MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2241918708 · doi:10.18260/1-2--19201

An Update: The Engagement and Retention of Electrical Engineering Students with a First Semester Freshman Experience Course

2020· article· en· W2241918708 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumEngineering educationMathematics educationComputer scienceEngineeringEngineering managementPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An Update: The Engagement and Retention of Electrical Engineering Students with a First Semester Freshman Experience CourseFreshman retention has been a critical issue for engineering programs over the last decade.Universities have implemented many different approaches to improve freshman retentionincluding: creating general freshman courses to give early hands-on experience to the students1-4,utilizing student feedback to design courses5, and moving the ownership and maintenance oflaboratory equipment from the university to the students6. In the fall semester of 2009, theElectrical Engineering program at __________ took the initiative of creating and offering a firstsemester freshman experience course aimed at improving freshman retention. The rationale forcreating this course was based on student and faculty feedback, and comments provided bygraduating seniors during their senior exit interview. A number of students also expressed theirconcern about how late the electrical engineering laboratory experience is in the curriculum. Thedepartmental faculty took the decision to help electrical engineering students by developing acourse specially designed for their freshman year entitled “Engineering The Future: Electricaland Digital Concepts”. The only preparation expected from the students is high school algebra.The purpose of the course is to introduce the students to the different areas of ElectricalEngineering such as: History of Electrical Engineering, Electrical Concepts and Components,Digital Systems, Communications Systems, Electronics, Power Systems and ComputerEngineering. The students are also exposed to the National Electric Code and to the toolscommonly used by electrical engineering students like: oscilloscopes, multimeters, functionsgenerators, PSpice and MATLAB. Finally, to complement the freshman experience, practicingelectrical engineers are invited to talk about their experiences and a module on engineering yourcareer was introduced by design. The students are also expected to attend IEEE meetings, andstudy the IEEE Code of Ethics. The intention of the course is to provide the students with ahealthy exposure to professional practice and real projects in the different areas of electricalengineering7.Since then significant changes have been made to this course in order to make it more enjoyableand effective in retaining students. Some of these changes include the establishment of adepartmental template used to prepare the materials that are distributed to the students, theinclusion of virtual instruments such as the NI myDAQ and Labview, and the replacement ofPSpice with NI Multisim and Ultiboard. The last two software utilities have made the fabricationof the PCBs easier for the students and faculty. Furthermore, the students are required to use theNI myDAQ in some of their laboratories and in the final project which some of them alsoinclude the use of Labview.This paper will present the data collected as a part of the course offering over four academicyears, specifically split into two analysis categories. The first part of the data analysis will focuson the effect of the course on student retention, extracted from the freshman cohorts. The secondpart of the data analysis will focus on student surveys performed at the end of the semester. Thissurvey was designed to measure vital components of overall course effectiveness with finergranularity, including students understanding of topics such as the role of electrical engineersand their impact on society.References[1] H. Knickle, “Foundations of Engineering a First Year Course”, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Washington, DC 1996.[2] J. W. Pierre, F. K. Tuffner, “A One-Credit Hands-On Introductory Course In Electrical and Computer Engineering Using a Variety of Topics Modules”, IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 52, No. 2, May 2009.[3] Ronald Roth, “Improving Freshman Retention Through an Introduction to Engineering Design Course”, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual, 2001, Albuquerque, NM 2001.[4] Ruben Rojas-Oviedo, Dr. X. Cathy Qian, “Improving Retention of Undergraduate Students in Engineering through Freshman Courses”, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual, Montréal, Quebec, Canada 2002.[5] M. R. Anderson-Rowland, “Understanding Freshman Engineering Students Retention through a Survey”, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Milwaukee, WI, 1997.[6] D. Hall, H. Hegab, and J. Nelson, “Living with the Lab – Freshman Curriculum to Boost Hands-on Learning, Student Confidence and Innovation”, 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY, 2008.[7] Ochoa, Hector; Mukul, V. Shirvaikar, “The Engagement and Retention of Electrical Engineering Students with a First Semester Freshman Experience Course,” The 118th ASEE Annual Conference, Vancouver, Canada, June, 2011.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207