis of research techniques adopted by various investigators. The article concludes with a discussion of the key challenges for this HCI area along with future research directions. A review of the research outcomes from these publications underscores the potential for greater success when such HCI-based approaches are adopted during such 3D-based training interactions. Such a higher degree of success may be due to the emphasis on the design of userfriendly (and user-centric) training environments, interactions, and processes that positively impact the cognitive abilities of users and their respective learning/training experiences. We discovered data validating XR-HCI as an ascending method that brings a new paradigm by enhancing skills and safety while reducing costs and learning time through replies to three exploratory study questions. We believe that the findings of this study will aid academics in developing new research avenues that will assist XR-HCI applications to mature and become more widely adopted.« less