Seattle, Washington
June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
978-0-692-50180-1
2153-5965
Graduate Studies
12
26.368.1 - 26.368.12
10.18260/p.23707
https://peer.asee.org/23707
590
Prateek Shekhar is a PhD student in the Department of Mechanical Education at the University of Texas at Austin. His research is focused in understanding students’ and faculty’s reaction to adoption of active learning based teaching methods in engineering classrooms. He holds a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from University of Southern California and B.S. in Electronics and Communication Engineering from India.
Lisa D. McNair is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she also serves as co-Director of the VT Engineering Communication Center (VTECC). Her research interests include interdisciplinary collaboration, design education, communication studies, identity theory and reflective practice. Projects supported by the National Science Foundation include exploring disciplines as cultures, interdisciplinary pedagogy for pervasive computing design; writing across the curriculum in Statics courses; as well as a CAREER award to explore the use of e-portfolios to promote professional identity and reflective practice.
Program Evaluation of PhD programs in Engineering Education The field of Engineering Education (ENGE) has emerged as an internationally recognized area of research and continues to expand every year through venues for continued discussion (ASEE, FIE, REES Conferences) and peer reviewed publication outlets (JEE, EJEE, IJEE). In the US, several universities have established centers to support engineering faculty members in improving their pedagogical practices and perform research in other relevant areas of ENGE. In addition, engineering departments across several universities have started to recognize ENGE research in their doctoral programs. Furthermore, several specialized ENGE PhD programs are currently being offered in the country, reiterating the acceptance of ENGE as a rigorous field of inquiry. However, there exists minimal information about the effectiveness of these dedicated PhD programs. Considering the need to evaluate the quality of the PhD programs in ENGE, our methods plan is a mapping of the different programs available in the field in order to compare: (i) the expected learning outcomes, (ii) program goals, (iii) mission statements, and (iv) major milestones. Through interviews with the main stakeholders (i.e. ENGE Department Heads, ENGE Graduate Student coordinators, Deans of College of Engineering, administrators in charge of hiring ENGE graduates, and ENGE graduates) will be interviewed to gather insights and compare the similitudes or differences between the existing ENGE programs. Results from the program evaluation of ENGE PhD programs will provide with information about the different focus and characteristics programs have. Mapping the programs will allow us to understand how cohesive the field is (or not) at this point of evolution, and the main attributes different programs develop in ENGE. In addition, results will provide preliminary information that will help us propose a thorough program evaluation proposal to understand the impact ENGE graduates have in the engineering field.
Murzi, H. G., & Shekhar, P., & McNair, L. D. (2015, June), Comparative Analysis of Ph.D. Programs in Engineering Education Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.23707
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2015 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015