. 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
, 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
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
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
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
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
would add? You as a Person• Would you push any of these areas together? PHASE 2: ONE ON ONE PROTOCOLSelf-Concept• What type of affect do you think your experiences within your college have had on the way you understand yourself? (Encouraging, Critical, Negative, etc)• The way you relate to your cultural background?• How you see yourself as an engineer?Sentiments toward Engineering• How have your experiences in your department shaped or grown your feelings/understanding of engineering?• Do you feel engineering is something you plan to do in the future?• What concerns do you have about the engineering field?• What
broader shifts in national accreditation standards. Wethen describe and critique elements of existing engineering cultures that might present challengestoward progress in creating inclusive and socially just teaming practices. Notably, we combinethese strands to develop a response to noted challenges and opportunities through the activities ofour Practitioner Learning Community (PLC).Institutional ContextAs described in Bothwell, Akkaraju, McGuire, Tran, & Zigler (2018a), Oregon State Universityhas recently taken a number of significant steps to advance equity, inclusion, and diversity, andthe College of Engineering (COE) has embedded a goal in its strategic plan to become a nationalmodel of inclusivity and collaboration. Institutional goals
as it is.This research is a first step in our analysis of student experiences and outcomes. We have begunby documenting the efforts made by our study institutions to help their Black students to besuccessful. We will continue to interview other key informants as appropriate on our studycampuses as the study progresses. We also plan to interview 80 Black students who are currentlymajoring in or have switched from ME and ECE majors on these campuses to learn if and howthese programs may have impacted them as well as what other factors they credit with theirremaining in or leaving these majors. Our quantitative study will build on the analyses in [1] and[2], among other studies, while focusing on Black students at our study sites. In particular