purpose of this work-in-progress (WIP) phenomenological study is to explore howengineering students perceive entrepreneurship and envision their future entrepreneurial selves,with a specific focus on understanding the personal and social factors that shape their evolvingentrepreneurial identity within the engineering field. Many engineering departments across theU.S. have implemented curricular and co-curricular programs aimed at promotingentrepreneurship and innovation. The primary goal of these efforts is to produce graduates whocontribute to creating personal, economic and societal value through an entrepreneurial mindset.For instance, the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN) has been instrumental inthese initiatives, fostering
AC 2010-118: SUPPORTS AND BARRIERS THAT RECENT ENGINEERINGGRADUATES EXPERIENCE IN THE WORKPLACESamantha Brunhaver, Stanford University Samantha Brunhaver is a second year graduate student at Stanford University. She is currently working on her Masters in Mechanical Engineering. Her research interests include engineering education and design for manufacturing. She earned a BS in Mechanical Engineering at Northeastern University in 2008.Russell Korte, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Russell Korte is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is currently a Fellow with the iFoundry project in the College of Engineering at
engineering classes. The way she balanced her needs tounderstand and apply to feel like an engineer seemed to tip back and forth depending on herexperiences and the reevaluation of her knowledge.5 DiscussionThroughout this work, we presented the nuanced ways students think about their engineeringidentity development through specific performance and competency needs. We also gave aninitial illustrative example that describes how a student’s identity needs vary relative to theirexperiences and time spent in their program. These time-oriented results corroborate andextend existing theories for engineering role development and competency beliefs.5.1 Change in competency beliefsQuantitative work has presented findings that show that students
education 1 . As these traditionally cis-white male spaces are expanded, there are manyissues that have arisen due to the incongruence between who these spaces were designed for andwho now exists in these spaces. To assume that the system gives equal opportunity to all who makeit past admission would be naive and also contrary to what the literature has shown 3,4,5,6 . Under-represented minority groups (URMs), such as Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and Queer students, tendto have a different experience compared to their non-URM peers, often navigating extra barriersthat can affect graduation rates of these students. In order to achieve true justice, equity, diversity,and inclusion (JEDI), we need to examine the reasons for this difference of experience
the mentoring relationship hasbeen understudied. Thirdly, the intersectionality of graduate students' identities, including race,ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, and how it may affect mentoring relationships andretention rates, has not been thoroughly explored. Fourthly, there is a lack of clarity on the mosteffective formats and structures of mentoring for various graduate student groups. Finally, whilemost of the existing work on STEM mentoring has been conducted in academic settings, therole of mentoring in professional contexts, where graduate students may face uniquechallenges, requires further investigation. Addressing these gaps in the literature will contributeto a more comprehensive understanding of the role of mentoring in
competitiveness.Finding # 9: Policy blind spot exists in U.S. Science & Technology Policy and in U.S.professional engineering education. The disconnect between U.S. engineering graduate educationand creative engineering practice has neither occurred overnight nor by happenstance. It has occurredover the last four decades. While the nation has placed a deserved, increased federally fundedemphasis on basic academic research and on the graduate education of the nation’s future researchersduring the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s [and must continue to do so], it has not placed a parallel andequal emphasis on advanced professional graduate education for the U.S. engineering workforce inindustry during this same time period which is the nation’s primary resource for
university. Departments can also ensure the financial stability of their students by hav-ing policies and procedures in place for continued student funding. Stress fromnot knowing if they will be funded in the next semester or over the summer canbe detrimental to many graduate students. With some form of ensured fundingmechanism, student financial-stress could be greatly reduced. Departments can also assist in ensuring graduate students have a positivework culture and promote work-life balance. Department culture is a criticalcomponent of graduate students feeling welcome and encouraged. Having eventsthat support graduate students, assistance programs for students, and encour-gaing positive interactions between graduate students, faculty, and
feel they are not preparedand do not have necessary research skills such as communications skills and organization [3].Communication is a particularly important area of professional skill development, especiallywith high numbers of foreign language graduate students in engineering. Studies have shown thatmentoring can be an effective approach for improving communication skills of internationalstudents, including activities such as Toastmasters clubs, formal academic support, and informalpeer discussion groups [4,5].Many universities have begun to recognize the value of professional development programs inthe balance of work/study/life across different disciplines [1,6,7]. The four most relevantprofessional attributes for engineering PhDs were
higher GPAs [8]. According to Erikson's classic Psychosocial Theory of Light Conflicts, there is a phase of identity formation characterized by aconflict of identity versus role confusion [7]. During the identity formation process there needs to be an equilibrium betweencommitment to a new identity and confusion surrounding its new roles and responsibilities; having a lack of balance will causeuncertainty and doubts [7]. To form a commitment to a new identity, in this case as an engineering student and future engineer, itneeds to be able to seamlessly integrate into pre-existing personal goals, values, and desires that inform the individual’s pathway inpursuing that goal [31]. The individual will allow more time to fully integrate the new
: A Project is Conceived at ASEE On a rainy evening in Baltimore, three engineering educators are at the LEES mixer during the 2023 ASEE National Conference and Exhibition. Jacque, then a graduate student at a STEM-focused institution, Meredith, a graduate student at the same in- stitution, and Morgan, a recent graduate, were leaving the event, feeling inspired by the discourse, connections and support they’d found throughout the conference. A theme for them had been feeling the difference between their “normal” STEM set- ting and their interactions at the conference, which often went beyond the technical to discuss identity, belonging, community, and sociotechnical impacts. They won
voluntarily basis; retention of studentsand continuation rates; and graduate employment and destination. All three measures can beconsidered to encourage grade inflation and their use means that the position of HEIs withinleague tables is, in part, dependent on external factors such as the survey completion rate. Theresults on Graduate Outcomes surveys are dependent on salary values, this implying thateducation serves economic purposes, but also assumes that graduates will choose roles whichpay the most in regions of high average wages, as opposed to aligning with their values. Onlythis month, the Office for Students (OfS), a non-departmental public body of the Departmentfor Education who acts as the regulator and competition authority for HE in
how collaborative learning impacts the development oftheir egonet. We want to build egonets for the students to determine if there is a relationshipbetween the structure of a student’s egonets and the student’s characterization of the amount ofteamwork required in their major classes. The network characteristics of interest are socialcapital and clustering coefficient.Social capital is a measure of worth that comes from human interactions, and is typically foundin the ties that are made between individuals in a social network. The social capital that existswithin the social network of an individual can play a major role in their success in school, workor in their personal life [17]. Using an egonet, the quality and quantity of an
courses complement thetraining provided by research mentors, ensure commonality and consistency of experiences ofstudents in a program, are effective in community and cohort development [4], [5], and can helpthem successfully overcome initial barriers and establish a path towards their academic andcareer goals [6].Challenges faced by first year graduate students play a significant role in their academic success[2]. Such challenges include making the academic transition to graduate studies, navigating newacademic cultures, assuming and navigating new responsibilities and identities as studentresearchers, and experiencing imposter syndrome. Community building and professionaldevelopment courses for graduate students in the early stages can help
, active/reflective, and sequential/global.Complementary teaching styles can be matched to each of the learning styles, and the traditional“chalk and talk” style can in no way encompass all of them. Several institutions found that amixed-mode approach which balances active learning and passive learning is best for teachingstudents, especially in early stages of development [4]. Thus, in order to teach STEM topics toall students, supplementary teaching tools should be utilized.There are some assignable causes linked to the lack of engagement and success in STEMclassrooms. Many times teachers themselves do not have adequate training to teach STEMtopics. This problem was illustrated in a study done in 2007 that revealed the United Statesranked 41 out
female students' willingness to engagein discussions about their academic paths [41]. If female students perceive their advisors as lesssupportive or more critical, they may be less inclined to seek their guidance, thereby contributingto the observed disparity in communication behaviors. Additionally, the identity and backgroundof the advisor can influence the comfort level of students when discussing sensitive topics [42].This dynamic can create a feedback loop in which men feel more supported and are thus morelikely to engage in discussions, while women may feel less inclined to do so due to perceivedbarriers.The moderately positive relationship between advisor relationships and changing lab experiencesreinforces these findings. Healthy
diversity, equity, and inclusion in engineering, engineering design theory and practice; conceptual change and understanding; and school- to-work transitions for new engineers. His current work explores a range of engineering education design contexts, including the role of power in brainstorming activities, epistemological and conceptual develop- ment of undergraduate learning assistants, as well as the experiences of recent engineering graduates as they navigate new organizational cultures. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Exploring Student Responses to Utility Value Interventions in Engineering Statics
of social, political and / or organizationalcontexts in the engineering discipline. These aspects are an integral part of the problems in theelectrical engineering units of study. By taking on and playing the persona of a role, learnerswere led to reflect on the material from the perspective of personal experience and identity. Thisdeep reflection was enhanced by being able to act out possibilities in a safe and collaborativeenvironment. In addition, learners were absorbed in situations and contexts that highlight thelearning outcomes and objectives of the engineering units of study.The project was carried out over two semesters in 2006 and was evaluated by student feedbackquestionnaires to determine whether the role playing platform had
Engineering Education, 2024 Exploring the Relationships between Artistic Creativity and Innovation Attitudes in Engineering StudentsAbstractThis research explored potential relationships between the innovation self-efficacy (ISE) ofengineering students and their artistic creativity and life experiences revealed on an ice-breakerassignment. In a community-building assignment, students were directed to introduce themselvesthrough cartoon monster drawings that communicated various personal attributes (such as thenumber of languages they speak, and the number of states visited). Previous research has foundthat multicultural experiences can shape feelings of self-efficacy concerning innovation andcreativity. This pilot study was
of scholars from the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department at theinstitution studied. The three undergraduate researchers in this study identify as members ofhistorically underrepresented groups in engineering, bringing with them life experiences thatshape their understanding of equity, access, and pedagogy in DS education. Two of theseundergraduate researchers also currently serve as TAs within the DS degree programs, furtherpositioning them at the intersection of both institutional structures and student experiences. Theirdual role as both educators and students enables a critical perspective on how teaching assistantsnavigate the sociotechnical divide, particularly in how they balance technical instruction withfostering
distinct disciplinary patterns2. This research training is central to transformingthe student into a producer of knowledge, so much so that departments design specializedtraining programs to meet the needs of individual disciplines3.The majority of engineering graduate students spend their graduate school years as part of aresearch group4. These groups are generally organized around the research specialty of aprimary advisor, or collaboration between faculty advisors, depending on the size of the researchgroup5. Doctoral students, master’s students and post doctoral researchers work together underthe guidance of these faculty advisors, often in shared laboratory and office spaces6. It’s thisgroup environment where the majority of student learning
stress the importance of a) providing graduate students with tools and resources to helpthem establish a home, find a community, and get acclimated to their new environment; b)ensuring that these tools and resources act in conjunction with those provided by the universityand its departments; and c) striving to make these tools and resources inclusive by identifying avariety of cultural organizations [3, 5].The aforementioned set of best practices and recommendations were taken into account andintegrated in the development and deployment of the onboarding and orientation event for whicha description, assessment and outcomes are offered below (see Sections 3.1 and 4.1). However, itis worth noting that the literature is either scant – or completely
it’s just about finding, it’s just about the time limit, it’s just about the project goals. PhD students need to be first author…and everyone is a PhD student so it is hard to collaborate. We need to become an expert in our discipline first, and then collaborate or work with other disciplines should be the second step.Incentives and InterestsGiven the competing goals and expectations, incentives for and interest in interdisciplinary workalso played a key role in identity development. For some students on the cusp of interdisciplinaryscholarship, it appeared “easier” to pursue one discipline than to balance multiple andintersecting disciplines. Upon reflecting on interdisciplinary project work, one
underrepresentedand marginalized groups. Finally, we discuss the implications these findings have for preparinggraduate students to mentor in higher education settings.Keywords: Graduate Student Mentor, Engineering Education, Culturally Responsive Pedagogyand Practices, Academic Wheel of PrivilegeIntroductionGraduate student mentors play a crucial role in the professional and personal growth ofundergraduate engineering students, particularly due to the limited availability faculty have forone-on-one interactions with them [1], [2]. Among the array of tasks they take up in their roles,graduate student mentors are known to provide direct training and support to their undergraduatestudent mentees, function as midlevel managers between the students and the
; sponsors, sources of information about and aid in obtaining opportunities; models,of identity, of the kind of person one should be to be an academic." (Zelditch, 1990).Additionally, although the Circle defined a distinction between mentoring and supervising oradvising a student in research, we did choose to include elements of advising in our discussion.It was the opinion of the Circle that including mentoring in your advising or supervising stylewould contribute to the student’s success in research. Additional benefits of mentoring theresearch students include: Page 7.883.2• Increase the likelihood of a positive and productive research
conceptualizingand operationalizing “Servingness,” which encompasses the policies and practices aimed atpositioning institutions to reflect and act in their role to ensure representation and engagement ofthe Latin* community (Garcia, 2020; Garcia et al., 2019; Garcia & Cuellar, 2023; Garcia &Koren, 2020).Perhaps as an unintended side effect of their undergraduate-centered definition, current researchon how policies and practices at HSIs impact Latin* student success predominantly focuses onundergraduate students. As a result, little is known about how servingness impacts theexperiences of engineering graduate students and how institutional policies and practices may beaiding or barricading their path to success. As the calls to expand the post
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
Paper ID #41428Work in Progress: Design and Preliminary Results of a Survey to ExploreRelationships Between Faculty Mentoring, Engineering Doctoral Student PsychologicalSafety, and Work OutcomesDorian Bobbett, University of Michigan Dorian is a 1st-year Engineering Education Research Ph.D. student at the University of Michigan. She received her B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in May 2023. Dorian currently works with Dr. Karin Jensen at the University of Michigan on projects related to mental-health and well being and mentoring at the graduate student level. She was previously involved in
Paper ID #46095Bridging Support Networks: The Role of Formal and Informal Mentors inUndergraduate Engineering Students’ Emotional Well-Being and AcademicSuccessMrs. Narjes Khorsandi Koujel, Rowan University Narjes is a Ph.D. student in Engineering Education at Rowan University. She earned a bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering in Iran and subsequently worked as an industrial engineer in the food industry for over 10 years. Narjes’ research and activism focuses on women in the Middle East. Particularly, she is focused on how resources, culture, and gendered norms impact their engineering identity development.Sowmya
involvevarious components including an interconnected network of dedicated staff, students, instructors,Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTA’s), and both community and corporate partners, amongothers. These components work together within the university’s framework to create anenvironment that fosters student learning experiences while addressing community needs, whichis highlighted in a systems-level perspective2,4. The complexity of these systems underscores thenecessity for comprehensive approaches to understanding and enhancing service-learninginitiatives from multiple lenses.As GTA’s are largely responsible for facilitating course delivery, playing a support role for facultyand students5 (Figure 2), their personal and collective experiences are often
Paper ID #47701A Model of Increased Female Engineering Persistence to GraduationDr. Gail Baura, Loyola University Chicago Dr. Gail Baura is Founding Director & Chair, and Professor of Engineering at Loyola University Chicago. Previously, she was a Professor of Medical Devices at Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, which is one of the Claremont Colleges. She received her BS Electrical Engineering degree from Loyola Marymount University, her MS Electrical Engineering and MS Biomedical Engineering degrees from Drexel University, and her PhD Bioengineering degree from the University of Washington. Between