, inclusion, engineeringeducation, curriculum, instruction1. IntroductionIn recent years, the field of engineering has witnessed a surge in full-time undergraduateenrollment, marking a growing interest in this pivotal discipline [1]. However, within thispromising trend, a disheartening reality persists. A significant number of students either transferout of engineering majors or leave the university before graduation. The dropout rates withinengineering programs continue to be a matter of critical concern, with graduation ratesstagnating at a persistently low rate (50% in the United States) over the past six decades [2, 3].This issue highlights a pressing challenge within engineering education that extends beyond highenrollment numbers.While
. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Lessons Learned: 35 Years of Impact of the Leonhard Center for the IntroductionThis Lessons Learned paper presents the 35-year history of The Leonhard Center for the Enhancement ofEngineering Education [1]. The Leonhard Center is a teaching and learning center dedicated to theenhancement of engineering education within the College of Engineering at Penn State University.Established in 1990 by an alumnus of the university, William and Wyllis Leonhard, the Leonhard Center hasthe mission of catalyzing and supporting the enhancement of teaching, learning, and assessment at Penn StateUniversity to deliver world-class engineering education [1]. The Leonhard Center was the first of its kind tobe housed
Chair of the Vergnano Institute for Inclusion in the UConn College of Engineering. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 We Don’t Just Want to Talk: Professional Learning Communities with Action-Oriented ApproachesIntroduction:In the evolving landscape of higher education, faculty members are looking for meaningfulprofessional development, collaboration with peers, and ways to contribute to the overall missionof student success [1]. This is contrary to typical faculty development programming, which areone-time sessions lacking in opportunities for deep learning [2]. One structure gainingmomentum is the Professional Learning Community (PLC), which brings faculty together
aimed at embedding EML practicesinto their educational frameworks.This paper/presentation details the tools and techniques used to develop the faculty trainingprogram and highlights exemplary initiatives from participating institutions across the threeworkshop offerings. We discuss the challenges encountered by various teams and conclude withrecommendations from the facilitation and coaching team that may be valuable to thoseinterested in implementing similar initiatives.1. IntroductionFaculty development is a cornerstone of higher education, providing essential support foreducators to grow professionally and adapt to the ever-changing academic landscape. It equipsfaculty with tools to enhance their teaching, improve student outcomes, and align
COI tools offers a replicable framework for enhancing inclusive STEMinstruction and cultivating more equitable learning environments.This work will be presented as a traditional lecture at the conference.Keywords: STEM education, COPUS, culturally responsive, engaging pedagogy, classroomobservationsIntroductionCreating inclusive and equitable learning environments in STEM education is essential to addressthe longstanding underrepresentation of marginalized groups. [1] Tools like the ClassroomObservation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) have proven valuable in capturingteaching practices and student engagement, providing educators with data-driven insights into theirclassroom dynamics. Simultaneously, growing attention to cultural
(TEN) at a large, multi-campus R1 institution tosupport faculty needs for implementing evidence-based pedagogy. Our goal for creating the TENwas two-fold: (1) to establish a centralized academy for pedagogical development initiatives toreduce institutional barriers for faculty, and (2) to provide mechanisms to support faculty forimproving their courses using evidence-based pedagogy. The TEN facilitated facultypedagogical development through a Summer Institute (SI) and Semester Support Groups (SSGs).Centralizing outreach and expanding the offerings available to faculty simplified the discoveryand enrollment of pedagogical development activities. Participants in the TEN developed atransformation plan for their course, and artifacts such as
, and service butoften fail to adequately recognize and reward faculty contributions that directly advance specificinstitutional priorities. This paper aims at bridging this gap by introducing a new framework thatincludes the concept of worth as an additional measure. The paper explores the implementation ofthis integrated approach for engineering and science faculty at a private university, utilizingbibliometrics, strategic contributions, and analyses of faculty perceptions across factors likegender, age, rank, and field. The findings underscore the need to balance merit and worth, offeringa more comprehensive reflection of faculty contributions within institutional contexts.This Work in Progress (WIP) Paper will be presented as a poster.1
years, research in the science of learning has allowed instructors and educationaldevelopers to acquire a more profound understanding of how people (including students!) learn,retain, and apply their knowledge [1], [2]. This has led to the use of more student-centeredteaching approaches such as active learning, flipped learning, inductive learning, and team-basedlearning, as well as simple instructional strategies such as retrieval practice, spaced practice,interleaving, and feedback-driven metacognition [3], [4]. There is also a growing body ofevidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of these student-centered approaches andinstructional strategies [3]-[6]. However, despite evidence for the relationships between teachingeffectiveness and
the need for innovative discoveries increases in the US, there is a concomitant increased needfor postdoctoral researchers to contribute to advancing STEM [1, 2]. Postdoctoral scholarappointments have increasingly been considered informal requirements for research careers inthe industry, government, and non-profit sectors [3,4]. Further, many tenure-track faculty inSTEM fields were previously postdoctoral researchers [5]. Postdoctoral positions are commonlyviewed in academic and non-academic research-focused areas as an ideal environment forprofessional research training, skill development, and mentorship in preparation for a researchcareer. While the National Science Foundation-funded projects provided 90% of STEM postdocsin 2009, there was
Industrial Engineering and Operations Research from the Pennsylvania State University.Robin Neal Clayton, University of Washington ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Enhancing Engineering Faculty Implementation of Inclusive Pedagogy through an Inclusive Excellence Faculty Development ProgramIntroductionWhile the framework of culturally relevant pedagogy was originally developed 30 years ago [1],there has been a growing momentum in recent years to adopt inclusive and equitable teachingpractices in higher education [2], [3]. This shift is driven by the increasing diversity of studentpopulations, including those from historically marginalized identities, enrolling in highereducation
promotion. The tenure andpromotion process in academia is complex and challenging, particularly for Black women, whoface unique structural and institutional barriers throughout the process related to race, gender,and intersectionality [1]-[3]. Throughout this journey, many Black women experiencemicroaggressions from faculty and students, invalidation of their research, and a devaluation oftheir service contributions. Thus, coaching has evolved into a proactive tool for career andleadership development and has gained momentum in both institutional settings, such asAAC&U’s Project Kaleidoscope’s STEM Leadership Institute and Office of UndergraduateSTEM Education’s Center for the Advancement of STEM Leaders. Coaching is designed toempower and
uprooted to a totally new place. Majority of the engineering students taketheir discipline specific courses starting from sophomore year and experience heightenedchallenges because of the transition from foundational courses to more rigorous, disciplinespecific courses [1]. This is considered as the time when they often reevaluate their majorsbecause of the academic stress among other reasons [2]. Literature shows that student retention and success remain critical challenges in highereducation, particularly among underrepresented and first-generation college students [3]. Severalstudies have highlighted the importance of class groups or support groups in the academicperformance of students. [4] reported that collaborative learning in small
paper, we analyzeinterviews with instructors and student partners (SPAs) to explore the effects of thesepartnerships in STEM classes at a large research-focused public institution. The study aims toanswer the following research questions: (1) How do STEM instructor teaching practices changerelated to working with a student partner? (2) What effects does serving as a student partnerhave on students in a large research-focused STEM institution?Literature ReviewReviewing the existing literature to understand the significance of student-faculty partnerships inenhancing teaching and learning is essential, as it provides a foundation for developinginnovative approaches that can improve educational outcomes. This review aligns with thepaper’s
, we share the design aims and lessons learned from delivering the workshop tofurther the discussions on generative AI among faculty through an interdisciplinary, collaborativelens – in doing so, we identify two primary themes among our participants' perspectives ongenerative AI that are relevant to our future work: 1) a need for generative AI curriculumintegration and skill development and 2) a need for more exploration of its ethical and socialimplications.Structure of the WorkshopOur workshop explored four interconnected themes, thoughtfully chosen to promote a holisticand interdisciplinary understanding of generative AI and its societal impact. Drawing from ourexpertise in communication, philosophy, computer science, and engineering
Enhancement, Sustainability TrainingIntroductionThe building sector, responsible for approximately 38% of global greenhouse gas emissions, is atthe forefront of decarbonization efforts aimed at mitigating climate change [1]. As urbanizationaccelerates and energy demands rise, the need for innovative strategies to reduce emissionsbecomes increasingly urgent. These challenges extend beyond operational energy efficiency toencompass the full lifecycle of buildings, including materials, construction processes, and end-of-life considerations [2]. Simultaneously, the digital transformation of the design, planning, andconstruction industries is reshaping the approaches used to address these challenges [3].Emerging digital tools, such as Building Information
Yonghee Lee, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Jay Mann, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Chris Migotsky, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignBackgroundThe role of communities of practice (CoPs) in improving teaching has been widely documentedin engineering education literature. Faculty CoPs have been shown to promote the integration ofEvidence-Based Instructional Practices (EBIPs) in STEM courses, enhancing student learningoutcomes and fostering collaborative teaching cultures [1], [2]. CoPs allow faculty to share ideas,support each other, and work together to make teaching better and improve students’ learningexperiences.Previous studies have shown that faculty communities play
talents [1, 2, 3]. Students show improvements in theirtechnical knowledge and communication skills, gain more professional confidence, and feel betterprepared for their future careers [1, 3]. UREs create a platform for applying theoretical knowledgeto real-world challenges and encourage students to refine their skills, which in turn bolsters theirconfidence and overall growth. Additionally, these experiences offer opportunities for networkingwith leaders in research. Mentorship often plays a pivotal role in improving retention andgraduation rates, helping students secure job positions or gain admission to graduate programs,giving them an advantage over others [1, 2, 3]. Current literature describes undergraduate research mentoring as a two
between TAs and their undergraduate students offersthem a more relatable role model in their discipline and, when a level of mentorship isestablished, increases a sense of belonging for those students (Clements, 2022).1 Note that the number of full time positions is fewer than the total number of individuals employed, asmost teaching assistants work under a lower percentage appointment of 33 or 50%. 2Effective TA training also helps graduate students develop skills such as self-efficacy inmanagement, student involvement, and instructional strategies (Young, 2008), and has beenshown to improve TAs’ personal sense of achievement (Brown, 2013). The
Lessons Learned from Helping Faculty “Make the Pivot” to New Research Areas through a Community of Practice1 IntroductionA variety of personal or institutional factors may lead university faculty to explore, or transition to,new research areas in their scholarly activities, including the availability of local collaborators [1],the needs of undergraduate research students [2], research funding allocated to different fields [3],or institutional environment [4]. At Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering (hereafter Olin Col-lege) a small primarily-undergraduate institution (PUI) where we (all of this paper’s authors) arefaculty members, the institutional culture and recent strategic directions (Sec. 2.1) have led all ofus to
incorporate neuroinclusive teachingpractices in engineering classrooms.IntroductionDespite the urgent need to foster a more creative workforce, the traditional teaching methods,competitive culture, and “gatekeeper” courses so prevalent in undergraduate engineeringprograms [1] often screen out nontraditional learners. Yet these learners’ ways of thinking havethe potential to contribute unconventional and innovative approaches to address complexengineering problems [2], [3]. Engineering learning environments have often presented amismatch for neurodiverse students whose ways of learning and socializing may differ fromthose of most students. Thus, neurodiverse students have remained underrepresented withinengineering. Neurodiverse individuals are
’ Patrick, The Ohio State UniversityWinifred Opoku, The Ohio State University Winifred Opoku is a doctoral student in the Department of Engineering Education, College of Engineering (CoE) at The Ohio State University. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025Faculty Development DivisionIntroduction In 2020, President Donald Trump passed Executive Order 13950, “Combatting Race andSex Stereotyping,” setting a precedent for the development of state-based anti-DEI legislationacross the United States due to its perceived divisive nature. Although President Joe Bidenoverturned this order, since 2023, it has led to the introduction of 86 bills across 28 states and theU.S. Congress [1]. This executive
, job satisfaction, and the balance between work and personal life. The preferredpresentation style for this publication is a poster session.Introduction and BackgroundUniversity service is one of the three main responsibilities of a tenure track position at mostacademic institutions and traditionally is used, alongside teaching and research, as means toevaluate faculty for promotion and tenure (P&T)[1], [2], [3]. Institutions typically view facultyservice as some contribution to the institution, the broader community and/or the professionalfield. The types of activities considered to be service often align with the mission of theinstitution. According to Seldin (1999), some of the main elements of service include studentadvising
greater integration, it is also important to understand 1) How well versed instructorsare with AI in terms of literacy and 2) what methods they employ in utilizing AI in their lessons.Despite the promising potential that AI continues to deliver, there is a knowledge gap regardinguniversity educators' perception of AI within the TPACK framework. Specifically, regardingtheir AI literacy and how it shapes their pedagogical approaches to higher education. Existingstudies on AI integration within the TPACK framework have largely employed quantitativemethodologies, focusing on self-reported competencies. (Celik, 2022).However, being more of a confidence indicator, these studies do not highlight the nuancedexperiences, challenges and pedagogical shifts
subject "Technology and Digitalisation" is taught in at least oneof the first three years, covering topics such as programming and robotics. In the fourth year,there is an optional subject called "Digitalisation" [1]. Our work focuses on the pre-university stages, specifically secondary education andBaccalaureate. Although vocational studies are also part of secondary education, theBaccalaureate is more relevant as a pathway to university. In recent decades, secondary education has undergone significant changes globally to adaptto an ever-evolving environment. A 2018 OECD study showed that 70% of member countrieshad implemented innovative pedagogical approaches, such as project-based and collaborativelearning, in at least 50% of secondary
ability to work [1]. To understand neurodiversity, a basic comprehension of the term neurotypical is essential. A neurotypical individual is defined as a medically healthy person who exhibits a typical pattern of neurodevelopment along an expected timeline compared to their peers [2]. This study focuses on the training methods available to faculty, staff, and administrators to increase their support for neurodivergent learners in higher education. The objective of this study was to establish if Clemson University provides its instructors with proper training to raise awareness of neurodivergence and how it can be implemented in the classroom. It also looked at how modern technological advances may affect the educational process. These themes are
supportinginitiatives to advance student learning in undergraduate engineering education [1]. As thecultures of academic engineering departments adapt to promote pedagogical change to bettermeet the future needs of their diversifying student populations and develop them intoexperimental and innovative engineers, a primary goal for these departments must be providingfaculty members with the necessary tools and resources to innovate in their teaching andeffectively support their students. Faculty development, an established approach utilized inachieving change in teaching practices, is aimed at providing faculty with broad pedagogicalskills or motivation and resources for self-improvement [2]. Common goals of change strategiesproposed by faculty development
inengineering.IntroductionUnderrepresented minorities (URMs), especially women, remain significantly underrepresentedamong tenured and tenure-track faculty in engineering departments, despite earning more PhDsin these fields. Women often lack role models due to small faculty representation, and URMfaculty percentages remain far below their presence in the general population, with female URMfaculty nearly absent in some engineering departments [1]. Women engineering faculty faceisolation and lack networking opportunities [2]. Therefore, efforts to promote DEI in theengineering professoriate have gained increased attention, with higher education institutionsrecognizing the need to cultivate a more representative and inclusive academic workforce. Overthe last five years, support for