Identities among engineering students and through their transition to work: a longitudinal study. Studies in Higher Education, 38(1), 39-52.Kajifez, R. L., & McNair, L. D. (2014) Graduate student identity: A balancing act between roles. Proceedings from the 121st American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition, Paper#8549.Maton, K. I., Watkins-Lewis, K. M., Beason, T., & Hrabowski III, F. A. (2015). Enhancing the Number of African Americans Pursuing the PhD in Engineering. Changing the Face of Engineering: The African American Experience, 354.Matusovich, H. M., Streveler, R. A., & Miller, R. L. (2010) Why do students choose engineering? A qualitative longitudinal
looking at religion and sexuality, evaluating how religious identities and morals influence self-concept in the areas of sexuality, sexual expression, self-esteem, and sexual agency.Dr. Ashley K Randall, Arizona State UniversityRoxanna Francies, Arizona State UniversityChinwendu Elyse Okwu, University of Pittsburgh c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Examining the Effects of STEM Climate on the Mental Health of Graduate Women from Diverse Racial/Ethnic Backgrounds The current state of mental health needs among graduate students is a growing crisisworldwide (Evans, Bira, Gastelum, Weiss, & Vanderford, 2018; Hyun, Quinn, Madon, &Lustig, 2006). A recent study of 2,279
the Navy. She has graduated from California State University, Fresno with a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Investigating the Role of Faculty Gender in Mentoring Female Engineering Students for SuccessAbstract: While many previously male-dominated collegiate programs have experienceddemographic shifts over the past half century to become gender-balanced, engineering haspersisted as a male-dominated discipline. Trends between national gender proportions of facultyand degree recipients in engineering over a span of fifty years and their implications on same-gender mentoring relationship for female engineering students are
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
graduate students who have identities that areseemingly “at odds” with each other may tend to consider departing from their graduateprograms. Kajfez’ past work [31], [32] explored competing identities in teaching assistants asthey balanced their roles in graduate school. Similarly, in our recent work [33], we found thatstudents who are considering departing from graduate school often feel like they havesacrificed an identity that is core to them through their time in graduate school, and until theycan reconcile or bring together those identities, they tend to strongly consider departure fromgraduate school, no matter how academically gifted. Participants in this study showed adistinctive lack of conflict between their core identity and their
focuswithin the engineering education community. Prior research has centered around graduatestudent engineering identity (Choe & Borrego, 2019; Miller, Tsugawa-Nieves, Chestnut, Cass, &Kirn, 2017; Perkins et al., 2020; Satterfield et al., 2019), writing concepts and processes ofengineering graduate students (Berdanier & Zerbe, 2018a, 2018b), and engineering graduatestudent attrition (Berdanier, Whitehair, Kirn, & Satterfield, 2020; Whitehair & Berdanier, 2018).Berdanier et al. (2020) created a model for graduate student attrition, called the GrAD model,based on Reddit posts of engineering doctoral students who were considering or had left theirgraduate programs. Additional research examines the experiences of engineering
-Career Engineering GraduatesAbstractIt is widely acknowledged that engineers “are foundational to technological innovation anddevelopment that drive long-term economic growth and help solve societal challenges” [1].Consequently, it is a major goal in engineering education to ensure and further improve thedevelopment of innovation skills among its students. While many studies focus on currentengineering students and their innovation goals and skills, it is also informative to see howthese goals and skills are translated into realized innovative behavior in the workplace. Bystudying the characteristics of innovative behavior of engineering graduates we revealvaluable insights and draw conclusions for engineering
improve society, yet less than 100 people had read it. It felt like the effortwasn’t having the impact that I wanted. Further, there had been a couple of experiences atconferences in my professional field where other researchers dismissed or diminished ourgroup’s work. I was experiencing Imposter Phenomena9 episodes during conferences that hailedback to my days in graduate school. My students and I had recently received a scathing,unprofessional review for a manuscript10 and my satisfaction with the research treadmillplummeted, I came to the conclusion that I should instead focus on commercializing our workso that it didn’t remain buried in the literature and could be translated to improve society. Thesecond conclusion I came to was that if my
-sheet of paperNote: Directions at the bottom of the handout state: Draw a creative sketch that helps you remember a key pointfrom today’s lesson; no copying my in-class examples! Minimal words & equations in the sketch; the writtendescription should explain the sketch (to help me interpret your creativity)This study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy, a small, public, undergraduate-onlyfour-year college in the northeast United States. The department in which it took place offers twoABET-accredited engineering programs and graduates around 130 students between the twoprograms each year.A between-subjects quasi-experimental setup was used, meaning students were not randomlyassigned, and each student only completed the napkin sketch
showed that the students as a group became more collaborative in their conflict management styles between their junior and senior years.IntroductionMarket forces within the construction industry are demanding more collaborative environments.Construction Management at Risk, Design/Build, Lean Construction, and Integrated ProjectDelivery (IPD), now account for most of all construction contracts.1 In particular, IPD requires asignificant level of collaboration to succeed. However, these increasingly collaborative projectdelivery systems do not ensure collaboration. For example, Lean Construction proponentsfrequently employ the principles of IPD and have positively impacted the construction industry,but success does not occur on every
0.391 planning F (1,9) = 0.392 0.547 self-checking F (1,9) = 0.389 0.5484.8 Flow State Scale. FSS was implemented only for the second semester of students in order tobegin to examine problem solving as it related to inducing a flow state. This scale examines nineconstructs related to a sense of flow. These constructs are: Challenge-skill balance [challenge],Action-awareness merging [act], Clear Goals [goal], Unambiguous feedback [feedback],Concentration on task at hand [task], Paradox of control [paradox], Loss of surroundings [loss],Transformation of time [transcendence], Autotelic experience [enjoyment].There was an increase in all
that only 27% of U.S. college undergraduatesmet all of these “criteria,” and that truly traditional college students were becoming the“exception rather than the rule” [1].Who are nontraditional undergraduates?Several scholars have theorized the differences between traditional and other, so-called“nontraditional,” undergraduates. In fact, the term “nontraditional undergraduate” has proveddifficult to define clearly due to the multi-faceted ways in which contemporary students differ.Early theorists critically questioned the notion of the traditional/nontraditional binary andsuggested that being nontraditional a) intersects with other gender, racial, ethnic, andsocioeconomic identities and, therefore, cannot be defined solely by membership within
often rivals reality. We tend to express our expectations of in-dividuals in entrepreneurial action with contentment, anger, frustration, confusion, and grati-tude in different ways. In seeing how men and women respond to a CEO/founder's behavior,we discover how interpersonal perceptions matter. Recent engineering graduates tell us thatthey learn about themselves by observing and listening to all sides of the story, and then theyfill in the blanks. One student, after interning as an innovation development lead explains, “Isee conflicts that I would never had expected to arise among co-workers, and some internalconflicts in my attempt to reconcile the rulebook and my own conscience. I struggle withpeople I work with in ways that may harm our
pot to “Toughie,” a welded scooter for a student’s young daughter.The PRL is sustained by its community of four key faculty, about 20 graduate student CourseAssistants (CAs), and a broad population of students from the arts, engineering, humanities, andsocial and physical sciences. The CAs play a special role in the community as design and makingcoaches [24]. Through everyday interactions in the makerspace, newcomers and long-timemembers of the PRL form a rich fabric of continuously evolving and renewing social relations.The aim of this study is to describe this social and cultural fabric and how it shapes student’sparticipation in the makerspace community of practice.4. METHODSWe take an inductive approach to understanding how students
that appropriate use of various academic success skills was a stronger indicatorthan intelligence of students’ persistence and ultimate success in not only graduating with adegree in engineering, but also in persisting in an engineering career. His book addresses theimportance of good study habits, the role of the active student in the classroom, and the need toreflect upon actions and attitudes towards a variety of academic challenges. In the text, heincludes the “Academic Success Skills Survey,” which is designed to gauge students’perceptions of their own academic success skillsets.Steffen Peuker, a strong advocate of Landis’ ideas, conducted a longitudinal study of students’successful graduation rates following their attendance in a first
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
experience and the entry-level demands of the first six months in the workplace. Capstone design, as the culmination of anundergraduate program is one of the key places for creative leadership in the curriculum. Theresults of the study support the Capstone course as one of the major design experiences in thecurriculum.Once Capstone students graduate, the entry-level roles they have in the first six months’transition and the type of entry-level leadership that is required shifts even more heavily to theControl quadrant than in Capstone. Here, new employees are less likely to be asked to makemajor management contributions and are more likely to be expected to learn to act as newprofessionals, who monitor and coordinate the individual tasks they have
preconstruction planning documentssuch as preliminary schedule, cost estimate, and site utilization plan. After delivering theirwritten deliverables in the evening, teams then give an oral presentation the following day to thepanel of industry judges. Participating in this intense competition offers significant benefits for the civilengineering program. First, a portion of the program’s graduates gain valuable exposure toindustry problems and strengthen their design, construction, and project management expertise.Second, the department benefits from networking with similar programs in the region. Third, andmost applicable for this paper, the department gains a core set of student leaders who will serve acritical role in the department’s
the case that student understanding of ethics ispoor, suggesting that there is a misalignment between ethics instruction and students’ ethical 6behavior [18]. Employers expect to hire engineering graduates with a wide range of professionalskills including the ability to identify and make appropriate decisions regarding ethical dilemmas[7], [19], [31]. Engineering as a field has not sufficiently focused on preparing graduates that candemonstrate ethical behavior as compared to other professions, which is especially concerninggiven the embedded social and political nature of engineering projects [5].Table 1: Article Selection Process
to thestudents. The mentors also assisted the instructors and acted as a natural liaison between the highschool students and the instructors and administrators of the program.The mentors were primarily undergraduate or graduate students from our university and otherlocal institutions, generally majoring or working in STEM fields. The mentors recorded studentattendance, graded homework assignments, and assisted in class in many ways. They providedadministrative support for the PI and Program Manager and helped with the smooth operation ofmeetings and events. Generally speaking, they also served as role models and conversed withstudents about college life. Mentors were guaranteed between 5-10 hours of work per week at arate of $15 per hour for
, 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
something well or not was alsobased on how much prior exposure you may have had/not had to the topic.Third, interest and anticipated performance also seemed related to elective track selection.Students based their elective selection on personal interest (how interesting they found the topic),and how much they enjoyed previous courses in a particular specialization area (e.g., hardwarevs. software or biomechanics vs. therapeutics). Related to the second theme, however, interestalso appeared related to how well one performed in a particular course.A fourth theme to emerge from the wave 1 student data was that approximately fifty percent ofinformants had some plan to pursue managerial roles, rather than purely technical roles post-graduation. Some
withstudents who overcame social identity barriers.Our research also revealed that having a key relationship with a person acting as a mentor, suchas faculty, employers, family, peers, etc. was integral for students in even deciding to enroll atAugsburg or to apply to the AugSTEM Scholars program. The majority of students explainedthat they learned about the scholarship or made the decision to apply based on personalconnections. Flyers, e-mails and other passive forms of communication alone may be lessinfluential for recruitment. Students valued personal conversations in which they felt their skillswere validated, and they were personally encouraged to participate or shown a pathway intoSTEM. Relationships also played a role in connecting students to
internet, but you are only hurtingyourself by using them” is often perceived as allowing unethical behavior so long as the studentdoes not find a harm, in fact a benefit, from searching out solutions to homework problems. Theauthors posit that it is effective to provide initial ethics discussions of situations where studentshave had personal experience and can easily see themselves in the alternate role. Thisimaginative leap, though small, is posited as necessary before a student is expected to acceptrelational identities that are more removed from their personal experiences.Reflection on how classroom cheating relates to office culture and how similar office culturenorms can lead to actions that would be perceived as unethical in a different
read and understood in isolation. The purposeof the literature review was to discuss the current state of knowledge regarding the topic, andhow the individual sources related to each other and each informed the current state ofknowledge. Students were expected to make substantial use of at least 8-10 sources in theliterature review. Most of these sources were the same as those cited in the annotatedbibliography, though it wasn’t unusual for a student to discard one or two sources and find newones between the annotated bibliography and the literature review.Structurally, the revised Research Sequence is identical to the old in terms of the goals of thethree assignments. The primary modification is the selection of the topic and a new linkage to
Paper ID #29335Integrating Ethics into the Curriculum through Design CoursesProf. Scott A Civjan P.E., University of Massachusetts, Amherst Scott Civjan is a faculty member at UMass Amherst where he has taught a wide variety of undergraduate and graduate courses over the past 20+ years. He has 4 years of consulting experience between obtaining his BSCE from Washington University in St. Louis and his MS and PhD in Structural Engineering from the University of Texas Austin.Prof. Nicholas Tooker, University of Massachusetts Amherst Nick Tooker is a Professor of Practice at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He teaches
completed. Accordingly, since the scale changed over different years, we are unable toinfer exactly which each student used when completing their exam. Going forward, it would bevaluable to collect this information and also to adjust the method for imputing these.These research findings have important implications for computing students, and in understandingwhat qualities and characteristics before and during students’ academic careers are the mostimportant. Based on our work, cumulative GPA is critical, and a student’s SAT math score andcomprehensive ACT score may also play a pivotal role in predicting students’ graduation from acomputing field. Therefore, considering these rankings could prove beneficial to academicadministrators, faculty, and
directly admitted to their selecteddiscipline’s department. The current NSF S-STEM cohort (2015-2020) is a mix of students whowere either directly admitted to their major or college-ready students. The university classifiescollege-ready students as those who are ready for college but lack either a requisite high schoolGPA, ACT score or completion of a high school science or math course. Each program spannedfive years with science disciplines typically graduating in four years and engineering studentsthat participated in co-operative education graduating in five years. The final year of each S-STEM was used to provide peer mentoring in a pseudo-formal environment. In each, seniorswho had already participated in the S-STEM program for four years
suggested for low female graduation rates include,lack of female engineering role models, misconceptions of what it is like to be an engineer, andhaving fewer technical problem-solving opportunities through K-12 compared to males. Lack ofconfidence is another critical issue that results in female engineering students switching majors.Therefore, designing and developing policies to tap into the potential of women and theircontribution in this vital sector, requires understanding of how gender is related to participation,and success.Historically, in the development field, societies were viewed from a deficit perspective, as opposedto strength. Societies were classified as developed, under-developed, and least developed; or firstworld, second world
most common (both on a weekly and overall semester level)? 2) How does participation change over time (both on an individual and aggregate-class level)? 3) What is the balance of in-class versus outside-of-class participation (both at an individual and aggregate level)? Does this change over time? 4) Is there any correlation between specific types or patterns of participation and summative assessment (e.g., exam) scores? 5) How do students perceive the impact of the participation logs on their engagement and learning? Do they believe it affected their engagement or success in the course?Preliminary Results (Mid-semester Survey Responses)The data entry and analysis of the individual student logs for the second