Search for: All records

Abstract The Sunspot Solar Observatory Data Archive (SSODA) stores data acquired with the suite of instruments at the Richard B. Dunn Solar Telescope (DST) from February 2018 to the present. The instrumentation at the DST continues to provide high cadence imaging, spectroscopy, and polarimetry of the solar photosphere and chromosphere across a wavelength range from 3500 Å to 11,000 Å. At the time of writing, the archive contains approximately 374 TiB of data across more than 520 observing days (starting on February 1, 2018). These numbers are approximate as the DST remains operational, and is actively adding new data to the archive. The SSODA includes both raw and calibrated data. A subset of the archive contains the results of photospheric and chromospheric spectropolarimetric inversions using the Hazel-2.0 code to obtain maps of magnetic fields, temperatures, and velocity flows. The SSODA represents a unique resource for the investigation of plasma processes throughout the solar atmosphere, the origin of space weather events, and the properties of active regions throughout the rise of Solar Cycle 25. 

This work in progress (WIP) research paper describes student use of representations in engineering design. While iterative design is not unique to engineering, it is one of the most common methods that engineers use to address socio-technical problems. The use of representations is common across design methodologies. Representations are used in design to serve as external manifestations of internal thought processes that make abstract concepts tangible, enhance communication by providing a common language, enable iteration by serving as a low-effort way to explore ideas, encourage more empathetic design by capturing users' perspectives, visualize the problem space, and promote divergent thinking by providing different ways to visualize ideas. While representations are a key aspect of design, the effective use of representations is a learned process which is affected by other factors in students' education. This study sought to understand how students' perceptions of the role of representations in design changed over the course of a one-semester design course. Small student teams created representations in a three-stage process-problem exploration, convergence to possible solutions, and prototype generation-that captured their evolving understanding of a socio-technical issue and response to it. The authors hypothesize that using effective representations can help develop skills in convergence in undergraduate students; one of engineering's contributions to convergent problem solving is design. More specifically, this research looked at students' use of design representations to develop convergent understanding of ill-defined socio-technical problems. The research questions focus on how students use representations to structure sociotechnical design problems and how argumentation of their chosen solution path changed over time. To answer these questions this study analyzed student artifacts in a third-year design course supported by insights on the process of representation formation obtained from student journals on the design process and a self-reflective electronic portfolio of student work. Based on their prior experiences in engineering science classes, students initially viewed design representations as time-bound (e.g. homework) problems rather than as persistent tools used to build understanding. Over time their use of representations shifted to better capture and share understanding of the larger context in which projects were embedded. The representations themselves became valued reflections on their own level of understanding of complex problems, serving as a self-reflective surface for the status of the larger design problem. 

This research-to-practice full paper presents and approach to bringing convergence to the undergraduate engineering context. Convergence is the process of integrating a variety of ideas, skills, and methods to create new ideas, skills, and methods in order to address complex, socially relevant challenges like the UN Sustainable Development Goals [1] and the National Academy of Engineering's (NAE) Grand Challenges [2]. In the US, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has been a major driver of convergence related research and has focused on work primarily at the graduate level and beyond. To explore how convergence concepts translate to an undergraduate engineering context this research to practice paper describes a taxonomy that translates convergent knowledge, skills, and mindsets into the domain of undergraduate engineering education. While we do not believe it is reasonable to expect undergraduates to engage with convergence in the same way as graduate students or postdoctoral scholars, we believe that they can develop in areas that will allow them to engage in convergent work later in their careers. This paper first defines convergence and then examines the challenges and opportunities related to developing a student's ability to do convergent work in an undergraduate context. The developed taxonomy outlines the knowledge, skills, mindsets, and structures that support convergent work from the larger research literature, and adapts these to an undergraduate context. The taxonomy is then used to conduct a gap analysis of an undergraduate electrical and computer engineering degree program. This analysis is based on the syllabi. This work was conducted in the context of an electrical and computer engineering department situated in a medium-sized primarily undergraduate liberal arts institution in the mid-Atlantic region. As the challenges and opportunities are similar to but also unique to this institution this work forms a rich case study that can inform similar efforts in other institutions and contexts where a similar gap analysis may be beneficial. The goal of this work is to enable others to analyze an their existing student experience to see what aspects of convergence are currently included. 

The purpose of this WIP research paper is to briefly consider the basis of higher education’s current grading system and to discuss an implemented grading structure based on a human development framework which was part of a cultural shift within the department. The letter-grade marking system is relatively new compared to the institution of higher education and brings with it a secondary effect of an “A” ranking conveying significant value and meaning to the interpreter. Students (and faculty) bring their own interpretation of what it means to be an ‘A’ student and connect this to their personal identity. The shift to letter-based grades coincided with influx of capital into American universities and an industry need for more research. Providing such letter-based sortings is often a required part of the instructional contract with most university structures. Grading systems at their best may provide helpful developmental feedback to learners and reward valued behaviors, but they are also punitive and contribute to shame and feelings of alienation or un-belonging. Grading itself is a strong voice of the faculty. While a curriculum guides the overall experience of students, grades themselves are the “coin of the realm” in terms of directly conveying students what faculty value. These weightings of various activities and what work is and is not graded tacitly tell students where faculty expect students to spend their time and effort. Who can be an engineer is then restricted to those who show aptitude in predefined outcomes and can successfully navigate the grading structures given to them. We ask if it is possible to grade across a curriculum in a way that increases opportunities for student agency and can convey to students the multi-faceted nature of being an engineer. While technical skills and knowledge are important, they are only one aspect of being an engineer. We introduce an attempted grading structure that includes six factors of engineering development used across each assignment within a first year engineering course. This change informed ongoing efforts to align grading approaches that place value on student agency in student development and informed an educational model based on the Capability Approach. 

Abstract—Wicked problems, the National Academy of Engineering’s Grand Challenges, the United Nations’ Sustainability Goals, and similar complex, global-scale endeavors fall under the broad umbrella of “convergent” work. Over the past two decades there has been an increase in interest and funding for work in this space. The NSF has two programs focused in this area, Growing Convergence Research and the Convergence Accelerator. Boston University’s College of Engineering recently announced a focus on convergent projects and work. The National Academic of Engineering also has the Grand Challenge Scholars program with over 100 participating schools. The list continues to grow. The broad concept of convergence seems to be quite simple: combine the ideas, skills, and/or methods of multiple disciplines to create something new. More specific definitions vary and while the interest in convergence and convergent problems continues to increase, there is no easily operational definition of convergence. This is especially true with respect to undergraduate-level education where students have limited experience and knowledge to carry out such efforts. To better understand the variation that exists within the literature on convergence we conducted a systematic review to explore how convergence is defined in scholarly literature. We have identified a small number of categories within the definition space and conducted a thematic analysis of the aspects of each. The results show that there is a fairly consistent focus on the work being socially-relevant and on creating something new such as an idea, method, product, or process to address desired needs. Additionally, doing convergent work requires the integration of aspects of multiple disciplines and is conducted by diverse teams. Lastly, the disciplinary backgrounds of those teams almost always includes the natural and biological sciences with a subset the following disciplines: information or computing sciences, engineering, social sciences, and humanities. While there is some consistency in the definition, there also seems to be space for some variation which leaves for some level of choice in the definition.