Society for Engineering Education, 202212 Table of Contents Mentoring Program Design Motivation for the Study Purpose of Research Literature Review Methodology Pilot Mentoring Program Mentoring Program During COVID19 Summary of Best Practices 3In this presentation we’ll cover the mentoring program design, the pilot mentoring program, the discoveries we found during the COVID 19 pandemic, and a summary of the best practices for mentoring programs
AC 2007-1802: SUMMER RESEARCH EXPERIENCE FOR HIGH SCHOOLSTUDENTS AND TEACHERS: A PILOT PROGRAMSummer Dann, CBM2 Ms. Dann is the Education & Outreach Coordinator for the Center for BioModular MultiScale Systems. She is responsible for developing and coordinating recruitment and retention programs in STEM fields related to engineering, biology and chemistry. Prior to her employment with CBM2, Ms. Dann was a design and reliability engineer in private industry. Ms. Dann has bachelor of science degrees in Psychology and Mechanical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering.Brenda Nixon, Louisiana State University Dr. Brenda Nixon is the Assistant Director for Gordon A
STEM” project in Puerto Rico, and the Latin and Caribbean Consortium of Engineering Institutions’ (LACCEI) ”Women in STEM” forum. Tull is a Tau Beta Pi ”Eminent Engineer.”Dr. Alexis Y. Williams, University of Maryland Baltimore County Dr. Alexis Y. Williams serves as a member of the Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology teaching faculty at the University of Maryland, College Park. She is Assistant Director for PROF-it (Professors-in-Training), a University System of Maryland teaching professional development program housed at UMBC, designed for STEM graduate students and postdocs, and open to any who are interested in academia. Her research, teaching, and service address achievement motivation
people with physical disabilities.The requirements of accessibility can be viewed as a design constraint. Simplistically, there aretwo approaches to dealing with such a constraint. The structure could be designed first, and thenfeatures which make the structure accessible could be added on or, more advantageously, thedesign could begin with accessibility as one of the primary functions of the building and thusharmoniously integrate functionality and aesthetics. The second approach was pioneered byRonald Mace and others at The Center for Universal Design (North Carolina).2 The UniversalDesign concepts developed by Ronald Mace have led to innovation in a number of fields. Ininformation technology, it led to US legislation affecting the features of
are inclined to use lecture andrecitation on a regular basis as a means of providing students with course content and relevantpractices. Some instructors at research institutions tend to value research activities overspending time preparing lessons in hopes of manuscript publication.7,8,9 Junior faculty and thosewho received pedagogical training in graduate school are more likely to employ reform-basedteaching practices and seek outside sources for ideas about instructional innovation.9New faculty members are likely to be very teacher-centered relying on PowerPoint todisseminate course content.10 Sadler10 illustrated that faculty may make small adjustments toteaching over time, with pedagogical training. These changes included posing
,Los Angeles is proud to serve a student body rich in first-generation college students andunderrepresented Latino (74%). However, the 6-year graduation rate, while on the rise, is still at38%. There is currently a 33% equity gap in 6-year graduation rate between underrepresentedminority (URM) and non-URM students. An engineering design service learning based summerbridge was developed, with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), forengineering majors in between their freshman and sophomore years. The goal of BridgeOpportunities Offered for the Sophomore Transition, better known as BOOST, was to help theengineering students at Cal State LA capitalize on their potential for engineering innovation andsocial capital.During BOOST
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department on the campus of NDSU. Theresearch team, graduate student mentor, and other faculty members provide support to teachersto enhance the knowledge and skills gained throughout the program. This support is provided ina variety of ways, including refresher courses in math and science content, pedagogicalworkshops, engineering design activities, lab work, and curriculum writing. Four follow-upworkshops are conducted through the year to provide sustained support throughout the schoolyear. By participating in the program, the teachers gain a personal insight to research-basedclassroom instruction that follow best practices in K-12 engineering education, STEM learning,active learning instruction, and project
and science fields.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 education and work-practices, and applied finite element analysis. From 1999-2008 she served as a Senior Scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, leading the Foundation’s engineering study (as reported in Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field). In addition, in 2011 Dr. Sheppard was named as co-PI of a national NSF innovation center (Epicenter), and leads an NSF program at
-on experimentation and plenty of out-of-classroom activity –Flash was the natural choice to allow students to have the same type of experiences in anonline environment. The activities allowed students to do everything from exploringrooms in a ‘virtual home’ in order to gain energy-usage information for commonhousehold appliances/devices, to conducting a ‘virtual experiment’ in order to determinethe best insulation method, to visiting a ‘virtual home improvement center’ in order tocompare prices and R-values of various insulation materials.The challenge from a design perspective was to capture the fun, hands-on essence of theclassroom course while keeping students engaged and focused on the learning at hand. Asmentioned previously, plenty of
University Professor, Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, and Director, Assessment and Evaluation Center, Washington State UniversityRobert Gerlick, Washington State University Graduate Research Assistant, Engineering Education, Washington State UniversitySusannah Howe, Smith College Director, Design Clinic, Smith College Page 14.237.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 Assessing Design and Reflective Practice in Capstone Engineering Design CoursesAbstractEngineering practitioners in the twenty-first century face complex challenges with social,political
and Associate Director of Graduate Education in the Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology at Harvard Medical School and as a Visiting Scholar- in-Residence at Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering. At Harvard Medical School, Dr. Venkatesh works with faculty on improving the first-year PhD courses in molecular biology and biochemistry, trains teaching assistants, expands programming to build community among graduate students, and researches the best ways to train and assess PhD students in skills such as experimental design and science com- munication. Her other work includes contributing to dance performances that raise awareness about the human impacts on marine life and designing and
Communication Engineering from India.Dr. Aileen Huang-Saad, University of Michigan Aileen is faculty in Engineering Education and Biomedical Engineering. Previously, Aileen was the Associate Director for Academics in the Center for Entrepreneurship and was responsible for building the Program in Entrepreneurship for UM undergraduates, co-developing the masters level entrepreneur- ship program, and launching the biomedical engineering graduate design program. Aileen has received a number of awards for her teaching, including the Thomas M. Sawyer, Jr. Teaching Award, the UM ASEE Outstanding Professor Award and the Teaching with Sakai Innovation Award. Prior to joining the University of Michigan faculty, she worked in the
Community College (JCCC) of Kansas as they considered thefeasibility of establishing photonics programs or photonics certificates and/or infusing photonicscoursework into existing programs. MPEC has provided additional technical assistance toColumbia Area Career Center (CACC) of Missouri as they work to expand their photonicsprograms to include evening offerings of photonics certificates. All of these institutions havevisited IHCC for laboratory tours and in-depth discussions of curriculum design, laboratoryequipment needs, graduate job placement and other challenges to program startup. Eachinstitution has received a follow-up visit from MPEC for additional on-site technical assistance.STC plans to add two or three photonics courses with a
condition. Thus,even though we see a difference between the cycles related to Attitudes, the impact of the VCPcycle on Attitude ratings is unclear, and could just be an artifact of the Attitudes differences theparticipants brought to each cycle prior to the start of the VCP. Additionally, the lack ofinteraction between Cycle and Time for Adoption indicates that both Time and Cycle impactedAdoption ratings. Therefore the VCP was likely leading to the Adoption of research-basededucation practices by the faculty, and even more so in Cycle 2. Cycle 1 was specifically designed to bring together faculty that had a shared interest in aparticular course. Therefore, F-VCP participants engaged in Cycle 1 were directly working withfaculty that were
year extension, a NSF Partnership for Innovation(PFI) grant and then follow up PFI grant, and a five year NSF Material Research Center forScience and Engineering Center (MRSEC) grant with a just awarded second five yearcontinuation.The specific elements for microEP students’ career preparation were (1) academic excellence incourses that would directly support a student’s professional performance, (2) research excellencein an area that would provide practice of the academic knowledge being gained throughcoursework, and (3) operational excellence in both the execution of graduate research and inmanagement skills needed in early professional careers.This paper will not address the first two elements of the microEP Graduate Program, but
practices in technician education, with a particular emphasis on faculty development in problem-based learning, the first year of study for success in engineering and technology majors, and mentoring educators nationally.Caroline VanIngen-Dunn, Science Foundation Arizona Center for STEM at Arizona State University Caroline VanIngen-Dunn is Director of the Science Foundation Arizona Center for STEM at Arizona State University, providing services for Maximizing the Educational and Economic Impact of STEM. Ms. VanIngen-Dunn is the inspiration behind the programs and resources designed to assist community colleges, particularly rural and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), through a rigorous process leading to improvements
the engineering curriculum.The remaining first-cycle Faculty VCP involves 20 to 30 participants in the National Academyof Engineering’s Frontier of Engineering Education (FOEE) program working in a similar wayto incorporate these approaches into whatever courses they teach. FOEE members have beenselected in a highly competitive process based on their work in developing and implementinginnovative educational approaches. It was formed to enable them to share ideas and learn fromresearch and best practice in education.The leaders of the Faculty VCPs need to be individuals that have implemented research-basedapproaches for improving student learning and have acquired a reputation for innovation andleadership in their course area. In identifying
private companies. HEIs also havehigh-level goals for focusing on research activities and advancing their reputation, which may ormay not conflict with designing a competency-based curriculum.Competency vs. student learning outcomes. Several consulting companies (Personnel DecisionsResearch Institutes, Inc. (PDRI) in 2005, JBS International, Inc., Aguirre Division in 2012, andCoffey Consulting, LLC and JBS International, Inc. in 2015) contributed to a technical assistanceguide that details best practices for developing competency models [18]. The guide wasdeveloped and supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment &Training Administration under Contract DOLQ121A21895, Order No. DOL-ETA-15-U-00001.The guide states that
our studentresearchers are given and recommended best practices for undergraduate research in this area aredetailed. Finally, how this work dovetails with our implementation of a multi-disciplinaryintroductory quantum computing course running for the first time this Spring is also described.1. IntroductionEducational scholars widely agree that engaging students in authentic undergraduate researchexperiences is a high-impact pedagogical practice as it promotes student-centered learning andresults in several positive learning outcomes including improved problem-solving, critical-thinking, and communication skills [1], [2], [3]. Undergraduate research programs also help withpersonal development, giving students improved attitudes, self
experientiallearning experience on underrepresented minority engineering students, majority black. Thisstudy will focus on students who participate in experiential learning held at an HBCU todetermine the program's impact on their persistence from sophomore to senior year. It alsoprovides insight for Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) and other institutions to learn andmodel best practices for retaining black students beyond their freshman year.B. OverviewAfter successfully retaining students from their freshman year to their sophomore year with anEngineering LLC, in 2017, Florida A&M University (FAMU) introduced an experientiallearning program titled Educating Engineering Students Innovatively (EESI, pronounced “easy”)that expanded on the freshman
Electronics at MIT working under the direction of Dr. Steven Leeb. His research interests include sensors and instrumentation for energy and power systems; renewable energy generation, integration, and control; and energy policy. In addi- tion to research, Dr. Lindahl aids Dr. Leeb’s instruction of several courses related to power electronics, microcontrollers, and product design. He also serves as a Communication Lab advisor in MIT’s Electri- cal Engineering and Computer Science Department, where he provides peer-coaching services regarding technical communication to fellow EECS postdocs and graduate students.Samantha Dale Strasser, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Samantha Dale Strasser aims to elucidate how cell
AC 2008-1248: IMPLEMENTING A MULTI-FACETED APPROACH FORPROMOTING DIVERSITY IN GRADUATE ENGINEERING EDUCATIONEugene DeLoatch, Morgan State University Eugene Deloatch is Dean of Morgan State College of Engineering. He served as the President of ASEE in 2002-2003.Sherra Kerns, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering Sherra Kerns is Vice President for Innovation and Research at the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering. She served as the President of ASEE in 2005-2006.Lueny Morell, Hewlett-Packard Lueny Morell is Director of Hewlett Packard Latin America University Relations Program and former Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez.Carla Purdy, University of
University.Dr. Myeongsun Yoon, Texas A&M University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Improving the Impact of Experiential Learning Activities through the Assessment of Student Learning StylesLong a staple of engineering technology, experiential learning is becoming a topic of growinginterest among the wider engineering educational community. Experiential learning theoryimports practical experiences into the learning environment. While the putative benefits ofexperiential learning have been highlighted, the activities introduced into the learningenvironment are rarely systematically designed around the content of the course or the needs ofthe student population. There has been little work
Paper ID #18064Dr. 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 education and work-practices, and applied finite element analysis. From 1999-2008 she served as a Senior Scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, leading the Foundation’s engineering study (as reported in Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field). In addition, in 2011 Dr. Sheppard was named as co-PI of a national NSF innovation center (Epicenter), and leads an NSF program at
Design Graduate Program Track at Portland State University. Her primary focus is on teaching. Prior to joining the ECE department at Portland State University, she was at Intel Corporation for 21 years in Hillsboro, Oregon, where she was a senior staff engineer, involved in key product development and in- dustry adoption of technologies, standards, specifications and methodologies. She was the chairperson of cross-functional Joint Engineering Teams at Intel and industry consortium JEDEC DDR2 Memory Power Thermal Task Group, addressing system level memory power, thermal, and performance challenges. She has extensive experience in platform design, power management architecture and led the development of Intel’s
at many national and regional educational conferences (ASEE, NSTA, CASE, CoCo STEM Forums). Co-authored: Best Practices in High school and Higher education.Dr. Malinda S Zarske, University of Colorado, BoulderDr. Daniel Knight, University of Colorado, Boulder Dr. Daniel Knight is the Program Assessment and Research Associate with the Design Center Colorado in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering and Applied Science at University of Colorado Boulder. Dr. Knight’s duties include assessment, program evaluation, education research, and teambuilding for the Center’s hands-on, industry-sponsored design projects. Dr. Knight’s research interests are in assessment, teamwork, K-12, and engineering
Biology from the University of Michigan and Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Virginia. Her combined experience in STEM research and education, program development, and student advising are key to her dedication and success in creating opportunities for graduate students to achieve their education and career goals. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Better together: Co-design and co-teaching as professional developmentIntroductionCo-teaching is well documented as a unique opportunity to deepen one’s appreciation forteaching, share instructional knowledge, and expose students to multiple perspectives in theclassroom [1]–[5
of factor analysis indicatedthat the instrument we developed had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and could extractthree sub-constructs: context authenticity, task authenticity, and impact authenticity. This study provided anew measure for engineering education researchers to deeply explore the construct of effective engineeringlearning environments.Key Words: authenticity; engineering learning; community of practice; instrument developmentINTRODUCTIONEngineers are entrusted by the public to apply their professional knowledge and competencies to innovate,design, and implement solutions for societal needs [1]. But in recent years, many engineering students havereported they have difficulties in applying their professional
found to be challenging and required rigorous evaluation andrefinements for effective training across disciplines and skill levels. A comprehensive programevaluation over five years found that the strongest learning and skills outcomes were linked toseveral “best practices”. Early provision of depth in fundamentals in R programming andreproducible research was found to be critical to “jump start” students without programmingbackgrounds. Addition of an overview of microbiome experimental design and analysis addedimportant context as to how and where in the research process informatics fits into designprogression and was highly motivating to students. Course modality was found to impact traineeoutcomes with in-person classes that included hands
,qualitative analyses may provide more detailed information on the quality of interdisciplinaryresearch conducted within this program. Further, qualitative analytical strategies would also beuseful for providing evidence regarding how each student’s prior experiences (e.g.,undergraduate training, prior work experience) and learning engagement in program activities(e.g., learning and writing communities) impact individual interdisciplinarity. Thus, furtherstudies are needed in order to best understand these processes within engineering doctoralstudents.AcknowledgementsFunding for this research was provided by the NSF NRT program (NSF-DGE-1545403).Data-Enabled Discovery and Design of Energy Materials, D3EM.References[1] C.H. Ward, and J.A. Warren