An official website of the United States government
While advances have been made in studying engineering design learning in the classroom, to date, such advances have not addressed hands-on, real-world learning experiences in university makerspaces. Our particular interest was how such spaces support women engineers as designers, learners, makers, and community members. To investigate this, we initially completed two qualitative interview studies: (1) a three-series in-depth phenomenologically based interview methodology with five women students and (2) a targeted, single interview protocol with 15 women students. The in-depth interviews were analyzed using grounded theory techniques and coding methods as a means to develop a typology. To explore the broader applicability of the findings, 19 additional interviews (five women and five men at Big City U.; four women and five men at Comprehensive U.) were also completed. Overall, makerspaces are confirmed to help provide women students with a diverse skillset that engages design, manufacturing, cultural knowledge, failure, collaboration, confidence, resilience, communication management, and ingenuity.
more »
« less
Comparison of Student Learning in Two Makerspace Communities
The Maker Movement has led to a boom in academic makerspace development over the past 15 years. Academic makerspaces—which are those located on community college and university campuses—enable students to engage in solving challenges that are meaningful to them, while uniting students of varied expertise levels to learn from one another. Using a typology of learning developed through in-depth phenomenologically based interviews (PBI) with 35 students, this study investigates how student learning differs at two Universities with differing amounts of making integrated into the curriculum. Big City U offers a large program with traditional engineering degrees, while Comprehensive U offers a smaller program with a single design-oriented B.S. in Engineering. Interviews were coded using a previously developed learning typology and categories of learning were compared across institutions to identify similarities and differences in experiences. Preliminary findings show students are gaining comparable content knowledge, cultural knowledge, and ingenuity, but Comprehensive U students are more self-aware and learn through relationships with others more than students at Big City U.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1733678
- PAR ID:
- 10356942
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Engineering is fundamentally about design, yet many undergraduate programs offer limited opportunities for students to learn to design. This design case reports on a grant-funded effort to revolutionize how chemical engineering is taught. Prior to this effort, our chemical engineering program was like many, offering core courses primarily taught through lectures and problem sets. While some faculty referenced examples, students had few opportunities to construct and apply what they were learning. Spearheaded by a team that included the department chair, a learning scientist, a teaching-intensive faculty member, and faculty heavily engaged with the undergraduate program, we developed and implemented design challenges in core chemical engineering courses. We began by co-designing with students and faculty, initially focusing on the first two chemical engineering courses students take. We then developed templates and strategies that supported other faculty-student teams to expand the approach into more courses. Across seven years of data collection and iterative refinements, we developed a framework that offers guidance as we continue to support new faculty in threading design challenges through core content-focused courses. We share insights from our process that supported us in navigating through challenging questions and concerns.more » « less
-
The College of Engineering at [University] offers a comprehensive five-week summer program known as a summer bridge program (SBP) for incoming students. The primary objective of this program is to familiarize first-time-in-college students with the university environment and community, setting them up for success in their academic journey. During this period, students engage in non-credit courses that cover subjects typically deemed challenging and necessary for first-year students, including calculus, chemistry, and engineering fundamentals. In addition to these courses, over the course of the program, students actively participate in informative seminars conducted by different campus offices, providing them with a comprehensive understanding of the wide array of opportunities and resources available to support their them during their academic journey. In the previous year, we organized a workshop during the SBP with a total of 60 participating students. The purpose of this workshop was to gauge students' reactions to a series of open-ended scenarios that reflected potential opportunities and constraints commonly encountered in the field of engineering. Students were given the opportunity to respond to these scenarios both individually and in groups, with each group assigned four unique scenarios. To further enhance our understanding, we also conducted interviews with 11 students. By analyzing the individual and group responses, along with the interview data, we developed a Situational Judgment Inventory (SJI), aggregating students’ open ended responses into closed-ended responses to the scenarios. The primary objective of this SJI is to promote better alignment between students' navigational tendencies and the expectations of professionals regarding students' navigational approaches within the learning environment. The purpose of this presentation is to provide a comprehensive overview of our instrument refinement process and present preliminary findings regarding the anticipated navigational approaches of incoming engineering students. To address this purpose, we conducted a 90-minute workshop with SBP students, where we administered the piloted SJI containing the closed-ended responses we developed earlier. The primary purpose of piloting the SJI was to understand how to enhance the instrument's accuracy in capturing the full spectrum of navigational tendencies that students possess and expect to employ prior to commencing their engineering studies. The quantitative analysis of the pilot results will not only identify areas of improvement for the instrument but also contribute to our understanding of how incoming students anticipate navigating the field of engineering.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The Academy of Engineering Success (AcES) program, established in 2012 and supported by NSF S-STEM award number 1644119 throughout 2016-2021, employs literature-based, best practices to support and retain underprepared and underrepresented students in engineering through graduation with the ultimate goal of diversifying the engineering workforce. A total of 71 students, including 21 students supported by S-STEM scholarships, participated in the AcES program between 2016-2019 at a large R1 institution in the mid-Atlantic region. All AcES students participate in a common program during their first year, comprised of: a one-week summer bridge experience, a common fall professional development course and spring “Engineering in History” course, and a common academic advisor. These students also have opportunities for: (1) faculty-student, student-student, and industry mentor-student interaction, (2) academic support and student success education, and (3) major and career exploration – all designed to help students develop feelings of institutional inclusion, engineering self-efficacy and identity, and academic and professional success skills. They also participate in the GRIT, Longitudinal Assessment of Engineering Self-Efficacy (LAESE), and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) surveys plus individual and focus group interviews at the start, midpoint, and end of each fall semester and at the end of the spring semester. The surveys provide a measure of students’ GRIT, their beliefs related to the intrinsic value of engineering and learning, their feelings of inclusion and test anxiety, and their self-efficacy related to engineering, math, and coping skills. The interviews provide information related to the student experience, feelings of inclusion, and program impact. Institutional data, combined with the survey and interview responses, are used to examine four research questions designed to examine the relationship of the elements of the AcES program to participants’ academic success and retention in engineering. Early analyses of the student retention data and survey responses from the 2017 and 2018 cohorts indicated students who ultimately left engineering before the start of their second year initially scored higher in areas of engineering self-efficacy and test anxiety, than those who stayed in engineering, while those who retained to the second year began their engineering education with lower self-efficacy scores, but higher scores related to the belief in the intrinsic value of engineering, learning strategy use, and coping self-efficacy. These results suggest that students who start with unrealistically high expectations of their performance leave engineering at higher rates than students who start with lower personal performance expectations, but have stronger value of the field and strategies for meeting challenges. These data appear to support the Kruger-Dunning effect in which students with limited knowledge of a specific field overestimate their abilities to perform in that area or underestimate the level of effort success may require. This paper will add an analysis of the academic success and retention data from 2019 cohort to this research, discuss the impact of COVID-19 to this program and research, as well as illuminate the quantitative results with the qualitative data from individual and focus group interviews regarding the aspects of the AcES program that impact student success, their expectations and methods for overcoming academic challenges, and their feelings of motivation and inclusion.more » « less
-
This research paper describes a study of elementary teacher learning in an online graduate program in engineering education for in-service teachers. While the existing research on teachers in engineering focuses on their disciplinary understandings and beliefs (Hsu, Cardella, & Purzer, 2011; Martin, et al., 2015; Nadelson, et al., 2015; Van Haneghan, et al., 2015), there is increasing attention to teachers' pedagogy in engineering (Capobianco, Delisi, & Radloff, 2018). In our work, we study teachers' pedagogical sense-making and reflection, which, we argue, is critical for teaching engineering design. This study takes place in [blinded] program, in which teachers take four graduate courses over fifteen months. The program was designed to help teachers not only learn engineering content, but also shift their thinking and practice to be more responsive to their students. Two courses focus on pedagogy, including what it means to learn engineering and instructional approaches to support this learning. These courses consist of four main elements, in which teachers: 1) Read data-rich engineering education articles to reflect on learning engineering; 2) Participate in online video clubs, looking at classroom videos of students’ engineering and commenting on what they notice; 3) Conduct interviews with learners about the mechanism of a pull-back car; and 4) Plan and teach engineering lessons, collecting and analyzing video from their classrooms. In the context of this program, we ask: what stances do teachers take toward learning and teaching engineering design? What shifts do we observe in their stances? We interviewed teachers at the start of the program and after each course. In addition to reflecting on their learning and teaching, teachers watched videos of students’ engineering and discussed what they saw as relevant for teaching engineering. We informally compared summaries from previous interviews to get a sense of changes in how participants talked about engineering, how they approached teaching engineering, and what they noticed in classroom videos. Through this process, we identified one teacher to focus on for this paper: Alma is a veteran 3rd-5th grade science teacher in a rural, racially-diverse public school in the southeastern region of the US. We then developed content logs of Alma's interviews and identified emergent themes. To refine these themes, we looked for confirming and disconfirming evidence in the interviews and in her coursework in the program. We coded each interview for these themes and developed analytic memos, highlighting where we saw variability and stability in her stances and comparing across interviews to describe shifts in Alma's reasoning. It was at this stage that we narrowed our focus to her stances toward the engineering design process (EDP). In this paper, we describe and illustrate shifts we observed in Alma's reasoning, arguing that she exhibited dramatic shifts in her stances toward teaching and learning the EDP. At the start of the program, she was stable in treating the EDP as a series of linear steps that students and engineers progress through. After engaging and reflecting on her own engineering in the first course, she started to express a more fluid stance when talking more abstractly about the EDP but continued to take it up as a linear process in her classroom teaching. By the end of the program, Alma exhibited a growing stability across contexts in her stance toward the EDP as a fluid set of overlapping practices that students and engineers could engage in.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--36821
