Creation, Development, and Delivery of a New Interactive First-Year Introduction to Engineering Course

Robinson, Brian; Hawkins, Nicholas; Lewis, James E.; Foreman, James

doi:10.18260/1-2--32564

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other articles were excluded because they were missing at least one of the three search terms. For instance, although Hecht et al (2014), Cornetta et al (2020), Robinson et al, (2019), Bill and Fayard (2018), Pfeiffer et al, (2019) and Tillinghast et al (2017) addressed STEM and makerspace aspects, they did not investigate them in relation to creativity. Other studies focused on creativity but were not conducted in a makerspace context (e.g., Bruhl & Klosky, 2020;Pucha et al, 2016;Schar et al, 2017).…”

Section: Article Inclusion and Exclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Makerspaces Fostering Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Makerspaces are gaining popularity in the educational activities of all age groups, from primary schools to higher education institutions, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Due to makerspaces’ hands-on learning approach, it is generally believed that learning in makerspaces influences students’ creative and thinking skills. Experiments have been performed to explore this relationship; however, they are limited to a particular type of makerspace and address only some aspects of creativity. Therefore, using a systematic literature review (SLR) approach, we attempted to understand the relationship between makerspaces and creativity in the context of STEM education. The SLR offers a holistic view of makerspaces fostering four aspects of creativity from primary to higher education. This SLR used three primary categories of terms in its search string: (i) makerspace and associated terms, (ii) creativity and innovation, and (iii) variants of the term “STEM.” Using the Summon meta-database, we searched 103 digital databases (including Scopus, IEEE, and ASEE). The initial search considered peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles and conference proceedings focusing on STEM disciplines published from 2000 to August 2021. After following the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews, 34 relevant papers remained eligible for inclusion. The selected papers were analyzed using thematic analysis. Various types of makerspaces show empirical evidence of fostering creativity. This review additionally identifies seven factors that foster creativity in a makerspace environment. These findings will be beneficial for applying makerspace tools and interventions to enhance creativity in the context of STEM disciplines.

show abstract

Section: Article Inclusion and Exclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Makerspaces Fostering Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Design activities include student mandates for designing, printing, and testing a motor mount that effectively houses student-constructed AC motors onto their windmill assembly (Figures 2-3)in which a set of related criteria and constraints are provided [16]. These constraints simulate design criteria for the student-created parts, such as material usage maximums and the interface with existing structures.…”

Section: Engr 111 Course Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Employment of Active Learning Pedagogy Throughout a Maker-Space-Based, First-Year Introduction to Engineering Course

Hawkins

Lewis

Robinson

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Complete Evidence-based Practice paper is focused on the development and implementation of active learning pedagogy applied within an introductory course in engineering fundamentals at the J. B. Speed School of Engineering (SSoE) at the University of Louisville (UofL). The course, titled Engineering Methods, Tools, and Practice II (ENGR 111), is the second component of a two-course sequence and is primarily focused on application and integration of fundamental engineering skills introduced and practiced in the first component of the sequence (ENGR 110). Fundamental skills integrated within ENGR 111 include 3D printing, basic research fundamentals, circuitry, communication, critical thinking, design, engineering ethics, hand tool usage, problem solving, programming, project management, teamwork, and technical writing. The course is required for all first-year SSoE students (no less than 450 per year) and is housed within and delivered via a 15,000 ft 2 makerspace. The ENGR 110/111 sequence is relatively new, resultant from the desire to restructure the previous iteration of the institution's introductory engineering course. A key motivational factor in the desire to restructure included aspiration(s) to conform to modern research in engineering education methodologies, especially the implementation of active learning.Active learning has been defined as "any instructional method that engages students in the learning process". Generally, active learning refers to activities that are introduced into the classroom, with the core elements of student activity and engagement in the learning process. In summary, active learning necessitates students to do meaningful learning activities in conjunction with thinking about what they are doing and why.In the Spring 2019 iteration of ENGR 111, students were surveyed a ten-point Likert scale on their intentions to continue pursuing an engineering major. Students were then instructed to answer a follow-up question that asked the degree of impact their ENGR 111 experience had on their answer to the previous question. Out of the 440 total students surveyed, over 80% expressed high levels (i.e. Likert values of 8-10) of intent to continue pursuit of engineering. For each of these respective identified high levels, no less than 72% stated that ENGR 111 had at least somewhat of an impact on these intentions.

show abstract

“…B. Speed School of Engineering at the University of Louisville (UofL), all engineering students are required to take a course titled Engineering Methods, Tools, and Practice II (ENGR 111) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. The ultimate goal of ENGR 111 is to instruct students in application and integration of institutionally-identified fundamental engineering skills that are introduced and practiced in the prerequisite Engineering Methods, Tools, and Practice I (ENGR 110) course.…”

Section: Course Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although a course based in active-learning, makerspace-based pedagogy is intuitively counter to remote implementation, the close vicinity of student team-based activities in addition to numerous shared tools, materials, supplies, and the like across various course sections fostered agreement amongst course leaders that a remote redesign of ENGR 111 was in the best overall interest of all personnel involved. Accordingly, a report focused on logistics involved in the ENGR 111 remote restructure, detailing modifications for some of the most challenging curriculum and/or features of remote accommodation (including teamwork, experimentation, design challenges, programming & circuitry, and the Cornerstone Project), was disseminated upon completion of the remote course iteration [7]. Given the unique circumstances, efforts in remote redesign were deemed overall satisfactory; supporting details are included in the following text.…”

Section: The Remote Iteration Of Engr 111mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specific details pertaining to survey items for PBU and IIE are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. As discussed in the Robinson et al study [7], the IIE survey items can be further grouped into a 2-subfactor structure consisting of pragmatic (useful, important) and/or affective (enjoyable) features. The results suggested that the remote iteration of ENGR 111 was overall effective in retaining similar student affective interest in engineering (versus the pre-COVID cohort).…”

Section: The Remote Iteration Of Engr 111mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing Various Pedagogical Features of Remote Versus In-Person Iterations of a First-Year Engineering, Makerspace Course

Robinson,

Tretter,

Hawkins

et al.

2023 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This evidence-based practice paper is a follow-up to an ASEE 2022 conference proceeding that was focused on the challenges in development, in addition to resulting student perceptions upon delivery, of a remote iteration (Spring 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic) of a conventionally hands-on, active learning-based makerspace course; of which employs integration and application of fundamental engineering skills and all institutional first-year engineering students are required to take. Specifically, this paper is focused on the ensuing iteration of the course (Spring 2022) in which students resumed in-person course execution, and aims to disseminate comparative resulting student perceptions on course features between the remote iteration versus the in-person iteration and, in some cases, the course iteration prior to the pandemic.At the conclusion of the 2022 (post-COVID) semester, more than 300 student participants were surveyed on respective perceptions in Perceived Belonging Uncertainty and Interest in Engineering. Resultant responses were then compared to responses to the same surveys conducted by pre-pandemic students in addition to students that experienced the course during the pandemic (in which students experienced the course under a remote environment). Student participants during the 2022 course iteration were further surveyed with a quantitative forced-choice ranking. Specifically, students were asked to rank pedagogical effectiveness of six select course features -3D modeling, circuitry, engineering design, programming, teamwork, and technical writingand these six features were predominantly determined by qualitative identification of effective and/or ineffective features by the (2021) remote cohort. Respective responses from the during-COVID cohort versus the post-COVID cohort were compared and assessed. Resultant implications, limitations, and revelations of these findings conclude this paper.

show abstract

Creation, Development, and Delivery of a New Interactive First-Year Introduction to Engineering Course

Abstract: A PhD student in Electrical and Computer Engineering, he received both his B.S. and M. Eng. from the University of Louisville in the same field. His research interests include power electronics and controls, as well as engineering education for first-year students.

Cited by 7 publications

References 1 publication

Makerspaces Fostering Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Makerspaces Fostering Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Employment of Active Learning Pedagogy Throughout a Maker-Space-Based, First-Year Introduction to Engineering Course

Assessing Various Pedagogical Features of Remote Versus In-Person Iterations of a First-Year Engineering, Makerspace Course

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About