electrical engineering at Texas A&M University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Paper ID #31171Miss Samantha Asbell, Texas A&M University Samantha Asbell is a graduate student at Texas A&M University currently pursuing her Masters of Science in Business. She received her undergraduate degree in Communication at Texas A&M. Following a research internship with the department of communication, Samantha applied for a role with the College of Engineering as an assistant for the I-Corps Site program. Samantha has a continuing interest in research as well as digital and
expectation source. However, that clarity is tempered by the stress of the academicexpectations themselves, as well as the potential implications of failure to fulfill them.Besides academics, expectations can also come from engineering superiors, who were definedas entities within the engineering major with influence to directly and professionally influence astudents’ grades, learning environment, career-related decisions and other engineeringexperiences. These entities range from individuals such as professors to small organizations suchas the student advising center.For example, if an instructor unknowingly creates a hostile learning environment with rigidexpectations and methods, the learning experience can become extremely stressful
faculty mentoring policy. Prior to working at MSU, she held full time positions at Northeastern University, Boston College, and National Geographic Society. McDaniels has over twenty years of experience in graduate student and faculty de- velopment, undergraduate and graduate teaching and learning and organizational change. She has had the pleasure of doing research and consulting domestically and internationally.. McDaniels holds degrees from Michigan State University (Ph.D.), Boston College (M.A.), and University of Michigan (B.A.). c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Equity, Inclusion and Ethics: Adapting a Mentoring Curriculum to Develop an Ethics Workshop for
affective factors vary among college undergraduates?,” in Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2019 Pacific Southwest Meeting, 2019, pp. 1–13.[19] C. Striolo, M. Pollock, and A. Godwin, “Staying or leaving: contributing factors for U.K. engineering students’ decisions to pursue careers in engineering industry,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., pp. 1–25, Jan. 2020.[20] T. Humphries-Smith and C. Hunt, “An exploration of progression rates of widening participation students on to an integrated master of engineering,” Int. J. High. Educ., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 69–78, 2017.[21] “Fixing the foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation.”[22] M. Scheidt, R. Senkpeil, J. Chen, A. Godwin, and E. Berger
ofchange -- (See Appendix A). The logic model illustrates the logical relationship among programinputs (such as the grant funds and faculty expertise), activities (such as the introductoryengineering design course) and desired outputs (such as numbers of participating students) andoutcomes (such as increases in student interest in clean energy careers). This logic model wasused to inform the program design, including activities with students. In addition, the logicmodel was used to frame measures of success. This paper will describe our efforts, examine themeasurements of our goals, and discuss lessons learned over the three iterations of our program.BackgroundThree different cohorts of students participated in the program between 2013-18. Each
., teaching but not tenured or tenure-line) currently listed on the departmentalwebsite, none are women. Similarly, in Bioengineering, none of the non-faculty teaching stafflisted on the website are female. This can lead to a delegitimizing of the academic purpose andauthority of SEEFs due to unintended gender bias, and less emphasis on the organizationalculture capital (the shared sense of identity, norms, values and trust) and role models needed forundergraduate students to develop an engineering identity. This includes students seeingthemselves as a future educators or in an academic role such as a faculty member, which is a keyaspect of supporting diversity within the undergraduate population [36], with 41 percent of the1,525 students within the
a greater percentage than working engineers.As to persistence in engineering, a number of studies [1], [2], [4], [5], [14] found that students’abilities, perception of abilities, especially in mathematics play a big part. Another largecontributing factor to persistence is student aspirations and how well the discipline – or moreaccurately, their perception of the discipline – lines up with their career aspirations and personalinterest. To improve retention, engineering programs need to ensure that students recognize howtheir career aspirations and personal interests align with their chosen field early in their studies.Toward this end, an accurate picture of student interest is needed.Study PopulationThe authors teach an introductory course
) learning objectives were met, and how. In doing so, studentswere engaging with competency development, creating a framework within which they couldorganize understanding of their emerging competency over time. Further, connecting programlearning goals and general education (or ABET) requirements provides a framework forinterdisciplinary collaboration and allows administrators to streamline institutional assessment(e.g. ABET accreditation visits) using evidence collected in department-based ePortfolios.If students are not aware of their developing competency, many opportunities for learning,personal development, and professional identity development may be lost [28]. Conversely,taking an approach where students can explore, and are made explicitly
Paper ID #28775A Coding Scheme for Measuring Biomedical Engineering Students’ Breadthof Exposure to the DisciplineProf. Heidi A. Diefes-Dux, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Heidi A. Diefes-Dux is a Professor in Biological Systems Engineering at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln. She received her B.S. and M.S. in Food Science from Cornell University and her Ph.D. in Food Process Engineering from the Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering at Purdue University. She was an inaugural faculty member of the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Her research focuses on the development
the engineering students get a C in their firstsemester math course. Prior research at this University indicated that students who earned an Aor B in their first semester math course were very likely to be retained, and that students whoearned a D or F were very likely to leave engineering. After two complete years in theengineering school, the students who earned C in their first math course had either completed thefour-semester math sequence (a strong predictor of graduation), were still enrolled in the mathsequence, or were not retained in the engineering school. These prior results are represented inFigure 1 from [28].At J. B. Speed School of Engineering, a survey is administered online at the beginning of the fallsemester to all first
variousproject teams and students who participate in the competition. The selectivity to reach the semi-finals by winning either the quarter-finals or the wild-card competition is 45%. To rise to thefinal stage of the competition, teams have about 9% chance. Only 3% of all teams, a total of 28students in the past two years, won a top Prize.We wished to establish whether the number of presenters per team had an effect on pitchsuccess. We observed a trend in recent years that having more than one person represent theteam lessened the memorization load per team member. The typical pitch, where one personrepresents the team, can still be very effective in providing a consistent story, as demonstrated bythe second elevator pitch winner of 2019, Castle Point
, satisfaction with thelearning experience, acquisition of skills and competencies, persistence, attainment of learningobjectives, and career success [5]. These components can be used to define tangible goals forstudent success initiatives within dedicated student success departments, faculties, and individualclassrooms.Moving to the far end of the student success spectrum, a series of interviews with studentssuggests success is “not just of good grades and steady progress toward graduation, but a holisticsense of fulfillment. They want to become strong candidates for careers in their chosen fields,emerge as competent and trustworthy adults, look back on their time without regrets, and maketheir mentors and family members proud” [6]. This means
experience in research (2) Clarify which field I wanted to study (3) Clarify whether graduate school would be a good choice for me (4) Clarify whether I wanted to pursue a research career (5) Work more closely with a particular faculty member (6) Participate in a program with a strong reputation (7) Get letters of recommendation (8) Enhance my resume (9) Other (please specify): (10) ________________________________________________Q44 As a college student, how many semesters have you participated in research during theacademic year? Note: For the purposes of this survey, capstone projects do not qualify as havingparticipated in research. I have never participated in research during the school year (1) 1 semester (2) 2
and adapted by other instructors, and integrated intotheir own courses and/or GCSP, to reach an even broader audience.The on-ground version of this course uses a lot of active learning techniques and is discussion-based, incorporating activities such as mind mapping, debates, role-play-based simulation,design challenges, and case studies, to help students explore and understand the interdisciplinarynature of the complex global challenges. Additional detail on the on-ground version of the coursecan be found in [2]. This high level of in-person, active learning posed the biggest challenge totranslate to the MOOC. Therefore, in addition to reaping the benefit of modularization forportability, there was also a strong focus and intent on making
paper describes an effort to replicate best practices at Sam Houston State University in theimplementation of a cross-disciplinary course designed to provide students from diversedemographics with a more effective ramp into undergraduate research. The specific aim of thecourse was to provide students from diverse backgrounds with a curriculum designed to buildcommunity, introduce students to research faculty, and to counteract a perceived lack of researchreadiness. The student learning goals for the course included providing opportunities for studentsto: study key historical examples of excellent research; interact with faculty researchers whoperform projects across the STEM disciplines; and to explore the similarities and differencesbetween
engineering majors of interest to the larger project (namely, biomedical,chemical, mechanical, and electrical and computer engineering). Potential participants weregiven a link to an online survey, asking them to help the university prepare the next generation ofengineering students [27].Survey InstrumentThe survey instrument was divided into three sections: (1) characterizing the participants' post-baccalaureate pathways; (2) describing their experiences with and beliefs about engineering; and(3) collecting personal information about participants, including their demographics. First, tocharacterize career pathways, we asked participants to identify the number of career positionsthat they have experienced, including educational opportunities and
Professorship in the Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences at Louisiana Tech University. She is a member of the graduate faculty in Industrial/Organizational Psychology.Dr. Marisa K. Orr, Clemson University Marisa K. Orr is an Assistant Professor in Engineering and Science Education with a joint appointment in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University. Her research interests include student persistence and pathways in engineering, gender equity, diversity, and academic policy. Dr. Orr is a recipient of the NSF CAREER Award for her research entitled, ”Empowering Students to be Adaptive Decision-Makers.” American c Society for
community challenges through strategic partnerships and deep listening. Lauren lives in Winston-Salem with her husband, Danny, and two boys who inspire her daily.Dr. Elise Barrella P.E., Wake Forest University Dr. Elise Barrella is a founding faculty member of the Department of Engineering at Wake Forest Univer- sity and a registered Professional Engineer. She is passionate about curriculum development, scholarship and student mentoring on transportation systems, sustainability, and engineering design. Dr. Barrella completed her Ph.D. in Civil Engineering at Georgia Tech where she conducted research in transportation and sustainability as part of the Infrastructure Research Group (IRG). In addition to the Ph.D. in Civil
Paper ID #29288The Value of Co-Curricular Experiences: Perspectives of Third YearBiomedical Engineering StudentsCassandra Sue Ellen Woodcock, University of Michigan Cassandra (Cassie) Woodcock is a doctoral student at the University of Michigan. She is pursuing a PhD in Biomedical Engineering with an Emphasis in Engineering Education. Her research interests involve interdisciplinary engineering programs and the professional, personal, and academic outcomes of students engaged in these programs. She is also involved in student outcomes research focused in graduate student beliefs on learning and teaching. Cassie received
how engineering is performed [26].The authors criticized engineering education’s practice of providing ready-made problems whichhave been simplified by the removal of unnecessary details. This sterile, problem-solving focusresults in some students never developing a deeper understanding of true engineering. Asengineers have testified, the majority of their experiences as students in engineering coursesinvolved sitting in rows of desks, facing the front of the room, and copying notes written on achalk-board by an expert engineering faculty member who also had received no preparation ineducational theory [25]. Students often engage engineering with little explanation as to thepurpose, or benefit of, completing academic tasks; students, if they
purely financial support, the selected students received the support of aStudent Success Coach. The Success Coach was a half-time employee completely dedicated tomonitoring and supporting these 20 to 24 students.Support from provided by the Coach included: • Student support services: Provides aggressive individualized academic advising and career support through case management and counseling • One-on-one meetings: both electronic and in-person • Academic monitoring: use of mid-term grade sheets to monitor progress; mandatory meetings with the coach before dropping any classes • Resource guides: on career exploration, resume creation, external scholarships and internship searches created and distributed to students
STEM teacher professional development, and preservice teacher preparation in STEM.Dr. Elizabeth Litzler, University of Washington Elizabeth Litzler, Ph.D., is the director of the University of Washington Center for Evaluation & Research for STEM Equity (UW CERSE) and an affiliate assistant professor of sociology. She has been at UW working on STEM Equity issues for more than 15 years. Dr. Litzler is a member of ASEE, incoming chair of the ASEE Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and a former board member of the Women in Engineering ProActive Network (WEPAN). Her research interests include the educational climate for students, faculty, and staff in science and engineering, assets based approaches to STEM
through a worksheet. This personality assessment connects individualinterests to related occupations, provides a vocabulary for students to discuss their careerinterests, and suggests relevant occupations based on the individual’s “type” [36]. Educationalopportunities beyond their current program were discussed, including education that can proceedafter their biosystems engineering degree, such as prosthetist training, medical school, orgraduate study in engineering [37]. Through this career development support, we explored theinterdisciplinary nature of biosystems engineering and the broad options for graduates of theprogram both within and beyond engineering, building on the course content covered by theprofessors of the course, and supporting
cultivating inter-personal communication skills that would improve theexperiences of women working on design teams. Inherent in this endeavor is the belief that inter-personal communication and other “soft skills” can be taught, a perspective shared by others,such as those working to foster empathy in engineering courses [15].Capstone course structureThe first author is a civil engineering faculty member at the University of the Pacific where thecivil engineering capstone course is completed in one semester during the senior year, usuallyfollowing the mandatory co-op experience. Students work in teams and take on one of thefollowing roles: structural designer, geotechnical designer, water resources designer, orenvironmental designer. Each team has a
of multiphase flows while acquiring skills in high performance parallel computing and scientific computation. Before that, Dr. Ayala hold a faculty position at Universidad de Oriente at Mechanical Engineering Department where he taught and developed graduate and undergraduate courses for a number of subjects such as Fluid Mechanics, Heat Transfer, Thermodynamics, Multiphase Flows, Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machinery, as well as Mechanical Engineering Laboratory courses. In addition, Dr. Ayala has had the opportunity to work for a number of engineering consulting companies, which have given him an important perspective and exposure to industry. He has been directly involved in at least 20 different
toexpect from biomedical engineers. Thus, engineering positions in healthcare which are, intheory, well-suited for biomedical engineers, are instead filled with engineers trained in moretraditional disciplines such as mechanical or electrical engineering [6]. In an effort to better understand these historically fundamental BME challenges, this paperseeks to explore BME identity. Identity, both personal and social, has been shown to play a rolein educational persistence and career decisions. Some studies have examined social identityfactors for representation and persistence in engineering but few, if any, have analyzedprofessional identity of biomedical engineers. Additionally, little has been done to analyze theeffect that social identity
assigned a peer and faculty mentor that met with theparticipants individually.Results from this study document motivational factors of low-income transfer students that led tochoosing and pursuing an engineering degree. Such motivation can be traced to their earlychildhood, family, role models, faculty members, or personal achievement and goals. Such levelsof motivation can be improved over time with consistent support, guidance, and opportunitieswhere students can participate throughout their academic journey. Participation enhanced theirskills and level of engineering knowledge and provided an engineering toolbox. The participantsfaced numerous challenges and barriers while transitioning from a community college to a four-year university
Joyce B. Main is Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She received an Ed.M. in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and a Ph.D. degree in Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy from Cornell University. Dr. Main examines student academic pathways and transitions to the workforce in science and engineering. She was a recipi- ent of the 2014 American Society for Engineering Education Educational Research and Methods Division Apprentice Faculty Award, the 2015 Frontiers in Education Faculty Fellow Award, and the 2019 Betty Vetter Award for Research from WEPAN. In 2017, Dr. Main received a National Science Foundation CAREER award to examine
and provided topicsuggestions in alignment with what the faculty previously considered.The faculty also utilized the advisory board’s expertise to review the proposed content of a newcourse that would integrate the use of simulation with traditional lecture to provide students withan enhanced technical understanding of how the NAS and ATC works. The intention was thesame as the pilot foundation course, which is to help students make informed decisions in theirfuture jobs. The faculty also proposed to the board the idea of requiring flight students to takethis course. The majority of flight students graduating from the program would be dealing withATC their entire professional flying career. The justification of this requirement was that
research examines the career decision-making and professional identity formation of engineering students, alumni, and practicing engineers. She also conducts studies of new engineering pedagogy that help to improve student engagement and understanding. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Investigating the relationship between self-efficacy and perceived importance of communication skills among engineering studentsIntroductionCommunication skills are critical for engineers to succeed in the workforce. Research on theskills that engineering graduates use in professional practice supports this idea [1-5], with onestudy even concluding that “technical abilities are a given, [whereas