This research full paper is a study by the first-year engineering program at Michigan Technological University. Since 1999, the Department of Engineering Fundamentals has prided itself on our active, collaborative, first-year engineering program. While we have undergone many shifts in instructional models (e.g., blended learning, flipped learning), our dedication to this type of classroom environment has held firm. Most recently, our department moved to a flipped model of instruction and the inclusion of a significant peer mentoring presence in the classroom. With these major instructional changes, we evaluated the student perceptions of the classroom climate and identified that a majority of our students are experiencing a positive, active, and collaborative learning environment where they feel supported by their peers, student mentors and instructors and confident in their success as future engineers. This paper details our study approach, methods, and results

This work-in-progress paper proposes a study that examines the effects of grading on the role of near peer mentors (NPMs). Two well-developed near peer mentoring models, Supplemental Instruction (SI) and the Learning Assistants (LA) Program do not allow their SI Leaders or LAs to grade student work. This separation in roles prevents a power dynamic between the student and the SI Leaders/LAs from forming where the Leader/LAs have perceived control over student success. At Michigan Technological University, teaching assistants were used in our first-year engineering courses; however, in a course redesign in 2017, the teaching assistant role was converted into a near-peer mentoring (NPM) role that retained grading responsibilities. Our NPMs, who we call LEarning with Academic Partners (LEAP) Leaders, have reported that they find value in grading their students' work as it helps them to plan activities to best suit their students’ needs. Additionally, grading allows an opportunity to more closely monitor student submissions and to more quickly identify and intervene when a student is lagging behind.This proposed study will examine the effects of LEAP Leaders grading their students’ work on: 1) the Leader’s ability to help their students and 2) the relationships between the Leaders and their students.

The first-year program at Michigan Technological University emphasizes an active, collaborative learning environment. Students are grouped into teams of 3-5 students to work on class activities and projects. The success of this program relies on the students learning to work together and numerous activities in the class are designed to help build these teamwork skills. For example, teams are expected to build a team contract at the beginning of the semester and provide formative and summative feedback to each team member in the form of peer evaluations.In the Fall of 2021, four faculty members at Michigan Technological University evaluated two different teaming systems designed to help enhance these teamwork skills: CATME and Team+. A total of 402 students, in 19 sections of our first-year engineering course participated in this study. Sections were randomly assigned to using either the CATME or Team+ tool. Eight sections (170 students) used the CATME tool and eleven sections (232 students) used Team+. We have historically used the CATME team tool in our courses for peer evaluation. Comparing peer evaluation results with Team+ is one metric we used to measure how our first-year engineering populations responded to this new teaming software. Additionally, we evaluated the impact both of these tools had on team connectedness and satisfaction as well as participation levels in team development activities throughout the semester. This paper will summarize these overall quantitative metrics as well as the reflections from students and faculty on both teaming systems.

This innovative practice full paper reviews the formation and effects of the LEarning with Academic Partners (LEAP) program at Michigan Technological University in the first two years of operation. The LEAP Program combines the job requirements of a traditional Teaching Assistant (TA) with those of a Supplemental Instruction (SI) Leader. While each program has their benefits, to date, no one has evaluated the effects of a combined program such as the one established at Michigan Tech. To determine these effects, we focused our analysis on measuring course performance and student attitudes of student groups in a second semester first-year engineering course, ENG1102 - Engineering Modeling and Design: Spring 2017 (no LEAP), Spring 2017 (no LEAP/pilot LEAP with optional attendance), and 2018 (LEAP with mandatory attendance).

This Work in Progress, Research-to-Practice report focuses on an overview of an extensive project to update the First-Year Engineering Program, Michigan Technological University. After three planning years, and multiple pilot course offerings, we rolled out at scale in Fall, 2017. Our core student outcome goals in the revamped first-year program include strengthening the ability for open-ended problem solving, enhanced facility with computational problem solving applied to engineering problems, and increased student growth in traits of self-starting learning and positive attitudes for life-long learning. In this report, we describe both the core components of our revised program and the process we have followed to gain support for our revised first-year program, thus promoting program sustainability. We conclude with a core list of research questions we will pursue beginning in AY 2018-2019.

This WIP focusses on one component of our updated first year engineering program (FYEP), a student-owned laptop requirement. Requiring students to bring laptops will enable all students to practice the skills learned during their first-year engineering classes. Other engineering instructors will also be able to require students to bring and use laptops in their courses. Infusing the use of laptops into coursework throughout our engineering curriculums should positively affect computational problem solving and develop a mindset of “ubiquitous computing.” In this paper, we outline a longitudinal study in which we plan to assess the impact of the updated first year engineering program and in particular the laptop requirement on computational competencies and attitudes.

Supplemental Instruction (SI) is a program that has been shown to be successful in supporting students in historically challenging courses and improving grades, retention, and understanding of course material. SI was started at the University of Missouri — Kansas City (UMKC) in 1973, but has since branched out to approximately 1500 institutions in 30 countries. In the spring of 2016, two faculty members from Michigan Technological University attended SI training at the International Center for SI at UMKC with the intention of developing a similar program to support the first-year engineering courses at Michigan Tech. The LEarning with Academic Partners (LEAP) program is the program that has developed as a result of that effort. While based on SI, the LEAP program has several distinct differences, which will be outlined in this paper. In Fall 2016, LEAP was implemented in three of fifteen sections (180 students, 9 Leaders) of ENG1101 — Engineering Analysis and Problem Solving, the first engineering course taken by calculus-ready students in all engineering majors. In Spring 2017, LEAP has been incorporated into three of fourteen sections (172 students, 9 Leaders) of ENG1102 — Engineering Modeling and Design and one section (61 students, 3 Leaders) of ENG1101. In this paper we will discuss the successes and failures of our first year with LEAP as we look to assess and expand the LEAP program to all sections of ENG1101 and ENG1102 (approximately 1100 students, 50 Leaders) beginning next academic year. We will share perspectives from students, LEAP Leaders, supervisors, and faculty.

First-year engineering students enter our university with differing experiences using computers and technology. This affects the classroom dynamic especially with large differences between students. With this in mind, faculty must address the following questions when planning their course: Where should the faculty focus their time? Do they focus on bringing everyone to a specific level? Do they teach to the average student and hope the less experienced keep up and the more experienced are not bored? The first step to answering these questions is to determine the distribution of experience. To assess this, first-year engineering students at Michigan Technological University were given the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) Computer Access and Familiarity Survey (Grade 12) during their first week of classes. The NAEP survey measures access to and familiarity with technology. The survey was modified to measure the familiarity with computing tasks students use in their first engineering courses. This paper will focus on determining: how much exposure to computers and technology have our students had, what exactly is the depth and breadth of the skills they enter the university with, and are there any factors within access or familiarity that impact success in the first-year engineering courses?

Design projects give instructors a chance to integrate lecture material into an engaging engineering experience. Students working on “real-world” design projects can see how their projects apply to life outside the classroom. There has been much talk about implementing a “cornerstone” design experience into first-year classes, but how “real-world” can a design project be for first-year engineering students without the technical background of their upper-division counterparts? Can students see the applications of their designs when their models and simulations are limited due to their skill set? At Michigan Technological University, we are investigating what happens when first-year students learn about future research opportunities and coursework from upper-division students, and how this material is related to their design project. It is hoped that students will have a greater enthusiasm for their project when they know that their knowledge will be useful in the future or when they see where their design project work could lead. In addition, it is hoped that students will have a greater understanding of the application of their own work.