values, ethics, and competency model of the International Coaching Federation (ICF)[16]. At its core, ICF emphasizes the partnership between a coach and client, and the importanceof ongoing reflective practice and situational awareness [20]. ICF awards credentialing for coachpractitioners which involves building coaching hours with clients, engaging in required traininghours, and working towards assessments [21], [22].However, access to professional coach training is realistically not accessible for all those infaculty development – it requires funding, time, and long-term commitment toward thisprofessional practice. In consequence, members of the research team engaged in varying levelsof ICF coach training to inform and create the first
grading [3]. Major issues associated with grading includesubjectivity and bias, grade inflation, a focus on grades over learning, and the allocation offaculty time [4]. Grading may also have political and social dimensions, and can involve powerdynamics, issues of agency, and other complex ethical issues [5]. The paper by Schinke andTanner [6] provides a good summary of the history of grading, a discussion of the primarypurposes of grading, and examines some of the pitfalls and challenges. For decades, educatorshave been exploring ways to make grading more effective and efficient (e.g. [7]). However, inengineering in particular, papers specifically describing studies of grading practices are few [8].While grading practices of engineering faculty
incorporate some combination of these key contributors. The Penn UndergraduateResearch Mentoring Program (PURM) [7] is a great example that focuses on fostering strongmentor-mentee connections. PURM offers summer research opportunities for first- and second-year students under the guidance of a Penn research faculty. The program equips students with thenecessary skills through workshops on data management, Python programming, data analysis, andvisualization. Participants also receive training in networking, public speaking, presentation skills,and research ethics. As an additional resource, there are research peer advisors (RPAs) fromvarious research fields like engineering and sciences, business, language studies, arts, etc. RPAsprovide support in
standalone in-person 90-minute workshop, (2) a 60- to 90-minutemodule of a full EM training seminar, and (3) synchronous online EM training [20]. To help prepare program leaders and administrators in the research community toimplement the EM training at their institutions, the MTC developed, tested, and conducted train-the-trainer workshops for EM training facilitators [18]. By 2020, the EM curriculumencompassed ten mentoring competencies, which are (1) align expectations, (2) address equityand inclusion, (3) articulate a mentoring philosophy and plan, (4) assess understanding, (5)cultivate ethical behavior, (6) Enhancing work-life balance, (7) foster independence, (8) maintaineffective communication, (9) promote mentee professional
the currently proposed CE criteria changes. Dr. Pearson’s awards and honors include ASCE’s Professional Practice Ethics & Leadership Award, ABET’s Claire L. Felbinger Award for Diversity & Inclusion, the Society of Women Engineers Distin- guished Engineering Educator Award, and ASCE’s President’s Medal. She is a registered Professional Engineer, an Envision Sustainability Professional (ENV SP) and Commissioner on ABET’s Engineering Accreditation Commission. Her podcast, Engineering Change, has audiences in over 80 countries.Jue Wu, University of California, BerkeleyMs. Samara Rose Boyle, Rice University Samara is an undergraduate studying neuroscience at Rice University in Houston, TX. She works as a
ABET’s Engineering Accreditation Commission. Among her awards and honors are ABET’s Claire L. Felbinger Award for Diversity and Inclusion, ASCE’s Professional Practice Ethics and Leadership Award, the Society of Women Engineers’ Distinguished Engineering Educator Award, the UT System Regents Outstanding Teaching Award, and ASCE’s President’s Medal, one of the highest honors awarded in this global organization of over 150,000 members. Her book, Making a Difference: How Being Your Best Self Can Influence, Inspire, and Impel Change, chronicles her journey and her work’s focus on ”making sure other ’Yvettes’ don’t fall through the cracks.” Her podcast, Engineering Change, has audiences in over 80 countries on six
that are held at each location. The accessibility andquality of support staff can be different depending on location. Some staff may have moreexperience than others, some may be more preoccupied with other responsibilities. These typesof factors can affect how they interact with and support student learning.There may be cultural differences in courses that span regions or countries. Cultural differencesbetween cohorts have been found to affect interest in the material [15]. These differences couldaffect the way faculty and staff function, including their expectations of timeliness, interactionswith others, and work ethic/quality. There could also be variations in national or religious beliefsand practices that have direct implications to
Science foundation ITIP (Integrative Themes in Physiology) project, thefollowing lessons could be drawn: Lesson 1: Many faculty are interested in improving their teaching Lesson 2: Lack of instructor time was a formidable obstacle to translating interest to action Lesson 3: Providing readily usable course materials did not facilitate instructional reform because the materials did not integrate easily into the existing courses Lesson 4: Departmental and institutional obstacles played a significant role in the failure of the site test phase of the ITIP project Lesson 5: Technological limitations and the cost of supplies can be obstacles to instructional innovation Lesson 6: Ethical requirements for conducting the ITIP project were
. Eng. Ethics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 275–292, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00097-0.[5] L. Bresler, “Out of the trenches: The joys (and risks) of cross-disciplinary collaborations,” Bull. Counc. Res. Music Educ., pp. 17–39, 2002.[6] E. O. McGee et al., Diversifying STEM - Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Race and Gender. Rutgers University Press, 2019. Accessed: Apr. 30, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/diversifying-stem/9781978805675/[7] E. M. Brodin and H. Avery, “Cross-disciplinary collaboration and scholarly independence in multidisciplinary learning environments at doctoral level and beyond,” Minerva, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 409–433, 2020.[8] A. Shivers-McNair, L. Gonzales, and T
practices and technology and don’t have enough time to transfer that technology. It’s great that we can then exchange this info and others can adapt it… actually establish meetings to transfer ideas… I appreciate any time we get for moving technology from one context to another. And thank you all.Another example of this is the following conversation between participants from two differentteams: Sch 1 Ed Rsch: And Sch 2 Ed Rsch, my background is in bio-engineering and I’m really [excited] to hear about what you are doing. I tried to implement a bio-engineering module into a material sciences class here at Sch 1, regarding the ethics and social justice concepts that come into play. Once we get this initial paper
culturallyresponsive teaching methods. Participation in the Community of Practice training played a pivotalrole in equipping instructors with strategies to promote inclusivity and engagement, as evidencedby the reduction in negative practices and the enhancement of equitable teaching approaches.By demonstrating the significance of infusing CR into course content to foster respectful, inclusiveclassroom environments, this study contributes to the broader discourse on equity in STEMeducation. The current study adhered to ethical guidelines to ensure the integrity of the studyfindings. Future research could focus on expanding this framework across broader contexts andintegrating adaptive technologies for real-time feedback to enhance its
use of student-centered teaching practices [7].Another factor that appears to be distinctive in the context of Canadian engineering schools andpostsecondary education in general is the increase of teaching-stream faculty members within theacademic workforce over the past two decades. Unlike the United States, where nearly 70 percent of faculty members have teaching as their primary responsibility [8], the full-time,continuing faculty appointment with the primary responsibilities limited to teaching-relatedactivities was introduced in the early 2000s to research-intensive Canadian universities, out ofeducational, ethical, and pragmatic considerations [9, 10]. These teaching-stream facultymembers are known for having a positive impact on the