Paper ID #42184Lessons Learned: Summer Book Club to Promote Reflection among EngineeringFaculty on Mental Health of StudentsLuis Delgado Jr., Penn State University Luis R. Delgado Jr. is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Pennsylvania State University. He has a bachelor of science in Mechanical Engineering from The University of Texas at El Paso and earned a master of science degree in Civil Engineering with a minor in Public Policy from Penn State. Along with his role as a Ph.D., he is also a graduate research assistant at the Leonhard Center for Enhancement of Engineering Education at Penn
Paper ID #43568Examining the Implementation and Impact of Reflective Practices in EngineeringCourses: Insights from Faculty and Teaching AssistantsDr. Logan Andrew Perry, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Dr. Perry is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Education in the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His work contains a unique blend of engineering education and civil engineering projects. Dr. Perry’s current work centers on understandinMrs. Ibukunoluwa Eunice Salami, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Ibukunoluwa Eunice Salami is a PhD Student in Engineering Education
and Supportive – instructor invites students to set and reach their learning goals and supports student success through constructive feedback, mentoring, advising, and listening [10-11] • Structured and Intentional – instructor plans course well, describes course clearly, aligns learning objectives activities and assessments, instructor clearly communicates expectations and what students need to do to meet them [12-13]Multiple measures are needed to provide a clear view of effective and inclusive teaching[14]. For example, student feedback forms may provide insights form the learner but maynot provide a clear view of instructional quality. Similarly, peer feedback and self-reflection may not fully measure effective and
assess and reconstruct their professional practices that influence their mindset andreform engineering education.Introduction Critical consciousness is an advanced educational pedagogy to liberate the masses fromsystemic inequity maintained and perpetuated by interdependent systems and institutions (Freire,1970; Jemal, 2017). It is often situated in the context of analyzing oppressive systemic forcesusing the cyclic process of critical reflection, critical motivation, and critical action. Critical reflection is defined as the process of individuals analyzing their reality andsocial inequities (e.g., economic, racial/ethnic, and gender inequities) that constrain well-beingand human agency. Authors argue that individuals who are
take action(and which action) toward educational goals that matter to them. In particular, the agencyframework posits that professional capital (such as that can be developed in a group coachingsetting) can broaden an individual's awareness of possible actions to reach their goals [13].Consequently, a group coaching model was implemented to equip EIFs with the necessary toolsto lead educational change at their HSI. Coaching, often misinterpreted as other forms ofprofessional development such as mentoring or consultation, is a unique practice that avoidsadvice-giving strategies and encourages a client to seek solutions within themselves [14], [15].This coaching model was designed to encourage reflective practice, broaden their community(thereby
” than tenured faculty [10].Another common difference is the higher rate of women and faculty of color that are in NTTfaculty positions compared to those in Tenure-Track positions [13]. This reality points tosystemic inequities, given that Tenure-Track Faculty are, on average, paid significantly morethan NTT faculty. Given the project’s overarching goal of creating more inclusive environmentsand helping those in the ecosystem “thrive” and “meet them where they are,” it was an organicstep to create this space specifically for NTT faculty, given the tremendous contribution theymake to the ecosystem, and their unique needs.Data and ParticipantsThe data for this paper includes both participant and facilitator reflections in the form of“minute-papers
Leadership: An intentional approach to faculty leadership developmentPositive Leadership: An intentional approach to faculty leadership developmentAbstractAs Michigan Engineering (the University of Michigan College of Engineering) moved forwardafter the tumultuous pandemic years, College leaders recognized the need for concertedprofessional development in positive leadership. This evidenced-based practice paper discussesa year-long positive leadership development program for engineering faculty and staff members,which was grounded in research from the University of Michigan Center for PositiveOrganizations and a “learn-experiment-reflect” framework. The program was delivered throughsix in-person cohort sessions, self-paced learning via
activity–has been identified as an essential component forinstructional effectiveness [5]-[7] with highlights to the experience of mastery and socialpersuasion [7],[8]. This suggests that effective support for faculty should consist of learningcommunities that build supportive relationships between members, encourage critical reflection,and include opportunities for research partnerships [9].Faculty Communities of PracticesIn work focusing on educational and leadership development, Drago-Steverson [10] shares thateffective faculty development experiences allow faculty to experience conditions that supportadult learners through meaningful shared activities. Such activities enable faculty to experiencetransformational learning–learning that grows
are“intentionally designed with organic elements” [10, p. 854]. Through articulating and embodyinga philosophy, and through forming a web of relationships, a CoT supports its members to engagein critical reflection and develop a plan of action to change systems in their institutional contexts.In this paper, we analyze our case study as an example of a community of transformation andwill use this term when referring specifically to this community. However, since CoTs aresituated within the scholarly lineage of CoPs and share many important features, we also drawupon literature about CoPs more broadly to understand the structures and interactions in thisCoT.Structure, Agency, and TransformationWhy have efforts to create pervasive changes in
processing between meetings, (2) group discussion and processing of ourexperiences at our bi-weekly meetings, and (3) at the conclusion of the term, an iterative processof individual and collaborative review of our reflections and notes to identify and thematicallyorganize key observations and results.Our Stories (In Brief)Each of us came to Purdue University in the Fall of 2023 from private, teaching-intensiveinstitutions with enrollments between 2,500 and 3,500 students. We differed in our depth ofteaching and industry experience, which is summarized in Table 1.Table 1. Prior Teaching and Industry Experience of the Authors Author Teaching Experience Industry Experience Steve Assistant Professor (NTT
a humanistic approach to educating students. This humanistic approachacknowledges the importance of the affective side of teaching and learning. Engineering, whichshares many of the highly technical, decision-making aspects of nursing, could benefit from thisapproach for engineering education.Our ProgramOur team developed a Community of Practice (CoP) informed by a humanistic-educative caringframework, grounded in Caring Science, where the curriculum is about the process and intent tolearn coming from the interactions and transactions between faculty and learners. Thisframework embraces openness, human discovery, and deep reflection [4]. It also includesawareness of how learning works and co-creating meaningful learning experiences that
outcomes. Scholarssuch as Felder and Brent have emphasized the importance of disciplined inquiry into teachingmethodologies to improve the learning experiences of engineering students especially related toactive learning [6], [7]. SoTL allows educators to systematically investigate effectiveinstructional strategies and assess their impact on student learning. Previous research hasunderscored the transformative potential of SoTL emphasizing its role in shaping curriculardesign and facilitating evidence-based teaching approaches [8]. Reflective practice and practicedissemination, two key components of SoTL, holds the potential to accelerate growth not only atthe micro (classroom) level but also at the meso (institutional) and macro (national
Classroom Observations Section C: After Classroom Observations The observer meets with the instructor to hear The observer meets with the instructor to hear their reflections, discuss new ideas or their reflections, discuss new ideas or questions, and provide constructive feedback questions, and provide constructive feedback with a focus on highlighting strengths over with a focus on highlighting strengths over areas for improvement (at least three times as areas for improvement. many strengths as areas with room for improvement).Section AThis initial step in the peer observation process is meant to orient the observer to the course. Thismeans reviewing the course material and understanding the classroom
, completion,and placement rates [9]. Study PurposeIn response, the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) Accelerator program (a newengineering faculty professional development program) was created, implemented, and assessed;funding was provided by the Kern Family Foundation and Arizona State University Mentorship360 Program. The SoTL Accelerator program had two core parts (Figure 1): (1) New CurriculumDevelopment, Implementation, and Assessment, and (2) Reflection and Dissemination ofFindings. The SoTL Accelerator program was delivered in a virtual, structured, cohort manner topromote accessibility, accountability, and a sense of belonging. The purpose of this paper is toprovide an overview, results, and lessons learned from 30
) recruitment and incentives for engagement in TA training. Bysharing these models, readers will be able to intentionally reflect on their own training programs,consider components of our practices that could be incorporated into their own contexts, andultimately serve future faculty in other institutions.1. Institutional ContextTraining teaching assistants is a relatively new practice in higher education, and the catalyst forprograms differs in the US and UK. In the US, there are no standardized guidelines at the federallevel for teacher preparedness in higher education whereas the training that Imperial CollegeLondon conducts in the UK is largely informed by national government mandate. The DearingReport of 1997 [5] provided a formal blueprint for
mechanisms designed to address harms of the technology. Impact as measured byhuman and planetary well-being is also included.The student component of the framework concerns students' interactions with the technology athand. Instructors first consider the suitability of the technology in terms of its efficacy in helpingstudents reach learning goals; they then examine whether their students have equal and sufficientaccess and proficiency to use the technology. Instructors also consider whether the use of thetechnology promotes students' well-being and dignity, as well the sense of community in theclassroom.The self-reflection component of the framework asks instructors to consider whether thetechnology suits their teaching objectives and methods and
, Paretti et. al (2014) challenge the1engineering education community to fill a gap in the literature by “expand[ing] our understanding ofeffective context-specific and generalizable practices that foster deep learning of both professionalcommunication and engineering concepts simultaneously” (p. 623, emphasis added). To contributeto this goal, our work focuses on sharing effective strategies for embedding communication skillswithin specific engineering disciplines. By sharing our collective reflections, our goal is to supportengineering educators in drawing connections to their own research and practice.Purpose and Research QuestionsThe purpose of this paper is to explore strategies for integrating communication skills intoengineering curricula
unaware of the discipline of engineering education.As an effort to raise more awareness on the impact of engineering education research andpractice, the authors’ positionality stemmed from their reflections of their entry points into thefield of engineering education. This introspection prompted the authors to explore and share asmuch information about the discipline as was available at the time of this work.Research Approach & DesignThis exploratory study thoroughly investigated the current state of engineering education as adiscipline in the U.S. via an online content analysis of institutional or departmental websites tofind information about the faculty members working in the respective institutions. The sectionsand pages of ‘Faculty
. greater than learning what types of teaching strategies exist. reate a welcoming C xcerpts that refer to Faculty reflecting or changing the E environment. classroom environment toward a welcoming environment. sing an entrepreneurial UI mpact on faculty mindset in the Participants use the Entrepreneurial Mindset in their classroom. teaching classroom
by focusingon empathy and listening, exploring audience needs in a way that leads to sharply definedproblem statements. Through a process of divergent and convergent thinking, participants areasked to first generate lots of ideas and reflect on them with a group of peers, then narrow whatthey will write, say, or show, using quick sharing tools like storyboards or flow outlines andtesting both their messages and strategy. Then they give and receive critical feedback in realtime, allowing them to refine their approach and iterate through the process again until ready. Wefocus on practice for our trainees, emphasizing simple, memorable tools – the Elements – thatcan be applied at a variety of scales. A great illustration of this is a
environment (Sonawane et al., 2021, p. 9). Fromthe student perspective, mentees experience a sense of belonging, productive goal setting,feelings of accomplishment, and emotional support (AuCoin & Wright, 2021, pp. 610-611).Moreover, participants in one study reflected that faculty mentoring was “more helpful thanother interventions” serving as a “crucial opportunity to learn about science, scientists, andscientific process…” (Ceyhan et al., 2019, p. 258). Chelberg and Bosman (2019) found facultymentorship to be especially impactful to underrepresented STEM students as it aided in their“development, retention, persistence, and navigation of the postsecondary setting” (p. 45).Zeller’s et al. (2008) research further emphasizes that mentoring
subjects were asked to reflect on the approaches to leadership used by others (such asdepartment head, dean, etc.) in their departments and university. The focus of the first set ofquestions was on the subject’s understanding of the concept of leadership both in theory and inpractice. In addition to questions about leadership, we asked a series of questions aboutchange-making processes, such as the process they used themselves, their assessment ofanother’s person’s skills as an agent of change, the process for change making in theirdepartment, and the relationship between formal authority and the process of change. This lastquestion was intended to understand the individual’s views of the importance of formalauthority in making change. The
- 1. Obligation to promote student lectures and readings ject is to seek and to state municate knowledge to students, learning/ engagement/curiosity should reflect the truth as they see it. Pro- colleagues and the community at 2. Limits of our knowledge advancement of fessors seek above all to large. This mission depends upon 3. Stay up-to-date knowledge in a field
intertwined with the cultural wealthframework, which is situated with transnational framework, to explore the experiences ofinternational faculty in U.S. higher education institutions, particularly in the fields of science andengineering. Auto-ethnography[14], [15], as a method, allows researchers to use their ownexperiences as primary data, offering a deep, introspective understanding of the culturalphenomena under investigation. This approach is particularly suited to our study as it enables eachco-author to draw upon their personal narratives, reflecting their journey as international facultyin the U.S., thereby providing an authentic, first-person perspective on the challenges andopportunities they encounter. We did not use any prompts while
relationship [8, 9, 10, 11]. These findings deepen our knowledgeabout the complexities involved in effective faculty mentorship relationships and the importanceof treating mentorship as a multidimensional process.The sum of our findings highlight specific mentoring practices and programmatic structures toenhance the mentorship of junior engineering faculty and support several recommendations formentorship practice. Engineering departments, colleges, and institutions can leverage our initialframework as an assessment tool to evaluate their mentorship programs [15]. The tool could alsosupport self-evaluation, allowing mentors to reflect on their mentoring practices and identifystrengths and areas for improvement [11]. Further, faculty training based on
students at remote cohort(s) may feel that they are an afterthought or budgettightening measure, while the students at the local cohort may feel the tensions for competingattention and support. It may be necessary to rebuild and redesign labs, tutorial activities, andexams for each cohort that reflect the needs and constraints of each learning context.Understandably, due consideration and careful planning is required on behalf of theadministrative staff and instructor(s). Table 1: Differences between conventional and multi-campus courses Factor Conventional Multi-Campus Implications In-class Attend to students in Attend to students in Increased cognitive student
observation underscores the importance of addressing financial barriers andenhancing accessibility to ensure broader and more inclusive participation in future FDS events.Regarding repeat participants, our impact extends to a remarkable 182 faculty members andsoon-to-be faculty who have participated in the last eight events, as illustrated in Figure 2. Thisbroad reach is reflected in the representation of over 154 universities, underscoring thesymposium's national influence and effectiveness in engaging a diverse academic community.Each year, we actively strive to broaden our reach by extending invitations to a widening arrayof institutions and faculty members. Notably, in 2023, we achieved our highest attendance in asingle event, with 46
encounters andexistential reflections, thereby guiding their educational philosophy and praxis [8, 9,10]. Within the scope of this study, “teaching belief” is understood as the ingrainedconvictions held by educators about their pedagogical duties, student engagements,curricular substance, and the comprehensive process of instruction, which ultimatelydirect their didactic ideologies and methodologies. The efficacy of classroom evaluation practice is well-documented, with substantialevidence highlighting its pivotal role in enhancing student achievement and fosteringan intrinsic motivation to pursue academic objectives [11, 12]. This analysis delineatesevaluation not only as a multifaceted political dynamic within the classroomenvironment but also
(%) 40 30 30 20 20 10 0 0-3 4-6 10 and above Years of ExperienceFigure 1: Years of experience of Faculty membersThe big five personality traits were considered in the present study. Among the five, only threewere common among the faculty participants. The self-identified personality of the participantswas presented in Figure 2. The study defined conscientiousness as "reflecting the tendency to beaccountable, structured, diligent, goal-oriented, and to adhere to norms and rules" for a facultymember who self
with 10 GTAs. Participants selected forfollow-up interviews are GTAs who are teaching recitations. We did not include GTAs whoseprimary duties were grading and holding office hours but who were not in the classroom withstudents. These one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted roughly one semesterinto participants’ GTA experience. These interviews explore the techniques GTA’s use in theclassroom, their view of their role in the classroom and how it reflects their thinking aboutteaching, their own experiences as a student, and their experience participating in teachingrelated PD. We plan to interview the GTAs again after the completion of their first year to studyhow their teaching identity continues to evolve.In this paper, we report