Search

The global pandemic of COVID-19 brought about the transition to Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) at higher education institutions across the United States, prompting both students and the faculty to rapidly adjust to a different modality of teaching and learning. Other crises have induced disruptions to academic continuity (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes), but not to the same extent as COVID-19, which has affected universities on a global scale. In this paper, we describe a qualitative case study where we interviewed 11 second-year Integrated Engineering students during the Spring 2020 semester to explore how they adapted to the transition to remote learning. Our results revealed several student challenges, how they used self-discipline strategies to overcome them, and how the faculty supported students in the classroom through a compassionate and flexible pedagogy. Faculty members showed compassion and flexibility by adjusting the curriculum and assessment and effectively communicating with students. This was especially important for the women participants in this study, who more frequently expressed utilizing pass/fail grading and the personal and gendered challenges they faced due to the pandemic. During this unprecedented crisis, we found that a key element for supporting students' well-being and success is the faculty members communicating care and incorporating flexibility into their courses.

Contribution: This work provides evidence of various approaches to studying longitudinal student unit record data in undergraduate education in the USA and the outcomes that can be realized using a large multi-institutional longitudinal dataset, Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD). Background: Cross-sectional studies introduce a variety of sources of error in estimating student pathways and outcomes. Longitudinal outcomes that ignore pathways also miss important information, and some populations are systematically excluded (such as transfer students). Intended Outcomes: By providing examples of how longitudinal student unit-record data can be analyzed and the results that can be expected, this work aims to deepen the research toolbox in engineering education. Findings: MIDFIELD is being used to support studies of demographic and financial trends among universities in the southeastern USA, required math and science course grades and disciplinary cultures, time to find graduation major, educational data mining, and applications of selected advanced models.

Supporting diverse students in engineering education is considered a critical unsolved issue facing engineering education. The field continues to suffer from a lack of diversity and struggles to recruit and retain underrepresented students. We argue that structural barriers prevent equitable participation. In this paper, we examine structural barriers - specifically racism and sexism - experienced by underrepresented students in engineering education and highlight useful interventions. We then call for action to improve and diversify educational pathways in engineering. Specifically, we call for and highlight examples of rethinking mindsets for research and instruction. Lastly, we call for the engineering education community to work together in changing the culture of engineering education while highlighting the key role of the allies.

The article discusses the SHARE framework for secondary qualitative data analysis in engineering education research. The authors advocate for SDA due to its benefits, such as reduced time to publication and increased data transparency. They emphasize the importance of ethical considerations, especially when working with data from marginalized populations. The article provides practical guidance for researchers conducting SDA and addresses frequently asked questions about the legitimacy, practicality, and ethics of SDA. The authors envision the SHARE principles as a dynamic tool to reshape the future of engineering education research through collaborative data analysis. [Extracted from the article]

The concept of electric current is fundamental in the study of electrical engineering (EE). Students are often exposed to this concept in their daily lives and early in middle school education. Lower-division university courses are usually limited to the study of passive electronic devices and simple electric circuits. Semiconductor physics is an upper-division course that presents the physics behind semiconductor devices in depth and exposes the students to microscale explanations of different types of current, such as drift and diffusion currents. This paper investigates how third-year college students majoring in EE link microscale and macroscale concepts of current, and what misconceptions they reveal after one quarter of advanced instruction in semiconductor physics. The interviewees were posed a problem, based on a distracting device structure that exposed student difficulties in defining current, charges and doping, and the plotting of current-voltage (I-V) characteristics. For example, some students had the naïve idea that current is the flow of a particular type of charge (i.e., only electrons or only holes) or that there is a "spectrum of doping." Almost all students drew a one-quadrant coordinate system for the I-V curves, which might imply that students think only about positive voltages. These findings can inform further studies to identify and address misconceptions in the important area of semiconductor device physics.

In the fall of 2022, we offered a pedagogically redesigned sociotechnical environmental engineering elective for junior and senior undergraduates that applied place-based and culturally sustaining pedagogies. The course featured a project designed to facilitate the celebration and leveraging of classroom geographic and cultural diversity to enhance student learning about water sustainability. We analyzed the students' written project reflections using an inductive thematic analysis to explore whether and how the project and pedagogical model augmented student learning. The primary themes that emerged included: (1) deepened knowledge of home and culture; (2) global conceptualizations; (3) re-evaluation of perceptions and beliefs (in terms of water sustainability and personal relationships with water); and (4) future-facing viewpoints. We consider each of these 'enhancements' to the student learning because they extend beyond the course objectives and explore the sociotechnical aspect of engineering. The purpose of this paper is to share the course and project model, our findings from its implementation, and suggestions on how this pedagogical framework could be adapted and scaled to expand the learning of a range of topics at different learner levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electrical Engineering (EE) and Computer Engineering (CpE) programs have similar curricula, but different demographics and student outcomes. This paper extends earlier longitudinal studies to a larger and more diverse dataset with 90,000 first-time-in-college and 26,000 transfer students who majored in engineering at USA institutions, including students who started in first-year engineering programs, those switching majors, and those transferring from other institutions. Black men and women and Asian men in engineering are strongly attracted to EE when they start in college. Black students and Asian and Hispanic men are attracted to CpE more than other engineering disciplines, but at lower rates than EE. Asian students have the highest graduation rates in EE. EE students are much more likely to graduate than CpE students. Compared to other engineering disciplines, CpE graduation rates are low for women of all races/ethnicities and Black men. Both EE and CpE lose many of those starting the programs, but switchers and transfers compensate for some of the loss. Considering Asian students and White men, switching to EE accounts for the high attrition rate from CpE, but attrition in other populations cannot be explained so easily. Trajectories of student enrollment differ by race/ethnicity. The approach used here could serve as a model for other fields studying their own demographic distributions.

Using a large multi-institutional dataset, we describe demographics and outcomes for students starting in and transferring into chemical engineering (ChE). In this dataset, men outnumber women in ChE except among black students. While ChE starters graduate in ChE at rates comparable to or above their racial/ethnic population average for engineering, women choose and graduate in ChE at similar or higher rates than men of the same race/ethnicity. Trajectories of ChE students differ by race/ethnicity, but gender differences are small compared with the differences by race/ethnicity and the gender differences observed for engineering as a whole and in other engineering disciplines.

An ethical and effective engineering practice is inherently place-responsive and designs for a sustainable future. Engineering students must therefore be educated within a sustainable and sociotechnical paradigm. In the spring of 2022, the integrated engineering department of the University of San Diego offered a new photovoltaic solar energy course for junior and senior students. Informed by place-based pedagogies and culturally sustaining pedagogies, we designed the course to be relevant to the students' lived experiences by coupling the learning about the technical elements of solar energy with a focus on solar energy projects and sustainability on campus. Prior to running the course, we identified four potential new solar investment/upgrade projects for the university. We divided the class into four teams, with each team assigned to assess the feasibility of a solar project through (1) social, (2) technical, (3) economic, and (4) environmental analyses. Finally, the students integrated their findings and made recommendations to key university stakeholders about how to proceed with solar energy investments on campus. In this paper, we share the course project design, our findings from implementing it, and ideas for adapting it to other place-based sustainability learning experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes the use of collaborative secondary data analysis (SDA) as a tool for building capacity in engineering education research. We first characterise the value of collaborative SDA as a tool to help emerging researchers develop skills in qualitative data analysis. We then describe an ongoing collaboration that involves a series of workshops as well as two pilot projects that seek to develop and test frameworks and practices for SDA in engineering education research. We identify emerging benefits and practical challenges associated with implementing SDA as a capacity building tool, and conclude with a discussion of future work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the spring of 2021, the University of San Diego's Department of Integrated Engineering taught the course, "Integrated Approach to Energy", the second offering of a new required course, to nine second-year engineering students. The sociotechnical course covered modern energy concepts, with an emphasis on renewable energies and sustainability, and it exposed the students to other ways of being, knowing, and doing that deviated from the dominant masculine Western White colonial discourse. Following the course completion, we interviewed five students by using a semistructured protocol to explore how they perceived of and communicated about engineers and engineering. We sought to identify the takeaways from their course exposure to sustainability and the sociotechnical paradigm, which were central to the course. The findings suggest that the students were beginning to form sociotechnical descriptions, and that they were still developing their understanding and perceptions of engineers and engineering. Moreover, we observed that they were still wrestling with how best to integrate sustainability into those perceptions. There was an a-la-carte feel to the students' conceptualizations of sustainability as it related to engineering, as in, "you can 'do' sustainability with engineering, but do not have to". We argue that engineering students likely need these pedagogical paradigms (sociotechnical engineering and sustainability) woven through the entirety of their engineering courses if they are to fully accept and integrate them into their own constructs about engineers and engineering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes a set of experiments in optoelectronics for first-year engineering students. This laboratory experience is comprised of five inexpensive and transportable modules that provide a hands-on introduction to optoelectronics, these modules include different types of emitters, light-emitting diode (LED) colors, optical voice link, total internal reflection, and waveguiding. Designed by a senior electrical engineering student, these modules appeal to students with various learning styles. Two hundred eight-five first-year engineering students at Bucknell University and the University of San Diego have performed these experiments. Student response to the laboratories has been enthusiastic with 80% of the students rating the lab as very good or excellent overall. Further assessment of the experiments by the instructor and the students is also discussed. Index Terms--Freshmen, laboratory, learning styles, optoelectronics.

Copyright of Pedagogía Social is the property of Pedagogia Social and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article announces the awards given to engineering educators including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. (IEEE) Education Society Achievement Award to James A. Roberts, Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference Ronald J. Schmitz Award to Ted E. Batchman, and American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Educational Research Methods (ERM) Division Distinguished Service Award to Teri Reed-Rhoads.

The article announces awards given in the 2007 IEEE Education Society Awards and Frontiers in Education Conference Awards including the 2007 IEEE Education Society Achievement Award to Sarah A. Rajala and Marwan A. Simaan, and the 2007 IEEE Education Society Best Transactions Paper Award to Jason A. Day.

A correction to the article "2008 IEEE Education Society Awards and Frontiers in Education Conference Awards" that was published in the May 2009 issue is presented.

Background: Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.Antidepressants have been used in adults for pain relief and pain management since the 1970s. The clinical impression from extended use over many years is that antidepressants are useful for some neuropathic pain symptoms, and that effects on pain relief are divorced and different from effects on depression; for example, the effects of tricyclic antidepressants on pain may occur at different, and often lower, doses than those on depression. Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used drugs for treating neuropathic pain in the UK., Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antidepressants used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antidepressant with placebo or an active comparator., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: We included four studies with a total of 272 participants (6 to 18 years of age) who had either chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia. All of the studies were small. One study investigated amitriptyline versus gabapentin (34 participants), two studies investigated amitriptyline versus placebo (123 participants), and one study investigated citalopram versus placebo (115 participants). Due to a lack of available data we were unable to complete any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the four included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation and allocation concealment (low to unclear risk); blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (low to unclear risk); reporting of results (low to unclear risk); and size of the study populations (high risk). We judged the remaining domains, attrition and other potential sources of bias, as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesNo studies reported our primary outcomes of participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater or 50% or greater (very low-quality evidence).No studies reported on Patient Global Impression of Change (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low because there was no evidence to support or refute. Secondary outcomesAll studies measured adverse events, with very few reported (11 out of 272 participants). All but one adverse event occurred in the active treatment groups (amitriptyline, citalopram, and gabapentin). Adverse events in all studies, across active treatment and comparator groups, were considered to be a mild reaction, such as nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, and abdominal discomfort (very low-quality evidence).There were also very few withdrawals due to adverse events, again all but one from the active treatment groups (very low-quality evidence).No serious adverse events were reported across any of the studies (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for these secondary outcomes as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful., Authors' Conclusions: We identified only a small number of studies with small numbers of participants and insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.There is evidence from adult randomised controlled trials that some antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, can provide some pain relief in certain chronic non-cancer pain conditions.There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children or adolescents.

Background: Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment., Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomesIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful., Authors' Conclusions: This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.