Improving Student Attainment of ABET Outcomes Using Model-Eliciting Activities

Improving Student Attainment of ABET Outcomes Using Model- Eliciting Activities (MEAs)Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) are a proven educational methodology for presentingcomplex, realistic, open-ended problems to students. However, the methodology can also beused for classroom assessment. MEAs were originally developed by mathematics educationresearchers but have recently seen increased use in engineering curricula. These posed, realisticscenarios require the student team to provide a generalizable model as a solution. While researchhas demonstrated that they improve student problem solving and modeling skills as well asincrease their understanding of course concepts, we have identified additional benefits of wellconstructed MEAs in the engineering classroom. In particular, they can be used to improvestudents’ knowledge and understanding of important professional skills including professionaland ethical responsibility, understanding the impact of engineering solutions in a global andsocietal context, communication, as well as teamwork. Several experiments were conducted inindustrial engineering courses in which students in sections using MEAs were compared toparallel sections in which MEAs were not used. A series of assessments were performedincluding pre and post concept tests and student course evaluations. Analysis was also doneusing student reflections recorded after completing MEAs. Students’ in sections of the coursesthat used MEAs rated their knowledge and understanding of these professional skills higher thanstudents in sections that did not use the MEAs. We suggest that engineering should seriouslyconsider using MEAs as a tool to improve both student learning and the attainment of a numberof ABET outcomes as well as a means for assessing that attainment. This should proveespecially helpful in those areas where previous assessments may have shown weaknesses orinadequate attainment

CCLI: Model Eliciting Activities: Experiments and Mixed Methods to Assess Student Learning – Part II

As part of a seven university CCLI* Type 3 collaborative effort focused on models and modeling, we have extended the model eliciting activity (MEA) construct to upper division engineering programs. Originally developed and validated by mathematics education researchers, MEAs were found to have significant value as an educational tool. In particular, our overall goal has been to use this construct as a means for enhancing engineering students‟ problem solving and modeling skills as well as their conceptual understanding of certain engineering topics. Specifically,we have pursued two main research avenues: MEAs as teaching tools and MEAs as learning assessment tools. This paper summarizes our results for these two research thrusts as we enter our fourth project year. Particular emphasis is placed on our mixed measurements for student learning and achievement, and an examination of the relative conceptual gain for a series of MEA experiments, including those where a comparison group was available

Improving Conceptual Learning in Engineering Economy using Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs)

This paper reports on an experiment conducted in an engineering economy course. Two sections of the course were taught by the same instructor, one incorporated three E-MEAs (Ethical Model-Eliciting Activities) to reinforce course concepts while the other was taught in the instructor's traditional manner. A concept inventory was given to students in both sections at the start and end of the semester. Results will be reported with a focus on determining whether the E-MEAs did in fact lead to improved student learning of specific economic analysis concepts and con-sideration of all relevant criteria (including ethical issues) in an economic analysis

Flipping Engineering Courses: A School Wide Initiative

In the 2013-2014 school year, we implemented the "flipped classroom" as part of an initiative to drive active learning, student engagement and enhanced learning in our school. The flipped courses consisted of freshman through senior engineering classes in introductory programming, statics/mechanics, mechanical design, bio-thermodynamics, facilities layout/material handling, and chemical engineering dynamics and modeling. In the flipped classroom, students watch video lectures beforehand to obtain the foundational knowledge and then demonstrate skills during class. Our study set out to address the following research questions: (1) Does the flipped classroom promote student engagement during class, and does it positively impact the classroom environment? (2) Is the flipped classroom associated with increased student achievement and learning of content? and (3) What strengths, benefits, and drawbacks do students perceive with the flipped classroom? To address these, we used a mixed methods approach, including environment and evaluation surveys, instructor interviews, exam and homework results, video access data, and structured classroom observation. Based on our use of the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI), we found evidence that flipped instruction can positively impact the classroom environment. We also used a behavioral observation protocol--the Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP)--to assess student engagement and involvement during class. We compared our results to a national TDOP study of 58 lecture-based STEM classrooms, formally demonstrating the advantages of our flipped classrooms. Behaviors such as student discussion and questions and problem solving were significantly higher in our flipped classrooms (p< 0.0001). Our pre-flip versus flip exam and homework results were mixed from a statistical improvement standpoint. However, based on instructor interviews we noted enhanced higher-order skills such as problem solving and deeper engagement and proficiency in some courses and with some students. Unfortunately, we encountered challenges with our freshman and seniors. The great majority of freshmen did not use the videos for first-time instruction. The seniors expressed resistance to and dissatisfaction with this instructional change. Both freshmen and seniors rated their classroom environments statistically lower than the sophomores and juniors did. We uncovered other instances in the literature of these challenges. Nonetheless, we believe that flipped instruction is a valuable approach for promoting engagement and learning. We discuss lessons learned, including the need to educate students about the expectations of the flipped classroom

A portal of educational resources: providing evidence for matching pedagogy with technology

The TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge) model presents the three types of knowledge that are necessary to implement a successful technology-based educational activity. It highlights how the intersections between TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge), PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) and TCK (Technological Content Knowledge) are not a sheer sum up of their components but new types of knowledge. This paper focuses on TPK, the intersection between technology knowledge and pedagogy knowledge – a crucial field of investigation. Actually, technology in education is not just an add-on but is literally reshaping teaching/learning paradigms. Technology modifies pedagogy and pedagogy dictates requirements to technology. In order to pursue this research, an empirical approach was taken, building a repository (back-end) and a portal (front-end) of about 300 real-life educational experiences run at school. Educational portals are not new, but they generally emphasise content. Instead, in our portal, technology and pedagogy take centre stage. Experiences are classified according to more than 30 categories (‘facets’) and more than 200 facet values, all revolving around the pedagogical implementation and the technology used. The portal (an innovative piece of technology) supports sophisticated ‘exploratory’ sessions of use, targeted at researchers (investigating the TPK intersection), teachers (looking for inspiration in their daily jobs) and decision makers (making decisions about the introduction of technology into schools)

Entrepreneurship Assessment in Higher Education: A Research Review for Engineering Education Researchers

BackgroundDespite the wide adoption of entrepreneurship by United States engineering programs, there have been few advances in how to measure the influences of entrepreneurial education on engineering students. We believe the inadequate growth in engineering entrepreneurship assessment research is due to the limited use of research emerging from the broader entrepreneurship education assessment community.PurposeThis paper explores entrepreneurship education assessment by documenting the current state of the research and identifying the theories, variables, and research designs most commonly used by the broader community. We then examine if and how these theories and constructs are used in engineering entrepreneurship education.Scope/MethodTwo literature databases, Scopus® and Proquest, were searched systematically for entrepreneurship education assessment research literature. This search yielded 2,841 unique papers. Once inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 359 empirical research papers were coded for study design, theory, variables measured, instruments, and validity and reliability.ConclusionsWhile there has been growth in entrepreneurship education assessment research, little exchange of ideas across the disciplines of business, engineering, and education is occurring. Nonempirical descriptions of programs outweigh empirical research, and these empirical studies focus on affective, rather than cognitive or behavioral, outcomes. This pattern within the larger entrepreneurship community is mirrored in engineering where the use of theoryâ based, validated entrepreneurship education assessment instruments generally focuses on the context of intent to start a new company. Given the engineering community’s goals to support engineering entrepreneurship beyond business creation, the engineering education community should consider developing assessment instruments based in theory and focused on engineeringâ specific entrepreneurship outcomes.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145556/1/jee20197.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145556/2/jee20197_am.pd

Comparing the Effectiveness of Blended, Semi-Flipped, and Flipped Formats in an Engineering Numerical Methods Course

Blended, flipped, and semi-flipped instructional approaches were used in various sections of a numerical methods course for undergraduate mechanical engineers. During the spring of 2014, a blended approach was used; in the summer of 2014, a combination of blended and flipped instruction was used to deliver a semi-flipped course; and in the fall of 2014, a fully-flipped approach was taken. Blended instruction aims to integrate technology-driven instruction with face-to-face learning and is often used to enhance the traditional lecture. With flipped instruction, students practice skills during class after viewing or/and reading lecture content beforehand. To directly assess these instructional methods, we compared multiple-choice and free response results from identical final exams. We did this for all students as well as demographic segments of interest to our research, including underrepresented minorities and transfer students. We uncovered several differences having medium to large effect sizes, suggesting that some degree of flipped instruction may have been more beneficial than blended learning for both lower and higher-order skills development. The students rated the classroom environment using Fraser\u27s College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI). The three classroom environments were statistically similar with small effect sizes. However, there was a trend in lower ratings for the flipped and semi-flipped classrooms versus the blended classroom across the various environmental dimensions. This may indicate that blended instruction had the most desirable classroom environment. Based on an evaluation survey, only 38% of respondents preferred flipped instruction to usual methods, although 54% preferred active learning to lecture. In an open-ended question, the most frequently-stated benefits of flipped instruction involved enhanced learning or learning processes, and engagement and professional behaviors. These results aligned with our focus group results. This study is believed to be one of the first to compare these three modalities in a STEM course