2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Conference Information
Name: 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
Date: 2020-6-22 - 2021-6-26

Latest articles from this conference

TomHenry J. Reagan, Stephanie Claussen, Eric Lyne
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings; https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35265

Abstract:
Systematic review is a meta-analytical framework for quantitatively searching, sorting, and synthesizing scholarly research on a particular field or topic. Systematic review techniques have recently gained traction in the field of engineering education. A systematic review performed over a specific area of practice — for instance, the instruction of a particular subject — can consolidate results from many studies into a synthesis of best practices. The purpose of this article is to identify best practices in introductory circuits education via systematic review of prior research. Relevant publications will be identified and appraised with a set of coding criteria generated by the researchers. The results of the review may inform educational techniques employed in post-secondary introductory circuits courses. A database of 1056 unique journal articles and conference papers was created in a preliminary keyword search of four online scholarly databases. The researchers worked with an expert librarian to formulate a set of keywords and search phrases that would fetch recent research on instructional technique in introductory circuits and electronics courses. The researchers have generated coding criteria which is being used to narrow search results to research which directly addresses the primary research questions based on the title and/or Papers are being independently evaluated by multiple researchers to determine adherence to the coding criteria. Coding criteria will be similarly applied to the full-text of the remaining publications, leaving a pool of relevant and high-quality papers. The resulting data will be synthesized to draw conclusions about best practices in introductory circuits education. The results of the systematic review will be used to inform and improve the teaching of introductory circuits at the host institution. The data is applicable to evaluation and revision of circuits curricula in general.
Safia Malallah, Joshua Levi Weese
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings; https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35312

Abstract:
Mind Maps (MM) have proven to be a practical approach that promotes meaningful learning in various domains. Yet, few works exist that investigate employing MM to blend CT across curricula. In this paper, we developed a MM approach - named Storyboard-tree - to transform "Standard/traditional" slides (SS) to the MM structure. Storyboard-tree associates the information by creating a story that chains the data with ideas and concepts which lead from the first to next and so on. The applied materials are two models in an Introduction to Computer Science (CS) course. The study utilizes two sections: one is taught with MM, and the other with SS. The observed academic results and the acceptance rate of the students and the instructors were encouraging. MM with freshman show statically significant self-efficiency scores with an approximate 50% better performance than with SS in the Algorithm concept, while all students show a statistically similar trend in the knowledge gained as well as the fondness of the approach through the self-efficiency scores. Instructor satisfaction tends to go more towards the SS approach seeing the MM implementation as not mature enough. However, the investigation concludes that the mind map technique is a feasible way to deliver CT concepts, thereby a practical approach to integrate CT into the curriculum.
Keith D. Hjelmstad, Amie Baisley
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings; https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35346

Abstract:
The Mechanics Project was founded just over eight years ago at Arizona State University. The objective of the project was to improve the learning experience in the sophomore level mechanics courses (statics, dynamics, and deformable solids). We have designed and implemented an engaged learning environment that encourages students to discover and explore the foundational engineering concepts in these courses more deeply, emphasizing ‘why’ as much as ‘how’ in the learning process. The courses associated with The Mechanics Project are designed around two-week modules that comprise four active recitation periods, one lecture, and one assessment. Most of the class time is spent in a highly engaged student-centered recitation environment, staffed by an instructor and a team of undergraduate teaching assistants. This structure allows the students to have a more individualized learning experience in a supportive environment. The frequent assessments make examinations less stressful and mastery-based grading allows each student to monitor their progress on achieving the individual course learning objectives. A course survey, administered each semester, shows a high level of student satisfaction with the instructional elements that make up the course structure. This paper will describe the details of the course design and document some of the outcomes.
Johannes Strobel, Alexander Franz Koch, Hao He
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings; https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35484

Abstract:
In western societies, we value innovation, creativity, “outside the box thinking”, “pushing boundaries”, “challenging paradigms” and “coming up with new solutions” - particularly in STEM education (Hart Research Associates, 2015). And yet when we see these behaviors in our young learners, we try to shut it down (Ripley, 2016). Many teachers, for example, value compliant originality and conforming behavior over independent thinking (Beghetto, 2010). Kids will defy; the ones who can make productive use of it will become successful and productive members of society. Negative classroom management styles like suspension are often used due to what the teacher interprets as misbehavior (c.f. Lewis et al., 2008). Unfortunately, a large number of students, who are defiant and don’t have the tools to adept, do disengage, lose interest and drop out of school. To further the problem, negative disciplinary actions in an US-context are immoderately applied to non-white children, especially African Americans and Hispanics (Losen et al., 2015; Blomberg, 2003; Townsend, 2000). In the US, students of color and underrepresented minorities (URMs) are disproportionately more likely to be suspended and labeled “troublemakers” by their teachers, and thus suffer negative outcomes; In this context, school and teacher variables have been widely neglected in research (Fenning & Rose, 2007; Tajalli & Garba, 2014; Townsend, 2000). But if one wants to increase general wellbeing of students and teachers and generate an engaged and positive emotional atmosphere, URMs participation in schooling and STEM in particular, research needs to better understand the nature of these disparities. When and why are students believed “troublemakers” by teachers, how is a “troublemaker” defined from a teacher and a student perspective, how does the “troublemaker“ status and teachers’ consequent reaction and behavior impact students and how to positively integrate “troublemakers” into schooling? This paper's research focuses on teachers' views on troublemakers with the following questions: What are teacher beliefs about “troublemaker” students’ potential achievement in STEM fields? How situational are teachers’ subjective theories of troublemaking behavior and troublemakers? What is the teachers’ existing range of interpreting troublemaking behavior? What are situational factors that shape the view of teacher on a student’s behavior in STEM instruction? Research has been conducted using individual teacher individuals. Analysis followed a phenomenographic methodology by primarily focusing on the different views teachers carry about defiance and phenomenological research exploring the commonalities of teachers views on defiance. In addition, the research team used a comparative case approach comparing teachers' views on STEM and engineering and on attributes of defiance. Results indicate that teachers hold very common and shared conceptions of troublemakers, that their beliefs are fairly strong and that there is a discrepancy about valued attributes of STEM and attributes of troublemakers. Implications are discussed.
Hossein Ebrahiminejad, George D. Ricco,
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings; https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35262

Abstract:
This Work-In-Progress aims to use the Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD) to investigate on different undergraduate student populations who switch into and from engineering. The database contains 19 partner institutions comprising more than 1,000,000 individual student entries and over 12% of the United States’ engineering students. This Work-In-Progress (WIP), aims to take the first step in better understanding gaps in higher education. In this WIP we use a multi-institutional database to see the portion of undergraduate migrators; Both those who migrate from engineering and those who migrate to engineering from other majors. This WIP will be the foundation of future research to investigate the gaps in higher education to attract and retain students.
Jessica Koehler, Olga Pierrakos, Michael Lamb, Alana Demaske, Carlos Santos, Michael D. Gross, Dylan Franklin Brown
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings; https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35497

Abstract:
The complexity of problems that engineers address requires knowledge, skills, and abilities that extend beyond technical engineering expertise, including teamwork and collaboration, problem-solving, curiosity and lifelong learning, cultural awareness, and ethical decision-making. How do we prepare engineering students to develop these essential capacities? One promising approach is to integrate character education into the undergraduate curriculum. Using an established and commonly used taxonomy advanced by the Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues at the University of Birmingham, this paper explores the extent to which virtues are already incorporated into engineering education. Four prominent virtues in undergraduate engineering education are detailed in this paper: (1) critical thinking (an intellectual virtue), (2) empathy (a moral virtue), (3) service (a civic virtue), and (4) teamwork (a performance virtue). By conducting a literature review of these four virtues, we gain insight into how engineering educators already infuse virtues into engineering education and identify the gaps and opportunities that exist to enrich undergraduate engineering education through a virtue framework. Although virtues are part of engineering education, our findings reveal that most engineering educators do not explicitly describe these concepts as “virtues” and tend to treat them instead as “skills.” While virtues and skills are developed in similar ways, we identify four distinctions that reveal the added benefits of recasting and cultivating these capacities as virtues: 1) virtues, unlike skills alone, are necessarily ordered to morally good ends, 2) virtues have a motivational component that skills often lack, 3) virtues involve evaluating and addressing potential conflicts among values, and 4) virtues are interconnected and mutually reinforcing in ways that skills often are not. These conceptual distinctions have practical implications for undergraduate engineering education, enabling educators to draw on the pedagogical literature in character education to help students consider their values and develop the most relevant virtues across a four-year curriculum. This more comprehensive and holistic approach empowers students and future engineers to better navigate the complexity of real-world ethical decision-making and develop the virtues needed to serve the greater good.
Emmett Jacob Springer, Aileen Huang-Saad
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings; https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35424

Abstract:
As a highly multidisciplinary field, Biomedical Engineering has a complex and ever-evolving identity. Little is known about how individuals in BME, especially students, perceive how BME intersects with and incorporates science, medicine, and other engineering disciplines. Additionally, individual identity is recognized as a crucial factor in choosing and persisting in an academic discipline, yet there are few studies examining how individuals in Biomedical Engineering professionally identify. Understanding such identities and how they are formed may be valuable in innovating BME instruction to properly meet students’ academic and professional needs. This work explores how BME students and professionals view themselves and the field of biomedical engineering as related to traditional science and engineering influence. This paper presents quantitative analysis of Likert-scale survey data collected from an annual professional meeting held in 2018. Descriptive statistical analysis reveals that the survey participants, on average, view BME as nearly evenly between science and engineering and identify strongly as both engineers and scientists. A multi-step regression was constructed to analyze what predictor constructs contribute to a stronger identity for either engineering or science and how these identities influence career path goals and choices. This study shows that recognition from others is a significant predictor of individual identity and that personal interest is a significant predictor of how an individual views BME. Gender was not found to influence professional identity or perception of BME in this study.
Katherine Goodman, Stephanie S. Ivey, Craig O. Stewart, Shani O'brien, Maryam Darbeheshti, William Schupbach, Karen D. Alfrey
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings; https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34894

Abstract:
The Urban STEM Collaboratory is a tri-institution collaboration of (school 1), (school 2), and (school 3). Each of the three partner universities is embedded in a large city, and serve similar student populations, i.e. students who tend to be first generation, minorities, older, and/or commuting to campus. These universities encounter similar challenges in first-year retention and graduation rates, especially in the STEM disciplines. As they strive to improve the first year engineering and/or mathematics student experience at their campuses, they have engaged in different approaches; including Peer Led Team Learning (PLTL), formation of an Engineering Learning Community (ELC), and engaging students in outreach as STEM Ambassadors. Incorporating these individual strengths with new activities that will be shared across institutions, the team is currently embarking on a multi-year research project to uncover how students develop STEM identity in an urban context, identify interventions that support this development, and determine the impact that STEM identity has on student success. Through the support of an NSF S-STEM grant, the three universities are also providing scholarships to students engaged in the project. Here, we share the initial efforts of our tri-campus interaction and collaboration, our overarching goals, our systems of recruiting students, and our initial collection of preliminary data and findings for Year 1.
Laura Hirshfield, Stacie Edington, Michael Dailey
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings; https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34888

Abstract:
This complete research paper presents a cross-sectional qualitative study investigating how first-year students feel starting their first semester in an undergraduate engineering program, and how this compares to their feelings soon after starting college and later in their engineering program. We compare survey responses from one month before first-year students start the program, to data gathered in focus groups with first-year students after the start of the program, to feedback from focus groups with upper-level students, to determine how and why their feelings about the program change. There are numerous factors that can impact student success in an engineering program: motivation, preparedness, sense of belonging, confidence, self-efficacy, support [1], [2]. One of the most fundamental aspects that can impact a student’s place in an engineering program is how they feel about being an engineering student. A students’ feelings about their program both impact and relate to many other aspects of their experience more broadly [3]: for example, a student who feels excited to start as an engineering student, is more likely to engage and persist compared to a student who enters the program feeling anxious or ambivalent. Furthermore, a student’s feelings about their place in an engineering program have the potential to change quickly and be impacted by multiple factors. Therefore, it is important to have an understanding of what those factors might be in order to best support our students’ success and perseverance. This study is part of a larger study investigating the impact of a first-year program on students’ sense of community, sense of belonging, and perceptions of engineering. As part of that study, all first-year students starting in an engineering program at a large, Midwestern university were invited to complete surveys at the beginning of the summer (n=731), in the middle of the summer (n=1171), and during the fall semester (n=1128), and a subset of students participated in focus groups (n=60) (during the fall semester) focusing on those topics. In the study presented in this paper, the focus will be on data collected during the mid-summer survey and the mid-semester focus groups. In the mid-summer survey, students were asked to fill in the blank in the statement “I am ___ to be an [engineer at this university].” The majority of students used positive words (“excited”, “honored”, “grateful”, etc.). Students also used neutral words (“about”, “going”) or phrases that mixed positive and negative emotions (“excited and nervous”). 2% of students used words with more negative connotations, such as “anxious” or “uninspired”. After the students arrived on campus and participated in a first-year program of interest, they were invited to participate in a focus group. Focus groups were also held with upper-level (junior and senior) students to assess the longevity of the impact of the first-year program. In these focus groups, students discussed their feelings upon being accepted to the university, upon starting at the university, and their most recent feelings about being a student at the university and in the engineering program. The findings from this portion of the study were then considered in the context of the survey responses, in order to illuminate how students’ feelings about being an engineering student might change from before they start an engineering program, to one to two months into the program, and one to two years into the program. [1] E. National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, Supporting students’ college success: The role of assessment of intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies. National Academies Press, 2017. [2] E. T. Pascarella and P. T. Terenzini, How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. ERIC, 2005. [3] M. Weber, L. Wagner, and W. Ruch, “Positive feelings at school: On the relationships between students’ character strengths, school-related affect, and school functioning,” J. Happiness Stud., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 341–355, 2016.
Back to Top Top