Paper ID #48082Adapting to Alternative Learning: Insights from Engineering Graduate StudentsDuring the COVID-19 PandemicAnimesh Paul, University of Georgia Animesh (he/they) was born in Tripura, India, and raised in a liberal, military family. A creative and outgoing individual, he earned a B.Tech in Electronics and Electrical Engineering from KIIT University. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the Engineering Education Transformation Institute, advised by Dr. Racheida Lewis, with research focusing on user experience and student transitions in engineering education.Dr. Racheida S Lewis, University of Georgia
. Theexosystem follows, encapsulating indirect environments (e.g., experiences of roommate ingraduate school but in a different degree program and conversations with the individual aboutthese experiences). The macrosystem level includes social and cultural values, whereas the finalchronosystem level pertains to transitions in environment(s) over time, respectively [21]. It isimportant to note that there is a bidirectional relationship between a person and theirenvironment; that is, they both can impact one another (discussed via the process-person-context-time [PPCT] language) [5].Godfrey & Parker’s Culture of Engineering Education Framework (CEEF)CEEF was used to provide context to the environment and systems engineering graduatestudents
indicated "strong agreement" or "always or almost always true of me." The first twosections were adopted from [5]’s survey, while the other survey sections were adopted from[20]'s survey. These scales allowed respondents to share distinct perceptions and experiencesrelated to the development of their pedagogical and entrepreneurial mindsets attributed to thecourse.Analysis ProcedureIn this study, the analysis focuses on evaluating the KEEN Entrepreneurial Mindset trackcompared to the general pedagogical and leadership development from the GTA course. Thesurvey was utilized, with each section corresponding to crucial topics within the course andKEEN tracks. The two surveys used in this study are valid and reliable [5], [20]. The impact ofthe KEEN
. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd.[2] American Society for Engineering Education. (2024). Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology,2023. Washington, DC. https://ira.asee.org/profiles-of- engineering-engineering-technology/[3] Yoon, S. Y., Aldridge, J. L., Else-Quest, N. M., & Roy, J. (2024). Development of a climate survey for engineering doctoral students from an intersectional approach: First-round validity evidence. Proceedings of the 131st American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, Portland, OR, USA.[4] Aldridge, J. L., Else-Quest, N. M., & Yoon, S. Y. (2025, April). Applying an integrative climate framework to
creativelyintegrating and building on methodologies from the NSF I-Corps Lean Launchpad program(s)and Stanford’s Life Design curricula, the bootcamp equips participants with tools and strategiesto actively design and navigate their career paths. This initiative places students at the center oftheir career exploration, fostering a sense of ownership, confidence, and adaptability that is oftenmissing from traditional graduate training.Participants consistently reported significant shifts in perspective. They emphasized newfoundawareness of the broader impact of their research, the value of collaborative engagement, and theimportance of exploratory learning in both academic and non-academic settings. The bootcampalso enabled the development of critical
School Admissions Duan, D., Rico, C. A., García-Bayona, L., Blanco, A. T., Agreda, Y. S., Villegas Rodríguez, G. J., Ceja, A., Martinez, V. G., Goldman, O. V., & Fernandez, R. W. Hispanic/Latinx STEM Majors Applying Monarrez, A.,; Frederick, 2024 to
thenhow they interact over time to create distinctive developmental trajectories.Case 1: Student 1 - The Growth Alignment PatternAs seen in Figure 4, Student 1's developmental trajectory exemplifies the Growth AlignmentPattern, characterized by coordinated growth across all three dimensions of self-perceivedprogress, desire, and perceived possibility and culminating in identification as aninterdisciplinary scholar. Their journey demonstrates how initial tentativeness aboutinterdisciplinary work can evolve into a confident interdisciplinary identity through sustainedengagement with interdisciplinary practices and communities. Figure 4: The Growth Alignment Pattern Developmental TrajectoryDesire TrajectoryStudent 1's desire to pursue
informed by our literature review and included questions aboutparticipants’ advisor(s), perceptions of their advisors’ work-life balance, research group climate,and department climate [4]. This paper focuses on responses to two questions from the largerstudy’s interview protocol: 1) What advice does your PhD advisor give you about your suitability and preparation for your desired career path? 2) Are there some aspects of your plans you don’t feel like you can openly discuss with your PhD advisor?3.3 | Data analysis We completed two rounds of inductive coding using transcripts from the interviews [29].In the first round of coding, we identified the five major themes of participant-advisorrelationship, participant's
through listserv(s) and/or paper postings onbulletin boards with additional information: • Open to graduate students in STEM-related programs • Continue to develop your inclusive teaching skills to support all students in your classes • Attend 3 workshops in [session month/year] • Eligible to earn an Inclusive Teaching for STEM Graduate Students Mini-Course CertificationAll sessions are 90 minutes, including both content delivery (generally 50 minutes total) andsmall group breakout discussions (generally 40 minutes total, broken into 5-10 minute individualbreakout sessions). Please note that while the sessions are titled “classroom,” the instructionalmodality is defined broadly and teaching techniques and strategies for in
international students. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 11(3), 359-378.[2]. Skinner, R. (2013). American engineering doctoral enrollments. International Higher Education, (72), 23-24.[3]. Ku, H. Y., Lahman, M. K., Yeh, H. T., & Cheng, Y. C. (2008). Into the academy: Preparing and mentoring international doctoral students. Educational technology research and development, 56, 365-377.[4]. Hart-Baldridge, E. (2020). Faculty advisor perspectives of academic advising. NACADA Journal, 40(1), 10-22.[5]. Knox, S., Schlosser, L. Z., Pruitt, N. T., & Hill, C. E. (2006). A qualitative examination of graduate advising relationships: The advisor perspective. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(4), 489-518.[6
determineif the results are based on the field of study or just this individual course. In addition, it would beinteresting to determine if the results are only based on semiconductor manufacturing topic or ifthey apply to other engineering areas.References:[1] S. Kurinec et al., "Microelectronic engineering education for emerging technologies," in 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2010: IEEE, pp. T3J-1-T3J-6.[2] A. J. Muscat, E. L. Allen, E. D. Green, and L. S. Vanasupa, "Interdisciplinary teaching and learning in a semiconductor processing course," Journal of engineering Education, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 413-421, 1998.[3] S. Suteerawattananon, D. Prasertsom, J. Benjanarasut, B. Janthong, W. Kaewnet, and C
] B. E. Lovitts, “Who Is Responsible for Graduate Student Attrition--The Individual or the Institution? Toward an Explanation of the High and Persistent Rate of Attrition,” Apr. 1996. Accessed: Mar. 22, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED399878[2] National Science Foundation, “Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (GSS) 2022,” Fall 2022. Accessed: Mar. 22, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/graduate-students-postdoctorates-s-e/2022[3] N. Sellami, B. Toven-Lindsey, M. Levis-Fitzgerald, P. H. Barber, and T. Hasson, “A Unique and Scalable Model for Increasing Research Engagement, STEM Persistence, and Entry into Doctoral Programs,” CBE—Life Sci
systematically address the research question. STAGE 1: Identifying the research question(s) The research question was formed in this stage that guided our scoping review study: What is the current landscape of literature on the financial well-being of engineering graduate students at master’s degree level, with a focus on financial anxiety and financial stress related to student loans? Based on this research question, we defined our Population-Concept-Context (PCC) framework, which further guided the inclusion and exclusion criteria of our study. We defined the precise terms structured within this framework. Table 2 outlines the PCC framework that we used to define our concept lines
.[9] Council of Graduate Schools, Doctoral Initiative on Minority Attrition and Completion. 2015.[10] E. Zerbe, G. M. Sallai, K. Shanachilubwa, and C. G. P. Berdanier, “Engineering graduate students’ critical events as catalysts of attrition,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 868–888, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1002/jee.20481.[11] T. M. Bluestein, C. Amelink, and M. S. Artiles, “Campus Climate for Engineering Graduate Students: Examining Differences Between Domestic Minority, Domestic Majority, and International Students,” 2018.[12] D. L. Lorenzetti et al., “A systematic review of graduate student peer mentorship in academia,” Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, vol. 27, no. 5, pp
support research on equity and inclusion in STEM education.Prof. Satchi Venkataraman, San Diego State University Satchi Venkataraman, Ph.D., is a Professor of Aerospace Engineering. He has served as Graduate Advisor for the Aerospace Engineering program (17 years) and as an Associate Director at the Computational Sciences Research Center at San Diego State University (11 years). His expertise is in computational mechanics and optimization applied to design of lightweight and durable composite aircraft structures. He has extensive experience in developing programs for student professional development and broadening participation (co-PI and PI on three NSF S-STEM grants). ©American Society
[1] G. A. Garcia, A.-M. Núñez, and V. A. Sansone, “Toward a Multidimensional ConceptualFramework for Understanding ‘Servingness’ in Hispanic-Serving Institutions: A Synthesis of theResearch,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 745–784, Oct. 2019, doi:10.3102/0034654319864591.[2] J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. M. Nicholls, and R. Ormston, Eds., Qualitative research practice:a guide for social science students and researchers, 2. ed. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage, 2013.[3] A. Srivastava and S. B. Thomson, “Framework Analysis: A Qualitative Methodology forApplied Policy Research,” Journal of Administration & Governance, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 72–79,2009.[4] N. K. Gale, G. Heath, E. Cameron, S. Rashid, and S. Redwood, “Using
Society Magazine, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 6–15. doi: 10.1109/MTS.2009.934940.Cheldelin, S. I. (2000). Handling resistance to change. In A. F. Lucas (Ed.), Leading academicchange: Essential roles for departmental chairs (pp. 55–73). Jossey-Bass.Cherrstrom, C. A., Richardson, R., Fowler, D., Autenrieth, R., & Zoran, M. J. (2017). Creatingteaching opportunities for STEM future faculty development. Journal of STEM TeacherEducation, 52(1), 55–69.Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y.-G., & Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching developmenton early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education,17(ar19). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039Connolly, M. R., Savoy, J. N., & Barger, S. S. (2010, April). Future
experience and provides keyevidence for continuing and expanding opportunities for co-teaching and real-worldinterdisciplinary problem solving.References[1] A. W. Glancy and T. J. Moore, "Theoretical foundations for effective STEM learningenvironments," School of Engineering Education Working Papers, Paper1, 2013.http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/enewp/1[2] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Graduate STEM Education forthe 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2018. doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/25038.[3] L. Sunra, N. Aeni, and F. H. S. Sally, "A Comprehensive Exploration of Outcome-BasedEducation Principles and Practices," Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, vol. 50, no.1, pp. 1-9, 2024.[4] H. E
distractions and empower them to write, writing retreats canonly continue to contribute to a sustainable cultural and personal shift in the mindset surroundingwriting, promoting positive momentum towards graduation.References[1] S. Simpson, “Building for Sustainability: Dissertation Boot Camp as a Nexus of GraduateWriting Support,” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, 2013.[2] C. Hixson, W. Lee, D. Hunter, M. Paretti, H. Matusovich, and R. McCord, “Understandingthe structural and attitudinal elements that sustain a graduate student writing group in anengineering department,” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, vol. 40, no. 5–6, pp.18-25, 2016.[3] S. Lee and C. Golde, “Completing the dissertation and beyond: writing centers
instrumentdesigned to identify self-determined communication in graduate education. This researchaddresses two key questions: (1) How do the adaptation steps contribute to the theoretical andpractical development of the COMM-FLOWS tool? (2) In what ways do the measures of theCOMM-FLOWS tool differ from those of the original Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction –General (BPNS-G) scale in capturing self-determined communication in graduate education?Using an adaptation framework informed by Chenel et al. (2018)’s decision-aid methodology,this study modifies the BPNS-G scale to capture the nuances of oral and written communicationin an academic setting. The adaptation process involved seven structured steps: (1) identifying ascale for adaptation, (2
Jr.’s Pro-Black engineeringeducation research framework [14],[15], and Gelles’s work on ethical mentoring [16]-[19]. Thispaper presents a novel process by which conflicts could be managed internally between engineeringlab as well as introduce new methods by which the research process can be both democratized andaffirming of the assets that underserved graduate students and their advisors bring [14].Background: Whether formally structured (i.e., advising) or informally structured (i.e., mentoring),national reports [20] point to the dire need for evidence-based practices and research in not justforming productive relationships but meaningful ones for a graduate students’ profession.Unresolved conflict resolution continues to be among
. 2023 ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo., Baltimore, MD, 2023.[2] G. D. Bruce, “Exploring the value of MBA degrees: Students’ experiences in full-time, part-time, and executive MBA programs,” J. Educ. Bus., vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 38–44, 2009, doi:10.1080/08832320903217648.[3] S. K. Gardner and B. Gopaul, “The part-time doctoral student experience,” Int. J. DoctoralStud., vol. 7, pp. 63, 2012.[4] M. A. Cohen and S. Greenberg, “The struggle to succeed: Factors associated with thepersistence of part-time adult students seeking a master's degree,” Contin. Higher Educ. Rev.,vol. 75, pp. 101–112, 2011.[5] J. C. Yum, D. Kember, and I. Siaw, “Coping mechanisms of part‐time students,” Int. J.Lifelong Educ., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 303–317, 2005.[6] R. Darolia, “Working
research [3]. Industry-universitypartnership is a requirement of this model, which calls for concerted participation of industryexperts in the training of students through identification of industry-relevant research problems,co-advising about how to approach their practical solutions, and training for other non-technicalskills that are crucial for success in industry. An assessment of student demand and their experience with P3’s non-traditional features,support of university administration, and the challenges felt by interested faculty advisers duringits implementation at Lehigh University were presented previously [3, 4]. This paper completesP3 program’s assessment by analyzing the feedback provided by industry scientists who haveserved
/CBO9780511803932.[12] National Postdoctoral Association, “NPA Core Competencies.” [Online]. Available: https://www.nationalpostdoc.org/page/CoreCompetencies[13] B. S. C. Kwan, H. Chan, and C. Lam, “Evaluating prior scholarship in literature reviews of research articles: A comparative study of practices in two research paradigms,” Engl. Specif. Purp., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 188–201, Jul. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2012.02.003.[14] S. A. Crossley, D. R. Russell, K. Kyle, and U. R mer, “Applying Natural Language Processing
, “Stage-based challenges and strategies for support in doctoral education: A practical guide for students, faculty members, and program administrators,” Int. J. Dr. Stud., vol. 11, p. 15, 2016.[3] J. W. Anastas and E. P. Congress, “Philosophical Issues in Doctoral Education in Social Work: A Survey of Doctoral Program Directors,” J. Soc. Work Educ., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 143–153, Jan. 1999, doi: 10.1080/10437797.1999.10778953.[4] A. Johri, A. S. Katz, J. Qadir, and A. Hingle, “Generative artificial intelligence and engineering education.,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 112, no. 3, 2023, Accessed: Jan. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype
‘socially robust knowledge’, ‘societally relevant knowledge’, or ‘societal responsive knowledge’, is designed to describe how socially constructed knowledge in ‘the context of application’ involves the contingent features of contexts as defined by external stakeholders. Far less attention is paid to the internal configurations underpinning interdisciplinary knowledge. [16, p. 473]Against the rising interest in ‘the contextual’, we find Gajary et al.’s recent proposal helpful asthey offered a definition of convergence as a system of systems [5, p. 2, 9]. Their expandeddefinition considers convergence research as an adaptive, dynamic process [5, p. 9-10]. Whileconvergence research is always grounded in specific time and
academic and professional interests whilebuilding strong peer and external stakeholder networks. This concept provides support for careerdevelopment through stakeholder involvement [22]. Students are given opportunities to connectwith professionals from the field. The program’s practical and simple design offers a replicablemodel for other institutions. By addressing challenges and expanding on its strengths,universities can ensure graduate education prepares students for both academic excellence andcareer advancement.AcknowledgementsThis work is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1954946. Anyopinions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the