Learning from Digital Natives: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning. Final Report

Overview This report suggests that students are increasingly making use of a variety of etools (such as mobile phones, email, MSN, digital cameras, games consoles and social networking sites) to support their informal learning within formalised educational settings, and that they use the tools that they have available if none are provided for them. Therefore, higher education institutions should encourage the use of these tools. Aims and background This study aimed to explore how e-tools (such as mobile phones, email, MSN, digital cameras, games consoles and social networking sites) and the processes that underpin their use can support learning within educational institutions and help improve the quality of students’ experiences of learning in higher education (pgs 9-11). Methodology The study entailed: (i) desk research to identify related international research and practice and examples of integration of e-tools and learning processes in formal educational settings; (ii) a survey of 160 engineering and social work students across two contrasting Scottish universities (pre- and post-1992) – the University of Strathclyde and Glasgow Caledonian University – and follow-up interviews with eight students across the two subject areas to explore which technologies students were using for both learning and leisure activities within and outside the formal educational settings and how they would like to use such technologies to support their learning in both formal and informal settings; and (iii) interviews with eight members of staff from across the institutions and two subject areas to identify their perceptions of the educational value of the e-tools. (pgs 24-27). Key findings • Students reported making extensive use of a variety of both e-tools (such as mobile phones, email, MSN, digital cameras) and social networking tools (such as Bebo, MySpace, Wikipedia and YouTube) for informal socialisation, communication, information gathering, content creation and sharing, alongside using the institutionally provided technologies and learning environments. • Most of the students owned their own computer or had access to a sibling or parent’s computer. Many students owned a laptop but preferred not to bring it onto campus due to security concerns and because they found it too heavy to carry about. • Ownership of mobile phones was ubiquitous. • Whilst the students’ information searching literacy seemed adequate, the ability of these students to harness the power of social networking tools and informal processes for their learning was low. Staff reported using a few Web 2.0 and social software tools but they were generally less familiar with how these could be used to support learning and teaching. There were misconceptions surrounding the affordances of the tools and fears expressed about security and invasion of personal space. Considerations of the costs and the time it would take staff to develop their skills meant that there was a reluctance to take up new technologies at an institutional level. • Subject differences emerged in both staff and student perceptions as to which type of tools they would find most useful. Attitudes to Web 2.0 tools were different. Engineers were concerned with reliability, using institutional systems and inter-operability. Social workers were more flexible because they were focused on communication and professional needs. • The study concluded that digital tools, personal devices, social networking software and many of the other tools explored all have a large educational potential to support learning processing and teaching practices. Therefore, use of these tools and processes within institutions, amongst staff and students should be encouraged. • The report goes on to suggest ways in which the use of such technologies can help strengthen the links between informal and formal learning in higher education. The recommendations are grouped under four areas – pedagogical, socio-cultural, organisational and technological

Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning

This paper outlines the findings of a study investigating the extent and nature of use of digital technologies by undergraduate students in Social Work and Engineering, in two British universities. The study involved a questionnaire survey of students (n=160) followed by in-depth interviews with students (n=8) and lecturers and support staff (n=8) in both institutions. Firstly, the findings suggest that students use a limited range of technologies for both learning and socialisation. For learning, mainly established ICTs are used- institutional VLE, Google and Wikipedia and mobile phones. Students make limited, recreational use of social technologies such as media sharing tools and social networking sites. Secondly, the findings point to a low level of use of and familiarity with collaborative knowledge creation tools, virtual worlds, personal web publishing, and other emergent social technologies. Thirdly, the study did not find evidence to support the claims regarding students adopting radically different patterns of knowledge creation and sharing suggested by some previous studies. The study shows that students’ attitudes to learning appear to be influenced by the approaches adopted by their lecturers. Far from demanding lecturers change their practice, students appear to conform to fairly traditional pedagogies, albeit with minor uses of technology tools that deliver content. Despite both groups clearly using a rather limited range of technologies for learning, the results point to some age differences, with younger, engineering students making somewhat more active, albeit limited, use of tools than the older ones. The outcomes suggest that although the calls for radical transformations in educational approaches may be legitimate it would be misleading to ground the arguments for such change solely in students’ shifting expectations and patterns of learning and technology use

First-year interest groups and 1st semester BME design class exposure to improve engineering student outcomes

First year Biomedical Engineering (BME) students at The University of Texas at Austin have the option of joining a First-year Interest Group (FIG). FIGs can increase student interest and retention in the major by allowing groups of 15-20 students to attend a weekly seminar and their first engineering classes together. [1] BME 303L Introduction to BME Engineering Design is a required course for first year BME students; students who join a FIG facilitated by the BME advising office enroll in BME 303L together during their first semester (fall) on campus. Approximately 80% of fall semester BME 303L enrollment is FIG students, while the other 20% are not part of a BME FIG. The same course taught by the same instructor is also offered during the following spring semester, and spring enrollment is exclusively made up of first year students who did not participate in a fall FIG. While FIGs have been shown to increase retention[1] and we have observed a positive impact on attitudes toward engineering, we have not yet been able to correlate these successes to engineering student outcomes as defined by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). In order to better understand if the FIG success is correlated to engineering student outcomes, the authors surveyed all first year BME students at the end of the fall 2017 semester to measure their own perception of teamwork, communication skills, lifelong learning, and ability to use engineering tools. This paper presents initial results of the survey comparing engineering student outcome perceptions from students who just completed a FIG and BME 303L in the fall semester, and students who did not participate in FIG and are enrolled in BME 303L in the spring semester. These data will be used to optimize advising and curriculum for first year students and improve engineering outcomes for all students. Future surveys are planned for sophomore and junior years as well.Cockrell School of Engineerin

Project Controls and Management Systems : current practice and how it has changed over the past decade

Project Controls and Management System (PCMS) refers to an ecosystem of processes, tools and personnel required for the proper planning and execution of capital projects throughout the different phases of design, procurement, construction and startup. This can be divided into different focus areas (functions) that would include Estimating, Planning, Scheduling, Cost Control, Change Management, Progressing, and Forecasting. Various trends such as globalization, contractor specialization and information technology developments have impacted the way PCMS are implemented and made it the subject of extensive research over the past years to investigate how to best utilize those trends. Replicating the research methodology used in a 2011 report published by the Construction Research Institute (CII), this work aims to investigate the current status of PCMS implementation and how it has changed over the past decade. It was concluded that while the original PCMS principles are still valid, adoption has drastically changed in terms of efficiency for the majority of the functions. The research also identifies areas of potential concerns and provides recommendations for further improvement.Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineerin

SciTech News Volume 70, No. 4 (2016)

Columns and Reports From the Editor 3 Division News Science-Technology Division 4 SLA Annual Meeting 2016 Report (S. Kirk Cabeen Travel Stipend Award recipient) 6 Reflections on SLA Annual Meeting (Diane K. Foster International Student Travel Award recipient) 8 SLA Annual Meeting Report (Bonnie Hilditch International Librarian Award recipient)10 Chemistry Division 12 Engineering Division 15 Reflections from the 2016 SLA Conference (SPIE Digital Library Student Travel Stipend recipient)15 Fundamentals of Knowledge Management and Knowledge Services (IEEE Continuing Education Stipend recipient) 17 Makerspaces in Libraries: The Big Table, the Art Studio or Something Else? (by Jeremy Cusker) 19 Aerospace Section of the Engineering Division 21 Reviews Sci-Tech Book News Reviews 22 Advertisements IEEE 17 WeBuyBooks.net 2

Using the Internet of Things to Teach Good Software Engineering Practice to High School Students

This paper describes a course to introduce high school students to software engineering in practice using the Internet Of Things (IoT). IoT devices allow students to get quick, visible results without watering down technical aspects of programming and networking. The course has three broad goals: (1) to make software engineering fun and applicable, with the aim of recruiting traditionally underrepresented groups into computing; (2) to make young students begin to approach problems with a design mindset; and (3) to show students that computer science, generally, and software engineering, specifically, is about much more than programming. The course unfolds in three segments. The first is a whirlwind introduction to a subset of IoT technologies. Students complete a specific task (or set of tasks) using each technology. This segment culminates in a “do-it-yourself” project, in which the students implement a simple IoT application using their basic knowledge of the technologies. The course’s second segment introduces software engineering practices, again primarily via hands-on practical tutorials. In the third segment of the course, the students conceive of, design, and implement a project that uses the technologies introduced in the first segment, all while being attentive to the good software engineering practices acquired in the second segment. In addition to presenting the course curriculum, the paper also discusses a first offering of the course in a threeweek summer intensive program in 2017, including assessments done to evaluate the curriculum.Cockrell School of Engineerin