More Like this

1. Summer Bridge Programming for Incoming First-Year Students at Three Public Urban Research Universities

   Howland Cummings, M. ; Darbeheshti, M. ; Ivey, S. ; Stewart, C. ; Russomanno, D. ; King, D. ; Goodman, K. ; Campbell, J. ; Altman, T. ; Jacobson, M. ; et al ( August 2022 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   This Complete Evidence-based Practice paper will describe how three different public urban research universities designed, executed, and iterated Summer Bridge programming for a subset of incoming first-year engineering students over the course of three consecutive years. There were commonalities between each institution’s Summer Bridge, as well as unique aspects catering to the specific needs and structures of each institution. Both these commonalities and unique aspects will be discussed, in addition to the processes of iteration and improvement, target student populations, and reported student outcomes. Finally, recommendations for other institutions seeking to launch or refine similar programming will be shared. Summer Bridge programming at each of the three institutions shared certain communalities. Mostly notably, each of the three institutions developed its Summer Bridge as an additional way to provide support for students receiving an NSF S-STEM scholarship. The purpose of each Summer Bridge was to build community among these students, prepare them for the academic rigor of first-year engineering curriculum, and edify their STEM identity and sense of belonging. Each Summer Bridge was a 3-5 day experience held in the week immediately prior to the start of the Fall semester. In addition to these communalities, each Summer Bridge also had its own unique features. At the first institution, Summer Bridge is focused on increasing college readiness through the transition from summer break into impending coursework. This institution’s Summer Bridge includes STEM special-interest presentations (such as biomedical or electrical engineering) and other development activities (such as communication and growth mindset workshops). Additionally, this institution’s Summer Bridge continues into the fall semester via a 1-credit hour First Year Seminar class, which builds and reinforces student networking and community beyond the summer experience. At the second institution, all students receiving the NSF S-STEM scholarship (not only those who are first-year students) participate in Summer Bridge. This means that S-STEM scholars at this institution participate in Summer Bridge multiple years in a row. Relatedly, after the first year, Summer Bridge transitioned to a student-led and student-delivered program, affording sophomore and junior students leadership opportunities, which not only serve as marketable experience after graduation, but also further builds their sense of STEM identity and belonging. At the third institution, a special focus was given to building community. This was achieved through several means. First, each day of Summer Bridge included a unique team-oriented design challenge where students got to work together and know each other within an engineering context, also reinforcing their STEM identities. Second, students at this institution’s Summer Bridge met their future instructors in an informal, conversational, lunch setting; many students reported this was one of their favorite aspects of Summer Bridge. Finally, Summer Bridge facilitated a first connect between incoming first-year students and their peer mentors (sophomore and junior students also receiving the NSF S-STEM scholarship), with whom they would meet regularly throughout the following fall and spring semesters. Each of the three institutions employed processes of iteration and improvement for their Summer Bridge programming over the course of two or three consecutive years. Through each version and iteration of Summer Bridge, positive student outcomes are demonstrated, including direct student feedback indicating built community among students and the perception that their time spent during Summer Bridge was valuable. Based on the experiences of these three institutions, as well as research on other institutions’ Summer Bridge programming, recommendations for those seeking to launch or refine similar Summer Bridge programming will also be shared. 

   more » « less
2. 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
3. Low-Barrier Strategies to Increase Student-Centered Learning Low-Barrier Strategies to Increase Student-Centered Learning

   Friend, Nicole Erin Woodcock ( July 2021 , ASEE annual conference exposition proceedings)

   Evidence has shown that facilitating student-centered learning (SCL) in STEM classrooms enhances student learning and satisfaction [1]–[3]. However, despite increased support from educational and government bodies to incorporate SCL practices [1], minimal changes have been made in undergraduate STEM curriculum [4]. Faculty often teach as they were taught, relying heavily on traditional lecture-based teaching to disseminate knowledge [4]. Though some faculty express the desire to improve their teaching strategies, they feel limited by a lack of time, training, and incentives [4], [5]. To maximize student learning while minimizing instructor effort to change content, courses can be designed to incorporate simpler, less time-consuming SCL strategies that still have a positive impact on student experience. In this paper, we present one example of utilizing a variety of simple SCL strategies throughout the design and implementation of a 4-week long module. This module focused on introductory tissue engineering concepts and was designed to help students learn foundational knowledge within the field as well as develop critical technical skills. Further, the module sought to develop important professional skills such as problem-solving, teamwork, and communication. During module design and implementation, evidence-based SCL teaching strategies were applied to ensure students developed important knowledge and skills within the short timeframe. Lectures featured discussion-based active learning exercises to encourage student engagement and peer collaboration [6]–[8]. The module was designed using a situated perspective, acknowledging that knowing is inseparable from doing [9], and therefore each week, the material taught in the two lecture sessions was directly applied to that week’s lab to reinforce students’ conceptual knowledge through hands-on activities and experimental outcomes. Additionally, the majority of assignments served as formative assessments to motivate student performance while providing instructors with feedback to identify misconceptions and make real-time module improvements [10]–[12]. Students anonymously responded to pre- and post-module surveys, which focused on topics such as student motivation for enrolling in the module, module expectations, and prior experience. Students were also surveyed for student satisfaction, learning gains, and graduate student teaching team (GSTT) performance. Data suggests a high level of student satisfaction, as most students’ expectations were met, and often exceeded. Students reported developing a deeper understanding of the field of tissue engineering and learning many of the targeted basic lab skills. In addition to hands-on skills, students gained confidence to participate in research and an appreciation for interacting with and learning from peers. Finally, responses with respect to GSTT performance indicated a perceived emphasis on a learner-centered and knowledge/community-centered approaches over assessment-centeredness [13]. Overall, student feedback indicated that SCL teaching strategies can enhance student learning outcomes and experience, even over the short timeframe of this module. Student recommendations for module improvement focused primarily on modifying the lecture content and laboratory component of the module, and not on changing the teaching strategies employed. The success of this module exemplifies how instructors can implement similar strategies to increase student engagement and encourage in-depth discussions without drastically increasing instructor effort to re-format course content. Introduction. 

   more » « less
4. Advancing undergraduate research through regional community college partnerships at Portland State University

   Rice, A. ; Loikith, P. ; Murry, A. ( December 2023 , Transactions American Geophysical Union)

   Opportunities for undergraduate research in STEM programs at community colleges can be few where lower-division science curriculum emphasizes classroom and laboratory-based learning and research laboratories are limited in number. This is particularly true in the geosciences where specialized programs are extremely rare. Urban serving academic research institutions have a unique role and opportunity to partner with regional community college programs for undergraduate research early-on in student post-secondary educational experiences. Programs built for community college transfer students to urban serving undergraduate programs can serve to integrate students into major programs and help reduce transfer shock. The benefits of exploring research as an undergraduate scholar are numerous and include: building towards mastery of technical skills; developing problem-solving in a real-world environment; reading and digesting scientific literature; analyzing experimental and simulation data; working independently and as part of a team; developing a mentoring relationship with a research advisor; and building a sense of belonging and confidence in a scientific field. However, many undergraduate research internships are targeted towards junior-level STEM majors already engaged in upper-division coursework and considering graduate school which effectively excludes community college students from participating. The Center for Climate and Aerosol Research (CCAR) Research Experience for Undergraduate program at Portland State University serves to help build the future diverse research community. 10-week intern research experiences are paired with an expert faculty mentor are designed for students majoring in the natural/physical sciences but not necessarily with a background in climate or atmospheric science. Additional programmatic activities include: 1-week orientation and training using short courses, faculty research seminars, and hands-on group workshops; academic professional and career development workshops throughout summer; journal club activities; final presentations at end of summer CCAR symposium; opportunities for travel for student presentations at scientific conferences; and social activities. Open to all qualifying undergraduates, since 2014 the program recruits primarily from regional (Northwest) community colleges, rural schools, and Native American serving institutions; recruiting students who would be unlikely to be otherwise exposed to such opportunities at their home institution. Over the past 9 cohorts of REU interns (2014-2019), approximately one third of CCAR REU scholars are community colleges students. Here we present criteria employed for selection of REU scholars and an analysis of selection biases in a comparison of students from community colleges, 4-year colleges, and PhD granting universities. We further investigate differential outcomes in efficacy of the REU program using evaluation data to assess changes over the program including: knowledge, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, science identity, program satisfaction, and career aspirations. In this presentation, we present these findings along with supportive qualitative analyses and discuss their implications for community college students in undergraduate research programs in geosciences. 

   more » « less
5. Second Modified Student Presentation Based Effective Teaching (SPET) Method Tested in COVID-19 Affected Senior Level Mechanical Engineering Course

   https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2020-23615  

   Tyagi, Pawan ( November 2020 , Proceedings of the ASME 2020 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition)

   null (Ed.)

   Student presentation based effective teaching (SPET) approach was designed to engage students with different mindsets and academic preparation levels meaningfully and meet several ABET student learning outcomes. SPET method requires that students prepare themselves by guided self-study before coming to the class and make presentations to teach the whole class by (a) presenting complex concepts and systems appealingly and engagingly, and most importantly (b) serving as the discussion platform for the instructor to emphasize on complex concepts from multiple angles during different presentations. In class, SPET presentations address the conceptual questions that are assigned 1–2 weeks before the presentation day. However, the SPET approach becomes impractical for large class sizes because (i) during one class period all the students can not present, (ii) many students do not make their sincere efforts. This paper focuses on the second modification of SPET to make it practical for large classes. The method reported in this paper was tested on MECH 462 Design of Energy System Course. Unlike the first modified approach, all the students were expected to submit the response to the preassigned questions before coming to the class. In class, SPET group presentations were prepared by the group of 3–6 students, who prepared themselves by doing SPET conceptual questions individually. Students communicated with each other to make a cohesive presentation for ∼30 min. In two classes per week, we covered 5–6 group presentations to do enough discussions and repetition of the core concepts for a more in-depth understanding of the content. During the presentation, each student was evaluated for (a) their depth of understanding, (b) understanding other parts of the presentation covered by other teammates, and (c) quality of presentation and content. The student who appeared unprepared in the class group presentation were provided direct feedback and resources to address concerning areas. SPET approach was applied in the online mode during the campus shut down due to COVID-19. SPET was immensely effective and helped to complete the course learning outcomes without interruptions. SPET could be customized for the online version without any additional preparation on the instructor part.

    

   more » « less