1887

Abstract

Engineering education cannot expect to meet the demands of a global, diverse, knowledge-society without addressing a well-established issue of student recruitment and retention. The dropout rate for engineering students is around 40% as shown in various studies of a national scope. This retention issue is particularly prevalent for freshman students, such as in general chemistry. Indicators suggest that lower-division engineering curriculum is not based upon the authentic practice of engineers, thus, not representative of the profession and not attractive to the widest possible population of students. To address this issue, the University of Florida is conducting a project to transform the freshman chemistry curriculum for engineering students to a more contextually relevant and engaging experience with rich context of workplace engineering (Transforming Chemistry with Cognitive Apprenticeship for Engineers - ChANgE Chem). This transformed curriculum situates energy and environmental as fundamental organizing principles in practical engineering problems, communicated as human-interest stories. Based on cognitive apprenticeship, we have developed a sequence of activities that emulate and make explicit, an engineer's way of thinking, knowing and working. In addition, we support student success with design elements that engage deep learning strategies that embody our understanding of effective learning. Organized around the three overarching themes of Design, Develop, and Test, this unique approach creates new learning materials and teaching strategies, develops faculty expertise, implements an educational innovation and assesses student achievement. This transformative curriculum contributes new knowledge about how to design for recruitment and retention, and the project advances our understanding of how people learn chemistry and develop the skills for addressing engineering design problems. This presentation will discuss the framework and creation of engineering mini-projects that complement the major chemistry lecture topics, and discuss the progress and challenges of implementing the mini-projects in weekly recitation sections.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.71
2015-08-29
2020-03-31
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/qproc/2015/4/qproc.2015.elc2014.71.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.71&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Crippen K, ChANgE CHem: Transforming Chemistry with Cognitive Apprenticeship for Engineers. 2014;, Available: https://crippen.education.ufl.edu/changechem/.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Donovan S, Bransford JD. How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2005.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press 1991.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Johri A, Olds BM. Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. J. Eng. Edu. 2011; 100::151185.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Rogoff B. Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press 1990.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR. How people learn brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Jonassen D, Strobel J, Lee CB. Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. J. Eng. Edu. 2006; 95::139151.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Zawojewski JSDiefes-Dux HABowman KJ, eds. Models and modeling in engineering education. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Modi K, Schoenberg J, Salmond K. Generation STEM: What girls say about science, technology, engineering, and math. New York, NY: Girl Scout Research Institute 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Litzinger T, Lattuca LR, Hadgraft R, Newstetter W. Engineering education and the development of expertise. J. Eng. Edu. 2011; 100::123150.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Sadler TD, Zeidler DL. Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2005; 42::112138.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Banks J, Cochran-Smith M, Moll L, Richert A, Zeichner K, LePage P. Teaching diverse learners. In Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA 2005;:232274.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Langdon D, McKittrick G, Beede D, Khan B, Doms M. STEM: Good jobs now and for the future. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ohland MW, Sheppard SD, Lichtenstein G, Eris O, Chachra D, Layton RA. Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. J. Eng. Edu. 2008; 97::259278.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Stevens R, O'Connor K, Garrison L, Jocuns A, Amos DM. Becoming an engineer: Toward a three dimensional view of engineering learning. J. Eng. Edu. 2008; 97::355368.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. PCAST. Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: White House 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Seymour E, Wiese DJ, Hunter A, Daffinrud SM. Creating a better mousetrap: On-line student assessment of their learning gains. Presented at the Ann. Meet. Amer. Chem. Soc.. San Francisco, CA, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Pintrich PR, Smith DAF, Garcia T, McKeachie WJ. Reliability and predictive-validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Edu. Psych. Measure. 1993; 53::801813.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Capobianco BM. Undergraduate women engineering their professional identities. J. Women Minor Sci Eng. 2006; 12::95117.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hazari Z, Potvin G, Lock RM, Lung F, Sonnert G, Sadler PM. Factors that affect the physical science career interest of female students: Testing five common hypotheses. Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Edu. Res. 2013; 9::8.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.71
Loading
/content/papers/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.71
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error