scholarly journals A MODEL TO DEVELOP PEER FEEDBACK SKILLS IN FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Mattucci ◽  
Jim Sibley ◽  
Jonathan Nakane ◽  
Peter Ostafichuk
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Students ◽  
Course Design ◽  
Professional Communication ◽  
First Year ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
Feedback Model ◽  
Poster Presentations ◽  
The University ◽  
Proper Interpretation

Abstract – Giving and receiving feedback is a necessary, but often difficult skill for young engineers to acquire. We developed and piloted the delivery of a feedback model as part of the first-year engineering experience at the University of British Columbia. The approach is based on recognizing feedback as a form of professional communication, and that it requires practice to improve. We wove different aspects of communication skill development through two large newly-designed first-year introduction to engineering courses, building towards face-to-face feedback through a staged series of communication experiences. The full feedback model highlighted the nuances of face-to-face communication, and was called the "3×3", since it includes the three components involved in face-to-face feedback (sender, message, and receiver), each with three associated aspects. The sender uses appropriate words and body language, ensures proper interpretation, and is empathetic; the message is objective and non-judgmental, sufficiently detailed, and contains suggestions for improvement; and the receiver remains open and listening, acknowledges to the sender that they are listening, and clarifies to ensure understanding. Students applied what they had learned through an activity reviewing poster presentations from a major course design project. In the activity, they each had an opportunity to craft a feedback message before delivering the message face-to-face to a peer. Students then reflected on the feedback they received by summarizing the message, recognizing how the sender delivered the feedback, and identifying why the feedback was helpful. Student reflections were analyzed for themes from the 3×3 model. Students found feedback from peers particularly helpful when it was delivered in an appropriate and courteous manner, checked for proper interpretation, provided clear suggestions for improvement, and was coupled with praise of something that was done well. Providing students with a structured model allows them to follow a process in both providing effective face-to-face feedback, but also better appreciate why receiving feedback is beneficial in helping them improve.  

scholarly journals Recent Enhancements to the Biosystems Engineering Design Trilogy at the University of Manitoba

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny D Mann ◽  
Kris J Dick ◽  
Sandra A Ingram
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Course Design ◽  
Professional Communication ◽  
First Year ◽  
Design Problems ◽  
Capstone Course ◽  
University Of Manitoba ◽  
Second Year ◽  
The University

In previous years, several improvements to the teaching of engineering design were made by staff in the Department of Biosystems Engineering at The University of Manitoba. The first innovation occurred when a trilogy of courses spanning the final three years of the program was introduced as a replacement for a single capstone course in the final year of the program. In its original conception, engineering students were to get three opportunities to be involved in design problems originating from industry, with greater expectations with each subsequent experience. A second innovation occurred when technical communication was formally integrated within the trilogy of design courses. This innovation has helped engineering students realize the value of professional communication skills in collaborating with each other and in preparing reports and presentations for an industry client. A third innovation occurred three years ago when the decision was made to allow students to participate in the prototyping of their designs. The so-called “Design Trilogy” now consists of a single course (Design Trilogy I) taken during the second year of the engineering program (which builds upon the first-year design experience with the requirement of a conceptual solution in response to a design problem provided by industry) and two courses taken during the final year of the program. Students are required to have a design completed on paper by the completion of Design Trilogy II and fabrication of the prototype occurs during Design Trilogy III. The student experience in the Design Trilogy, with particular emphasis on curriculum innovations in Design Trilogy III, will be discussed.

scholarly journals DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERACTIVE ONLINE ETHICS SCENARIO ACTIVITY FOR ENGINEERING STUDENTS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Ostafichuk ◽  
Carol P. Jaeger ◽  
Jonathan Nakane
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Student Feedback ◽  
First Year ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Unethical Behaviour ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
The University

This paper describes development and deployment of an online interactive ethical decision-making simulation.  This tool was piloted in a first-year introduction to engineering course at the University of British Columbia.  It used a “choose your own adventure” style of decision-making and narrative to add realism and engagement to what was otherwise viewed by students as dry, uninteresting content.  After storyboarding using sticky notes and Visio, the final tool used by students was implemented and deployed using a survey tool (Qualtrics). It featured a scenario with initially incomplete information and the appearance of unethical behaviour by others.  It included decision-based branching, but also randomization such that different groups had the story unfold differently, even if they made the same initial decisions.  Student feedback on this tool was very positive, suggesting this style of interactive online ethics simulation could be an effective tool for enhancing engagement and learning.

scholarly journals REDESIGNING THE UBC FIRST YEAR INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Ostafichuk ◽  
Carol P. Jaeger ◽  
Jon Nakane ◽  
Susan Nesbit ◽  
Naoko Ellis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Course Design ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
First Year ◽  
Engineering Profession ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
Practical Engineering ◽  
Assessment Techniques ◽  
High Level ◽  
The University

A new first year introduction to engineering experience was developed at the University of British Columbia. This paper provides an overview of the two new courses and the lessons learned both in developing and delivering the courses. Several key problematic areas in the previous curriculum were addressed, namely, to improve student connection with the engineering profession, increase design and practical engineering experiences, more effectively integrate sustainability into the curriculum, and better emphasize the human and social connection to engineering.The courses operate in a flexible learning framework with a sequence of online, lecture, and studio components arranged in a whole-part-whole format delivered to a class of 850 students. Elements of numerous effective course design, teaching and learning practices, including integrated course design, constructive alignment, components of Team-Based Learning, classroom assessment techniques, peer evaluation, and peer grading were incorporated into these courses. Student feedbackthrough surveys has shown that the new format has been highly successful in addressing most of the key high-level goals, such as establishing a student connection to the engineering profession, helping students understand what engineers do and how they do it, and providing an introduction and appreciation for design, sustainability, decision-making, professionalism, and ethics..

scholarly journals TEACHING ENGINEERING COMMUNICATION TO FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Labun
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
First Year ◽  
Written Communication ◽  
First Year Students ◽  
Design Project ◽  
Engineering Communication ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
The University ◽  
Written Assignments

At the University of British Columbia Okanagan School of Engineering (SOE), first year engineering students take a 3-credit course in Engineering Communication. Designed to replace the traditional 3-credits of English taken by other first year students, APSC 176 introduces students to the fundamentals of engineering communication, with a strong emphasis on written communication. The paper is describes the types of assignments given to first year students, the techniques used to encourage meaningful revision of written assignments, and the methods used to evaluate written assignments. Particular attention will be paid to a two-week first term design project (such as the assignment, supplemental materials including exercises, and marking guidelines). It should be noted that the design is entirely conceptual - students are not required to develop a prototype, but rather to work with a team to develop (and subsequently, explain and market) a concept in response to an RFP.

AN ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT TO PROVIDE MULTI-DISCIPLINARY EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seach Chyr (Ernest) Goh ◽  
Sumi Siddiqua
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Project Teams ◽  
First Year ◽  
Final Exam ◽  
Sustainable Engineering ◽  
Design Project ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
Negative Comments ◽  
The University

First year engineering students at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, take the Fundamentals of Sustainable Engineering Design course as part of the suite of common courses for all engineering students regardless of discipline. The largest assessment components of the course are the final exam (40%) and the design project (40%). For the design project, teams of 4 – 6 students build a scaled-down prototype of a Well Ventilated yet Energy Efficient Room (WeVeyEER) that must be able to maintain its interior temperature at 10°C above ambient and at the same time continuously exchange stale air from within with fresh air from outside. It also has to meet load-bearing, size and power supply constraints. The energy consumption, rate of air exchange and weight are parameters for comparing performance of the prototypes. The majority of teams (55 out of 64) could achieve the requirements. Feedback about the project was mixed, with 57 positive and 56 negative comments.  

scholarly journals HOW FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS SELECT THEIR SPECIALIZATION AND HOW WE CAN BETTER SUPPORT THEM

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Ostafichuk ◽  
Carol P. Jaeger ◽  
Agnes D’Entremont
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Information Source ◽  
First Year ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
Online Tools ◽  
The University

  Abstract This paper explores the student experience of discipline selection, through the perspective of students in a common first year engineering program at the University of British Columbia. It also presents and examines a number of new innovations have been introduced to the UBC curriculum to support students in this regard. In general, there is limited information in the literature about how and when engineering students decide on their specific engineering discipline. What seems to be clear though is that many, if not most, students come into common first year engineering programs with a good idea (if not a decision) of what their specialization will be. In addition, short-term factors (such as courses and program experiences) dominate decision-making rather than long-term factors (such as career potential).  The innovations we have introduced include program introduction videos, various online tools and resources, coordinated in-class presentations, program fairs, and more. Through a number of surveys to different cohorts of engineering students at UBC, several clear and encouraging trends have emerged. Most of our students report feeling well-prepared to choose their discipline by the end of first year; most students are not choosing their discipline until Term 2, after they have received information and presentations from all programs (having this time to gather information and decide is a key motivation behind a common first year); and most students report finding the new resources we are providing (online materials and tools, videos, Program Fairs, etc.) useful in their decision-making. Consistent with the literature, short-term considerations appear to dominate our students’ decision-making, although there are indications that longer-term career considerations are also starting to influence their information gathering. Having opportunities to speak to current and former students in a discipline was cited by our students as the most important information source in their decision-making. Also important was information provided by programs, both within our coordinated introduction to engineering course, and through websites and other program materials.  

scholarly journals A FRAMEWORK FOR EXPLORING ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN A FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING COURSE

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol P. Jaeger ◽  
Peter M. Ostafichuk
Keyword(s):  
Student Development ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Student Feedback ◽  
First Year ◽  
Motivating Factors ◽  
Engineering Curriculum ◽  
Engineering Profession ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
The University

Abstract A module on professionalism and ethics was developed and introduced in a recent redesign of the first year engineering curriculum at The University of British Columbia (UBC). Motivating factors for including this content in first year included providing students with a fuller understanding of the engineering profession, introducing content to support student development in multiple Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) graduate attributes, and providing education and support for students in the responsible use of peer review.  Additionally, feedback from senior engineering students indicated that students would benefit from inclusion of professionalism and ethics content earlier in the curriculum. In this paper, the structure and content of the module specifically related to ethics will be described, student feedback for the module will be presented, and key learnings will be discussed.

scholarly journals Working with “Others”: Developing Sustainability Skills in the First Year Engineering Classroom

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Nesbit ◽  
Naoko Ellis ◽  
Pete Ostafichuk
Keyword(s):  
Personal Development ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Preliminary Test ◽  
First Year ◽  
Test Results ◽  
First Year Students ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
Structured Problems ◽  
The University ◽  
Current Engineering

Abstract While engineering education excels at training students to solve well-defined and highly structured problems, it struggles to support the development of students’ abilities to address highly complex, ill-structured, and contested engineering problems that lack in definite solutions, where engineers are called on to work with non-engineers in a transdisciplinary environment.  The challenge for engineering educators is to develop and teach constructively aligned curricula aimed at developing transdisciplinary skills so that, as practitioners, graduating engineering students contribute to addressing these types of problems within transdisciplinary environments. Efforts are underway in many institutions to close the gap between the transdisciplinary needs in practice and current engineering curricula. At the University of British Columbia (UBC), a team of faculty members and engineering practitioners have recently developed and are teaching a design-focused engineering course to all first year students. In this paper we, a subset of UBC’s teaching team, present the argument for teaching skills to engineering students that support transdisciplinary. Wesummarize the definitions of these skills found in the literature, and we speculate that the development of one aspect of transdisciplinary is related to personal development. Specifically, we hypothesize that systems thinking is correlated to metacognition. We describe an experimental strategy for testing the hypothesis within a first year engineering program, then we present and discuss preliminary test results.  

Engineering for good: A case of community driven engineering innovation

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chinweike Eseonu ◽  
Martin A Cortes
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Students ◽  
Technology Innovation ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
First Year ◽  
Engineering Curriculum ◽  
Engineering Design Process ◽  
The World ◽  
The University ◽  
Social Consideration

There is a culture of disengagement from social consideration in engineering disciplines. This means that first year engineering students, who arrive planning to change the world through engineering, lose this passion as they progress through the engineering curriculum. The community driven technology innovation and investment program described in this paper is an attempt to reverse this trend by fusing community engagement with the normal engineering design process. This approach differs from existing project or trip based approaches – outreach – because the focus is on local communities with which the university team forms a long-term partnership through weekly in-person meetings and community driven problem statements – engagement.

scholarly journals Repeated Negative Teaching Evaluations: A Form of Habitual Behaviour?

2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-321
Author(s):  
J Paul Grayson
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Generational Status ◽  
First Year ◽  
Not Given ◽  
Campus Engagement ◽  
Teaching Evaluations ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
Mcgill University ◽  
The University ◽  
Do So

Teaching evaluations have become part of life on Canadian campuses; however, there is no agreement among researchers as to their validity. In this article, comparisons were made between first- and third-year collective evaluations of professors’ performance at the University of British Columbia, York University, and McGill University. Overall, it was found that students who provided low evaluations in their first year were also likely to do so in their third year. This effect held independent of degree of campus engagement, sex, student status (domestic or international), and generational status (students who were the first in their families to attend university, compared to those who were not). Given that over the course of their studies, students likely would have been exposed to a range of different behaviours on the part of their professors, it is argued that the propensity of a large number of students to give consistently low evaluations was a form of “habitual behaviour.”  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document