Research experiences for undergraduates

The Importance of Scientific Publishing: Teaching an Undergraduate How to Swim the Entire Length of the Pool

Statistics indicate that under-represented minority student groups continue to experience high dropout rates, low graduation rates, low enrollment in graduate programs and low participation in computer science and engineering (CS&E). At the same time, trends indicate that these groups will constitute an important part of the population of the United States by year 2050. Given these facts, it is crucial to help these minority groups become an integral part of the economic fabric of the United States. It has been shown that undergraduate research is one of the best vehicles to address several of these important issues. This paper describes our experience running a NSF-sponsored research experiences for undergraduates (REU) site in CS&E for under-represented minority student groups. We describe the most important aspects that need to be included in these programs and some strategies for running them successfully. Finally, we include the results of our evaluation and show the effectiveness of the program

Since 2009, the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSM&T) has hosted a new Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Site entitled Back to the Future. The focus of the REU site is metallurgical engineering research with an emphasis in art and history. This latter aspect is embedded within the site as there is significant evidence that a richer learning environment can be created in engineering by establishing a context within the liberal arts, as described in the recent National Academy of Engineering's Educating the Engineer of 2020 report. In addition to being involved in research projects to develop specific technical skills in engineering, students in this program are engaged in unique supplemental activities that support learning the societal context and potential impact of their research. Specific program activities for a “holistic” approach to an engineering REU experience are described in the paper. A combination of professional development activities, societal context and diversity activities, and library activities are performed to investigate the broader impacts of student research. These activities lead to substantial opportunities for student self-reflection. Finally, assessment activities and results are also described in the paper with a focus on the development of students with different learning-styles and implications for recruiting from underrepresented groups in the STEM disciplines.

Editors' Commentary In this chapter a group at Illinois State University describe how they used the scholarship of teaching and learning to investigate whether having preservice teachers participate in a mathematical research experience for undergraduates (REU) program influenced their beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics. Unable to find an appropriate survey instrument, they developed their own. They explain the organization and content of the survey, tell how they piloted and tested it for reliability, and describe how the results are being used to improve the REU program. Introduction The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) can serve as a critical tool for improving instruction at the post-secondary level. If we, mathematicians and mathematics educators, can systematically explore, share, and reflect on our understanding of quality collegiate instruction, improvement in overall course quality and student learning can follow. The multifaceted nature of student learning presents a challenge for any educational study. One such facet is student beliefs. For example, an effective instructional strategy for teaching an honors calculus course for mathematics majors may not translate to a calculus course designed for business majors because of the different attitudes and beliefs of these two groups. Differences in students' views of the nature of mathematics, the importance of building mathematical understanding, the beauty of mathematics, or the standards for reasoning and proof, all can influence the success of instruction. In this chapter, we describe a SoTL study designed to inform and improve a mathematics education program that engages future secondary teachers in authentic mathematics research experiences. One of the goals of the program, the REU Site: Mathematics Research Experience for Pre-service and In-service Teachers (REU), is to change teachers' beliefs about mathematics and about the teaching and learning of mathematics and thus to influence the way they teach. Impact of Beliefs on Secondary Mathematics Teachers Numerous researchers have cited the impact of beliefs on teaching and learning (Ernest, 1989; Philipp, 2007; Schoenfeld, 1985; Silver, 1985; Thompson, 1992).

Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) is a new National Science Foundation (NSF) program designed to attract talented undergraduates into research careers in science, engineering, and mathematics. The program is intended to provide active research experience to students while they are still in their undergraduate years. There are two categories of support under this program: REU Sites and REU Supplements. The supplement, as the name implies, is to supplement existing NSF grants to permit an investigator to hire an undergraduate assistant. Here, I will report o n the REU site award made to the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska for summer 1987.

This research study at a National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates site focuses on psychological research with applications to the real world. Two cohorts of undergraduates engaged in rigorous research projects on, e.g., driving, homeland security, relationships, human-computer interaction, language comprehension and production, discrimination, and health psychology. Results indicated that students and mentors perceived an improvement in the students' research skills.

: This brochure describes employment opportunities for New Professionals, new college graduates in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Software Engineering, and Electronic Engineering. The brochure describes the New Professionals Program in addition to providing information about the city of San Diego.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Attracting and Retaining Women in Computer Science and Engineering: Evaluating the Results Abstract Computer science and engineering communities have been exploring a variety of activities and techniques to attract and retain more students, especially women and minorities, to computer science and computer engineering degree programs1. This paper briefly describes the efforts and results of a plan for actively recruiting young women into undergraduate computer engineering and computer science programs hosted by the University of North Texas (UNT). It also describes a series of activities aimed at improving the retention rate of students already in our programs, particularly during the freshman year. Such recruitment and retention efforts are critical to the country’s efforts to increase the number of engineering professionals, and are a priority for the Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) Department at UNT. We initially designed a three-part plan to achieve our recruitment and retention goals: • Sponsorship of portable and mobile summer computer engineering robotics camps for middle and high-school women students, coordinating with the regional Girl Scouts councils and other organizations to help with the recruitment; • Creation of an Ambassador program using young women currently enrolled in the upper division of current computer science and computer engineering programs as a form of outreach to area high schools and junior colleges; and • Expansion of our successful undergraduate mentoring program by using the Ambassador cohort mentioned above as mentors for incoming freshman and first-year transfer women entering our programs. This paper will focus primarily on the summer camp program and present an analysis of the results we have seen to date after 2 years of camp activities. Results from student surveys and parent surveys will be presented. The paper concludes with recommended changes and improvements in the program, as well as a discussion of adaptations that would create programs suitable for implementation at other institutions as well as programs aimed at a different target population. The three phases previously enumerated each build upon currently accepted educational practices. The robotics summer camp in particular used problem-based learning approaches, similar to those described in The Power of Problem-Based Learning2. This study clearly demonstrates the significant benefits of teaching students how to think by using a problem-based approach. We also developed a mobile laboratory so that the summer camp can be held at several locations, thus broadening and expanding the reach of the camps to traditionally underserved populations and geographical regions. Similarly, both the ambassador and mentoring programs derive from research showing how the recruitment and retention of women in engineering- related fields can be increased by providing opportunities to develop student-to-student relationships3, 4.

Women and computing

Increasing demand for software engineers has caused academia to search for means to incorporate software engineering into the existing computer science curriculum. This paper explores traditional software engineering instructional methods and then provides a case study of a two semester practicum modeled after specialized training programs. These practicums, integrated into the University of Idaho Computer Science program, require all computer science seniors to solve "real-world" software engineering problems for actual customers. The practicums serve as quality control exit requirements to ensure that computer science graduates have the software engineering skills required in industry and graduate school. The integrated nature of the computer science program uniquely provides experiential variety while fostering individual responsibility, group interaction skills, and practical experience.

Research experiences for undergraduates have increased in availability at universities and government laboratories throughout the nation. Government agencies, universities and private donors support these activities with a variety of expectations, including providing a more skilled workforce, creating a greater emphasis on graduate education and increased retention of students in highly technical fields. While the value of these programs has been well-established, there is a paucity of empirically-based research on the various models and practices of these experiences that have the greatest impact on the students. The focus of this study was a National Science Foundation funded Research Experience for Undergraduate (REU) program at a 4-year college in the Midwest funded for over 7 years. In a previous study we found that REU students interacted more frequently with graduate students than their faculty advisor while in the program. In this study we examined more closely the role of the graduate student mentors and how it directly influenced the REU student experience. Two data sources analyzed in this study were preand post-program surveys and semi-structured interviews, both administered to the REU students. Three main themes emerged from the data, including: 1) Academics and Careers, 2) Teaching and Learning, and 3) Building Relationships. When examining the nature of these interactions, 75% of REU students reported having influential experience with their graduate student mentors related to Academic Programs and Careers and 100% reported influential experiences related to Teaching and Learning and Building Relationships. In exploring Academic Programs and Careers further, many of the experiences were related directly to the undergraduates’ academic and career paths and exposure to graduate school and laboratory careers. In Teaching and Learning, REU students described various methods and strategies (i.e., demonstration, questioning, and discussion) the graduate students used to teach them about their research project. In regards to Building Relationships, the graduate students were described as mentors, collaborators, and supervisors. In summary, this research provides insight into role of the graduate student mentors in an REU program and how they directly influence undergraduate students experiences with engineering research, graduate school and careers while in the program.

Guest Editorial

At the start of my Ph.D. in 1980, I caught a glimpse, purely by chance, of the emerging field of computer-aided design (CAD). It intrigued and fascinated me to such an extent that I ended up scrapping my original plans, switching schools and changing my research area. Even though my new school, Ohio State, was one of only a handful of schools with computing facilities dedicated to CAD, I ran into stiff resistance when I expressed my desire to get a Ph.D. in CAD. I was told that CAD was hardly an intellectually challenging field worthy of a Ph.D. dissertation. I was directed to consider mainstream mechanical engineering areas, such as solid mechanics, vibrations, kinematics, and dynamics. The closest I could get to CAD was to do my dissertation in FEA, which allowed me to do at least part of my work in computing and visualization.When I began my academic career at Arizona State, I thought I was finally free to pursue my true love. But I soon realized that we were still a fringe group; faculty in traditional fields, such as thermofluids and solid mechanics, took a dim view of computational research. The proposed thesis plan for my first graduate student (Expert System for Conceptual Synthesis of Frame Structures) was rejected by the Graduate Chair, who remarked “This is not mechanical engineering.” He viewed it as purely a computer program without any regard for the fact that we needed to explicate, structure, and represent experiential knowledge for structural synthesis not found in any textbook on the subject.Of course, I was not alone in facing this predicament. Fortunately, for misfits like us there was an ASME Division that welcomed us. Originally named the Computer Engineering Division (CED), and later known as Computer & Information Engineering (CIE) Division, it was approved in 1979 and began operating in 1980. Unlike academia, industry was well aware of the potential of computing and information technologies to revolutionize product design and manufacturing. Visionaries from computer industry (CDC, IBM, DEC, Applicon), an infant software industry (SDRC, CV, Swanson), and a variety of OEMs (GM, GE, McDonnell-Douglas) led a grassroots effort to convince ASME of the importance of mechanical engineers active participation in these evolving areas through the creation of a new Division. The first CED newsletter in 1981 boldly heralds “…the dawn of an era that is certain to be dominated by computer technology. All projections indicate that mechanical engineers, more than any other professional group, will be more involved in the utilization of this (computer) technology.” They saw MEs playing as important a role in the IT revolution as their far predecessors had in the industrial revolution—a prediction that was to come true.Prof. Ali Seirig was appointed the first Chair of CED. I am in awe of the progress this new Division made in just the first two years. Twenty-four technical committees were set up and an annual conference was initiated in 1981. This conference was unique in that it was associated with an exhibition of the latest hardware and software from leading vendors. This element was critical in keeping the ASME community well informed about the current state of engineering computing. It is, therefore, not surprising to see that this Division was heavily industry dominated—21 out of 24 Technical Committee Chairs were from industry. Sadly, today industry participation in CIE has sagged. Did CIE change because industry participation diminished, or did industry reduce its participation because CIE became less relevant to their needs? We can only speculate about the reasons.CED soon became the fastest growing Division within ASME. The CED/CIE conference and exhibition attracted participants from a wide range of areas, not just CAD/CAM and FEA but kinematics, robotics, heat transfer, and fluid mechanics. This diverse community only had one thing in common, the application of computational methods to problems in their respective fields. As traditional conferences and journals gradually came around to seeing computational methods as valuable contributions in their own fields, they became more accepting of papers of this nature. Thus began the return of computational researchers back to their own discipline communities, shrinking the size of CIE conferences. Finally, in 1994, the CIE conference was colocated with Design Engineering Technical Conferences (DETC).The founders of CED debated the type of journal they needed to have. They felt that given the rapid evolution of computing technologies, an archival journal like an ASME Transactions was not appropriate. At the same time, they wanted their journal to be more technical than a trade magazine. They ended up creating a “hybrid” quarterly publication called CIME (Computers in Mechanical Engineering), with Ali Seirig as its editor. This magazine was produced in full color and was very informative about the latest developments in engineering software. In the words of the editor, CIME was “user-oriented” not “research oriented.” Unfortunately, this philosophy did not command much respect in academia and eventually CIME was merged into ASME’s monthly magazine Mechanical Engineering.And so it came to be that unlike all other ASME conferences and Divisions, CIE did not have any associated journal. Over the years, CIE leaders made several attempts at getting a Transactions journal approved, but to no avail. Reasons for rejection ranged from “computing technologies have no archival value” to the failure to sustain CIME magazine.In 2000, a small group of CIE Division “activists” decided to make another push for a journal. Yong Se Kim, David Lee, Simon Szykman, and David Rosen were the principals in this effort. They came up with a strategy based on lessons from past failures. That included building alliances with three other Divisions (Design, Manufacturing, and Systems & Controls), and demonstrating that an editorial board could be formed with well known researchers who had extensive publication records. I became aware of this effort when I received a call out of the blue, asking me the intriguing question “How would you like to be the Chief Editor of an ASME Transactions?” Of course, the very next sentence brought me down to earth quickly “…the problem is that the journal doesn’t yet exist – will you help us get it approved by ASME?” Thus began my involvement with this journal. We put together an impressive editorial board that included two NAE members and research leaders in each of our targeted areas. Phil Divitero, ASME Director of Publications, immediately saw the marketing potential of this journal, and became a key ally. Bahram Ravani, DED Chair, gave valuable advice on writing our proposal to ASME. Art Erdman, himself a CIE pioneer, happened to be the Chair of ASME Publication Committee, which had authority of approving new journals, which gave us a much needed sympathetic ear on the committee to make our case. In a café in Chicago, before our presentation, we brainstormed various names for the journal and settled on Journal of Computing & Information Science in Engineering (JCISE). The journal was approved and began publishing in the first year of the new millennium, 2001. The CIE Division finally had an archival journal of its own with three cosponsoring Divisions. In 2005, after much lobbying and deliberation, the Design Engineering Division became an equal partner with CIE—an important step in going mainstream.From the very beginning we decided to focus sharply on computational methods for mechanical product development. This set us apart from journals from private publishers that accepted everything and anything related to computing—from gaming to geology, from biology to every branch of engineering. We did not want to dilute our journal with such a wide and general scope. We stipulated that every paper submitted to JCISE must demonstrate applications of its techniques to mechanical design, mechanical analysis, product manufacturing, or quality assurance. Through several iterations we settled on eight major categories to include within the scope of our journal: solid modeling (including parametrics), computational geometry (including reverse engineering), computational metrology (including CMM and tolerance modeling), haptics and virtual reality, engineering informatics, simulation (including FEA, meshing, and optimization), AI/Knowledge based systems, and computer aided manufacturing. Given the practical nature of our field, we also decided to publish papers along two tracks: Research and Application. The latter has subcategories of Software Reviews, Technology Reviews, Tech Notes, and Industry Pilot Projects. The idea was to keep the journal relevant to industry as well as academia. We instituted a three-level rigorous review process for appointment of Associate Editors. We owe it to the founding editorial board for setting sound policies that resulted in quick recognition of JCISE as an archival publication of high quality. That group consisted of Paul Wright, David Rosen, Nick Patrikalakis, Deba Dutta, Susan Urban, Martti Mantyla, Dana Nau, S. Jayaram, Pradeep Khosla, Harry Cheng, and Ravi Rangan. Since we see ourselves as being at the intersection of computer science and mechanical engineering, it was appropriate to have about half of the AEs from each field, and we managed to do so.ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) approached us in 2001 to become an official cosponsor—an offer we gladly accepted in order to strengthen the linkage with our computer science colleagues. From 2001 to 2004, we published a special issue annually drawn from the best papers of the ACM Solid Modeling conferences. Unfortunately, this conference series became too broad, and it was difficult to accommodate their best papers in JCISE without violating our objective of serving the engineering community; this annual tradition of ACM special issues had to be discontinued.ISI included JCISE in its data collection in 2004; after 3 years of this process, the first Impact Factors for JCISE became available in 2007 (for the 2004–2006 period). With respect to ISI Impact Factors, JCISE ranks in the top third of all ASME Transactions; it is better than many long established journals in CAD/CAM and AI areas. Our Impact Factor has continued to improve each year. How meaningful are such statistics in gauging the quality of a journal is debatable. More meaningful metrics are in the offing and we hope they will supplant bean counters of today.When we opened shop in 2000, ASME did not have any web based tool for paper submission and review management. Being the journal focused on computing and information science, we refused to conduct paper reviews the old fashioned way and began developing eLane. With the help of one of our associate editors, Susan Urban, a database expert, and one of her brilliant students, Anish Shah (no relation), we designed and implemented eLane over a period of 3 years. For the past 10 years, we have hosted, maintained, and continuously improved eLane to support not only JCISE but also other journals, such as Research in Engineering Design, and CIE, DTM, and NSF Grantees conferences. eLane blazed a new trail and guided ASME to develop its own “Journal Tool.” Data security and confidentiality is a critical issue in online systems. I am particularly indebted to one of our founding associate editors, Simon Szykman, who provided valuable advice on security aspects of the system by constantly trying to enter the system through unintended holes. It is no surprise that Simon went on to become the first Director of the Cyber-Security group at US Department of Homeland Security and is now the CIO of the Department of Commerce.With Bahram Ravani taking over as the new chief editor of JCISE, we have begun the process of gradually migrating from eLane to ASME’s Journal Tool. Although the Journal Tool still lacks some functionality available in eLane, the reasons for migration are that this will provide greater visibility to JCISE through ASME websites, set JCISE at par with other Transactions, make it easier to transfer papers between ASME journals and, most importantly, have 24/7 support from ASME’s IT professionals.My tenure as chief editor is ending as it started, with a special issue providing snapshots of each of the technology areas within our scope. In both cases, I put together a wish list of papers and expert groups to co-author the state of art reviews. I had hoped to have every area covered, but some papers did not materialize this time around. Nevertheless, this special issue will be a good reference for most, if not all of the areas JCISE covers. For V1 N1, I invited each of our founding Associate Editors to write state-of-the-art surveys of their fields in collaboration with other experts in their respective areas. This special issue contains survey papers not only in some well-established CIE areas but also in a few emerging fields.Computational methods and information technologies related to engineering product development have come a long way. CAD, CAM, FEA, CFD, VR, Reverse Engineering, Computational Metrology, Optimization, and many other simulation techniques are now pervasive in industry. Even traditional fields, such as thermal science, fluid mechanics, and solid mechanics, have embraced numerical methods and computer visualization. What started on the fringes is now the mainstream. We owe it to the founders of the CED/CIE Division who saw this potential more than 30 years ago. Let us recognize Ali Seireg (Wisconsin), J. Callahan (McDonnell Douglas), V. Tipnis, T. Shoup (Santa Clara), D. Dietrich (Swanson), L. Hulbert (Battelle), E. Heer (NASA), S. Rhode (GM), R. Fulton (Georgia Tech), J.Cokonis (GE), R. Arvikar (Bell Labs), J. Lemon (SDRC), D. Riley (U. Minnesota), and R. Raghavan (Foster Wheeler).A high quality archival journal is extremely important to any research community. A conference alone cannot be sufficient. Conferences, at least in engineering, serve the purpose of quick dissemination of work in progress. Having an archival journal aids the maturation of a research community. Not all conference papers are suitable for archival in a journal. An additional complication in computing and IT is the rapid rate of development and consequent obsolescence of ideas and methods. What then should we archive? There certainly are many techniques in our field that have withstood the test of time. B-Rep solid models, B-splines, and NURBS, regularized Boolean algorithms, Attributed Adjacency Graph based feature recognition, and bipartite graphs for constraint solving are but a few examples. But most research is incremental, and it is important to archive snapshots of major milestones in each area. NURBS did not just come about suddenly. There were B-splines, rational B-splines before the idea of nonuniform knot spacing.JCISE associate editors serve 3 year terms, renewable for an additional 3. In addition to the founding group of AEs, I want to take this opportunity to thank all our current and past AEs. They are the ones that do the bulk of the work and get the credit for maintaining our high quality. I am very grateful to the following individuals: J. Michopoulos, K. Saitou, A. Goel, I. Grosse, K. Law, X. Qian, J. Oliver, S. McMains, S. Gao, A. Fischer, J. Vandenbrande, C. Geiger, Y. Kitamura, C. McMahon, A. Joneja, S. K. Gupta, R. Crawford, K. Lee, J. Corney, N. Dorighi, L. Joskowicz, and S. Callahan.I am sure that our new chief editor, Bahram Ravani, will take JCISE to new heights. My very best wishes to JCISE readers, authors, and reviewers. For me, this has been a labor of love.

As a professor of electrical and computer engineering, I consider myself lucky and privileged to educate wonderful undergraduate students, do cutting edge research with exceptional graduate students, and work or collaborate with outstanding colleagues. To be able to reflect on the past and project how we can shape our future, we must unequivocally connect to where we started, in the “why” that makes us move forward when we succeed but most importantly, when we do not. I am a computer engineer, but have become one—or perhaps, even a better one—not despite but because I have started as a potential math major in my teenage years, yet turned to be a computer science graduate. It was when I delved through my computer engineering PhD degree that I put together the beauty of math with the theoretical grounding of computer science, and their direct application to solving concrete engineering problems. This has guided and continues to guide my research, the engineering problems I choose to solve, and the approach I identify for their solution. My work as a researcher for the better part of my career has centered on making computing systems more energy efficient, by adapting them to the applications they run, the users they have, or the environment they operate in. Today, our children and even us take these systems for granted: our phones, smart consumer electronics, or cars all rely on systems that carry more (in fact thousands of times more) computing power than ENIAC, the first computer ever built 70 years ago. I am proud to have been part of the generation that has built the tools that enabled this amazing trend that allows us today to have more smart devices than humans that live on this planet. I am not only proud to have contributed to this inspiring quest but also lucky to have been contemporary to the unprecedented growth and ubiquity of electronic devices. Nevertheless, my path was unlike the vast majority of engineers or scientists you may know.

The purpose of this research is to identify the employability status of the Bachelor of Science in Computer Science (BSCS) Graduates of Negros Oriental State University-Guihulngan City Campus, Philippines from 2019 to 2021 with the entire population as respondents. It also sought to determine the respondents’ sex, nature of employment, and relatedness of their academic degree and job roles. The descriptive method was utilized. There were 111 respondents in this study. Findings show that the majority of the respondents are female, and a large majority of the respondents (78.38%) are employed. The results further disclose that most of the employed respondents work in private agencies as office staff and a small percentage (20%) in Business Process Outsourcing. However, most of the respondents’ job roles are not related to their college degrees. Hence, the findings suggest the high employability of BSCS graduates. However, there is still room for more enhancement by evaluating the current curriculum of the Bachelor of Science in Computer Science aimed to fulfill the current and future needs of societies undergoing social and economic change.