This study explores different pedagogical methods to understand what motivates undergraduate and graduate engineering students to read more thoroughly, deeply and with greater criticality. It analyzes three associated activities that were intended to encourage reading: a summary of the readings, an online discussion board and a student-led discussion. The study explores questions about the amount and depth of reading, and students’ perceptions of the value of the readings and associated activities. Data was collected using the following methods: student questionnaires and focus groups, TA and instructor reflections, end of course evaluations and student grades. The results indicate thatthe associated assignments encouraged students to read more and motivated the students to read with more depth and criticality. Overall, the students had a positive perception of the readings and assignments, but they also identified pedagogical improvements that would have encouraged them to be more engaged with the reading material. The results of this research show that the associated activities in all three iterations of the undergraduate course increased reading compliance. The online discussion activities increased the depth of reading more than the summary assignment, though the discussion students read less of the entire reading weekly. The overall student perception of the reading assignment was that the assignment was good but could be made more effective with some changes. Future iterations of the courses could include new pedagogical strategies with interactive components to increase depth and engagement.
{"title":"Pedagogical Strategies for Enhancing the Outcomes of Weekly Readings","authors":"Sarah Garner, Vivian Neal","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15912","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15912","url":null,"abstract":"This study explores different pedagogical methods to understand what motivates undergraduate and graduate engineering students to read more thoroughly, deeply and with greater criticality. It analyzes three associated activities that were intended to encourage reading: a summary of the readings, an online discussion board and a student-led discussion. The study explores questions about the amount and depth of reading, and students’ perceptions of the value of the readings and associated activities. Data was collected using the following methods: student questionnaires and focus groups, TA and instructor reflections, end of course evaluations and student grades. The results indicate thatthe associated assignments encouraged students to read more and motivated the students to read with more depth and criticality. Overall, the students had a positive perception of the readings and assignments, but they also identified pedagogical improvements that would have encouraged them to be more engaged with the reading material. The results of this research show that the associated activities in all three iterations of the undergraduate course increased reading compliance. The online discussion activities increased the depth of reading more than the summary assignment, though the discussion students read less of the entire reading weekly. The overall student perception of the reading assignment was that the assignment was good but could be made more effective with some changes. Future iterations of the courses could include new pedagogical strategies with interactive components to increase depth and engagement.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121337886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nadine Ibrahim, C. Variawa, Shelir Ebrahimi, Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Gabriel Potvin, Renato Bezerra Rodrigues
The understanding of how engineering education might evolve to prepare future students for the opportunities and challenges that society will face is of great interest to educators and to the engineering profession. A special interest group of the CEEA-ACÉG was formed in 2017 with a mandate to facilitate the discussion on the identity and attributes of the Engineer of 2050. Among its other activities, this group ran three workshops (in 2017, 2018 and 2021) in which participants answered prompts on their vision of the future of the engineering profession, and the associated changes in engineering education necessary to train competent future engineers. This paper presents the results of a qualitative content analysis of the responses to these prompts, to highlight recurring themes and trends, and suggest some areas warranting further discussion or investigation. This work is intended to serve as a foundation on which the work of the special interest group can build in the coming years.
{"title":"Engineer of 2050: Thematic Analysis of CEEA-ACEG Workshop Provocations and Reflections","authors":"Nadine Ibrahim, C. Variawa, Shelir Ebrahimi, Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Gabriel Potvin, Renato Bezerra Rodrigues","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15930","url":null,"abstract":"The understanding of how engineering education might evolve to prepare future students for the opportunities and challenges that society will face is of great interest to educators and to the engineering profession. A special interest group of the CEEA-ACÉG was formed in 2017 with a mandate to facilitate the discussion on the identity and attributes of the Engineer of 2050. Among its other activities, this group ran three workshops (in 2017, 2018 and 2021) in which participants answered prompts on their vision of the future of the engineering profession, and the associated changes in engineering education necessary to train competent future engineers. This paper presents the results of a qualitative content analysis of the responses to these prompts, to highlight recurring themes and trends, and suggest some areas warranting further discussion or investigation. This work is intended to serve as a foundation on which the work of the special interest group can build in the coming years.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126524448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In response to the contagious disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a number of health and safety measures were enacted across Canada in March 2020. These measures included the physical closure of postsecondary institutions, including the authors’ institution Carleton University. The physical closure resulted in an abrupt transition from normal in-person teaching to emergency remote teaching (the term emergency remote teaching is used to distinguish it from online teaching, which is not subject to the challenges and constraints associated with an emergency situation). Emergency remote teaching continued at Carleton University for the entire 2020/21 academic year. There were increased resources, training opportunities, supports, and time to prepare for teaching, as compared to the sudden change in the Winter 2020 term. Simultaneously, there were still many ongoing challenges and constraints in the pursuit of optimal remote teaching and learning. Midway through the Fall 2020 term, a questionnaire on the student experience with emergency remote teaching was developed and delivered to undergraduate students in the Department of Systems and Computer Engineering at Carleton University. This paper presents the findings of this questionnaire from the 159 respondents. Results suggest that, on average, academic and intellectual student engagement was slightly worse for emergency remote teaching versus normal in-person teaching. Emergency remote teaching posed some difficulties and challenges, but also provided some advantages that were preferred (e.g., less travel time, ability to rewatch asynchronous lectures). There was a notable worsening of social student engagement, which was associated with increased feelings of isolation and decreased mental health and well-being. There was also a number of students who faced technical barriers with respect to remote teaching, with only 22% indicating that they experienced few or inconsequential technical barriers. This research adds to the discourse on emergency remote teaching, including the lens of engineering education. The paper can help inform future transitions to emergency remote teaching, with some insights potentially useful for online teaching, which is anticipated to continue to increase in its prevalence.
{"title":"Student Experience of Emergency Remote Teaching During COVID-19 Early in the 2020/21 Academic Year","authors":"A. Chan, Kay Daigle","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15828","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15828","url":null,"abstract":"In response to the contagious disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a number of health and safety measures were enacted across Canada in March 2020. These measures included the physical closure of postsecondary institutions, including the authors’ institution Carleton University. The physical closure resulted in an abrupt transition from normal in-person teaching to emergency remote teaching (the term emergency remote teaching is used to distinguish it from online teaching, which is not subject to the challenges and constraints associated with an emergency situation).\u0000Emergency remote teaching continued at Carleton University for the entire 2020/21 academic year. There were increased resources, training opportunities, supports, and time to prepare for teaching, as compared to the sudden change in the Winter 2020 term. Simultaneously, there were still many ongoing challenges and constraints in the pursuit of optimal remote teaching and learning. Midway through the Fall 2020 term, a questionnaire on the student experience with emergency remote teaching was developed and delivered to undergraduate students in the Department of Systems and Computer Engineering at Carleton University. This paper presents the findings of this questionnaire from the 159 respondents.\u0000Results suggest that, on average, academic and intellectual student engagement was slightly worse for emergency remote teaching versus normal in-person teaching. Emergency remote teaching posed some difficulties and challenges, but also provided some advantages that were preferred (e.g., less travel time, ability to rewatch asynchronous lectures). There was a notable worsening of social student engagement, which was associated with increased feelings of isolation and decreased mental health and well-being. There was also a number of students who faced technical barriers with respect to remote teaching, with only 22% indicating that they experienced few or inconsequential technical barriers.\u0000This research adds to the discourse on emergency remote teaching, including the lens of engineering education. The paper can help inform future transitions to emergency remote teaching, with some insights potentially useful for online teaching, which is anticipated to continue to increase in its prevalence.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125543214","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kari Zacharias, Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Nettie Wallace, Kate Mercer
This paper reports the findings of an initial literature and website search of land-based education initiatives in Canadian post-secondary institutions. This work represents the first stage of a larger project, which aims to gather information about existing land-based education within Canadian post-secondary institutions and develop land-based curriculum for engineering students. The paper begins with a discussion of truth, reconciliation, Indigenization and decolonization in the context of education and land-based learning. It continues by presenting the authors’ positionalities, and then methods and findings. Preliminary findings from the initial search show that land-based approaches do not appear to be widespread within engineering faculties, programs, or courses in Canada. Additionally, more diversified knowledge gathering is required to better understand the current landscape of land education within Canadian post-secondary institutions.
{"title":"Surveying Land-Based Learning for Engineering Education: Preliminary Steps","authors":"Kari Zacharias, Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Nettie Wallace, Kate Mercer","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15942","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15942","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reports the findings of an initial literature and website search of land-based education initiatives in Canadian post-secondary institutions. This work represents the first stage of a larger project, which aims to gather information about existing land-based education within Canadian post-secondary institutions and develop land-based curriculum for engineering students. The paper begins with a discussion of truth, reconciliation, Indigenization and decolonization in the context of education and land-based learning. It continues by presenting the authors’ positionalities, and then methods and findings. Preliminary findings from the initial search show that land-based approaches do not appear to be widespread within engineering faculties, programs, or courses in Canada. Additionally, more diversified knowledge gathering is required to better understand the current landscape of land education within Canadian post-secondary institutions.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121926786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper is about using the online environment to increase engagement in design and instilling a recognition of the importance of life long learning. The work assesses changes in the delivery of a 4th year nuclear engineering design course and evaluates changes in the delivery of the course as it migrated from face to face to hybrid to online. In particular, the design review process was used to enhance engagement of the student body and a lessons learned exercise was used to enhance reflection on life long learning. The engagement is assessed in terms of class attendance, activity within the learning management system, and direct engagement in the design review process. The design review process requires each student to both present a design and to critique another group’s design. The design work is done as a team but the critique is done as an individual paralleling the industry process currently in use for the nuclear sector. In addition to the technical details, the performance of each student with respect to their soft skills is also assessed. This includes the number of students that actively engage or passively engage during both presentation and critique stages. Following the design review process, the students then engage in a lessons learned activity similar to what is done in the industry but simplified to focus on their experience. The activity also included an opportunity to reflect on themselves and establish a life long learning plan to address their personal findings. Note the paper will not discuss the personal findings specifically but instead will comment on the engagement of the students. Before using online approaches, the students fell into two distinct groups. One set was strongly active in the design review process and the other set was strongly resistive to participation and did the minimum necessary to get through the exercise. It was very clear that many students felt uncomfortable speaking openly in front of others. This changed significantly with the use of online technology. There was a significant increase in the number of students that engaged or at least felt comfortable to speak in the online setting. Some students displayed perhaps too much comfort in working from their personal environment space. This observation was also noted in the lessons learned exercise where the students went from saying the minimum necessary to having a large amount of insightful comments to make. The results suggest that allowing online participation in the experience has encouraged engagement of students that would resist a face to face experience.
{"title":"Using online to enhance student engagement of design reviews and lessons learned experiences","authors":"G. Harvel","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15922","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15922","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is about using the online environment to increase engagement in design and instilling a recognition of the importance of life long learning. The work assesses changes in the delivery of a 4th year nuclear engineering design course and evaluates changes in the delivery of the course as it migrated from face to face to hybrid to online. In particular, the design review process was used to enhance engagement of the student body and a lessons learned exercise was used to enhance reflection on life long learning. The engagement is assessed in terms of class attendance, activity within the learning management system, and direct engagement in the design review process. The design review process requires each student to both present a design and to critique another group’s design. The design work is done as a team but the critique is done as an individual paralleling the industry process currently in use for the nuclear sector. In addition to the technical details, the performance of each student with respect to their soft skills is also assessed. This includes the number of students that actively engage or passively engage during both presentation and critique stages. Following the design review process, the students then engage in a lessons learned activity similar to what is done in the industry but simplified to focus on their experience. The activity also included an opportunity to reflect on themselves and establish a life long learning plan to address their personal findings. Note the paper will not discuss the personal findings specifically but instead will comment on the engagement of the students. Before using online approaches, the students fell into two distinct groups. One set was strongly active in the design review process and the other set was strongly resistive to participation and did the minimum necessary to get through the exercise. It was very clear that many students felt uncomfortable speaking openly in front of others. This changed significantly with the use of online technology. There was a significant increase in the number of students that engaged or at least felt comfortable to speak in the online setting. Some students displayed perhaps too much comfort in working from their personal environment space. This observation was also noted in the lessons learned exercise where the students went from saying the minimum necessary to having a large amount of insightful comments to make. The results suggest that allowing online participation in the experience has encouraged engagement of students that would resist a face to face experience.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124903160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Johnson poses the question, “what does it mean to be a responsible engineer?” Characteristics could be wide-ranging. Engineers Canada helps by defining graduate attributes (GAs). All GAs are important. However, GA-9 “impact(s) of engineering on society and the environment” is one characteristic that this author proposes is fundamental. The idea of sustainable design and development has seen increasing conversation and engagement in our field in recent years. With initiatives such as the United Nations (UN) “decade of action (DoA),” engineers have the innate responsibility to help deliver the promise of positively transforming our world by 2030 and beyond. Exposing engineering learners to individual and collaborative knowledge-building experiences around the idea of sustainability, and what it means to be sustainable citizens may assist. It could be as we engineers become more knowledgeable in this realm, so too might everyday citizens in their interactions with our creations. Reflecting on Quan-Haase’s idea of technology as society, relating to the idea that society advancements are in large part intertwined with advancements in technology, software engineers may have a significant role to play. This role could include the engineering of community-based computer technologies that engage citizens in knowledge-creating activities towards the betterment and well-being of society. This work explores the following questions. Can inspiration towards becoming a responsible engineer be instilled in engineering learners in academia? Can this be accomplished by facilitating a learning experience that immerses engineering learners in researching and exploring the design and development of computer technologies in support of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? Through resulting explorations, might both learners and everyday citizens who interact with the engineered creations be better equipped to participate in the UNs DoA, and beyond? This paper will describe a software systems engineering course at the University of Regina that facilitated a learning experience around these questions. A discussion regarding the structure of the course, its educational content, and results and feedback obtained on the learner experience will be provided. As well, ideas for continued exploration of this work will be discussed.
{"title":"Exploration in Facilitating Learning Experiences Towards Inspiring Responsible Software Engineers","authors":"Timothy Maciag","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15837","url":null,"abstract":"Johnson poses the question, “what does it mean to be a responsible engineer?” Characteristics could be wide-ranging. Engineers Canada helps by defining graduate attributes (GAs). All GAs are important. However, GA-9 “impact(s) of engineering on society and the environment” is one characteristic that this author proposes is fundamental. The idea of sustainable design and development has seen increasing conversation and engagement in our field in recent years. With initiatives such as the United Nations (UN) “decade of action (DoA),” engineers have the innate responsibility to help deliver the promise of positively transforming our world by 2030 and beyond. Exposing engineering learners to individual and collaborative knowledge-building experiences around the idea of sustainability, and what it means to be sustainable citizens may assist. It could be as we engineers become more knowledgeable in this realm, so too might everyday citizens in their interactions with our creations. Reflecting on Quan-Haase’s idea of technology as society, relating to the idea that society advancements are in large part intertwined with advancements in technology, software engineers may have a significant role to play. This role could include the engineering of community-based computer technologies that engage citizens in knowledge-creating activities towards the betterment and well-being of society. This work explores the following questions. Can inspiration towards becoming a responsible engineer be instilled in engineering learners in academia? Can this be accomplished by facilitating a learning experience that immerses engineering learners in researching and exploring the design and development of computer technologies in support of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? Through resulting explorations, might both learners and everyday citizens who interact with the engineered creations be better equipped to participate in the UNs DoA, and beyond? This paper will describe a software systems engineering course at the University of Regina that facilitated a learning experience around these questions. A discussion regarding the structure of the course, its educational content, and results and feedback obtained on the learner experience will be provided. As well, ideas for continued exploration of this work will be discussed.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129715166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the present era, only competent graduates can survive in the global economy. The Washington accord suggested twelve graduate attributes essential for competent engineering graduates. Various accreditation agencies measure the competency of engineering graduates in terms of these graduate attributes. This paper presented the perception of academicians’ and industry professionals’ regarding the most important skill needed for a competent engineering graduates. Also, the paper discussed how far the present undergraduate engineering curriculum prepares the engineering graduates to be industry ready. Identification of the most important skill needed for engineering graduate is done by employing one of the multi criteria decision method called Analytical hierarchy process (AHP). AHP incorporates several criteria and order of preference in evaluating and selecting the best option among many alternatives based on the desired outcome. The responses from academicians as well as industry professionals from Civil Engineering stream in Kerala, India were collected. The criteria weights were determined based on the procedure given by Saaty. The consistency index values reinforced the reliability of judgment. The study showcased that problem solving skill and teamwork are the most important skill needed for an engineering graduate from academicians’ viewpoint. According to industry professionals, engineering knowledge is more important than problem solving skills. Also, in the present study academicians and industry professionals unanimously suggested the revision of curriculum, internships for students, the collaboration between academicians and industry professionals both in academia and industry, exposure of students to real world problems are some of the means to develop competency in Civil Engineering graduates.
{"title":"Analyzing the Employability Skills of Engineering Graduates using AHP Techniques - A Case Study of Kerala State in India.","authors":"E. Suresh, Beena B.R.","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15882","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15882","url":null,"abstract":"In the present era, only competent graduates can survive in the global economy. The Washington accord suggested twelve graduate attributes essential for competent engineering graduates. Various accreditation agencies measure the competency of engineering graduates in terms of these graduate attributes. This paper presented the perception of academicians’ and industry professionals’ regarding the most important skill needed for a competent engineering graduates. Also, the paper discussed how far the present undergraduate engineering curriculum prepares the engineering graduates to be industry ready. Identification of the most important skill needed for engineering graduate is done by employing one of the multi criteria decision method called Analytical hierarchy process (AHP). AHP incorporates several criteria and order of preference in evaluating and selecting the best option among many alternatives based on the desired outcome. The responses from academicians as well as industry professionals from Civil Engineering stream in Kerala, India were collected. The criteria weights were determined based on the procedure given by Saaty. The consistency index values reinforced the reliability of judgment. The study showcased that problem solving skill and teamwork are the most important skill needed for an engineering graduate from academicians’ viewpoint. According to industry professionals, engineering knowledge is more important than problem solving skills. Also, in the present study academicians and industry professionals unanimously suggested the revision of curriculum, internships for students, the collaboration between academicians and industry professionals both in academia and industry, exposure of students to real world problems are some of the means to develop competency in Civil Engineering graduates.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134192461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This practice paper describes the design and implementation of a “one shot” redesign of an introductory programming course intended to support students both in developing programming and coding skills, and in obtaining a software development position in a competitive hiring environment. The technological and pedagogical approaches used in this course were drawn from a combination of the archaic (e.g. command lines; shell scripting; and, console graphics) and the emerging modern (e.g. multilingual instruction; “Pythonic C++”; and, a code review exam). This paper discusses each approach and design feature of the course in terms of its pedagogical objectives; setup and implementation; operational challenges; and, perceived impact on student learning and both student and instructor experience.
{"title":"Integrating the Modern and the Archaic in an Introductory Programming Course - C++ 20; the Command Line; Multilingual Coding; and a Code Review Exam","authors":"Jason A. Foster","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15943","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15943","url":null,"abstract":"This practice paper describes the design and implementation of a “one shot” redesign of an introductory programming course intended to support students both in developing programming and coding skills, and in obtaining a software development position in a competitive hiring environment. The technological and pedagogical approaches used in this course were drawn from a combination of the archaic (e.g. command lines; shell scripting; and, console graphics) and the emerging modern (e.g. multilingual instruction; “Pythonic C++”; and, a code review exam). This paper discusses each approach and design feature of the course in terms of its pedagogical objectives; setup and implementation; operational challenges; and, perceived impact on student learning and both student and instructor experience.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133940324","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ghada Nafie, Giuseppe Antonio Rosi, A. Mai, Kim Johnston
Schulich has undergone a dramatic transformation of its first-year engineering cohort from a traditional delivery method to a flipped classroom. That is, course material is delivered online and class time is effectively used for active learning sessions. However, the majority of legacy first-year course content needs adaptation to fit this model, which aims at maximizing student learning and creativity. Active learning engages students and promotes analytical problem solving, critical thinking, and develops an understanding geared towards the application of the material. The necessary scaffolding to achieve this mission is a large undertaking but the added value for students is immense. We provide evidence that supports our goals and describe and reflect on seven practices implemented by our teaching team to over 500 students in 6 sections including one remote block. Active learning represents huge shifts for both instructors and students. This study aims to provide insight to those who are exploring a transition towards an active learning approach that utilizes instructor teaching teams, and more individualized support for students’ learning.
{"title":"Building Engineering Fundamentals in an Active Learning Environment","authors":"Ghada Nafie, Giuseppe Antonio Rosi, A. Mai, Kim Johnston","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15944","url":null,"abstract":"Schulich has undergone a dramatic transformation of its first-year engineering cohort from a traditional delivery method to a flipped classroom. That is, course material is delivered online and class time is effectively used for active learning sessions. However, the majority of legacy first-year course content needs adaptation to fit this model, which aims at maximizing student learning and creativity. Active learning engages students and promotes analytical problem solving, critical thinking, and develops an understanding geared towards the application of the material. The necessary scaffolding to achieve this mission is a large undertaking but the added value for students is immense. We provide evidence that supports our goals and describe and reflect on seven practices implemented by our teaching team to over 500 students in 6 sections including one remote block. Active learning represents huge shifts for both instructors and students. This study aims to provide insight to those who are exploring a transition towards an active learning approach that utilizes instructor teaching teams, and more individualized support for students’ learning.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126717669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Randy Herrmann, Reed Forrest, K. Monkman
This practice paper introduces a new course designed by one Indigenous and one non-Indigenous engineering educator at the University of Manitoba to decolonize and Indigenize engineering. Working with an Indigenous teaching assistant, and supported by a doctoral student auditing the course, we facilitated a small group of Indigenous and non-Indigenous engineering students to think critically about making place and space for Indigenous Peoples and worldviews in engineering. Here, we share the course design, our reflections on the course, and our plans going forward. Our initiative is one answer the Calls to Action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada to learn the truth about Canada as colonizer and use education as a tool for reconciliation. In doing so, we aim to provide engineering students with knowledges and perspectives for working successfully with First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples and communities in engineering practice in Manitoba, and in Canada.
{"title":"Decolonizing and Indigenizing Engineering: The Design & Implementation of a New Course","authors":"Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Randy Herrmann, Reed Forrest, K. Monkman","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15886","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15886","url":null,"abstract":"This practice paper introduces a new course designed by one Indigenous and one non-Indigenous engineering educator at the University of Manitoba to decolonize and Indigenize engineering. Working with an Indigenous teaching assistant, and supported by a doctoral student auditing the course, we facilitated a small group of Indigenous and non-Indigenous engineering students to think critically about making place and space for Indigenous Peoples and worldviews in engineering. Here, we share the course design, our reflections on the course, and our plans going forward. Our initiative is one answer the Calls to Action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada to learn the truth about Canada as colonizer and use education as a tool for reconciliation. In doing so, we aim to provide engineering students with knowledges and perspectives for working successfully with First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples and communities in engineering practice in Manitoba, and in Canada.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"183 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134271537","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：