mandates and levels of encouragement have extended to journalpublications and publishers. Yet current literature indicates data sharing is infrequent despiterecommendations and mandates. This article examines one hundred and one research datapolicies and publisher statements to understand data sharing policies, trends and patterns withinscholarly journals. More specifically, it addresses the following research questions: (1) What arethe data sharing policies of these research journals, (2) Have these policies improved since theJoint Information Systems Committee (JISC) study, and (3) What are current journal articlesapplicability to Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability (FAIR) SharingPrinciples. Examining these journals
causation cannot be established, the data set could lay the groundwork inidentifying the types of sources most commonly used by engineering students and those that areassociated with the higher-performing students.BackgroundEngineering librarians are concerned with the quality of sources students use in their assignments[1]–[4]. However, the changing nature of the information landscape and the expansion ofinformation sources available to undergraduate students has made it more difficult to use one-size-fits-all recommendations or conclusions. This challenge has led academic librarians, ingeneral, to move away from prescriptive standards to a more flexible framework for thedevelopment of information literacy instruction [5]. Recently, the approach
dataset to learn which source titles are used mostoften and where to direct collections funds to ensure continued development in areas most usedby the university’s graduate researchers. Other academic libraries can use the methods describedin this study to verify the use of their own collections and make decisions accordingly.IntroductionThe Pennsylvania State University is a Carnegie Level-1 research university located inUniversity Park, PA. The College of Engineering, officially founded in 1894, offers bachelors',masters’, and doctoral degrees in ten departments. During the period covered by this paper(2015-2018), the College's average enrollment included approximately 8000 undergraduates and1600 graduate students. Enrollment figures for
) information for future space studyresearchers to use.Literature Review The focus of most studies on University spaces has been based on the studentengagement framework to explore the role of various study spaces on the university campus (e.g.[1], [2], [3], [4], [13]). Riddle and Souter [5] argued that current practices in designing studentstudy spaces ignore students’ perspectives and reproduce environments that are familiar but lesssuitable for active peer learning and learning supported by technologies that students prefer.Although many researchers have attempted to find the students’ perspectives through varioussurvey instruments, not many have used ethnographic surveys. A study by Harrop and Turpin[3], explored learners’ with photographic
appropriate for their team’s approach to the course problem.Success of the initial lesson pilot was determined by evaluating team bibliographies from theirmid-semester design proposal and final report assignments. A sampling of bibliographies frompre-flip fall 2016 semester were used for comparison. The bibliographies from the student teams’final project were quantitatively evaluated on both the lower order concerns of citationcorrectness and the higher order concerns of effective source selection. The team found thatstudents successfully used higher quality sources on both assignments following theimplementation of the flipped lesson. However, the results for the final report demonstrated lessimprovement, written 10-12 weeks after the lesson [1].To
librarians to befamiliar with the conventions of this methodology. This paper will examine systematic reviewsin engineering by answering these three research questions: 1. Has there been an increase in the use of systematic reviews in the engineering literature? 2. Are systematic reviews more prevalent in some engineering disciplines than others? 3. Do systematic reviews see greater use than other types of papers?We also examine the librarian’s role in systematic reviews, so engineering librarians can beprepared to negotiate levels of responsibility and acknowledgement of their contributions.Literature ReviewSystematic reviews seek “to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence,often adhering to guidelines on the
[1]. Assessment of every aspect of curricular, co-curricular, and larger educational environmental aspects is the norm. Evidence-based decision-making leads those working in every aspect of higher education today to seek out or deviseassessment tools and plans to observe efficacy and introduce well-considered evidence-basedchanges where room for improvement in outcomes seems indicated. The National Survey ofStudent Engagement, or NSSE, is a widely applied instrument in the U.S. and Canada. NSSEallows participating institutions to get a periodic high-level snapshot of how their incoming First-year and near-graduation (Senior) students compare to one another, and compare to those fromother similar institutions, in their self-perceptions of
Fundamentals 1 Pump 201 Advanced Pump Fundamentals 2 • Past Subjects, Undergraduate IDIS 303 Mechanical Power Transmission IDIS 403 Fluid Power Technol- ogy IDIS 281 Manufacturing Processes ENTC 206 Non-Metallic Materials ENTC 429 Managing People and Projects Research Interests: Strategic business development, Product innovation, Entrepreneurship in Engineer- ing, Project management, Fluid Power Technologies, Mechanical Power Transmission, Condition based monitoring and Reliability. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA Name: Michael R. Golla Department: Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution, Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering Technology Program Date hired or assigned to department: 2002 Number of years of service to
collectiondevelopment, training that runs the gambit from in-depth to informal, and reviews that show theevolution of selection and collection development processes over time.Jensen [1] describes how the University of Alaska Fairbanks, as a result of budget cuts,retirement and attrition, moved from liaison collectors to a patron-driven model where facultyare allotted a budget to purchase materials. This article questions the hard data suggesting thatliaisons are better able to build a collection than other models. While a faculty driven model isfar removed from the current method used at UTL, where increasing numbers of liaisons aretaking on selection duties, it is interesting to note the direct involvement by faculty was howselection occurred at the
increased visibility for the Libraryresources and services. It also discusses the positive impact on the students’ research skills andon their literature reviews. Consequently, the training sessions contribute to achieving theUniversity learning objectives for graduate students in research programs.IntroductionIntroductionFounded in Montreal in 1873, Polytechnique Montréal is a francophone engineering universityoffering more than 120 academic programs. In Fall 2019, the institution had 9,000 studentsenrolled, with more than 2,200 in a graduate program [1]. Polytechnique Montréal stronglyencourages diversity among its student population, so as of Fall 2019, 28% of its students werewomen and 29% were international students. Moreover, international
of 81 students from eight sessions over the past 2.5 years completed theassessment. This presentation will discuss the structure of the information sessions, preliminaryfindings from the assessment, and strategies taken to incorporate the identified needs into futuresessions.IntroductionInformation literacy support is well-established as a core component of university libraryservices, with many institutions providing subject specific information literacy instruction.Within engineering librarianship, providing information literacy support via one-shot, classroom-based instruction is fairly common within senior design or project-based courses. However,librarians supporting undergraduate engineering research is not as widespread [1]. Our paper
commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion [1] there is a push foreducators to make a greater effort to improve outcomes for students from marginalized andlegally protected social identities. With this commitment in mind this research investigates ifengineering librarian members of ASEE have the knowledge, training, and support to incorporateinclusive teaching practices into their library instruction. This research examines the currentclimate for engineering librarians through an anonymous survey. The survey will collect data oninclusive teaching by engineering librarians. The study aims to answer whether librarians havethe knowledge, training, and support from their library, college, and institution to engage withinclusive teaching
Standard (definitions of words, phrases, or othersymbology), and Test Method (actionable steps that lead to a specified result) [1]. Thisdemonstrates the wide variety of topics that are addressed by standards documents. Standardsstarted as consensus on units of weights and measures, but today standards are used in a widevariety of professions to ensure the safety of products and materials as well as the reliability ofgoods and services [2]. Due to the potential utility of this information format, academic librariesoften provide some standards to their patrons.Given the vast array of topics addressed by standards, students engaged in research or otherdesign projects in a variety of disciplines may have a need to identify and obtain full
and less physical. However, as these aspects of a library change, so toodoes the clientele that is interested in using the variety of services these modern libraries provide.In today’s library, a major issue is that of finding a user base, drawing their interest, and servingtheir needs in a way that is pleasant and creates repeat clients. Outreach is a major part of thisissue, but even more important than that is finding resources that the clients will find user-friendly and practical.Serving the innovation communityHoward, Zwicky, and Phillips [1] described their work with classes, library guides, and teamconsultations, all of which provided both engineering library information and businessinformation. They also worked in conjunction with
research outputs within the state of Florida, identify potential areas ofregional/geographic collaboration, and develop meaningful library-related services/resources tobetter assist these engineering researchers and faculty.introductionScientometrics, as part of the larger work of bibliometrics, has been a long-standing tool forevaluating the scientific rigor, impact, and trends of scientific output at major academic andresearch institutions. By looking at the popularity and frequency of subject terms and journal titlesin which researchers publish, it is possible to get a clearer overview of how researchers bothspecialize and collaborate within their field and subject area [1]. Keyword analysis, which drawson similar metadata retrieval and
follow up to thesurvey, the librarians met with two focus groups who provided more qualitativeinformation on student use of eTextbooks. Survey and focus group results may informnot only changes to the service of providing eTextbooks, but also can be shared withpublishers to potentially inform improvements to ebook platforms. This paper reports onthe results of the survey and focus group and implications for the future.IntroductionIn the early 2000s, ebooks became available to academic libraries [1] and the wider world. TheUniversity of Michigan Library subscribed to a package of Netlibrary ebooks in the year 2000,and has continued providing and increasing access to ebooks over the ensuing 20 years. Thisemphasis on collecting in ebook format led
current study on lifelong learning and information literacy has grown out of this work as well as earlier work she conducted with Norma Godavari. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Lifelong Learning in an Engineering Communication Course1.0 Introduction and Objectives The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) has defined lifelong learning asa student’s “ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world inways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancementof knowledge“ [1]. ABET, through the Washington Accord, sets the standards for programsaround the world including Canada to ensure a
desire to properly address these challenges in my new work environment, I lookedfor frameworks to help organize thoughts, plans, and goals in order to be solutions oriented andforward thinking. Solution-focused therapy, while primarily applied in the field of psychology,has also been applied to organizational studies and workplace culture as it emphasizes coaching,finding cooperation, feedback, conflict resolution, and situation management [1]. Thisframework provided a method to rank problems, identify factors outside of my or my unit’scontrol, and craft solutions [2]. This model was originally appealing because it provided aframework for discussing these problems with my entire unit; by emphasizing solutions,cooperation, and feedback, the
courses in a curriculum contributeto and assess that student outcome. While information is explicitly mentioned in the studentoutcome, it appears to frequently be marginalized in the actual assessments used byMETdepartments. Implications for librarian engagement with mechanical engineeringtechnology programs and sources are discussed.IntroductionOne way librarians can make the case for information literacy in engineering and engineeringtechnology disciplines is to tie their work into student outcomes specified for ABETaccreditation. For engineering accredited programs (EAC), there is not a direct link toinformation literacy. Rather, librarians have traditionally linked information literacy to lifelonglearning, although Riley [1] and Sapp and
Communication. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Extending the Role of the Library and Librarian: Integrating Alternative Information Literacy into the Engineering CurriculumAbstractBoth in coursework and in their future careers, engineering students may work with manydifferent types of information sources beyond books and journal articles, including patents,standards, and technical reports [1]. Despite this shift, which broadens information literacy [2],many undergraduate communication courses continue to narrowly define information sources,prompting students to use bibliographic databases but completely omitting other importantdatabases that can provide students with meaningful and applicable
in the spring semester of 2019.The campus-wide collection cancellation project makes us rethink current practices for collectionmanagement, especially the pruning practice which is primarily based on the cost-per-use model.According to Kendrick, the cost-per-use model fails to account for variability of the usage pattern,consequently overvaluing journal subscriptions [1]. Beyond the limitation of the cost-per-use model,there are four main challenges around collection management. First, we engineering librarians havemany responsibilities besides collection management including instruction, reference, public servicesand outreach. Second, we spend increasing expenditures on “big deal” journal packages to which ourlibraries subscribe and have
acknowledgements that effective support for campusentrepreneurship often requires collaboration between business librarians and engineering orother science librarians. Business librarians typically bear primary responsibility for providinglibrary support for entrepreneurship; a survey by Toane and Figueiredo found that a largemajority (82.95%) of academic librarians who support entrepreneurship also support businessand management programs [1, p. 44]. However, “This work is collaborative andinterdisciplinary…Common partnerships included engineering, GIS, data and statistics, healthsciences, and other business librarians” [1, p. 45]. While business librarians possess “core subjectknowledge and expertise to address questions of market-fit, feasibility, and
comparative analysis of shared and multi-institutional engineering programs acrossthe United States.Comparative analysis of joint engineering schoolsIn an effort to compare the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering to other similar programs theauthors conducted a series of searches using an individual comparative contrast approach tobetter understand how other shared colleges and/or programs are created and maintained by twoor more separate universities. An individual comparative contrast involves comparing two ormore instances for the purpose of examining the specifications that are both unique and similarbetween the instances of interest [1]. Results were compiled using the databases ERIC (aProQuest product), Web of Science Core Collection (a Clarivate
mini-grants include addressingaccessibility, dissemination, and copyright concerns. This project contributes to the discussion onthe role of OER in STEM curriculum and techniques librarians can use to facilitate OER adoptionat their institutions.IntroductionAccording to the College Board’s estimated student budget for 2018-2019, undergraduatestudents at public four-year institutions are expected to budget an average of $1,240 a year ontextbooks and course supplies [1]. According to Mines’ 2019-2020 Cost of Attendance, theinstitution informs students they should budget $1,500 a year on books and supplies, whichmeans the university’s approximately 5,000 undergraduate students should collectively budget$7,500,000 this academic year.Universities
the ability to generate questions isfundamental to all engineering problem-solving. The ability to develop a research question isalso an essential information literacy skill that provides focus, strategy, and structure to aresearch paper. Critical thinking, writing and research skills, are important course componentsthat students will continue to develop throughout their academic and professional careers.At New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), a mid-size technology university, the instructorsand university reference librarians collaborated to create a research assignment [1]. Thisassignment was given to students in a First-Year Engineering Course, Fundamentals ofEngineering Design (FED101) starting in the fall semester of 2017. This
departments, colleges, and theuniversity leadership to work towards a more open and equitable scholarly landscape. Whilesome larger institutions have spoken out about these issues this project focuses on theperspectives from a specific group of faculty at a public land-grant institution and will, thus,contribute to an understanding of the issues at play and possibilities for future advancement inPRT guidance.IntroductionResearchers have long expressed concerns about the impact promotion, rank, and tenure (PRT)guidelines have on the publishing practices of academics [1-4]. As a baseline, studies [1-4] haveshown that faculty members expect a strong research and publication record to be crucial foradvancement under PRT guidelines. Research also shows
Engineers (PEs) bear the responsibility for not only theirwork, but also for the lives affected by that work and must hold themselves to high ethicalstandards of practice.In the United States (U.S.), engineers are licensed by the state in which they practice. Wyomingwas the first state to require licensure for engineers. As more states enacted similar legislation, aneed arose for uniformity of laws and requirements. In 1920, the National Council of Examinersfor Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), a nonprofit organization, was created to advancelicensure and facilitate mobility among the licensing jurisdictions. In 2020, the NCEES iscelebrating its 100th anniversary [1].Engineers are responsible for the lives affected by their work and must hold
practices of academics in civil and environmental engineering, the findings ofwhich are summarized in a report [1].Established in 1885, Georgia Tech is a public research university with over 23,000 students andan $824 million in R&D expenditures. Georgia Tech’s engineering programs have beenconsistently ranked within the top 5 in the U.S. Georgia Tech plays a leading role in the state’seconomic development strategy. Research is conducted for industry and government by theapplied research division of Georgia Tech, various academic schools and departments, and morethan 100 interdisciplinary research units.The School of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech is ranked among the top 5 aerospaceengineering programs in the country. The school focuses
programming outside of class time.Literature Review: Why mindfulness and sustainability go together like birds of a feather Mental health disorders are often reported amongst college students [1], [2]. Thetransition to college from high school includes a change of schools, a change of class formatsand teaching styles, a change in social groups, increased responsibility, and usually a change inliving arrangements amongst other transition issues specific to an individual. These changes,along with the stress of living in a permanently connected society, with information overload andpossible worry about the finances of paying for college, and increasingly common disasters dueto climate change, may all be factors causing the increase. Demand
was carefully designed to help first-year students achieve success in the programregardless of the specific engineering major they select in their second year. Therefore, thecourse includes themes centered on several design-and-build projects with the following programobjectives: 1. Provide students with the opportunity to experience engineering as an evolving, creative, and interdisciplinary career that impacts global society and daily life. 2. Provide students with the opportunity to develop process-driven problem-solving skills that recognize multiple alternatives and apply critical thinking to identify an effective solution. 3. Provide students with the opportunity to integrate math & science in an engineering context. 4