climate change effects their motivations and agency to solve complex global problems for a sustainability in their career.Dr. Allison Godwin, Purdue University, West Lafayette 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 American Society for Engineering
Paper ID #14631On Becoming an Engineer: The Essential Role of Lifelong Learning Compe-tenciesJillian Seniuk Cicek, University of Manitoba Jillian Seniuk Cicek is a PhD Candidate in Engineering Education in the Department of Biosystems Engi- neering at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, Canada. She is a research assistant for the Centre for Engineering Professional Practice and Engineering Education in the Faculty of Engineering. Her research areas include outcomes-based teaching and assessment methods and tools, student-cantered instruction (SCI), the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) graduate
US (Lecture 2b) and on the development of computer engineering in 20thcentury Silicon Valley (Lecture 3). Adding the third and fourth lecture developed theprofessional identity component of the module and provided a more rounded historicalperspective on engineering practice. Lectures 2b and 3 continued the focus on the roots ofinnovation, but asked students to reflect on the continuing evolution of the role of engineers insociety and their own ambitions as engineers. Lectures 1, 2b, and 3 used case studies focused onindividual engineers, and in this iteration we used the case studies to reflect on a variety ofcharacter traits demonstrated in the careers and personalities of the featured engineers. Forinstance, Lecture 2b emphasized the
asupplement to more important learning. The course design outlined below reflects our bestattempts to use the lens of disability students to show STEM and the liberal arts as organic,essential, and generative partners.Course background and overviewAs an academic field, Disability Studies solidified in the 1990s alongside a social model ofdisability that rejected biological definitions of “normal” bodies and medical perspectives thatidentified disabilities as problems to be fixed. As a result, the study of disability fractured, oftenhighlighting conflicts between academic and professional interests4. At its foundation, the goal ofour Introduction to Disability Studies course is to bridge the chasm between theories andresearch in disability studies and
disciplines, aninterdisciplinary instructor team developed a cross-college undergraduate course aimed at openideation and creative inquiry. One skill in the development of creative practice is identifying andaddressing uncertainty avoidance behaviors, which are high in engineering students. We leverageresearch grounded in professional identity and cognitive design processes to study impacts ofcurriculum designed to address student persistence through, or indifference toward, uncertaintyin creative practice. Questions we seek to explore are: What role does uncertainty avoidance playin developing creative practice, especially in interdisciplinary teams? What strategies can beused to overcome that uncertainty? To explore the role of uncertainty
system of higher education, performancemetrics and institutional competition have permeated deeply into the conduct of academicorganizations. Their effects can be seen operating at faculty level, although public fundingremains a highly political process in that state.Unfortunately, the expansion of performance-based metrics has had a disproportionate impact onengineering education because many of the measures designed to determine allocations, such asfour year graduation rates, are not compatible with engineering education’s math-science heavycurricula. The related issue of retention, as compounded by increasingly diverse student bodiesand their diverse preparation, also frustrate engineering educators’ efforts to meet state
university to employment represents a major transition with personal, economic,and societal implications. In recent years, the study of transitions has attracted renewed interest frompolicy makers and researchers in the light of changing labor market patterns, the diverse transitionpathways of young people, the transformation of professional knowledge, and an increasingdisjuncture between students’ academic training and the specific skillsets sought by employers [1, 2,3]. Yet very little is known about this transition in the field of engineering [4]. Most studiesconcentrate on the job readiness of engineering graduates [5, 6]. Fewer studies have explored howthe knowledge, skills, and experience that engineering students gain in university facilitate
Paper ID #11811Into the Pipeline: A freshman student’s experiences of stories told about en-gineeringMr. Michael BrewerDr. Nicola Sochacka, University of Georgia Dr. Nicki Sochacka received her doctorate in Engineering Epistemologies from the University of Queens- land, Australia, in 2011. She is currently a member of the CLUSTER research group at the University of Georgia where she holds a research and teaching position. Nicki’s areas of research interest include: STEAM (STEM + Art) education, diversity, interpretive research quality, the role of empathy in engineer- ing education and practice, and student reflection.Dr
turncomplicates our ability to assess engineering judgement as a learning outcome or designeffective pedagogies to help students learn it. To address this gap, we present a review ofrelevant research to develop a working definition and identify links between engineeringjudgment, situated cognition, and identity production as a step toward informing engineeringpedagogy. We argue that the exploration of engineering judgment should be grounded at theintersection of decision making, cognition, and identity because, as the literature suggests,engineering judgment is reflected in the decisions engineers make throughout their work,depends on cognitive processes of both individuals and groups, and is embodied in authoritativeprofessional communication tasks
fifth year. Some studentsreported learning about CxC and the resources available at the Engineering Studio “late in thegame.” Of the students who successfully completed the CxC Distinguished Communicatorcertification, most identified direct contact and follow up with staff as the guiding force behindtheir completion. One student suggested that in future semesters CxC consider pairing upper-level students in the Distinguished Communication program with incoming interested students tohelp guide them through the process and act as a work buddy. Other students suggestedidentifying upper-level students with industry experience, or recent graduates, to act as industrymentors to help students translate their academic experience into the
successful interactions and learning outcomes.1-3 One important challenge centers onthe interactions between students from groups negatively stereotyped as poor performers inengineering (e.g., women and under-represented racial minorities) and others. A body of researchin psychology indicates that students from these marginalized groups may have qualitativelydifferent group work experiences compared to others, which may contribute to their self-selection from engineering and thus their group’s under-representation in engineering fields.Recent research suggests that the negative experiences of people from marginalized groups onengineering student design teams can influence many factors that contribute to persistence andsuccess, such as development of
Hitachi or Toshiba nor even university graduates employed in engineering positions. Engineering education was most congruent with the new metric of progress when it effectively de-‐emphasized the identities of graduates qua engineers. Global engineering education to provide protective competencies The neatness of this relationship between experiences in engineering education and lifetime employment within a corporate household began to erode with increased multi-‐national flow of major Western corporations. The image of economic competitiveness was not itself felt as news across Japan. What was news was the scale and scope that the expansion of
AC 2012-4268: UNDERSTANDING FACULTY AND STUDENT BELIEFSABOUT TEAMWORK AND COMMUNICATION SKILLSDr. Holly M Matusovich, Virginia Tech Holly Matusovich is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education. Matusovich earned her doctoral degree in engineering education at Purdue University. She also has a B.S. in chemical engineering and an M.S. in materials science with a concentration in metallurgy. Additionally, Matuso- vich has four years of experience as a Consulting Engineer and seven years of industrial experience in a variety of technical roles related to metallurgy and quality systems for an aerospace supplier. Matuso- vich’s research interests include the role of motivation in learning
contentchanges are currently being piloted in an effort to best serve students given the challenginglearning circumstances and the new context in which they are exploring their identities, values,and roles in their larger communities.The instructors also plan to initiate more intensive research regarding GCSP outcomes later thisyear. A concerted data gathering effort will draw upon feedback from the course but also fromsurveys that will be administered to a broad range of students and alumni, including studentswho did not take the course or participate in the GCSP program, as well as students whograduated many years earlier. The research project will attempt to determine whether the GCSPlearning outcomes were achieved during students’ time at Olin or
responsibility in corporate and team contexts. Like several othersessions at this year’s conference, the papers emphasized the importance of students learning toread and analyze the complex structures in which people act. Foreshadowing Deborah Johnson’sdistinguished lecture, the presentations and discussion examined moral accountability as a socialprocess, as an aspirational ideal, and as a set of skills (as opposed to just being opinions). Theyalso explored the connection between engineering ethics and social justice. The papers in session T534: Imagining Others, Defining Self Through Consideration of Ethicaland Social Implications dealt with the need for and challenges of integrating ethical and socialconsiderations (ESI) into engineering education
background, andeven class standing and experience. The different needs that are present even among studentswho want interesting writing topics underscores the balancing act that we must perform in orderto design an engineering writing class that serves our many students.Interest and AuthenticityA second theme that emerged between the survey results and the interviews was students’interest in authenticity and transferability—in other words, course content that spoke directly toreal-world skills and tasks in the professional lives of engineers. Students’ wish for authenticityis lightly at odds with students’ wishes for interesting topics; students who proposed improvedtopics seemed to want opportunities to use writing as a vehicle to discuss, imagine
node generationmore easily across groups (Fig 3). The identity line was included on the graph as a way tovisually compare how the amount of nodes changed for each student between the pre- and post-CMs. Points that are located above the identity line indicate that students had more nodes ontheir post-CMs than their pre-CMs, while points located below the line suggest students hadmore pre-nodes than post-nodes. Solid lines are a representation of a smoothed, nonparametrictrend line (LOESS: Locally Weighted Scatter-plot Smoothing), with each color linecorresponding to the dots of the same category. The gray areas capture the 95% confidenceintervals around each of the trend lines. The results of this test forces four questions to beaddressed
, Expectancy theory [6], (2) self-efficacy [7-8], (3) extra-curricular learning [9],and (4) social role identity theory [10-11]. (1) Valence, Instrumentality, Expectancy theory (VIE) [6] was used in several studies asa framework for understanding undergraduate students’ motivation to participate in engineeringoutreach. This theory proposes that motivation arises from the interaction among elements ofvalence, or value of an activity, instrumentality, or the connection between an activity and theindividual’s goals, and expectancy, or the individual’s perception that the activity can besuccessfully performed. Switzer and Benson [12] used VIE theory to examine changes inundergraduate engineering students’ motivation as a result of participating in
, learning, motivation, and other concepts underpin many diversity efforts and are tied to positive outcomes, there are minimal examples available in the literature that purely explore the theories from the perspective of Black women and their identity in the context of STEM. Womanism, a theoretical perspective grounded in the experiences of Black women across the diaspora has the opportunity to inform STEM education efforts that focus on Black women in an exciting and informative way. Presently, there is a gap between this critical, yet often absent social science theory and STEM education research and practice. Through the experiences of eight Black women in STEM disciplines at various levels (e.g. current students, graduates, or working
identified by our team as having a significantwriting component. The second survey, hereafter referred to as the department survey, was givento faculty having key department administrative roles in every engineering department of theuniversity. Both surveys contained multiple-choice, select-all-that-apply, rate-on-a-scale, andshort-answer questions. The instructor survey consisted of four sections: i) participants’perceptions of writing within their discipline and expectations for their students after graduation,ii) instructional practices and assignment design related to writing, iii) participants’ perceptionsof challenges related to writing instruction, and iv) participants’ current best practices. Thesurvey contained 30 questions and took
mean if our blue ribbon panels thatname directions for engineering education were not a who’s who list from the NationalAcademies or the Fortune 500, but instead comprised a representation of individuals acrossAmerican society, and from around the world?With Ramin Farahmandpur,55 among other scholars of critical pedagogy, I put forward oneproposal of resistance -- for faculty to make the connections between our own labor in theacademy and global neoliberalism. If we can first understand how OBE and ABET relate to thecorporatization of the university, perhaps we will then be increasingly concerned about globalimperialism and engineering’s role in it. Perhaps we will be moved to act in solidarity withothers around the world resisting free-market
; integrate hands-on learning and create a fun,uplifting experience to empower young women. WOCSEC included 6 components: EngineerSpotlight Interview; Engineering Design Challenge; E-Moment of Empowerment; Design Lab;Interactive Forum and Panel; and College Readiness.Engineer Spotlight Interview - Each morning began with an Engineer Spotlight Interview with afemale engineer of color. The engineer acted in the role of a mentor and supporter, as they sharedtheir stories of resilience and success, along with aspects of their careers, such as their currentresearch, as well as how their job impacts society [7]. The interview was an optimal method tosuccessfully engage and inspire the students to recognize the diverse and fulfilling experienceawaiting them
andexpectations for the profession). Today, after the launch of EC 20002 and the Engineer of 20203,negotiations between the culture/utility function continue. Leyden and Schneider recognize EC 2000’s Criterion 3 as an important driver in thechanges in FYC programs, and as an important factor within the culture/utility debate. They notethat of the 11 abilities specified for graduating engineers, only 4 of them are primarily technical.They divide the abilities in the following ways1: Engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
engineering students’ beliefs and experiences regarding their job searchand career decision-making processes. A survey was administered to approximately twothousand engineering students at the six schools in the fall of their junior or senior year. Sixty-two students were interviewed between two and five months later, purposefully sampling formechanical engineering and chemical engineering students (to limit potential differences in thedata by discipline) and to match (to the extent possible) the student demographics in eachdepartment. Students determined to be actively looking for their first job post-graduation wereinterviewed using one version of the interview protocol, while all other students wereinterviewed using another. Each interview
,” was written during a more radical moment in U.S. history. It was cutting in itscriticism in a way that was consistent with the general protest culture of the 1960s. Beginningwith the statement that, “Technology has brought mankind to a critical point in history. It is in aposition to destroy man; it may even be in a position to save him,” Olmstead‟s committeeadopted the stance that it was necessary to completely rethink how schools approached theliberal education of engineers. Students were to be trained to understand the role of technology“within the total human culture,” and to control its adverse effects. Considering the task at hand,the committee judged all prior attempts at engineering and liberal arts integration to be a failure,and
multipledimensions of student development (cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal) and describesthe potential for individuals’ awareness of and commitment to acting on their internally definedvalues.32 Self-Authorship has been shown as one potential pathway to creative ways of knowingin engineering33 and is also considered an important goal for liberal education.32 For a more in-depth treatment of the connection between innovation and Self-Authorship in our developmentof the IPM, refer to Gewirtz, Davis, Benitez, and McNair.34Designing the IPM In their discussion of generating academic plans, Lattuca and Stark6 distinguish betweenthe design and planning of academic structures such as courses, programs, and even collegesthemselves. Design of
self- reflection to help students become clearer about what they know, why they hold their beliefs, and how they want to act on them; and ● Defining learning as mutually constructing meaning: Frame learning as something you experience together when both the instructor and the student share their perspectives; students see that the instructor is continuing to learn through their work together and demonstrates lifelong learning.The key to a successful Learning Partnership is the balance of challenge and support necessary topush students towards self-authorship without triggering a reliance on old ways of constructingidentity, relationships, and knowledge. Educators and administrators have used this model todesign effective
distinguish between empathy and care, what do participants say about the terms (e.g. big part of their profession, motivation for a project) 5. How participants rank the role of empathy and/or care in teaching and learning 6. The role of empathy and/or care in engineering practice and engineering educationThe coding scheme is included in Appendix B.After one member of the research team (Coder 1, a male PhD student in Engineering Education)finished coding the data and had developed a rigorous coding scheme, a second member (Coder2, a female Master’s student in Counseling with some undergraduate experience in engineering)engaged with the data and (1) agreed or disagreed with the codes paired with data, (2) addedcodes that were thought to be
course designed by an interdisciplinary team of faculty fromengineering and the humanities puts students imaginatively into a complex nineteenth-centurycontext as they consider how to provide a waste management solution for an expanding urbanpopulation. This role-playing game (RPG) puts students in the roles of actual people living in aturn-of-the-century industrial city in central Massachusetts. While immersing themselves in theroles of engineers, industrialists, elected officials, workers, scientists, public health officials,inventors, and city residents, students learn and practice engineering concepts (engineeringdesign, stakeholder analysis, mass balance, sewage treatment, material properties and selection,sewage properties and conveyance
]. Unfortunately, it is also perceived as an area of under-preparation by recentgraduates [26]. Women’s experiences in engineering design teams has been the subject of a number ofstudies, with several studies noting that women’s experiences in teams could potentially“recreate sexist environments already found in the university environment for undergraduatewomen if they are not properly managed” [28, pp. 82]. Negative experiences in teams (not beingaccepted, heard, or respected by her peers) could have significant long-term impacts, i.e., it couldbe the difference between staying or abandoning engineering after graduation. During teamwork activities, students negotiate their identities, status, and authenticity.[29] showed that gender is a