Brook Sattler

Hackademia: building functional rather than accredited engineers

Hackademia is a semi-formal learning group that introduces largely non-technical students to basic technical skills by presenting them with open-ended challenges in a peer-based, collaborative environment. This project has two main goals: the near-end goal has been to use a collaborative design model to develop a working, scalable model for teaching engineering literacies in higher education, and the long-term goal is to create participatory opportunities for end-users to develop innovative technologies. This paper describes progress towards the short-term goal, and lessons learned from two years of work to develop a semi-structured educational experience influenced by participant desires. Hackademia leverages a participant-observer research model and participatory research methods such as autoethnographies, experience blogging, and semi-structured focus groups.

The learning experience: A literature review of the role of mobile technology

In this paper, we present key findings from a literature review on the use of mobile phones in learning (m-learning). As mobile technologies have become more widely adopted, societys communication practices have morphed accordingly. The literature review presented here examines the benefits and challenges associated with m-learning. The benefits of m-learning include a blending of formal and informal learning environments that open up new avenues of self service through experiential learning, while facilitating teamwork and community. While these benefits are intriguing, it is important to recognize that m-learning also poses challenges for educators and students alike. We examine educator and student buy-in, interface issues, and cost and infrastructure issues tied to cultural differences that present hurdles to the adoption of m-learning. We close with conclusions and suggestions for future research on m-learning.

What are the implications for teaching? An analysis of how educational implications are represented in engineering education

The objective of this work is to explore how implications for educational practice are represented in the scholarly literature of engineering education. This work is motivated by the increasing urgency to understand how research can be used to transform educational practice. Because scholarly writing (such as conference papers and journal articles) represents one place where researchers articulate ideas about how their research can be used (i.e., educational implications), an analysis of how such implications are represented can provide insight into ideas about the uses we imagine for our research. Once we have characterized the vision of use, we can step back and think about whether the collective vision we present may provide clues to the more general issue of transforming education.

From fragmentation to continuity: engineering students making sense of experience through the development of a professional portfolio

Experience is commonly held to be essential for learning, especially in a professional discipline like engineering. However experiences, if unexamined, are not necessarily educative. This article explores the potential to fully claim prior experience as educative through the development of a professional portfolio. Eleven students developed portfolios and participated in qualitative interviews. The findings revealed that these students added educative value to their prior experiences in this process.

Work in progress — Developing a graduate consortium in engineering education

Graduate students engaged in engineering education research have always informally networked in small clusters at engineering education themed conferences. As the graduate student population has grown, so too has a widespread desire to develop a larger, more formalized student network. An effort supported by engineering education faculty and interested graduate students is currently underway to create a formal consortium to network and support students. This paper provides a brief overview of the tentatively planned programs and events that demonstrate the progress to date of the Graduate Engineering Education Consortium for Students (GEECS). Presenting our early development is intended to provide a basis for our decisions to date. Exhibition of the consortium through this media also intends to raise awareness and attract other students who may not be aware of the planned consortium and the benefits and resources that it may provide to enhance their experience.

How do engineering educators take student difference into account

This paper addresses the extent to which, and the ways in which, engineering educators take student differences into account when making teaching-related decisions. We have found that educators deal with multiple types of student differences, although rarely in the way research recommends (e.g., focusing on learning styles). More often, educators differentiate students in terms of class standing, level of interest in a subject matter, and behavior. Our findings, illustrated by three case studies, demonstrate a variety of ways in which educators differentiate students. Generally, data such as this works against the perception that engineering educators at research universities are not taking into account educationally relevant student differences. However, to improve engineering education we should recognize and learn from the ways in which educators differentiate their students.

The Real World: A Factor That Engineering Faculty Consider in Making Decisions About Teaching

This paper describes a critical decision method (CDM) study for investigating the phenomenon of teaching-related decision-making in engineering education. We interviewed 33 engineering faculty using this method and asked them to identify two memorable, recent teaching-related decisions: one pre-active (planning) decision and one interactive (in-class) decision. Faculty described the situation, the process of making the decision, the factors that they took into account, and their level of satisfaction with the outcomes of their teaching-related decision. In this paper, we focus on one specific factor that emerged across the majority of the interviews: the real world. We present ways in which faculty referred to the real world, and more specifically preparing students for professional practice, when making decisions about their teaching. Three themes provided insight regarding the participants’ beliefs about this concept; that the real world is hands-on, defineable in terms of professional standards, and that addressing it explicitly in teaching involves trade-offs.Copyright

Reasoning About Categorical Data: Multiway Plots as Useful Research Tools

To explore the general question of ways to help educators become more reflective, this paper focuses on the proposition that one way to help educators be more reflective is to give them an opportunity to discuss (or be interviewed about) an activity they do with students. To address this proposition, we use a “multiple perspectives methodology” featuring essays from seven educators about their experiences of being interviewed about a reflection activity they have done with students. The educators’ essays suggest that the interviews were experienced as (1) a reflection opportunity, (2) a chance to reflect on the activity that was the focus of the interview, (3) a chance to reflect on reflection as an educational activity, and (4) a chance to bridge reflection and other points of personal interest. The results presented in this paper provide a basis for suggesting that interviewing educators about activities they use with students is a promising way to support educator reflection.

Designing and refining reflection activities for engineering education

This special session will provide participants with the opportunity to: (1) gain a deeper understanding of the nature, significance, and complexities associated with the use of reflection in engineering education, (2) engage with other engineering educators around the issues and challenges of reflection, (3) become familiar with a framework for characterizing reflection and identifying reflection activities, and (4) work with other engineering educators to design/develop reflection activities that may be appropriate to specific educational contexts.