More Like this

1. Online citizen science in higher education courses

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70352  

   Cotey, Stacy R; Dunbar‐Wallis, Amy K; Golumbic, Yaela N; Mehrotra, Pankaj; Beamer, David A; Vance‐Chalcraft, Heather D (July 2025, Ecosphere)

   Climate change and biodiversity loss require us to engage the next generation of scientists in addressing global ecological issues. Introducing undergraduate students to citizen science allows them to learn scientific processes and content while contributing to real‐world applications. We conducted a systematic review of literature to (1) identify what types of undergraduate courses and institutions use citizen science, (2) list the projects and platforms that have been implemented in online courses in undergraduate education, (3) examine how students participated in the projects through online courses, and (4) summarize learning objectives and reported benefits of student participation. In all, 44 studies about the use of citizen science in undergraduate online courses were found in 25 papers in the published literature. The most common projects consisted of classification of species or natural history (e.g., iNaturalist), which could be done mainly online but with data collection completed at a location available to the student. Citizen science projects were incorporated into multiple course formats (e.g., lecture, lab) and class sizes, and students were most frequently asked to collect and submit data. The most frequently reported learning outcomes included increased student interest/engagement, improved appreciation for the relevance of science to the “real world,” and practice using the scientific process, but rigorous assessment data were lacking in papers. The use of citizen science in online courses and institutions appears to be increasing, and we encourage faculty using these approaches with students to publish on their efforts, providing details about their implementation, assessment, and course context. 

   more » « less
2. Why Engineering Ethics? How Do Educators and Administrators Justify Teaching Engineering Ethics?

   Fatehiboroujeni, S.; Akera, A.; Riley, D.; Cheville, A.; Karlin, J.; Appelhans, S.; De Pree, T. (January 2019, ASEE annual conference & exposition)

   This work-in-progress paper presents preliminary findings on how teaching engineering ethics is justified by academic administrators and policymakers, drawing from data collected in a multi-institution collaborative project called “The Distributed System of Governance in Engineering Education”. The project seeks to understand the practice of engineering education reform using data collected from a larger number of oral interviews at a variety of academic institutions and other organizations in engineering education. Investigations of effective strategies for the ethical development of engineering students have been pursued extensively in engineering education research. Canvassing this literature reveals not only diverse approaches and conceptions of engineering ethics, but also a diverse set of rationales and contexts for justifying the development and implementation of engineering ethics coursework and programs. It is also evident that the students’ ethical development is shaped by how the subject is delivered, e.g., the use of case studies or “best practices”, as well as the underlying reasons given to them about why ethics is taught. Institutions send signals to their students, even without intending to, about the importance of engineering ethics to their professional identity through their choice in how and why they address this matter. Our initial analysis of interview data from over a hundred subjects from more than twenty universities demonstrates the diverse ways in which ethics education is justified. The most common reason offered are satisfying ABET accreditation requirements and complying with the recommendations of a disciplinary professional association (e.g., ASME or ASCE). Resistance to notions such as professional judgment, and the absence of any substantial reference to engineering ethics in general conversations about educational decision making and governance are other initial findings from our work. 

   more » « less
3. Board 72: Why Engineering Ethics? How Do Educators and Administrators Justify Teaching Engineering Ethics?

   Fatehiboroujeni, S. (January 2019, ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   This work-in-progress paper presents preliminary findings on how teaching engineering ethics is justified by academic administrators and policymakers, drawing from data collected in a multi-institution collaborative project called “The Distributed System of Governance in Engineering Education”. The project seeks to understand the practice of engineering education reform using data collected from a larger number of oral interviews at a variety of academic institutions and other organizations in engineering education. Investigations of effective strategies for the ethical development of engineering students have been pursued extensively in engineering education research. Canvassing this literature reveals not only diverse approaches and conceptions of engineering ethics, but also a diverse set of rationales and contexts for justifying the development and implementation of engineering ethics coursework and programs. It is also evident that the students’ ethical development is shaped by how the subject is delivered, e.g., the use of case studies or “best practices”, as well as the underlying reasons given to them about why ethics is taught. Institutions send signals to their students, even without intending to, about the importance of engineering ethics to their professional identity through their choice in how and why they address this matter. Our initial analysis of interview data from over a hundred subjects from more than twenty universities demonstrates the diverse ways in which ethics education is justified. The most common reason offered are satisfying ABET accreditation requirements and complying with the recommendations of a disciplinary professional association (e.g., ASME or ASCE). Resistance to notions such as professional judgment, and the absence of any substantial reference to engineering ethics in general conversations about educational decision making and governance are other initial findings from our work. 

   more » « less
4. High school teachers' conceptualizations of engineering teaching

   Emiola, E.; Dalal, M.; Ladeji-Osias, K. (January 2021, the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA))

   null (Ed.)

   Stakeholders of engineering education have recognized the need for engineering instruction in K‐12 classrooms, especially at the high school level. However, lack of engineering-specific standards and varied conceptions of engineering teaching create challenges for high school teachers to teach engineering courses. This paper explores high school teachers’ conceptions of engineering teaching in the context of an engineering education professional development (PD) workshop. We use Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) to examine participants’ conceptions during two focus groups conducted as part of the PD; particularly focusing on teachers’ goals, interests, challenges, and expected outcomes of teaching a high school level engineering course. Results highlight the need for social support for teachers to sustain engineering teaching. 

   more » « less
5. Fostering Metacognition to Support Student Learning and Performance

   https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289  

   Stanton, Julie Dangremond; Sebesta, Amanda J.; Dunlosky, John (June 2021, CBE—Life Sciences Education)

   null (Ed.)

   Metacognition is awareness and control of thinking for learning. Strong metacognitive skills have the power to impact student learning and performance. While metacognition can develop over time with practice, many students struggle to meaningfully engage in metacognitive processes. In an evidence-based teaching guide associated with this paper ( https://lse.ascb.org/evidence-based-teaching-guides/student-metacognition ), we outline the reasons metacognition is critical for learning and summarize relevant research on this topic. We focus on three main areas in which faculty can foster students’ metacognition: supporting student learning strategies (i.e., study skills), encouraging monitoring and control of learning, and promoting social metacognition during group work. We distill insights from key papers into general recommendations for instruction, as well as a special list of four recommendations that instructors can implement in any course. We encourage both instructors and researchers to target metacognition to help students improve their learning and performance. 

   more » « less