Background Even as expectations for engineers continue to evolve to meet global challenges, analytical problem solving remains a central skill. Thus, improving students' analytical problem solving skills remains an important goal in engineering education. This study involves observation of students as they execute the initial steps of an engineering problem solving process in statics. Purpose (Hypothesis) (1) What knowledge elements do statics students have the greatest difficulty applying during problem solving? (2) Are there differences in the knowledge elements that are accurately applied by strong and weak statics students? (3) Are there differences in the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by strong and weak statics students during analysis? Design/Method These questions were addressed using think‐aloud sessions during which students solved typical textbook problems. We selected the work of twelve students for detailed analysis, six weak and six strong problem solvers, using an extreme groups split based on scores on the think‐aloud problems and a course exam score. The think‐aloud data from the two sets of students were analyzed to identify common technical errors and also major differences in the problem solving processes. Conclusions We found that the weak, and most of the strong problem solvers relied heavily on memory to decide what reactions were present at a given connection, and few of the students could reason physically about what reactions should be present. Furthermore, the cognitive analysis of the students' problems solving processes revealed substantial differences in the use of self‐explanation by weak and strong students.

is currently a PhD Candidate in the Architectural Engineering Department at Penn State. Robert's research focuses on the improvement of team collaboration while leveraging advanced data modeling and visualization technologies for building design and construction. Robert earned his Masters in Architectural Engineering at Penn State, as well as having a background in the construction industry. In addition, Robert has also spend time working with VTT, the Technical Research Center of Finland, as a visiting scholar with their Building Informatics team. Robert's interest in Multi-Media educational methods has grown through his research into improving team collaboration through improved communication technology. He can be reached at

Abstract. Protection from hydrological extremes and the sustainable supply of hydrological services in the presence of changing climate and lifestyles as well as rocketing population pressure in many parts of the world are the defining societal challenges for hydrology in the 21st century. A review of the existing literature shows that these challenges and their educational consequences for hydrology were foreseeable and were even predicted by some. However, surveys of the current educational basis for hydrology also clearly demonstrate that hydrology education is not yet ready to prepare students to deal with these challenges. We present our own vision of the necessary evolution of hydrology education, which we implemented in the Modular Curriculum for Hydrologic Advancement (MOCHA). The MOCHA project is directly aimed at developing a community-driven basis for hydrology education. In this paper we combine literature review, community survey, discussion and assessment to provide a holistic baseline for the future of hydrology education. The ultimate objective of our educational initiative is to enable educators to train a new generation of "renaissance hydrologists," who can master the holistic nature of our field and of the problems we encounter.

The current study presented an initial evaluation, following Year 1, of a National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program in chemical engineering conducted at a large Mid-Atlantic research university. A methodology for evaluating student outcomes from undergraduate research experiences was also proposed. Evaluation of the REU program relied upon an extensive assessment methodology, utilizing preand post-survey measures of research and scientific-based experiences and skills as well as indepth student and faculty mentor interviews of REU experiences, gains, and perceived benefits. Participants (n = 21; 25% female; 42% underrepresented minority status) evidenced significant gains in broad research experience and specific research-based skills and experiences after completing the REU program. Specific production metrics, ratings of research experiences, as well as initial graduate school plans and outcomes, were also obtained. Results indicated involvement in presentations and publications as well as moderate to high ratings of core REU experiences.A key finding from the study is the clarifying role the REU program played in facilitating students' graduate school plans; results support REU programs as a refining experience rather than a prompting experience for graduate school outcomes. Qualitative analysis of student interview data revealed a perceived significant benefit of working collaboratively with other students while engaged in the research experience and an increased and improved understanding of the nature of research. Qualitative analysis of faculty mentor interview data corroborated the perceived benefits of student pairing and research collaboration, and also noted the ability of student pairing to facilitate student work and time management. Despite high ratings of core REU program elements, students expressed a desire for more time working with and under the advisement of faculty mentors. Across students and faculty mentors, suggestion was made for the inclusion of additional social and related events and programs to further facilitate research collaboration and integration during the program. Limitations, recommendations for improvement of the REU program and for future evaluation of the REU, and implications for institutions interested in implementing REU programs are discussed.

This research paper describes an investigation into the impacts of a flipped pedagogy on studentperceived classroom climate. We used the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) to assess the classroom climate in both the flipped class and various control classes that were not flipped. This inventory includes seven psychosocial dimensions of classroom climate: personalization, involvement, student cohesiveness, satisfaction, task orientation, innovation, and individualization. Our specific research questions were:1. Do students perceive a more positive classroom climate in a flipped classroom vs. a traditional lecture-based course when controlled for course content and instructor? 2. What psychosocial dimensions were most impacted by the flipped pedagogy? 3. What do these results indicate about student motivation in a flipped classroom?One group of students (Group "A") had just completed the flipped course. The second group (Group "B") consisted of students who had just completed the same course, but taught in a traditional format. This was to control for the effect of the course material on student's motivation and interest. The third group (Group "C") consisted of students who had just completed a different engineering course taught by the same instructor in a traditional format. This was to control for a different instructor. The groups were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA. The responses were analyzed based on each of the seven subscales within the CUCEI, as well as on an overall score combining all seven subscales.The results show that overall the flipped class results in a higher score in both overall classroom climate and for the individualization subscale. In addition we found higher averages for task orientation when controlled for instructor. When controlled for the course content, the flipped course is more innovative and students get to know each other more. The implications of these findings on flipped classrooms are important to those faculty wishing to flip their course.