More Like this

1. Partnering Undergraduate Engineering Students with Preservice Teachers to Design and Teach an Elementary Engineering Lesson Through Ed+gineering

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

   Major challenges in engineering education include retention of undergraduate engineering students (UESs) and continued engagement after the first year when concepts increase in difficulty. Additionally, employers, as well as ABET, look for students to demonstrate non-technical skills, including the ability to work successfully in groups, the ability to communicate both within and outside their discipline, and the ability to find information that will help them solve problems and contribute to lifelong learning. Teacher education is also facing challenges given the recent incorporation of engineering practices and core ideas into the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and state level standards of learning. To help teachers meet these standards in their classrooms, education courses for preservice teachers (PSTs) must provide resources and opportunities to increase science and engineering knowledge, and the associated pedagogies. To address these challenges, Ed+gineering, an NSF-funded multidisciplinary collaborative service learning project, was implemented into two sets of paired-classes in engineering and education: a 100 level mechanical engineering class (n = 42) and a foundations class in education (n = 17), and a fluid mechanics class in mechanical engineering technology (n = 23) and a science methods class (n = 15). The paired classes collaborated in multidisciplinary teams of 5-8 undergraduate students to plan and teach engineering lessons to local elementary school students. Teams completed a series of previously tested, scaffolded activities to guide their collaboration. Designing and delivering lessons engaged university students in collaborative processes that promoted social learning, including researching and planning, peer mentoring, teaching and receiving feedback, and reflecting and revising their engineering lesson. The research questions examined in this pilot, mixed-methods research study include: (1) How did PSTs’ Ed+gineering experiences influence their engineering and science knowledge?; (2) How did PSTs’ and UESs’ Ed+gineering experiences influence their pedagogical understanding?; and (3) What were PSTs’ and UESs’ overall perceptions of their Ed+gineering experiences? Both quantitative (e.g., Engineering Design Process assessment, Science Content Knowledge assessment) and qualitative (student reflections) data were used to assess knowledge gains and project perceptions following the semester-long intervention. Findings suggest that the PSTs were more aware and comfortable with the engineering field following lesson development and delivery, and often better able to explain particular science/engineering concepts. Both PSTs and UESs, but especially the latter, came to realize the importance of planning and preparing lessons to be taught to an audience. UESs reported greater appreciation for the work of educators. PSTs and UESs expressed how they learned to work in groups with multidisciplinary members—this is a valuable lesson for their respective professional careers. Yearly, the Ed+gineering research team will also request and review student retention reports in their respective programs to assess project impact. 

   more » « less
2. Engaging Civil Engineering Students through a “Capstone-like” Experience in their Sophomore Year

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34539  

   Sarasua, Wayne ; Kaye, Nigel ; Ogle, Jennifer ; Benaissa, Mehdi ; Benson, Lisa ; Putman, Bradley ; Pfirman, Aubrie ( June 2020 , 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference)

   null (Ed.)

   Many university engineering programs require their students to complete a senior capstone experience to equip them with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed after graduation. Such capstone experiences typically integrate knowledge and skills learned cumulatively in the degree program, often engaging students in projects outside of the classroom. As part of an initiative to completely transform the civil engineering undergraduate program at Clemson University, a capstone-like course sequence is being incorporated into the curriculum during the sophomore year. Funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation’s Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (RED) program, this departmental transformation (referred to as the Arch initiative) is aiming to develop a culture of adaptation and a curriculum support for inclusive excellence and innovation to address the complex challenges faced by our society. Just as springers serve as the foundation stones of an arch, the new courses are called “Springers” because they serve as the foundations of the transformed curriculum. The goal of the Springer course sequence is to expose students to the “big picture” of civil engineering while developing student skills in professionalism, communication, and teamwork through real-world projects and hands-on activities. The expectation is that the Springer course sequence will allow faculty to better engage students at the beginning of their studies and help them understand how future courses contribute to the overall learning outcomes of a degree in civil engineering. The Springer course sequence is team-taught by faculty from both civil engineering and communication, and exposes students to all of the civil engineering subdisciplines. Through a project-based learning approach, Springer courses mimic capstone in that students work on a practical application of civil engineering concepts throughout the semester in a way that challenges students to incorporate tools that they will build on and use during their junior and senior years. In the 2019 spring semester, a pilot of the first of the Springer courses (Springer 1; n=11) introduced students to three civil engineering subdisciplines: construction management, hydrology, and transportation. The remaining subdisciplines will be covered in a follow-on Springer 2 pilot.. The project for Springer 1 involved designing a small parking lot for a church located adjacent to campus. Following initial instruction in civil engineering topics related to the project, students worked in teams to develop conceptual project designs. A design charrette allowed students to interact with different stakeholders to assess their conceptual designs and incorporate stakeholder input into their final designs. The purpose of this paper is to describe all aspects of the Springer 1 course, including course content, teaching methods, faculty resources, and the design and results of a Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) survey to assess students’ learning outcomes. An overview of the Springer 2 course is also provided. The feedback from the SALG indicated positive attitudes towards course activities and content, and that students found interaction with project stakeholders during the design charrette especially beneficial. Challenges for full scale implementation of the Springer course sequence as a requirement in the transformed curriculum are also discussed. 

   more » « less
3. Improving Undergraduate STEM Writing: A Collaboration Between Instructors and Writing Center Directors to Improve Peer-Writing Tutor Feedback.

   Weissbach, Robert ; Pflueger Ruth ; Edinbarough Immanuel ; Renguette Corinne ; Sorge Brandon ; Mendis Gamini ; Rothrock Matthew ; Dasgupta Annwesa ; Bodenhamer Johanna. ( June 2023 , 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)

   Undergraduate writing skills in STEM fields, especially engineering, need improvement. Yet students in engineering fields often do not value them and underestimate the amount of writing they will do in their careers. University writing centers can be a helpful resource, but the peer writing tutors that often staff them need to be prepared for the differences in writing between humanities and STEM fields. The Writing Assignment Tutor Training in STEM (WATTS) model was designed to improve tutor confidence and student writing. In this innovative training, the writing center supervisor and STEM instructor collaboratively create a one-hour training for tutors about the assignment content, technical terminology, genre conventions, and instructor expectations. A research study on this multidisciplinary collaborative project is being conducted to determine the impact of WATTS on students, tutors, and faculty and to identify its mitigating and moderating effects, assessing the elements of the model that have the most impact. Data from all WATTS stakeholders—students, tutors, faculty and writing center staff—have been collected. Both quantitative and qualitative instruments were used, including pre- and post-surveys, interviews and focus groups. WATTS’ effects on student writing have been assessed by the comparison of pre- and post-tutoring reports using a normed rubric and have demonstrated statistically significantly improvement in student writing. The results are being used to develop a replicable, sustainable model for dissemination to other institutions and application within other STEM fields. Increasing collaboration between engineering instructors and writing centers is a desirable outcome and essential for WATTS dissemination to a broad audience. NSF funding of this project has enabled the investigators to expand WATTS to additional engineering courses, test key factors with more instructors, and refine the process. It is anticipated that the study will contribute valuable knowledge to facilitate the improvement of student writing in STEM fields. As the cost of higher education increases, institutions are pressured to graduate students in four years while engineering curricula are becoming more complex. WATTS presents an economical, effective method to improve student writing in the discipline. Several factors indicate that it has the potential for broad dissemination and impact and will provide a foundation for a sustainable model for future work as instructors become trainers for their colleagues, allowing additional ongoing expansion and implementation. WATTS serves as a model for institutions (large or small) to capitalize on existing infrastructure and resources to achieve large-scale improvements to undergraduate STEM writing while increasing interdisciplinary collaboration and institutional support. 

   more » « less
4. The Status of Laboratory Education Focusing on Laboratory Report Assignment and Assessment in the Engineering Programs of a 4-Year Institution

   Kim, Dave: Lynch ( June 2022 , 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN.)

   Engineering undergraduate programs offer a variety of laboratory courses that aim to give students hands-on experience with engineering practices while also assigning lab report writing that builds communication skills within their major. This study aims to investigate how engineering programs of a branch campus in a land-grant research university offer writing education in undergraduate lab courses. Among numerous electrical engineering and mechanical engineering course offerings at the university, nine undergraduate engineering lab courses were chosen for this study. To begin, the purpose, content, environment, and grading contribution of the chosen labs were surveyed. Then, the materials provided to students in relation to lab report assignment were investigated using nine lab report writing outcomes defined in earlier studies. Finally, the provided evaluation criteria of the lab reports were studied using the same nine outcomes. The lab report writing outcomes used in the study include 1) address technical audience expectations, 2) present experimental processes, 3) illustrate lab data using appropriate graphic/table forms, 4) analyze lab data, 5) interpret lab data, 6) provide an effective conclusion, 7) develop ideas using effective reasoning and productive patterns, 8) demonstrate appropriate genre conventions, and 9) establish control of conventions for a technical audience. We concluded that, regardless of major or program level, the primary purpose and contents of the course materials were usually categorized as educational and experimental, respectively. The secondary purpose and contents were predominantly developmental and analytical. Additionally, we found that most courses explicitly addressed outcomes related to report organization, data presentation/analysis/interpretation, and writing conventions. However, the outcome related to developing ideas using effective reasoning and productive patterns was not proven to have been explicitly covered in any of the courses studied. Finally, we found that though many of the courses studied had explicitly addressed these outcomes, fewer courses directly assessed the nine outcomes. It can be interpreted that engineering students might struggle with the inconsistency between the assignment and the assessment in lab report writing. 

   more » « less
5. Using Trained Tutors to Improve Mechanical Engineering Technology Student Writing

   Clippinger, D. ; Pflueger, R. C. ; Nozaki, S. ; Bodenhamer, J. ( June 2023 , American Society for Engineering Education)

   In an earlier work, the authors compared the writing style of Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET) students in an “untutored” state to the writing style of “tutored” students, where the tutoring was provided by “generic” writing center tutors. The results of this study showed that aside from changes in the diction of the students’ work, there was little measurable improvement in the quality of student writing as measured by both the AAC&U VALUE Rubric and by the authors’ voice-development-style-diction method. The current work builds on the results of the previous work by providing training on a just-in-time basis for the writing center tutors. As with previous years, the students participating in the study were MET students in a last-semester capstone industrial design course. This course is organized around a series of open-ended industry-sponsored projects for which the students are expected to develop a solution to a mechanical engineering problem. The students work on the projects in teams of three or four students and complete the work over a two-semester sequence offered annually on a fall-spring basis. The assignment in the study was identical to that of previous years: an “analysis” report in which students are expected to apply content from previous courses to one aspect of the industry-sponsored design project. The present study will compare the results from three iterations of the study: the work of “untutored” students, i.e. those who did not received any writing center assistance whatsoever, those who tutored by “generic” writing center tutors, and lastly, the works of those tutored by tutors specifically trained in support of the specific intervention. In the two cases where tutor interaction occurred, it was required as a component of the course to ensure participation by the entire student cohort. In general, the interactions with the specially-trained tutors produced works with a more mature writing style on the part of the student as compared to those works produced by students who had interacted with the untrained tutors or no tutors at all. The work will also discuss survey data collected on the “generic” and specially-trained tutoring sessions and discuss the differences in the results. Preliminary results show that the specially-trained tutors reported pronounced levels of engagement in the tutoring session, as measured by student note-taking, student questions, student receptiveness to suggestions, and student desire to understand the reasoning behind the tutors’ suggestions. Specially-trained tutors also reported significantly higher levels of student interest suggestions about grammar, style, content, format, and citations. Overall, it is concluded that specific training for the tutors was most associated with increased levels of interaction between tutor and student. As the students in the final group (“trained tutors”) were told prior to the tutoring session that the tutors were “specially trained,” it remains to be determined if the increased interaction was due to better tutor preparation or a higher estimation of the value of the tutoring session on the part of the students receiving the tutoring. This is proposed as an extension to the current work. 

   more » « less