graduating students to pursue and achieve theirperceived success.This is a Research Paper and Evidence-Based Practice Paper to explore how graduatingundergraduate engineering students conceive of career and personal success. Through aqualitative review of “vision plans” students create to map to their first 5 to 10 years post-graduation plans, we have categorized areas for success that include themes of production,experience, character and relationships. Through in-class exercises in a senior year (non-capstone) course on professional orientation and a freshmen class orienting students to college,30 students used exercises and assignments that have them use design thinking, networking, andinformational interviews to better identify and understand
Page 25.786.3on projects involving real-world customers, students viewed the instructor and teachingassistants as the most important customers. The primary project goal from the students’ perspective was on getting a good grade. Dannels4 argues that students are therefore learning tobe students and not professionals. Donald15 notes that in engineering education there is “acontinual tug-of-war between the theoretical and the professional.” (p. 63) Students often feelthat theory is emphasized over practice and wish for more practical hands-on learningexperiences. Because of a perceived lack of practical experience, some graduates find thetransition to professional practice to be a shocking experience.Missing from previous literature are studies
in teaching programming to undergraduate and post-graduate students. She was awarded the Monash Vice Chancellor’s Award for Team-based Educational Development (2002) and School of Com- puter Science and Software Engineering Excellence Awards (2002 and 2003). Page 25.855.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 Investigating Teacher’s Approaches to their Teaching Practice Abstract This report develops and analyses the reliability and validity of a Swedish transla- tion of the Trigwell and Prosser Approaches to Teaching
with program faculty. Finally, students created portfolios and individualdevelopment plans which would be expected to support their career development, but studentsreported that these requirements were more onerous than helpful. The D3EM program serves asan example of how impactful programs can be designed to encourage students to explore avariety of potential future career pathways, particularly beyond tenure-track faculty positions.Implications from the findings include the continued implementation of such programs andsustained efforts to change the conversation about PhD careers that reflect the job market andgraduate student interests.Introduction In the past decade, graduate engineering education has emerged as a research
Paper ID #14604Recommended Practices for Managing Large, Multi-Site Engineering Edu-cation Research Data Collection ProjectsDr. Maura J. Borrego, University of Texas - Austin Maura Borrego is Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Curriculum & Instruction at the University of Texas at Austin. She previously served as a Program Director at the National Science Foun- dation and an associate dean and director of interdisciplinary graduate programs. Her research awards include U.S. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), a National Science Foundation CAREER award, and two
feel like I need to be helping others be successful. So, I think my role has been one of trying to facilitate the success of others. For example, at Washington State, I attempted to help younger faculty be accepted for doing this kind of work. Networking them with one another, being an advocate for them, helping them with grant proposals, and so on. So they who had the potential to go much further than I, if they could get the training off to a good start, I could have much more impact by doing that.”Intellectual support, teaching: In addition to supporting colleagues’ research efforts, individualintellectual support can also focus more on teaching or practice. For example, David Voltmerrecalled that he was a “champion of a certain
a Program Director at the National Science Foundation, on the board of the American Society for Engineering Education, and as an associate dean and director of interdisciplinary graduate programs. Her research awards include U.S. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), a National Science Foundation CAREER award, and two outstanding publication awards from the American Educational Research Association for her journal articles. Dr. Borrego is Deputy Editor for Journal of Engineering Education. All of Dr. Borrego’s degrees are in Materials Science and Engineering. Her M.S. and Ph.D. are from Stanford University, and her B.S. is from University of Wisconsin-Madison.Dr. Meagan R. Kendall
businessstrategy.With an increased focus on the diffusion of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs, alsoreferred to as research-based instructional practices (RPIPs)) in science, technology, engineering,and mathematics (STEM) education, the implications of knowledge transfer in CoP can increasethe understanding of how to facilitate the spread and adoption of these instructional techniques.This paper utilizes Wenger’s work on Cultivating Communities of Practice to define CoP as“groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do itbetter as they interact regularly.” Within post-secondary STEM education, this paper recognizescommunities of practice as the formal construct of individual departments related to a
various engineering, IT, and data analysis positions within academia and industry, including ten years of manufacturing experience at Delphi Automotive.Dr. Cheryl A Bodnar, University of Pittsburgh Cheryl A. Bodnar, PhD, CTDP is an Assistant Professor (Teaching Track) in the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the Swanson School of Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh. She obtained her certification as a Training and Development Professional (CTDP) from the Canadian Society for Training and Development (CSTD) in 2010, providing her with a solid background in instructional design, facilitation and evaluation. Dr. Bodnar’s research interests relate to the incorporation of active learning techniques
Engineering from Alfred Univer- sity, and received his M.S. and Ph.D., both from Tufts University, in Chemistry and Engineering Education respectively. His research investigates the development of new classroom innovations, assessment tech- niques, and identifying new ways to empirically understand how engineering students and educators learn. He currently serves as the Graduate Program Chair for the Engineering Education Systems and Design Ph.D. program. He is also the immediate past chair of the Research in Engineering Education Network (REEN) and an associate editor for the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE). Prior to joining ASU he was a graduate student research assistant at the Tufts’ Center for
Virginia Tech Engineering Communication Center. Her research includes interdisciplinary collaboration, commu- nication studies, identity theory, and reflective practice. Projects supported by the National Science Foun- dation include interdisciplinary pedagogy for pervasive computing design, writing across the curriculum in statics courses, and a CAREER award to explore the use of e-portfolios to promote professional identity and reflective practice. Her teaching emphasizes the roles of engineers as communicators and educators, the foundations and evolution of the engineering education discipline, assessment methods, and evaluating communication in engineering.Dr. Marie C. Paretti, Virginia Tech Marie C. Paretti is
andFigure 1. Design brief for soft robot design curriculum including gripper demonstration sketch.empirical testing done by building a small part of the gripper—just one gripper finger instead ofthe complete gripper. These process help students discover design variables and processvariables [21]. The design process proceeds as students reflect on design and process decisionsmade and how these choices subsequently impacted the performance of their soft robot fingers.After two iterations of finger design and fabrication, students combine their literature findingsand empirical discoveries in a decision matrix to evaluate the best design for their gripper.Students select an approach and design, fabricate their gripper, and test their gripper
questions were selected to provide a sense of what the GSIslearned. Further, these reflection questions encourage GSIs to consider how student learning intheir classes would be impacted by the pedagogical practices recommended. This combinationof questions has the potential to shift a senior learner to a more mature dimension on the TAdevelopment spectrum. Therefore, this research moves beyond program evaluation to focus onthe lessons GSIs’ glean from their professional development opportunities. Although there havebeen research studies designed to examine the types of teaching-related professionaldevelopment opportunities available to graduate students, 2, 5 this project is one that specificallyfocuses on examining the experiences of first-term
emerge show how students conceptualize what isvaluable to the academic community. Last, our data set studies 50 documents, and—althoughthis is a large corpus for deep qualitative research—it cannot be intended to be generalizable.However, we do feel that the findings from this work add insight into the ways in whichbeginning graduate students are socialized as miniature stewards of their academic disciplinesfrom early stages—even from undergraduate experiences, which has important implicationsin theory and practice for graduate programs in preventing attrition from graduate school.ResultsAcross the corpus of personal statements, being an engineer appeared to overlap with eachparticipant’s sense of professional identity so long as it represented
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
Paper ID #9956Collaboration within Engineering Education Research’s Community of Prac-ticeScottie-Beth Fleming, Georgia Institute of Technology Scottie-Beth Fleming is an Aerospace Engineering PhD student and NSF GRFP Fellow in the Cognitive Engineering Center (CEC) at Georgia Tech. She graduated with honors from Georgia Tech in 2009 with a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering and in 2013 with an M.S. in Aerospace Engineering. Her research within the CEC examines training approaches for pilots, interdisciplinary teams within the engineering design process, and human interaction with technology
mentors interactand develop their working relationship. For instance, at the University of Texas at Austin theGraduates Linked with Undergraduates in Engineering or GLUE program links 24undergraduates in their 2nd and 3rd years with graduate student research mentors each springsemester. GLUE is well known locally and is cited as the reason many GLUE alumni have foundsuccessful careers in engineering industry as well as academia, and is renowned for providingwomen and underrepresented minorities with valuable community-enriching experience [9].Despite the existence of GLUE and other undergraduate mentoring programs discussed here,there still remains a lack of peer-reviewed studies that describe the best practices and necessaryattributes for
listed – Engineering Knowledge,Problem Analysis, Investigation, Design, and Engineering Tools – the more ‘traditional’ engineeringskills – even if this emphasis was not intended by CEAB. In fact, research in the field indicates thatteamwork and communication skills – competencies found in the ‘middle’ of the list – are topcompetencies for engineering practice. Additionally, the need to investigate potential clusters ofcompetencies has been emphasized in this research, identified as a gap in both engineering educationand research.Considering the research, and motivated to inform engineering education curricular design andimprovement at the University of Manitoba, an exploratory case study was designed in part toinvestigate how the CEAB graduate
of instruction for fall semester classes [13], others took amore nuanced approach and gave each instructor the autonomy to select the instructional modethat best balanced the stringent safety protocols with the learning objectives of the course. Thislatter approach was the route taken by Illinois State University, a mid-size public university inNormal, Illinois. As a result, the university offered courses with a mix of course instructionalmodalities during the Fall 2020 semester. Each course was designated by the instructor as eithera face-to-face, online-synchronous, online-asynchronous, or hybrid course. Face-to-face coursesmet primarily in-person, with modifications such as social distancing and classroom capacitylimitations in place
- ington. When he finds the time, he enjoys cooking, photography, bicycle repair, and cycling (instead of owning a car).Dr. Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University Sheri is in the Design Group of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford. Besides teaching undergraduate and graduate courses on structural analysis and design, she serves an administrative role as Associate Vice Provost for Graduate Education. Her research focuses on the study of educational and career pathways of people interested in technical work (and how to make K-20 education more supportive of these pathways). Page 23.621.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 From Freshman Engineering Students to Practicing
and focuses on systems integration. And IS fulfills an organizationalneed, but mostly from the management side.Of the five computing disciplines, computer engineering is the least closely related to IT. SE issmall in size nationwide and BYU doesn’t even have an SE program. For these reasons, this studyfocused on CS, IS, and IT.1.1 Research questions • How strong is the correlation between AC−CE and AE−RO, and major GPA among CS, IS, and IT students? • How strong is the correlation between AC−CE and AE−RO, and student satisfaction among CS, IS, and IT students? • Is there a correlation between major GPA and student satisfaction? • What is the best multiple regression model to fit these correlations?1.2
Evaluation from Virginia Tech. Her research and scholarship are focused on exploring the implementation of mixed methods, qualitative, and arts-informed research designs in studies examining issues of social justice and educational equity. Currently, she is on a research team examining the impacts of an out-of-school STEM summer program for racially underrepresented youth.Dr. Homero Gregorio Murzi, Virginia Tech Homero Murzi is an Associate Professor of Practice in the Department of Engineering Education at Vir- ginia Tech. He holds degrees in Industrial Engineering (BS, MS), Master of Business Administration (MBA) and in Engineering Education (PhD). His research focuses on contemporary and inclusive ped- agogical
to minimize the effects ofgrader judgment [14]. Previous scholars have noted that rubrics are more likely to produceerrors when they are redundant, have limited options for partial credit, have uneven intervalsbetween achievement levels, and exhibit inconsistencies in focus or form [15]. Rubrics mustalso avoid being excessively detailed or excessively general and should be bias-free, well-aligned with performance tasks, and written at an appropriate level for their users [16], [17]. Training. While improved rubric design can reduce grader error, training may be themost important factor to strengthen the reliability of grading [18]. Inexperienced graders requireguided practice to be able to consistently apply a rubric and having
help students in developing skills and facilitate practice with ill-structured problem solving.Additionally, we believe the findings suggest that a consistent instructional reference based onEPT may provide a foundation for developing pedagogical tools to assist faculty in developingand facilitating ill-structured problem solving and overcoming curricular integration challenges.1.0 IntroductionThe origins of this research lie in engaging students in a co-curricular project program, engineeringintramurals, at an R1 institution. The program brings together engineering students, fromsophomore through senior year, often from multiple departments, to solve problems sourced fromindustry and community groups, open design communities, technical
Paper ID #34067The Politics of Citation Practices in Engineering Education: A CitationAnalysis of IntersectionalityDr. Kristen Moore, University at Buffalo Kristen R. Moore is an Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at University at Buffalo. Her research focuses primarily on technical communication and issues of equity, inclusion, and social justice. She is the author of Technical Communication After the Social Justice Turn: Building Coalitions for Action (2019), in addition to a range of articles. She has received a number of awards for her research, including the Joenk Award for the best article
Vice Chair of Biomedical Engineering with an affiliate appointment in Educational Psychology. Her research interests include vascular biomechanics, hemodynamics and cardiac function as well as the factors that motivate students to pursue and persist in engineering careers, with a focus on women and under-represented minorities.Prof. David Williamson ShafferZachari Swiecki, University of Madison-Wisconsin Graduate student in educational psychology, learning sciences area Page 26.679.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Epistemic Network Analysis as a Tool for
comments.The peer review process was selected as the vehicle to facilitate diffusion of research-based practices and enhanced teaching effectiveness, as it is through this process thatfaculty share experiences in the classroom in real time; engagement in the process shouldprovide a means by which participants share the best practices and provide constructivefeedback on those practices4. The design of the VAPR process draws on the literatureassociated with diffusion, the use of video cases in professional development, and socialreflexivity to limit the negative aspects of peer feedback and draw out opportunities ofdiffusion that are not readily addressed in current dissemination practices.Diffusion of research-based and innovative practicesThe term
. Paul’s current research interests involve studying the impact of technology in engineering education.Dr. Angela C. Shih, California State Polytechnic University, PomonaMichael Pavel Ramirez, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Undergraduate fourth year and graduating Cal Poly Pomona student studying Psychology and Physiology.Laura Queiroz DaSilva, California State Polytechnic University, PomonaMr. Nguyen NguyenMiss Cheyenne Romero, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Successfully flipping a fluid mechanics course using video tutorials and active learning strategies: Implementation and AssessmentAbstractThis paper investigates
RecommendationsA multifaceted program designed to promote the success of new and future engineering facultymembers has been implemented by the North Carolina State University College of Engineering.Its components are a 4-day orientation workshop for new faculty covering research, teaching,and integrating into the academic culture; several follow-up seminars during the academic year;a workshop for administrators and senior faculty on mentoring and supporting new facultywhich, among other things, promotes the establishment of formal research and teachingmentorships; a series of training workshops for graduate teaching assistants; and an introductionto faculty careers for graduate students contemplating them. The programs have all beenextremely well received
variables. The following survey sections were used to investigate engineeringeducation stakeholders’ awareness, interest, influence, and use of research for routine activities.Participants were asked about eight activities for each section: (1) designing/developing courses,(2) addressing issues that arise in courses, (3) mentoring students, (4) changing curriculum, (5)making personnel decisions, (6) promotion and tenure decisions, (7) conducting research, and (8)serving in a formal leadership position. See Appendix for survey items. Awareness of research. Participants were asked to “select the option that best representsyour awareness of published research” for the aforementioned eight activities. A sample itemfrom this section includes, “I