Conference Session

New Learning Paradigms II

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Chandra Austin, Utah State University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

students: Are there urban/suburban differences? Journal of Career Assessment, 1999. 7(3): p. 227-237.27. Hollingshead, A.B. Four factor index of social status. 1975; Available from: http://www.yale.edu/sociology/faculty/.28. Rubin, D.B., Inference and Missing data. Biometrika, 1976. 63(3): p. 581-592.29. Batista, G. and M. Monard, An analysis of four missing data treatment methods for supervised learning. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 2003. 17(5/6): p. 519-533.30. Betz, N.E. and K.M. Taylor, Manual for the career decision self-efficacy scale and CDSE-short form. 2006.31. Crites, J.O., Career maturity inventory. 1 ed. 1978, Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.32. Taylor, K.M. and J. Pompa, An examination of the

Conference Session

Modeling Student Data

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jordana Hoegh, Purdue University; Alice Pawley, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

have significance. Itdepicts her as a passive actor whose fate is determined by an outsider with the power to open ornot open doors at junctures along the career path. These “doors” also represent critical junctures Page 15.882.7along women’s career pathways. A shut or open door changes the direction or course of one’scareer path.Another participant explained that while in graduate school she had one mentor who “facilitated”her career goals and mentor who “obstructed” her career goals. The student is a passive actorcontrolled by faculty who influence and direct her through graduate school. Unlike therandomness of doors opening or closing for

Conference Session

Measurement Tools

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Dina Banerjee, Purdue University; Alice Pawley, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

AC 2010-839: INSTITUTIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY: A RESEARCH METHOD TOINVESTIGATE THE WORK-LIFE EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN FACULTYMEMBERS IN STEM DISCIPLINESDina Banerjee, Purdue University Dina Banerjee is a post-doctoral researcher in the Research in Feminist Engineering (RIFE) group. Her primary responsibility is the study of the career-related experiences of the women and minority faculty members of the STEM disciplines of Purdue University. She graduated with her PhD from Purdue University in May, 2009. After her admission in Purdue University in 2002, she graduated with her third Masters with sociology major in 2004. Her areas of specialization are gender, work and occupation; development and social change

Conference Session

Knowing our Students, Faculty, and Profession

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Samantha Brunhaver, Stanford University; Russell Korte, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Micah Lande, Stanford University; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

AC 2010-118: SUPPORTS AND BARRIERS THAT RECENT ENGINEERINGGRADUATES EXPERIENCE IN THE WORKPLACESamantha Brunhaver, Stanford University Samantha Brunhaver is a second year graduate student at Stanford University. She is currently working on her Masters in Mechanical Engineering. Her research interests include engineering education and design for manufacturing. She earned a BS in Mechanical Engineering at Northeastern University in 2008.Russell Korte, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Russell Korte is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is currently a Fellow with the iFoundry project in the College of Engineering at

Conference Session

Knowing our Students, Faculty, and Profession

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Tershia Pinder-Grover, University of Michigan; Chris Groscurth, University of Michigan

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

program for an average of 2.8semesters. All participants were born at the end of Generation X (1961-1981)1 or at thebeginning of the Millennial Generation (1982-2002)1. Their average age was 27 years old.Because of this, they may share characteristics commonly associated with one or bothgenerations.In comparison to the population of graduate student instructors in the College of Engineering, theEGSMs in our study have taught for more semesters on average and are more likely to expressinterest in a tenure or tenure-track faculty career (Table 1). Moreover, EGSMs are as likely toexpress interest in pursuing a career in industry. Survey respondents were allowed to choosemore than one potential career path (Table 1). Table 1. Comparison of

Conference Session

Knowing our Students, Faculty, and Profession

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Matthew Holsapple, University of Michigan; Donald Carpenter, Lawrence Technological University; Janel Sutkus, Carnegie Mellon University; Cynthia Finelli, University of Michigan; Kelley Walczak, University of Michigan; Trevor Harding, California Polytechnic State University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

, enrollment prediction, modeling responses to institutional financial aid, and developing an integrated model of student persistence within Carnegie Mellon's six undergraduate colleges. She is currently a member of ASEE, the Association for Institutional Research, and the Association for the Study of Higher Education.Cynthia Finelli, University of Michigan Cynthia Finelli, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Research and Learning North at U-M. In addition, she actively pursues research in engineering education and assists other faculty in their scholarly projects. She also is past Chair of the Educational Research and Methods Division of ASEE and guest co-editor for a special issue of the

Conference Session

Student Attitudes and Perceptions

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jennifer Atchison, Drexel University; Dorothea Holmes-Stanley, St. Cyprian's School; Adam Fontecchio, Drexel University; Eli Fromm, Drexel University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

Head in the Drexel University Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, and an Associate Dean of the College of Engineering, Co-Director of the A. J. Drexel Nanotechnology Institute, an affiliated member of the Materials Engineering Department, a member of the Center for Educational Research, and his research focuses on the area of nanophotonics. He is the recipient of a NASA New Investigator Award, the Drexel Graduate Student Association Outstanding Mentor Award, the Drexel University ECE Outstanding Research Achievement Award and the International Liquid Crystal Society Multimedia Prize. In 2003, he received a NASA/ASEE Summer Faculty Fellowship to research NEMS/MEMS adaptive optics in

Conference Session

Modeling Student Data

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Gisele Ragusa, University of Southern California

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

attempted to measureglobal citizenry. This group developed an instrument to test the constructs associated with globalcitizenry for students preparing for diverse professions. Through review of this instrument, it wasposited that perhaps global preparedness was domain (or career trajectory) specific. Accordingly,this researcher set out to utilize some of the constructs associated with the generic globalcitizenry instrument that she had co-designed and tested, to design a domain specific globalpreparedness instrument. As previously described, two fields (domains), which often requiredglobal foci were of primary interest: engineering and business. Global preparedness in these twodomains or fields is compared in this paper. Accordingly, the primary

Conference Session

Classroom Engagement

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sarah Parikh, Stanford University; Helen Chen, Stanford University; Kenneth Goodson, Stanford University; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

?” Answering this question wouldallow educators to make more informed decisions about how to encourage learning.There is an extensive history of pedagogical research on student engagement, much of which hasmade progress on defining the concept of engagement. There are many different aspects ofstudent engagement in university courses as engagement stands at the crossroads of interest,involvement, excitement, choice, attitude, behavior, and opportunity. Pace used the term qualityof effort and, in his view, “quality of effort describes voluntary behavior. It reflects initiative. Itdescribes the strength and the scope of personal investment that students are making for theirown higher education.”[3] Astin used the term involvement and considered the

Conference Session

Student Attitudes and Perceptions

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Justin Micomonaco, Michigan State University; Jon Sticklen, Michigan State University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

extracurricular activities, informal conversations inthe residence hall and social events.20 These types of activities combine to cultivate membership in a community for thestudent.21 The degree of integration in the community impacts the student’s commitment torelated goals and persistence in that domain. For example, students who participate inengineering-related events outside of class are more likely to feel connected to the community ofengineers and see more value in persisting to degree completion. In addition to the structuralobstacles of curriculum and pedagogy, Seymour and Hewitt noted that a lack of identificationwith STEM careers was an additional factor influencing students’ decisions to leave thediscipline.22 This is an element that

Conference Session

Modeling Student Data

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Michael Dyrenfurth, Purdue University; Mike Murphy, Dublin Institute of Technology; Gary Bertoline, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

ranks are solely based on voluntary student reports.  http://www.studentsreview.com/• Forbes publishes America's Best Colleges based on variables such as student satisfaction, post-graduate employment success, the likelihood of graduation from college within four years, the estimated average four-year student loan debt, student and faculty success in winning national and international awards. They refer to both affordability and productivity criteria.  http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/94/colleges-09_Americas-Best-Colleges_Rank.html• The Global Universities Ranking seems to be a newly emerging and rudimentary attempt at ranking based on self-reported data. It does, however seek to include information from Russia, CIS and Baltic country

Conference Session

Special Session: Impacts of Service in Engineering

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Olga Pierrakos, James Madison University; Eric Pappas, James Madison University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

BRIGE grant), advancing problem based learning methodologies (NSF CCLI grant), assessing student learning, as well as understanding and integrating complex problem solving in undergraduate engineering education (NSF CAREER grant). Her other research interests lie in cardiovascular fluid mechanics, sustainability research, and K-12 engineering outreach.Eric Pappas, James Madison University ERIC PAPPAS is an associate professor in the School of Engineering and the Department of Integrated Science and Technology at James Madison University. Page 15.1082.1© American Society for Engineering

Conference Session

Special Session: Next Generation Problem-Solving

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ronald Miller, Colorado School of Mines; Tamara Moore, University of Minnesota; Brian Self, California Polytechnic State University; Andrew Kean, California Polytechnic State University; Gillian Roehrig, University of Minnesota; Jack Patzer, University of Pittsburgh

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

authors of this paper have piloted selected MEAs in theircourses. This paper will describe their experiences within the context of available studentlearning data. An MEA is designed to present student teams with a realistic, thought provokingscenario that requires the development of a generalized mathematical model. A well-designedMEA is built around a main concept that the instructor wants students either to discover and/orbetter understand. Data from these experiments can be used to determine the value added forstudents completing MEAs compared with other types of problem-solving activities includingproblem-based learning exercises. Using an MEA also causes documented, positive change inthe faculty members themselves.Introduction and

Conference Session

Engineering Design: Implementation and Evaluation

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Xaver Neumeyer, Northwestern University; Ann McKenna, Northwestern University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

essentially left to me and oneother person which made it extremely stressful and difficult to get the project done”)(Student D in EDC). Others conveyed more enthusiasm about their team interactions(“Everyone on the team did an absolutely fantastic job, and really pulled their weight! Itwas a pleasure working with everyone, and I learned so much from everyone”) (StudentB in MI).In general, some faculty members expressed their skepticism about the students’understanding of teamwork (“Some students do not understand the real value of a team,they think it is something similar to a study group”) (Instructor in MI). Others explainedthat high-achievers immediately establish a performance hierarchy based on each teammembers’ skill and ambition that can often

Conference Session

Educational Research

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Cindy Waters, North Carolina A&T State University; Helen Chen, Stanford University; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

hard data from their own students. Therefore, the goals of the workshop design were to guide North Carolina A&T faculty in gaining: 1) an understanding of three findings from a large-scale study of the engineering student experience; 2) an awareness of the types of decisions explicitly and implicitly made in teaching; and 3) an appreciation of the implications of research findings for their own teaching. In an effort to promote faculty buy-in for the workshop, several months before the scheduled event the entire faculty was introduced to the agenda of the planned workshop which consisted of a presentation of findings, followed by general discussion and small group work to explore