Search for: All records

The objective of the Research on Organizational Partnerships in Education and STEM (ROPES) Hub is to advance understanding of organizational partnerships that support academic pathways for domestic low-income engineering students. Partnerships across the education system are essential for improving STEM; achieving the systematic, structural, or sustainable change desired by programs such as NSF’s Scholarships for STEM Students (S-STEM) program is seldom achieved by individual isolated units and often requires partnerships across silos within an academic institution (i.e., intra-institution partnerships) and across institutions (i.e., inter-institution partnerships). However, how such partnerships are built, designed, and sustained remains a great challenge facing the field. This Hub, led by a collaborative team from Virginia Tech, Weber State University, Northern Virginia Community College, and the University of Cincinnati, is working to organize groups to conduct research focused on supporting low-income undergraduate engineering, computer science, and computing students in ways that are congruent with the institutional context and resources while going beyond the direct impact on S-STEM Scholars to impact departments and institutions involved. We are zooming in on the institutional infrastructure and collaborative work between researchers, administrators and practitioners, and policymakers. The overarching research question guiding the hub is: How can intra- and inter-institutional partnerships be designed, built, and sustained to systematically support low-income engineering student success? Answering this question requires a research hub because understanding different models of organizational partnerships—and linking such research to student outcomes across a variety of institutional contexts—requires a focus across S-STEM programs that is only enabled by a research hub approach; it cannot happen in a single S-STEM program. An important contribution of this work will be to characterize aspects of problems in which collaboration and partnerships can be most helpful—supporting low-income engineering students aiming to earn a bachelor’s degree fits these conditions, representing the kind of complex system of interacting, interdependent stakeholders with differing expertise and with no systematic organization of stakeholders. 

Researchers have looked into ways to make computer science assignments more engaging, practical, and beneficial to students to improve learning outcomes by increasing student appeal. Offering a pool of assignments and allowing students to choose their preferred assignments is considered as a potential method for improving learning outcomes. In this paper, we investigate the effect of context choice for assignments in an object-oriented programming course that covers various topics such as object-oriented programming concepts, database design and implementation, graphical user interface design, and web application development. Students complete three immersive simulation-based learning (ISBL) modules as course assignments. ISBL modules involve technology-enhanced problem-based learning where the problem context is represented via a three-dimensional (3D), animated discrete-event simulation model that resembles a real-world system or context, in this case, we have three simulated systems/contexts around which ISBL assignments are defined: an airport, a manufacturing system, and a hospital emergency department. The research experiments involve four groups: (1) students with no choice who use the same assigned simulated system for all three ISBL assignments; (2) students with no choice who are given a different simulated system for each ISBL assignment; (3) students who can choose their preferred simulated system at the beginning but cannot change their choice for future assignments; and, (4) students who can choose at the beginning and switch between the three simulated systems for subsequent assignments. Data are collected over multiple semesters and statistical analyses are conducted to compare the four groups in terms of motivation, experiential learning, and self assessment of learning. We also conduct qualitative assessments in the form of interviews to support and explain our statistical results. 

We propose and assess the effectiveness of novel immersive simulation-based learning (ISBL) modules for teaching and learning engineering economy concepts. The proposed intervention involves technology-enhanced problem-based learning where the problem context is represented via a three-dimensional (3D), animated discrete-event simulation model that resembles a real-world system or situation that students may encounter in future professional settings. Students can navigate the simulated environment in both low- and high-immersion modes (i.e., on a typical personal computer or via a virtual reality headset). The simulation helps contextualize and visualize the problem setting, allowing students to observe and understand the underlying dynamics, collect relevant data/information, evaluate the effect of changes on the system, and learn by doing. The proposed ISBL approach is supported by multiple pedagogical and psychological theories, namely the information processing approach to learning theory, constructivism theory, self-determination theory, and adult learning theory. We design and implement a set of ISBL modules in an introductory undergraduate engineering economy class. The research experiments involve two groups of students: a control group and an intervention group. Students in the control group complete a set of traditional assignments, while the intervention group uses ISBL modules. We use well-established survey instruments to collect data on demographics, prior preparation, motivation, experiential learning, engineering identity, and self-assessment of learning objectives based on Bloom’s taxonomy. Statistical analysis of the results suggests that ISBL enhances certain dimensions related to motivation and experiential learning, namely relevance, confidence, and utility. We also provide a qualitative assessment of the proposed intervention based on detailed, one-on-one user testing and evaluation interviews. 

To address the low number of baccalaureate degrees in computing to meet the demand for computing professionals, the Computing Alliance of Hispanic-Serving Institutions (CAHSI) was selected by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2018 to serve as the lead partner of a national INCLUDES alliance. The Inclusion Across the Nation of Communities of Learners (INCLUDES) initiative is one of NSF’s Ten Big Ideas with the goal of broadening participation in STEM fields by creating networked relationships among organizations and across sectors, using a collaborative approach with stakeholders who share a common agenda. The CAHSI Alliance is using the collective impact framework to accelerate change in broadening participation, particularly of Latinx, in computing fields. One aspect of collective impact is using a common set of data for decision-making within and across institutions. This paper will provide a short description of our data collection and analysis process, which helps populate a dashboard that compares student outcomes for each 2- and 4-year CAHSI institution with other institutions of higher education nationally.  

:Data show that science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) postsecondary training programs lack gender and racial/ethnic diversity. Recent policy efforts are aimed at creating more inclusive environments for underrepresented groups in STEM and several national reports highlight progress. We argue that prior analyses have not considered institutional contexts and changes in the demographics of students enrolled in higher education more broadly. We propose new measures of gender and racial/ethnic parity in the computing fields. Using these measures, we find that while computing fields have made progress in the number of female students and students of color receiving degrees, gender and racial/ethnic parity has changed little and, in some cases, declined. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.   

The purpose of the project is to identify how to measure various types of institutional support as it pertains to underrepresented and underserved populations in colleges of engineering and science. We are grounding this investigation in the Model of Co-Curricular Support, a conceptual framework that emphasizes the breadth of assistance currently used to support undergraduate students in engineering and science. The results from our study will help prioritize the elements of institutional support that should appear somewhere in a college’s suite of support efforts to improve engineering and science learning environments and design effective programs, activities, and services. Our poster will present: 1) an overview of the instrument development process; 2) evaluation of the prototype for face and content validity from students and experts; and 3) instrument revision and data collection to determine test validity and reliability across varied institutional contexts. In evaluating the initial survey, we included multiple rounds of feedback from students and experts, receiving feedback from 46 participants (38 students, 8 administrators). We intentionally sampled for representation across engineering and science colleges; gender identity; race/ethnicity; international student status; and transfer student status. The instrument was deployed for the first time in Spring 2018 to the institutional project partners at three universities. It was completed by 722 students: 598 from University 1, 51 from University 2, and 123 from University 3. We tested the construct validity of these responses using a minimum residuals exploratory factor analysis and correlation. A preliminary data analysis shows evidence of differences in perception on types of support college of engineering and college of science students experience. The findings of this preliminary analysis were used to revise the instrument further prior to the next round of testing. Our target sample for the next instrument deployment is 2,000 students, so we will survey ~13,000 students based on a 15% anticipated response rate. Following data collection, we will use confirmatory factor analysis to continue establishing construct validity and report on the stability of constructs emerging from our piloting on a new student sample(s). We will also investigate differences across these constructs by subpopulations of students. 

This work-in-progress paper presents emerging results from a research study aiming to develop and gather validity evidence for an instrument that can be used by college administrators and student-support practitioners to assess the magnitude of undergraduate students’ perceived institutional support received in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Our goal is to provide stakeholders with a validated tool to diagnose areas of strength and opportunities to better support students, particularly those from underserved populations. Over the past year, we have engaged in a systematic process of instrument development. We began by developing a prototype based on the newly developed Model of Co-Curricular Support (MCCS). We refined it by reviewing existing literature and instruments germane to student support, and soliciting stakeholder feedback. During the spring of 2018, we distributed the instrument to STEM undergraduate students at three U.S. institutions. In this paper, we report our process of instrument development and preliminary results. These results will inform the next revision of our instrument, ultimately providing the STEM education community with novel and theory-based ways to measure students’ perceptions of support in STEM. 

Engineering work is becoming increasingly global in nature, making it essential that engineering students develop global competence [1], [2]. However, traditional global programs (e.g., study abroad) present challenges for engineering students who often have to fit such experiences within a highly structured curricular schedule. Further, study abroad can be a financial burden for many students who are already paying significant amounts to attend college [3], [4]. One type of global engineering program that has the potential to address these challenges are international research experiences, which typically take place during the summer and provide students with a salary. Research has suggested that such experiences can meaningfully influence students’ global competence [5], but few studies have explored how components of the experience may influence learning. This study compares two NSF-sponsored international research experiences for students (IRES) programs that send students to two different countries to identify differences in learning outcomes between the program participants. This work represents a collaborative effort among faculty members and graduate students from three engineering departments with the goal of creating research opportunities for students at various international sites using research-based educational practices. By understanding how context influences students’ learning opportunities, faculty developing such programs may select research locations more intentionally or offer supplemental programming for students to ensure they achieve all of the program’s intended learning outcomes.