engineering education.As a best practices paper, we describe the key elements of the course including thetheories that shaped the learning environment and learning objectives, provide evidenceof student learning outcomes, and suggest ways for using or improving upon this model.Course outcomes are described through the students’ voice as co-authors of this paper.The students used their final reflection assignment to collectively identify their: (1) initialperspectives on engineering education research and the influence of these perspectives ontheir experience in the course, (2) general “take aways” they believe will have a lastingimpact, (3) evolving perspectives on what it means to become an engineering educationprofessional and how they are
) Evolve! The learner is asked to describe how her or his views have shifted based on the content presented in the module, and how she or he will use the content in future applications in the engineering community (community-centered) Reflect!The learner is given time to personally reflect on the content and learning that has transpired in the module (learner-centered.) Stemming from early constructivist theorists like John Dewey and Jean Piaget, structured time for reflection in learning is becoming a well-recognized component in meaningful engineering learning environments.The LEADER modules were designed and structured to advance particular professionalsskills as identified: (1) via empirical findings
. The students exhibited a high attendance rate, but many students lost interest when thespeakers spoke at too high a technical level. Student surveys showed that the course improvedtheir ability to decide on whether to pursue graduate research, and whether this research wouldoccur in the Mechanical Engineering Department. The course surveys also suggested that thestudents were drawn away from professional post-graduate degrees towards research-relatedgraduate degrees. Also, nearly 1 in 5 students actively sought out at least one presenter orfaculty advisor to discuss their research project further, showing a substantial increase indepartmental research interest by the current undergraduate students. Finally, all studentsrecommended the course
-Colbry, Theresa L. Gonzalez Michigan State University East Lansing, MI, USAIntroductionGraduate students face a range of challenges beyond simply passing their courses andcompleting their research. Many graduate students struggle to access academic resources,integrate with their departmental and campus communities, and balance their personalresponsibilities with their academic pursuits.1–3 Researchers have been studying the experienceof graduate students for decades, looking at the role of social supports4–6 and the variedexperiences of different populations of graduate students.7–10Providing adequate support for graduate students is important to ensure both their personal
tothem.The graduate student seminar is a one credit course that meets for the first 8 weeks of thesemester in a two hour class session. The remainder of the semester involves teachingobservations by the instructor and by a peer with the class reconvening during the final week ofthe semester. Each of the class sessions focuses on a teaching and learning topic, 1) the firstweek of class – setting the tone, 2) understanding your students, 3) strategic course planningand objectives, 4) instructional methods and appropriate assessments, 5) active learningtechniques, 6) multicultural awareness and ethics, and 7) peer learning techniques, practice andfeedback. The instructor blended instruction each week to focus on one topic that complementeda chapter
previous understanding on young adults’ epistemologicaldevelopment8-12 and theories on the role of self and relationship13. Self-authorship theory depictsyoung adults’ development towards self-authorship in three dimensions, i.e. the epistemological,intrapersonal, and interpersonal dimensions6. For an individual, the development towards self-authorship involves an essential growth in epistemological thinking, with a concurrent growth inone’s personal identity and relationship to others7. The development towards self-authorship isdepicted in Figure 1. The Development towards Self-authorship Self-authorship View knowledge as Epistemological
(knowledge and intellectual abilities, personal effectiveness, Page 24.201.3research governance and organization, engagement, influence and impact). Each of thesedomains is divided into three sub-domains. Number of items in each sub-domain variesbetween three to eight items (see tables 1 to 4). Participants had three weeks to completethe surveys. Each survey was divided into three main sections. For each item in thesurveys, participants first rated the importance of that item based on a 4-point likert scale(not at all important, slightly important, important, very important). Then based on thedescription for each item, students rated their own competency
Page 24.237.2options, participants have the opportunity to rank the impact and relevance of each seminar fortheir professional and academic development. This paper utilizes assessments from roundtablesession evaluations from 2012 and 2013, to show that graduate students in STEM fields canbenefit from being part of a community of practice that prepares graduate students for careers,and fosters relationships with peers and professionals.BackgroundThe Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012) projects that between the years of 2010 and 2020, therewill be approximately 2.6 million job openings requiring advanced degrees.1 The Commission onGraduate School and Into Careers noted that approximately 59% of graduate students noted thatpreparing for future jobs
understanding of growth13. In our study, we simultaneouslyconsider assertions from multiple models and look to rich data sources in order to betterunderstand the various elements of the fellowship program we developed. A key idea in our fellowship program was facilitating self-identification as both aprofessional and valued colleague with meaningful expertise. A long line of scholars (e.g.,Dewey, Piaget, Flavell, Perry, and others) have conceived of epistemological shifts throughstages in which students engage in reflection and growth15 and eventually construct theiridentities as they transition into adulthood. Baxter-Magolda16, building on Kegan’s work,explored the processes of self-authorship, based on three fundamental questions: 1) who am I
development.Through this study, we hope to better understand graduate student role identity by examiningstudent perceptions in three fields—education which is typically teacher focused, engineeringwhich is typically research focused, and engineering education which is a hybrid between thetwo roles—and to contribute to research focused on improving efforts in preparing the futureprofessoriate.1 Our goal is to answer the following research question: How do graduate students conceive of and rank professional role identities, including those of researcher, teacher, and lifelong learner, in terms of their current and future actual roles, expected roles, and desired roles?In order to address this question, a survey was developed, distributed
included relevant fundamentals from microbiology, fluid dynamics, and materialscience. The class was co-taught by a faculty member from the College of Engineering and afaculty member from the Medical School. The course consisted of two segments. The firstsegment (weeks 1-9) was made up of lectures and in-class problems, alternating between the twodisciplinary perspectives, and the second segment (weeks 10-14) synthesized the understandingfrom the two disciplines through real world examples of the material highlighted by threeexternal speakers as well as a required course project by each student.Students were recruited by standard posting of the course description and through personalcommunications between the course faculty and graduate program
wherethey are responsible for developing an entire course. Engineering students more often haveresearch assistantships, and available teaching opportunities can be limited to facilitating alaboratory section without developing its content.1 As a consequence, engineering students canbe left without the curriculum development experience necessary to become the next generationof excellent instructors. Some disciplines have recognized the need for graduate student teachingdevelopment;2-4 however, these programs are not widespread.Undergraduate students in engineering are often required to learn specialized skills such asMATLAB, Mathematica, Excel, SolidWorks, and COMSOL Multiphysics. These skills areindispensible in many areas of engineering, yet
trade associationcomprised of more than 33,000 firms. As stated in their request for proposal, which was initiatedto advance graduate CM programs, the AGC expressed an interest in partial funding andadvertised support for up to four programs. The AGC stated: “The need for senior executives tosecure a masters is apparent from two perspectives. First, they will benefit from learning newlyevolved construction techniques and management methods. Second, their experience is neededon campus as instructors” 1. In the BCM distance MS program that developed from AGC initialsupport, there were 13 enrolled in the first cohort of students. The program quickly grew to anenrollment between 17 and 23 students. Total enrollment has been limited to 24 students
Education, 2014 Preliminary Analyses of Survey and Student Outcome Data Using the Global Real-Time Assessment Tool for Teaching Enhancement (G-RATE)AbstractThis paper presents a brief overview of a pilot study conducted with a tool called the GlobalReal-time Assessment Tool for Teaching Enhancement (G-RATE) and the development ofinstructor profiles. The purpose of the pilot study is to investigate how student perceptions ofteaching practices on key aspects of the “How People Learn” (HPL) framework and students’end of the course grades differ among three conditions (i.e., (1) instructors were observed onceand received no feedback on their instruction during the semester (C1), (2) instructors wereobserved
c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Preparing Future Engineering Educators through Round-Table Practicum Course DiscussionsIntroductionWith good intentions, there has been a push for earlier training of engineering faculty,starting as early as with graduate students aspiring towards faculty positions, in hopesthat new faculty are better prepared when asked to teach as primary instructors.1 Theconcept of using pre-faculty members as instructors is not novel, however, there arelimited reported efforts towards training and supporting the development of future facultymembers. Many engineering graduate students experience graduate teaching positions,often being thrown in front of a classroom with
result of formal mechanisms.Beyond mastering knowledge and the process to produce it, students must also acquire a myriadof professional skills and information to succeed in their desired career paths. The IGERT-MNMEducation and Training program addresses these three missing elements in graduate education by(1) offering instruction on emerging interdisciplinary knowledge, (2) providing formal training toprepare students to become independent researchers, and (3) emphasizing pedagogical andprofessional development training. In addressing these areas, disciplinary boundaries andtraditional graduate education paradigms are challenged through the active engagement ofgraduate students.Literature on IGERT programs show that the most popular learning
their studies” 4(p.47). As aresult, some are left with what has been described as disconnected and narrow areas of expertise1,5 at a time when the changing marketplace is demanding workers who have well-rounded andintegrative skills that balance breadth and depth, as well as experience with interdisciplinarity,leadership, and communication skills 2,5–8.Critics have determined that this disconnect is creating an unacceptable number of doctoralstudents who feel “ill-prepared for, and under-informed about, jobs outside of researchuniversities” 1(p. 24). Even graduates who find work within the academy struggle to transfer theirdisciplinary training and knowledge to meet the broader demands of their new employment andare finding themselves
training. However, graduate students' willingness toparticipate in opportunities to develop those skills is likely to depend on what skills they perceiveas essential to their career success and important for them to develop during graduate studies.The current study builds on prior work (Authors, 2011): Using coded interview responses from40 engineering Ph.D. professionals working in either industry or academia, the researchersdesigned a survey to explore what skills graduate engineering students believe are necessary forcareer success and to what degree they believe those skills should be developed during theirgraduate training. The initial survey included 91 items. For each item, participants indicated 1)the degree to which they believed the
Page 24.1234.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 The Mentoring Experience: Finding Value in Guiding Undergraduate Researchers Katy Luchini-Colbry, Korine Steinke-Wawrzynski, Megan Shannahan Michigan State University East Lansing, MI, USAAbstractWe discuss results from surveys of faculty involved in mentoring undergraduate researchassistants in a summer program at Michigan State University. The goals of this study were: (1)to examine how mentors set expectations and communicated with students early in the researchexperience; (2) to explore the ways that mentors and students
ofsupport that students find most helpful. Zhao, Golde, and McCormick found a strong correlationbetween PhD student satisfaction and their advisors’ academic advising behaviors, as well asadvisors’ personal touch and career development behaviors14. Similarly, Demb reported thatstudents’ feedback on the advising relationship centered on five critical areas: 1) Demonstrating respect for the student and valuing ideas; 2) Trust; 3) Providing challenge, feedback, direction, and conceptual support; 4) Appreciating the difference between an advisor and a mentor; and 5) Investing in the relationship by sharing personal experience while maintaining appropriate boundaries.She identified the first three of these
students with funding for four semesters as theywork toward a Master’s Degree in their chosen major. With this opportunity in mind, theCollege of Engineering Dean’s Office and the four department Chairpersons formed a committeeto develop a summer training program that prepares the Teaching Fellows for the classroomexperience. The program has four stages: 1) Orientation, 2) Instruction, 3) ClassroomImmersion, and 4) Individual Practice. In this paper each stage is described in detail. Thisintensive training program with its novel use of classroom experience in summer programs hasprovided the Teaching Fellows the opportunity to gain the confidence and skills to succeed intheir Fellowship requirements. A full description of the program and assessment
center for others to adopt or adaptfor their use. Figure 1 shows a high level model of the program. Figure 1: Summary of TESP Program descriptionThe seven translational engineering competencies are described as Skill Blocks and arecomposed of a series of activities specifically designed to increase students’ knowledge andexperience in that particular area as shown in Figure 2.The TESP activities are developed by combining the expertise of ASSIST faculty, education anddiversity directors, industry liaison officer (ILO), medical director, and outside collaborators.The activities are meant to be hands-on, experiential learning sessions. In designing theseactivities, we recognize the importance of effective learning