Paper ID #19133Career Certainty: Differences Between Career Certain and Uncertain Engi-neering StudentsMr. Bernhard Schadl, Stanford University Bernhard Schadl is a visiting student researcher at the Designing Education Lab of Dr. Sheri Sheppard. Bernhard completed a MSc. in Management and Technology from the Technical University of Munich.Dr. Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University Sheri D. Sheppard, Ph.D., P.E., is professor of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University. Besides teaching both undergraduate and graduate design and education related classes at Stanford University, she conducts research on engineering
Paper ID #19332What Does Career and Personal Success Look Like? Engineering Students’Projections for Post-Graduation PlansMr. Aisosa Ayela-Uwangue, Arizona State UniversityDr. Micah Lande, Arizona State University Micah Lande, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering pro- grams and Tooker Professor at the Polytechnic School in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University. He teaches human-centered engineering design, design thinking, and design innovation project courses. Dr. Lande researches how technical and non-technical people learn and apply a design
Paper ID #19066Measuring Students’ Subjective Task Values Related to the Post-UndergraduateCareer SearchDr. Samantha Ruth Brunhaver, Arizona State University Samantha Brunhaver is an Assistant Professor of Engineering in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University. Dr. Brunhaver joined Arizona State after completing her M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University. She also has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Northeastern University. Dr. Brunhaver’s research examines the career decision-making and professional identity formation of engineering students, alumni, and
Paper ID #19051Interns in the Wild: Using Structured Reflection and Interviews to Investi-gate Early Career Engineering PracticeProf. Brent K. Jesiek, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Dr. Brent K. Jesiek is an Associate Professor in the Schools of Engineering Education and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Purdue University. He also leads the Global Engineering Education Collabora- tory (GEEC) research group and is the recipient of an NSF CAREER award to study boundary-spanning roles and competencies among early career engineers. He holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Michigan Tech and
Paper ID #20468Building Career-Ready Students through Multidisciplinary Project-Based Learn-ing Opportunities - A Case StudyProf. Gareth W. Figgess, California State University, Sacramento Gareth Figgess is a professor of Construction Management at California State University, Sacramento. He teaches a range of courses including construction surveying and layout, soils and foundations, and construction graphics and visualization. Professor Figgess’ professional background is predominantly infrastructure and heavy-civil related, but since joining the faculty at CSU Sacramento in 2013, he has pursued several research
Paper ID #18790Work In Progress: The Impact of Project-Based Service Learning on Stu-dents’ Professional Identities and Career ReadinessProf. Huihui Wang, Jacksonville University Dr. Huihui Wang, is an assistant professor and the Chair of the Engineering Department at JU. JU is a private, undergraduate liberal arts institution in northeast Florida. Within our College of Arts & Sciences, the STEM disciplines continually draw the largest student enrollment numbers. In 2015, the Engineering Department transitioned from its 30 year history as an engineering dual degree program to a four year on- site program. The former
University of Alabama from 1998 to 2002, when she moved to Arizona State University. In 2008 she was promoted by ASU to Associate Profes- sor. She is currently an Associate Professor in the Educational Studies Department at the University of Oregon. Dr. Husman served as the Director of Education for the Quantum Energy and Sustainable So- lar Technology Center - an NSF-funded Engineering Research Center from 2011-2016. Dr. Husman is an assistant editor of the Journal of Engineering Education, and is a member of the editorial board of Learning and Instruction. In 2006 she was awarded the U.S. National Science Foundation CAREER grant award and received the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers from the
in developing survey questionnaires and conducting structured observations at the household level as a part of research studies in Tanzania, Kenya, and Bangladesh. Alongside her work in environmental engineering, Angela also conducts research related to engineering education as part of DEL group. Currently her work related to education seeks to better understand student career choices and institutional support for students in career development and career preparation. She also works on better understanding undergraduate engineering student interests, behaviors, development, and career choices related to innovation and entrepreneurship.Dr. Shannon Katherine Gilmartin, Stanford University Shannon K. Gilmartin, Ph.D
Industrial Engineering (MIE) in the COE has modified itscurriculum to include a course, which addresses essential life and career skills to its students intheir final semester. The course addresses challenges ranging from how to deal with financialpressure, seeking career opportunities, time management, workplace etiquette, and othernecessary skills. It consists of five different modules: Financial Planning, Effective Job Hunting,Accelerating Your Career, Learning Never Stops, and Entrepreneurship. Modules utilizemethodologies from experiential learning theory to enhance student learning and contribute tothe body of knowledge of teaching methods in STEM.An initial assessment was performed to measure the impact of this course and its modules.Metrics
participation engineering clubs andprofessional societies might facilitate post-graduation career commitment in engineering.Moreover, results suggest gaps in opportunities in engineering for women persist even aftergraduation.IntroductionScience and technology industry leaders, educators, and policymakers fear that the United Statesmay soon lack, or is currently deficient in, the skilled labor force required to occupy high-paying,high-skilled jobs in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce.1The problem, often dubbed the “STEM Crisis”, has garnered considerable scholarly, financial,and human resources across the higher education enterprise, as well as an immense amount offederal financial support. The goal is simple: in
a step that is needed to reach a long term goal 8,12,14;this is exogenous instrumentality6,12. An example of exogenous instrumentality would be when astudent believes they need to pass a course in order to reach their academic goals 8. The task canbe perceived as directly related to the future goal, which is described as endogenousinstrumentality6,12. An example of endogenous instrumentality is a student believing that theyneed the information from a course in order to be successful in their future career 8.These three dimensions—extension, future time attitude, and perceived instrumentality—can berepresented as three axes, as demonstrated in Figure 115. On these axes one’s FTP can berepresented as different shapes of a cone10,16. Within
mindfulness and its impact on gender participation in engineering education. He is a Lecturer in the School of Engineering at Stanford University and teaches the course ME310x Product Management and ME305 Statistics for Design Researchers. Mark has extensive background in consumer products management, having managed more than 50 con- sumer driven businesses over a 25-year career with The Procter & Gamble Company. In 2005, he joined Intuit, Inc. as Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer and initiated a number of consumer package goods marketing best practices, introduced the use of competitive response modeling and ”on- the-fly” A|B testing program to qualify software improvements. Mark is the Co-Founder
in stretchable electronics, responsive material actuators, soft material manufacturing, and soft-bodied control. Dr. Kramer serves as an Associate Editor and Editorial Board member of Frontiers in Robotics and AI: Soft Robotics. She is the recipient of the NSF CAREER Award, the NASA Early Career Faculty Award, the AFOSR Young Investigator Award, the ONR Young Investigator Award, and was named to the 2015 Forbes 30 under 30 list. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Enhancing Student Motivation and Self-Efficacy Through Soft Robot DesignAbstractThis research paper evaluates student perceptual changes in engineering motivation and self
Paper ID #17847A Cross-sectional Study of Engineering Identity During Undergraduate Ed-ucationDr. Allison Godwin, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Allison Godwin, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Her research focuses what factors influence diverse students to choose engineering and stay in engineering through their careers and how different experiences within the practice and culture of engineering foster or hinder belongingness and identity development. Dr. Godwin graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in
a Program Director at the National Science Foundation, on the board of the American Society for Engineering Education, and as an associate dean and director of interdisciplinary graduate programs. Her research awards include U.S. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), a National Science Foundation CAREER award, and two outstanding publication awards from the American Educational Research Association for her journal articles. Dr. Borrego is Deputy Editor for Journal of Engineering Education. All of Dr. Borrego’s degrees are in Materials Science and Engineering. Her M.S. and Ph.D. are from Stanford University, and her B.S. is from University of Wisconsin-Madison.Dr. Meagan R. Kendall
think-aloud interviews to check for theinterpretability and promote greater validity of our initial survey draft and revised it to reflectfeedback from these sessions31. With the goal of gaining a better understanding of the specificexperiences, backgrounds, and perceptions of returning and direct-pathway students, the GSEMSinstrument covered a number of questions related to 11 primary topics: demographic information, academic background information, current academic information, pre-PhD activities and career, decision to pursue a PhD, expectancy of success in the doctoral program, values of the PhD, costs of the PhD, cost reduction strategies
document analysis and semi-structured interviews.Participants’ portfolios were reviewed in their original form, either as a written document or as adigital portfolio containing written content. Each portfolio analyzed in this study contained adescription of all or most of the GCSP experiences. For each component of the program, theportfolio asks students to describe what they did, what they learned, how it relates to their GrandChallenge theme, and the value of the experience to them in terms of their career. The semi-structured interviews were 60-90 minutes long, and focused on the participants’ experiences inthe GCSP. In the interviews, students were asked to discuss how and why they joined theprogram, describe their experiences, and what they
points of note relating toeach table is given 3.1 Drivers & Barriers to Studying EngineeringIn seeking to identify what students expect from university, the survey began with a focus onwhy students select to study engineering. Based upon the literature and taking account of thefindings of studies previously conducted by the paper authors, three sub-themes were used toframe the questions: social drivers: individual and personal drivers: career & employmentdrivers. Figure 3 provides an overview of the percentage of students who either agreed orstrongly agreed with the statements outlined.Figure 3: Factors influencing students’ decisions to study engineering (Drivers) My reasons for choosing to study engineering at ALL
career development is beneficial for developing competencyand professional identity5.Conceptual Model: Institutional MentoringThe proposed conceptual model of this study combines aspects of environmental models oflearning, organizational knowledge transfer, and peer mentoring to suggest the paradigm ofinstitutional mentoring within academia. From the literatures on environmental models oflearning and organizational knowledge transfer, we focus on the contextual factors that shape theway that knowledge can be shared across organizational boundaries through institutionalmentoring. We define institutional mentoring as a type of peer mentoring between teams atdifferent institutions working towards similar goals in which knowledge exchange is
ofveteran individuals in STEM professional contexts. Our telling case focuses on a discovery thatemerged from discussion with a group of participants who are veterans; several memberscomment on how perceptions about public views of veterans can be a hindrance in pursuing civil(non-military, non-combat) careers in STEM. Our exploration of this interaction doubly serves asan illustration of the inquiry process and insight derived from IE in action. IntroductionIn recent years, qualitative inquiry has played an increasingly prominent role in higher educationresearch, as educators and scholars strive to understand the complexities of learning andinstruction within university and professional settings (Pasque
; Instruction at the University of Texas at Austin. She previously served as a Program Director at the National Science Foundation, on the board of the American Society for Engineering Education, and as an associate dean and director of interdisciplinary graduate programs. Her research awards include U.S. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), a National Science Foundation CAREER award, and two outstanding publication awards from the American Educational Research Association for her journal articles. Dr. Borrego is Deputy Editor for Journal of Engineering Education. All of Dr. Borrego’s degrees are in Materials Science and Engineering. Her M.S. and Ph.D. are from Stanford University, and
Through a Course Redesign InitiativeBackgroundThere have been myriad studies that have examined factors that contribute to student retention inengineering programs. These studies have helped guide efforts in implementing effectivestrategies to increase student retention, persistence, and degree completion. Two common themesrelated to engineering retention that have emerged from the literature are individual andinstitutional factors. Individual factors can be summed up as aptitude, pre-college preparation,academic performance, affective factors, personality traits, and satisfaction; while institutionalfactors include academic engagement, academic and career advising, environmental and socialdynamics, and climate
Paper ID #19829Work in Progress: Signature Pedagogies in Engineering - Surface StructureDr. John Tingerthal P.E., Northern Arizona University John Tingerthal joined the Construction Management faculty at Northern Arizona University in 2007 and was appointed as a Distinguished Teaching Fellow. His engineering career spans a variety of design and forensic engineering experiences. He spent the first eight years of his career performing structural consulting engineering in Chicago. He earned his Doctorate in Education and is currently the Associate Chair of the Civil Engineering, Construction Management and Environmental
have been described as the “net generation”4 and “digital natives”.5 However,several studies examining the technological proficiency of college students demonstrated thatalthough some technologies are very popular, the more complex a tool or task is, the less likely itwill be used.6 In a time of the greatest-ever access to powerful communications technologies,7college students, like most people, are still much more likely to be consumers of digital mediathan they are to be creators of digital media.8, 9Communication and other interpersonal skills can often make or break the career of an engineer.J. Ben O’Neal10 notes that “most engineers are limited in their career not by a lack of technicalknowledge, but by an inability to reason verbally
. (2011). Engineering Education Discourses on Underrepresentation: Why Problematization Matters. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(5), 1117. 4. Lewis, B. F. (2003). A critique of literature on the underrepresentation of African Americans in science: Directions for future research. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(3&4). 5. Moore, J. L. (2006). A qualitative investigation of African American males' career trajectory in engineering: Implications for teachers, school counselors, and parents. Teachers College Record, 108(2), 246. 6. May, G. S., & Chubin, D. E. (2003). A retrospective on undergraduate engineering success for underrepresented minority
National Science Foun- dation and an associate dean and director of interdisciplinary graduate programs. Her research awards include U.S. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), a National Science Foundation CAREER award, and two outstanding publication awards from the American Educational Research Association for her journal articles. Dr. Borrego is Deputy Editor for Journal of Engineering Education and served on the board of the American Society for Engineering Education as Chair of Pro- fessional Interest Council IV. All of Dr. Borrego’s degrees are in Materials Science and Engineering. Her M.S. and Ph.D. are from Stanford University, and her B.S. is from University of Wisconsin
/08/08).4. McAlpine, L, Amundsen, C. and Turner, G. 2014. Identity-trajectory – Reframing early career academic experience. British Education Research Journal, 40(6): 952-969. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.3123/abstract (2015/08/04).5. Gardner, A. and Willey, K. 2015. Engineering academics’ identity transitions in becoming established engineering education researchers. In Proceedings of the 6th Research in Engineering Education Symposium: Translating Research into Practice (REES), 9 pp. Dublin, Ireland. July 13-15.6. Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W. and Kellam, N. N. 2013. Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study, Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4
EDS pursuit ofdoctoral-level careers in engineering. To begin addressing the paucity of literature in graduateeducation related to student attitudes, we address the following research question: How do engineering doctoral students’ perceptions of the future influence the ways in which they approach graduate-level tasks?To answer the above research question we also address two sub-questions: 1. How do engineering doctoral students define their future? 2. How do engineering doctoral students relate their future selves with present tasks?BackgroundThe nature of our study takes an interpretive, qualitative approach as to capture how EDS utilizetheir perceptions of the future to navigate their graduate
-Hulman Institute of Technology, a M.S. in Bioengineering and Ph.D. in Engineer- ing and Science Education from Clemson University.Dr. Allison Godwin, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Allison Godwin, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Her research focuses what factors influence diverse students to choose engineering and stay in engineering through their careers and how different experiences within the practice and culture of engineering foster or hinder belongingness and identity development. Dr. Godwin graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in Engineering and Science Education. She is the recipient of a 2014
courses.10, 11Real-world applications. Many aspects of engineering courses can be viewed as relating to thereal world. To narrow the definition, real-world applications was described as when an instructordeliberately demonstrates relevance through the integration of problems that are related to real-world problems and/or underscores connections to industry and design. Integration of pedagogythat emphasizes relevance and connections to the real-world has been shown to support studentengagement, persistence, and comprehension.12 Integration of real-world applications moves theresponsibility to instructors to be explicit about the real-world application of what is beinglearned and to clarify how future careers integrate these skills.Real-world