. Rebecca A. Zulli, Cynosure Consulting c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 AN ASSET APPROACH TO BROADENING P A R T I C I P AT I O N TIP S A ND T OOLS FOR STRATEGIC P L A NNINGA D R I E N N E S M I T H & R E B E C C A Z U L L I L OW EINTRODUCTION• All too often when thinking about recruiting, supporting, and retaining diverse students in our STEM majors and programs, the situation is approached from a deficit mindset; that is, one that focuses on what students or environments lack that must be remedied.• In our work supporting STEM departments with their broadening participation efforts, we focus on fostering an asset-minded approach to strategic planning.• This approach is grounded
. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 High Risk, (with Hope for) High Reward: Lessons Learned from Planning and Hosting an Unconference Abstract Often in diversity and inclusion research, the goal is to represent the perspectives of those whoare ‘not at the table,’ but seldom do research methods provide the participants an actual seat ‘at the table.’Informed by a participatory action research approach, we partnered with study participants, positioningthem as our co-researchers. Together, we employed an unconference (also known as an Open SpaceTechnology workshop) as a research method in order to elevate the voices of
, at least 25 departments will designate faculty Fellows and participate inthe change process.Fellows serve as connectors between the AGEP-NC project and their department faculties. Theyare responsible for disseminating information to and collecting information from theirdepartments. For example, Fellows might share information they learned in project workshopsand their own individual studies, and they might gather departmental data on rates of doctoralprogram completion and attrition and career paths of recent doctoral graduates. They alsocoordinate faculty efforts to develop plans to increase URM doctoral candidate recruitment andretention. Figure 1 depicts arrows between the AGEP Fellows and the Project Team to show thetwo-way information
planning based on the analysis. The second prong focused onrecruitment and hiring practices at OU with training for all search and departmentchairs, implicit bias training for Deans, and the dissemination of family-friendlyinformation. The third prong of the project involved faculty retention and professionaldevelopment initiatives including new faculty orientation, a mentoring program, andprofessional development workshops. The fourth and final prong of the proposalincluded initiatives surrounding dissemination, especially to the region’s 4-year and 2-year institutions.The WISE@OU program was housed with the Dean’s office of College of Arts andSciences, and worked closely with the School of Engineering and Computer Science.In 2016, after a no
attention and efforts onefacultyoneresistance.org18 One model of how to respond Report Support Recommit19 Report • Unit, college, university levels • Law enforcement: campus, local, state (state investigation unit), federal (FBI, Office of Civil Rights) • Non-profits: SPLC, AAUP, AAC&U • Other online harassment support orgs: Heart Mob, Troll Busters, Crash Override, Online SOS20 Support • Physical and emotional safety of the target • AAUP chapters – engage impartial observers in meetings with administrators • ASEE Diversity Committee – sending indicators of support to target’s supervisors, P&T committees, etc. • Review other suggested plans and resources listed on
, including: 1. Who would be the target audience? Would we include only UD faculty or open it up to other campuses? Would we accept faculty from all ranks or target specific levels? Would we accept non-t/tt faculty? 2. What would be the cost to participants? 3. How would the program be financed? 4. How would we recruit and select participants in a way that would be fair and also ensure diverse representation?The UD ADVANCE leadership team discussed these questions with our colleagues in the Lerner Collegeover the course of several months. To help us align our plans with the specific needs of our faculty weexamined the results of a recent (2016) faculty climate survey [17] (UD ADVANCE conducts such asurvey every two
programs offered. The research instituteinitiated a Diversity and Inclusion Seed Investment funding program. Starting in fiscal year2017, $203,480 was invested in 20 faculty to assist them with establishing and solidifyingHBCU-MSI partnerships. Feedback has been continually collected to improve the program, nowin its third year. In this paper, we first describe the original intent of the funding opportunity,how the opportunity has changed since its inception and how impactful this investment modelhas been. Preliminary findings will be presented, major criteria for funding will be explained,and outcome measures will be explored to assess the effectiveness of the program. Lastly, wepresent our plan for a more comprehensive assessment strategy, which
and salary for non‐administrative functions of center staff (training mentors or conducting evaluations for example). Our center manages compliance with our child safety policy including child safety training and fingerprinting and background checks. Our center coordinates outreach scheduling based on both K‐12 and lab schedules. We check‐in annually with the PI, or more frequently depending on the outreach plan and budget, if the outreach is not going as planned, or we are not seeing expenses against the internal accounts as expected. Program evaluation—we’ll conduct pre and post surveys or other evaluation methods as planned in proposal and share with faculty for their annual NSF reports
evaluator help you with interpreting results and furthering your DEI project?Plan for the Workshop session:Introduction of speakers and expectations for the session (5 minutes) a. Recognition of Native Land: “We are gathered today on the occupied territory of the Pamunkey and Piscataway people, who have stewarded this land for generations.” b. Introduction of speakers and attendees: Names, pronouns c. Open with a brief assessment of attendee’s experience in working with evaluators. i. Ask for a show of hands: Who has never worked with evaluator? Who has had bad experiences with an evaluator? Who has had good experiences with an evaluator? Who
that process, and articulate possible solutions.Google underwrites this effort.Successes to Date/Action ItemsIn December 2018, CAHSI INCLUDES held its first “All Hands Meeting” with regional leadsand co-leads from each of its four regions with an aim of introducing all of the partners to thecollective impact model. Keeping in mind the 20-30 vision and the mission of CAHSI, as awhole, each region has identified action plans to mobilize their region, addressing challenges andseizing opportunities that are unique to their geographic locations. Additionally, a new website isunder construction to appeal primarily to students who are in the computing pipeline.ConclusionThe national CAHSI INCLUDES Alliance is a network of committed institutions
required to make a profile as apart of the Workshop Leadership course). The correlation washigher for students whose Workshop leader had a posted IV. FUTURE WORKprofile (r(162) = 0.23, p < .005). Workshop leader profile To address the limitations of our study and further exploreviews did not correlate with score on the final exam or final our results, we plan to pursue at least three avenues of futuretotal points in the course, but Workshop attendance did work. First, to explore our “peer cascade effect” hypothesis, wecorrelate positively with both score on the final exam and final plan to interview minority students who both viewed and didtotal points in the course for
c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing DiversityNear-Peer Mentoring as a Tool for Increasing Interest in STEM Overview• Context• How it Started• What *IT* is• Why Do We Do it?• Money Talks• Growing & Changing• ReflectionBackground/Context Beginnings and Connections Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering Social Summer Baltimore CityEntrepreneurship planning class STEM Outreach Center Pilot Year at Middle School
experience was as expected, impacted their career plans, and impactedtheir ability to further their educational goals. Over sixty percent presented their research results.Students self image and employment plans are presented in Figure 6. Half of the students indicated thatthe experience changed how they envisioned themselves as scientists. Seventy-five percent indicatedplans to seek employment in industry prior to the summer experience, while only twenty-five percentremained with those plans after the summer experience. Responses moved to going to graduate school,other plans, and unsure. Figure 7 shows fifty percent of respondents indicated a 5 out of 5 overall ratingof the experience with nearly 40 percent of respondents indicating a 4 out of 5
disorders, chronic pain, Include accessibility statement on Real-time information Missing class means compromised immune system, syllabus with plan for missed classes; dissemination, missing critical temporary illness or injury, PTSD, develop resources to supplement feedback, team work information traumatic brain injury, digestive in-class time disorders, pulmonary disease
to PeersDESIGN PROJECT IMPACT | VIDEO TESTIMONIALS SURVEYExample Questions ● Have you been active in LSAMP after your first semester of freshman year? ● Have you participated in any undergraduate research opportunities or engaged in any project innovation? ● To those who said yes above...Did participation in the LSAMP STP play a role in your decision to to pursue undergraduate research? ● Do you feel that the Design Challenge prepared you for your undergraduate discipline? ● Are you interested in attending graduate/professional school? ● Have you applied to graduate/professional school? SURVEY RESULTSWere you aware of undergraduate If yes, did you plan to seek anresearch
initial spatialability, all first-year engineering students were required to take the PSVT:R during the first week of thesemester. Students were then placed in one of three categories based on their test scores: Spatial Novice,Spatial Intermediate, and Spatial Master. A different point value was associated with each category, asshown in Table 1, with a maximum of 5 points translating to full credit for the 5% of the semester coursegrade. Table 1. Incentive Plan for Spatial Skills Component (Fall 2018) Spatial Novice (0 pts) Spatial Intermediate (3 pts) Spatial Master (5 pts) Test score 60% - 69% Test score > 70% Test score < 60
do your research methods employed tostudy engineering education align with your social justice values? In what ways could you examine orimprove upon your research methods to reflect a critical intersectional frame? How might that framebe relevant to your work and change-making in the field of engineering education? Participants willleave the workshop with an increased awareness of how to do engineering education research thatreflects social justice values, paired with concrete methodological ideas to run with. 1 Aligning your Research Methods with your Social Justice Values Plan for the workshop
diversity, inclusion, and equity. After establishingthe current literature taking on issues of equity in engineering as well as a summary of thenetwork analysis already conducted through our ROAR grant, we will describe our owntheoretical framework, initial analysis of outcomes from other educational organizing campaigns,and initially planned actions for the CoNECD event and how it fits into our research.Background and FrameworkMany scholars have explored the problem of equity, diversity, and social responsibility inengineering as a discipline more broadly [1], [2], [3], [4], but there is little work done on the fieldand positionality of academics in engineering education specifically and their change-makingstrategies or interests for seeding
, depending on the round ofstakeholder feedback and commensurate to the time commitment required. We plan to expandour recruitment efforts in 2019 to increase survey participation/completion numbers frommarginalized students. In the remainder of this section, each step of the instrument developmentprocess is summarized briefly. For a more detailed description of the process see [10].Theoretical Constructs and Item Bank DevelopmentThe initial item bank was based on the MCCS, which was developed from a multi-site case studyof student support practitioners and students involved in six different student support centersserving STEM students across four U.S. universities [1],[9]. For the development of an itembank, we leveraged the theoretical constructs
doing, like 'How is your PhD going? When are you going to be done?" No. It's like, "Oh, okay. You're here. Are you planning to have kids? They're the ones asking where my relationship situation is, [what] I'm planning moving forward. If I'm planning to have kids, because that's what they care more than if I'm happy. Several participants also described the "Why do you need to do this?" phenomenon wherethey are bombarded with comments that question their decision to pursue their doctorate. Jessicashared: Yeah, the whole idea of, "Why do you need to do this?"… my family, my mom's like, "People who graduate from Cal Tech make a lot of money, so why don't you just do that and live with [your
underrepresented minority (URM) students at Seattle University, we will conduct multiple focus groups with current engineering and CS students. We are planning six focus groups and invite the following student populations to join the group that they most associate with: 1) US‐born women 2) URM women (including South East Asian and Pacific Islanders but not Asian); 3) URM men (including South East Asian and Pacific Islanders but not Asian); 4) international students (mix of men and women); 5) mixed group; and 6) students who are still at Seattle University who have left engineering and computer science or students still enrolled in any engineering program but with a GPA currently below what is required to graduate. We are interested in hearing from
program with PennsylvaniaState University, that engages in collaborative research throughout the academic year, and during thesummer, NCCU students conduct summer research at Penn State. The Bridge program attended a PREMmeeting to present on available opportunities to participate, particularly in the professional developmentworkshops and research seminars. Additionally, we have initiated a STEM professional developmentseries for all STEM undergraduates. Thus far, one seminar on Preparing Powerful Presentations has beenheld. This initiative is to motivate current undergraduates to pursue Master’s degrees that could directlyfeed into the Bridge program. More seminars and an Open House are planned for the beginning of theFall 2019 semester.One
evaluation findings, unexpected challenges,and planned modifications to continue to improve the program. I will share a bitabout our model and impact to date, including how that model has evolvedover time to best serve our community. Throughout this discussion, we’llengage in a few of the community-building activities we utilize within LATTICE. 3This program developed through two earlier iterations:WEBS: women in biological sciences, with an emphasis on ecology and evolutionarybiology. Five cohorts, 2007-2013BRAINS: for individuals belonging to racial/ethnic groups underrepresented withinNeuroscience and/or individuals with disabilities. Running biennially
computer science and engineering departments on diversifying their undergraduate student population. She remains an active researcher, including studying academic policies, gender and ethnicity issues, transfers, and matriculation models with MIDFIELD as well as student veterans in engi- neering. Her evaluation work includes evaluating teamwork models, broadening participation initiatives, and S-STEM and LSAMP programs.Dr. Joyce B. Main, Purdue University-Main Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Joyce B. Main is Assistant Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She holds a Ph.D. in Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy from Cornell University, and an Ed.M. in Administration, Planning, and
Paper ID #24879The Effectiveness of Engineering Camps as Pre-College Recruitment ToolsMalle Schilling, University of Dayton Malle Schilling is planning to pursue a PhD in Engineering Education. As an undergraduate mechanical engineering student at the University of Dayton, she explored the effects of engineering camps on par- ticipants’ self-efficacy in engineering and other issues of diversity and inclusion in engineering. She is interested in engineering education, diversity in engineering, outreach and policy.Dr. Margaret Pinnell, University of Dayton Dr. Margaret Pinnell is the Associate Dean for Faculty and Staff
her tenure as an AAAS fellow, she served as a science advisor to the US EPA in the National Center for Environmental Assessment and in the Immediate Office of the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development.Dr. Michelle Marks, George Mason University Dr. Michelle Marks is the Vice President for Academic Innovation & New Ventures at George Mason University. In this capacity she is responsible for identifying, launching, and sustaining educational ini- tiatives that fulfill Mason’s strategic plan and generate financial resources to support students, faculty, and the educational mission. Charged with creating accessible student pathways and bringing learning science innovations to campus, Dr
- versity of Miami. Prior to joining the University of Miami in 2014, she worked as an adjunct professor at Columbia University and the Cooper Union in New York City. She received her PhD from Columbia University in 2006. Since 2015 Dr. Basalo has been actively involved in the University of Miami College of Engineering’s ”Redefining Engineering Education” strategic plan on educational innovation.Gemma Henderson, University of Miami Gemma Henderson is a Senior Instructional Designer for the LIFE (Learning, Innovation and Faculty En- gagement) team in Academic Technologies at the University of Miami (UM). Gemma partners with fac- ulty members, academic units, and other university stakeholders to create innovative, effective
training. Furthermore, the EngineeringGoldShirt Program collaborated with several other diversity serving summer bridge programs oncampus to design and implement a full day workshop which reinforced the principles that theseprograms foster and to build connections with other programs’ mentors.During the two week summer bridge program, the mentors served both as residence advisors(RA’s) in the residence halls and teaching assistants (TA’s) in the classroom for the summerbridge classes. This duality allowed the mentors to recognize and encourage students where theyneeded it most on an individual basis. Mentors planned social and group identity buildingactivities for the protégé’s. As a result of a demanding schedule and workload during summerbridge
with a summer camp for students, which interwove observations and discussion of studentengagement activities, followed by professional learning activities targeted at teachers' specificneeds. The last two days of the summer institute were fully dedicated to drafting lesson plans andstudent outcomes for the Creative Computing Challenge learning units designed to integrateproject-based app development with each teacher's course subject.A curricular aim of our project was for each participating teacher to include app development(using App Inventor) in one learning unit of one or more of their courses. They could choosehow long that unit would be, and at what point in the school year it occurred. Most of theteachers integrated the unit in both
CPP WE Coordinator is apaid part-time student assistant job. The job duties include writing the quarterly newsletter,planning the ambassador meetings and assisting with CPP WE duties.Table 1Total Female Students Served Through CPP WE Events Year Number 2011-12 1,851 2012-13 1,293 2013-14 703 2014-15 522 2015-16 738 2016-17 841 2017-18 1,779 Total