ABSTRACT
The United Nations General Assembly established a set of 17 goals in 2015 known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They inspire concerted efforts around the world to be accomplished by the year 2030. Goal 17, “Partnerships for the Goals”, embraces the fundamental strategy to achieve all the goals by the effective collaboration of all nations, institutions, organizations, and individuals. It relies on extensive global awareness as the fundamental ground to build the recognition of diversity and inclusion;striving to consider every perspective in our shared world. Academic institutions, particularly colleges and universities, should take leadership roles in educating the upcoming generation of professionals and leaders to accomplish this mission. Engineering schools and departments are required to demonstrate these as educational outcomes for their students. Specifically, Student Outcomes 2, 3, and 4 of ABET Criterion 3, all involve awareness, communication, and consideration of global contexts. This is critical to address the Sustainable Development goals as the students make up the future workforce in charge of advancing technical solutions for a better and sustainable world. This paper discusses a three-year experience in the Chemical Engineering Department, with the participation of 162 college students, in 33 projects, as a curricular requirement for a capstone course. The project provided a unique opportunity for students to become acquainted with problems around the world and to challenge them to consider multiple solutions. Student teams collaborated with foreign organizations (in the country they chose to address a problem) to analyze and propose solutions for challenges in that country. Activities are organized during the entire semester following project management techniques. They include an early presentation of the proposal, a scheduled progress report presentation, a poster, and a final presentation. Foreign partners are asked to provide their reflections on the experience. All classmates review and peer grade every deliverable from other teams. Students evaluate their teammates' performance and provide a self-assessment of their individual experience at the end of the course. A ChE Global Day was held at the end of the semester to display the posters and presentations to a broad audience with the support of university offices and centers focused on global experiences and international relations. Students earn up to 10% of the definitive grade of the course for these global engagement projects. This approach has proved to be fully sustainable, and with an overwhelming satisfaction of all the participants. It is important to note that the incorporation of a virtual platform during COVID-19 and the continuous monitoring and coaching by the instructor are producing best practices to foster communication between students and stakeholders. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2022
ABSTRACT
Understanding the student perspective in the design and delivery of a course is key to improving the experience, especially when it relates to unique circumstances such as those introduced during the pandemic. With the onset of COVID-19, educators had to rapidly adapt their course delivery and be resilient enough to redesign their course to the needs of students. In order to accommodate these needs, the University of Pittsburgh has adopted a Flex-Model based on literature of the HyFlex teaching model. Within the Flex@Pitt model, students have the option to attend classes in person, via videoconferencing, or asynchronously via recorded lectures. From an instructor's perspective this type of flexibility adds significant complexity to the management of a course but allows students to learn in an environment in which they feel safe, comfortable and engaged. For a course with an interdisciplinary roster, these complexities are further amplified due to differing student backgrounds and their associated in-class experiences. The goal of this study was to capture the student perspective during this key transition at the University of Pittsburgh. The research team endeavors to highlight the educational elements that are key to an effective learning environment for students in an interdisciplinary survey of sustainability course. A questionnaire was administered to two class sections of the same course with 82 undergraduate students and 10 graduate students. Within the questionnaire were questions relating to specific educational components of the Flex-Model pedagogy. Some of these key educational elements surveyed include understanding the course material, students' perceived retention of the concepts, mental, physical and emotional well-being, interaction with peers and instructors, and the effectiveness of the technology utilized within the class environment. The survey includes a combination of Likert scale questions and open-ended essay questions with a focus on contrasting student opinion between online and in-person course delivery. Throughout the survey, students are asked to self-reflect about topics such as understanding of concepts, course rigor and level of retention in an online environment as compared to a traditional in-person class. The questionnaire data has provided the team with a valuable combination of quantitative and qualitative data with which to draw meaningful conclusions. One of the major takeaways from this research is that although students are highly adaptable and can adjust to the remote aspects of a flex model, their perceived ability to engage with their professor and peers in an online environment is significantly lower than in an in-person classroom. This study provides meaningful insight into the student perspective of the Flex-Model pedagogy, including revealing student perceptions of their education in an online environment as opposed to a more traditional in person environment. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2021
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 global pandemic has suspended conventional operations in engineering education and forced changes that will inform our practice for years to come. The need for engineering educators to adapt course designs in short time frames amidst the compounding uncertainty of safety protocols, operational postures, and accreditation requirements is unprecedented and still evolving. As teachers update classroom technology, content, rubrics instructional schemes and cohort assignments there is much uncertainty about how this will affect our students. This paper attempts to evaluate the impact on students of transitioning to a Flex-Model during the global pandemic of COVID-19. Specifically, to gain insight on students' perception on the interaction within the new model, their learning experience and well-being within the Sustainability course. Using principles from HyFlex literature, our R1 university created a flexible instructional model. This Flex-Model is designed to accommodate in-person and remote instruction for professors and students alike. Instructors were encouraged to flexibly incorporate face-to-face class meetings with opportunities for remote students to participate using video conferencing technology (i.e. blended course delivery). Instructors were asked to leverage synchronous online activities, and asynchronous online content as appropriate to the size of their class, availability of suitable classroom space, content, and course structure (e.g., lecture-based, discussion, recitation, project-based, lab, studio) while considering the location of the students and access to on-campus resources. This research strives to evaluate the effectiveness of the Flex-Model through the lens of the student experience in a Sustainability course due to its interdisciplinary nature and that all 6 of our engineering departments were represented within the class population. The course is a topics course requiring weekly readings, discussions, assignments, and quizzes. The class roster consisted of 92 students (10 graduate students) with two of the co-authors serving as instructors. Data from student surveys conducted before, and during the Fall 2020 semester were analyzed. Survey questions included both qualitative and quantitative prompts. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2021