affiliation).Before the three-day convening, teams submitted a draft version of their plans to address thechanges proposed by ABET as well as the results of an institutional inventory of their DEIresources. Throughout the workshop, teams further developed their plans and gave feedback toand received feedback from at least two other teams.In this paper (written from the perspective of the external evaluators, with contributions frommembers of the planning team), we identify common issues across institutions related to theimplementation and assessment of DEI that might be navigated collaboratively based ondocument analysis and participants’ survey responses. Specifically, we discuss the challengesand supports commonly expressed by event participants
appreciation of informal lunch periods embedded within the session.Although the team questioned the time spent on lunch during the session, our participants felt ithelped them to discuss the content and build community. Participants also reported in both thein-person CoP and online SLG that they were more likely to make changes to their pedagogybecause we asked them to frame each session’s content within one course and to not consider alltheir courses, which could lead to being overwhelmed and reduce chances of pedagogicalchange. As we plan for our next iteration of programming, these lessons learned will reinforceelements that went well.We learned lessons from challenges the team encountered. Lessons learned regarding ourdisciplinary perspectives and
, and mental models were introduced. Examples were sharedby faculty who had already begun to incorporate sustainability concepts into their courses.During the workshop, the participants planned concrete changes to their own courses anddiscussed changing the curriculum across the 4 years of the undergraduate experience. BackgroundTraditionally, sustainability has not been part of the standard engineering curriculum. Bysustainability we mean meeting human needs (current and future) within planetary boundaries,covering social (including diversity, equity, and inclusion, DEI), environmental, and economicaspects. As an additional challenge, various disciplines across the campus are siloed, so thatstudents in business, the arts, engineering
focus on planning and administration. Itidentifies and lays out common considerations one must make when delivering an MCI course,including maintaining equity across cohorts, contextual differences across cohorts, contentdelivery and student activity planning, communication, IT resources, human resources (teacher’sassistant, TA), and scheduling. Preferred presentation style: Traditional lecture1 IntroductionMulti-campus instruction (MCI), also known as distributed learning or cross-campus instruction,is an instructional format that involves a single, main instructor in a classroom at one location(the “local” cohort) synchronously teaching “local” and “remote” cohorts of students that aresituated at other campuses. Students in the “remote
leanstartup style "build-measure-learn" cycles [12, 14] but tailored for curricular innovation. Thissummer innovation workshop can itself be considered as an “incremental innovation” and seekto answer a key question: "whether and to what extent the innovation training workshop seriescan help faculty with framing/planning their curricular or pedagogical changes". We then seekto use the evidence gathered to re-examine our assumptions and to suitably modify ourworkshop. This Evidence-Based Practice seeks to provide our preliminary insight into thisquestion.Methods1. Initiation of Educational innovation teamsTCORPS recruited its first cohort of instructors in March 2021 and the second cohort in April2022 for participation in the summer 2021 and summer
facilitators. We begin by briefly describing the FLCmeetings completed and planned for over this time frame, followed by a detailed description ofhow we are investigating the impacts of this intervention. We will present the design of ourqualitative study which includes evaluating participant feedback. We are collecting feedbackwithin each session, as well as over the complete experience. Additionally, we plan to collect datafrom our participants’ students in their Spring semester classes to examine potential impactsmade by our members’ application of concepts gained through the experiences of the FLC. Weconclude by describing our hypothesized expectations for this work and look forward to feedbackfrom the community on these efforts.IntroductionIt is
©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Apoyando y Modificando el Currículo: Supporting our Next Generation Latinx STEM StudentsAbstract Work in Progress(WIP) Paper: To address inequity within higher education, the NSFINCLUDES ALRISE Alliance (NSF#2120021) has empowered faculty to modify theircurriculum, tackle inequity issues within Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), and aim forsystems change benefiting Latinx/e students in STEM. Inequity manifests in various formswithin the classroom, by adjusting the curriculum, faculty can establish an equitable learningenvironment. The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach within the ALRISE Alliance equipsSTEM Team faculty with the tools to identify problems
Institutes of Health, and the Paso del Norte Health Foundation have funded his research on older adults. The US Army Research Laboratory has funded Dr. Pennathur’s research on workload assessment. Dr. Pennathur has also been recently awarded two grants from the National Science Foundation in Engineering Education. In one of the grants, he is modeling how engineering faculty plan for their instruction. In a second grant, he is developing a model for institutional transformation in engineering which balances access and excellence. Dr. Pennathur is the author/co-author of over 100 publications in industrial engineering and human factors engineering. He is on the editorial board of the International Journal of Industrial
presented by the ABCD approach for facultydevelopment. Even though we are still in the planning stage of faculty program development andonly begun an initial step, we found that the ABCD approach’s focus on faculty assets andcommunity development provides lessons learned for our initial plan to advance engineeringethics education. While our experience of faculty development is situated in engineering ethicsand future work remains to be done to assess the impact of our projects, we suggest the ABCDapproach may be applicable to other types of faculty development programs where knowledge,skills, experience, or professional interests play an important role.BackgroundThis lessons-learned paper presents an ongoing initiative to create faculty development
once a year. The program is facilitated by Olin andUNC faculty and staff and has a basis of entrepreneurial-minded learning in its facilitation [1].The second annual in-person retreat will take place in summer 2023 with activities designed tohelp guide new institutions through the development stages of their programming. The schoolsparticipating in the EMERGE program range from those in the early planning stages for anengineering program to those that have launched programs recently to those that have moreestablished programs, including several who have received ABET accreditation. Recognizingthat starting, and then maintaining, a healthy, entrepreneurially minded engineering program is amulti-year process with numerous challenges, the EMERGE
. These strategies are in response to challenges faced in achieving Paretti et al.(2014) vision of context-specific and generalizable practices. Our inquiry is therefore guided by tworesearch questions (RQ): RQ1: What challenges do faculty experience when embedding communication skills into engineering curricula? RQ2: What solutions do faculty forward to better embed communication skills into engineering curricula across a range of engineering departments?To explore these questions, we leverage a collaborative inquiry approach as a planned process toenable reflection-on-practice and collective sense-making amongst a community of eight facultymembers tasked with integrating communication skills into engineering curricula across
. Faculty will reflect on the importance of using empathy and their interaction with students in teaching. 2. Faculty will apply the concept of empathy with equity-focused teaching strategies in their classroom settings. 3. Faculty will create an action plan to enact empathy in their teaching approaches towards their students. 2. Purpose of the workshop: Empathy in Equity-focused TeachingAs empathy is a component of the strategic vision of the College of Engineering at the University ofMichigan, this “Teaching with Empathy” workshop can potentially attract many faculty interested inincorporating more equity-focused teaching in their classrooms. Empathy, a learnable and teachable skill[10], can be a great starting point for the faculty’s equity
?● How might we increase the use of evidence-based and inclusive teaching practices?● Do campuses have different systems for annual reviews and tenure/promotion reviews?● How is student feedback incorporated into teaching evaluations?Future WorkOur Dean plans to integrate aspects of the new teaching evaluation process into annual faculty activityreports, which are used to document performance and determine faculty merit raises. These reportsinclude self-reported and database collected information such as: publications, grants, course enrollment,course evaluation summaries, advisee count, committee participation, etc. New sections will be includedfor teaching self-reflections, teaching improvement plans and progress, and other teaching
engineering studentsdevelop a specific way of thinking and approaching problem-solving that is characterized by curiosity,connections and a focus on creating value [5]. By cultivating an entrepreneurial mindset, engineeringstudents can learn to be more creative, adaptable, and resilient in their professional and personal livesregardless of whether they choose to become entrepreneurs or intrapreneurs. Because of the seeminglynatural overlap between makerspace skill development and EML, faculty development efforts that mergethe two frameworks have been created. B-FAB, or the Bucknell Fabrication workshop, was a 3-dayexperience for faculty and staff to introduce makerspace equipment, discuss pedagogy, and plan forclassroom implementation [6]. The Kern
department, so I’m keeping those tools and resources in my back pocket right now.” In the second stage of our project, we plan to follow up with Participant A in order tounderstand if they have moved the MACH tools from a “back pocket” to the forefront in theacademic change work they are pursuing now. For Participant B, the challenge they experienced before the MACH workshop focusedon working as a graduate assistant for a course that had inherent problems, primarily withgrading. In their interview, Participant B reflected that while they could see that grading in thecourse was “not good,” their position as a GA meant that they didn’t have adequate authority tomake the changes that they saw as necessary: “I don’t feel as if I’m in a
them with the training, support, and resources they need toincorporate technology effectively into their lesson plans. One key benefit of empoweringteachers with technological tools is that it can help level the playing field regardingeducational access.Technology can provide new opportunities for students who may need access to specificresources or information. It facilitates students to attend online lectures/webinars and otherlearning resources from any experts (national/international), thus providing learning beyondboundaries. Another benefit is that technology can make learning more engaging andinteractive for students since they are digital natives [Otto and Strimel, 2022]. The effectiveuse of technological tools helps them to stay
and Supportive – instructor invites students to set and reach their learning goals and supports student success through constructive feedback, mentoring, advising, and listening [10-11] • Structured and Intentional – instructor plans course well, describes course clearly, aligns learning objectives activities and assessments, instructor clearly communicates expectations and what students need to do to meet them [12-13]Multiple measures are needed to provide a clear view of effective and inclusive teaching[14]. For example, student feedback forms may provide insights form the learner but maynot provide a clear view of instructional quality. Similarly, peer feedback and self-reflection may not fully measure effective and
course up a level.The teaching pyramid can also be used as part of assessing the teaching center. Are thereprograms that support faculty at each level? Do the programs help faculty or courses move up alevel over time? Are any faculty consistently in the lowest level and how is that beingaddressed? Are there any patterns of courses or classrooms often showing up at the lowest levelsand what support is needed to make changes?In summary, this paper shares a teaching pyramid framework for thinking about teachingimprovements, for planning programming to meet faculty where they are with enable actionablenext steps in moving towards teaching excellence, and for assessing the teaching center.IntroductionThe mission of our teaching center is to improve
dissemination can be simplified as a list that we useto check our work in all that we develop. 1. Develop motivation to practice better communication by connecting this science communication work to student, faculty, and institutional success. 2. Have a simple set of tools that everyone has training in and is committed to use both in their communication and in their feedback to others about how that communication has worked. 3. Plan for continuous engagement with repeated touch points that start with a mix of mandatory sessions and opt-in opportunities and build toward a common acceptance of the value of this work. 4. Reinforce a
program. As a result, thisfaculty development initiative is often more difficult for academic units to support due to realand perceived budgetary and schedule sustainment constraints. Despite challenges, the casestudy will highlight that considerations other than upfront cost should be more heavily weighted.A more visible return on investment is realized through the purposeful development ofeducational objectives for the faculty development experience (in this research case, an industryresidency) and alignment and documentation of those objectives against the greater vision ofenhanced curriculum development plans. Systematic documentation of the industry residencyexperience and alignment with curricular program requirements, student learning
virtual meetings and workshops, includinga virtual Kickoff Workshop, a hybrid Writers Retreat, and 1:1 coaching with the ProjectCoordinator and other writing mentors. By the end of the AWP, 27 authors had drafted 71activities in 17 areas of CS. Fifty-eight activities were revised and approved by the programas ready for classroom testing. Almost all of the authors planned to use the developed activitiesin their classes (88%) and share them with others (78%), while 75% planned to develop moreactivities. Almost all (88%) felt that the writing process impacted how they teach with POGILactivities. Thus, the AWP is an effective model to support faculty and produce quality activities.1. IntroductionCollaborative learning activities benefit student
improvement as a result of focused development in postdoc training according toanother study in this review. Other areas related to career planning were mentioned as skillspostdocs wanted to learn, including negotiating, interviewing, promotions, handling rejection,and managing uncertainty. Other important components needed for a postdoc to develop are supportive mentorshipand a community. The quality of the mentorship a postdoc receives can heavily influence theirsatisfaction in their role. This could negatively impact the increased productivity postdocs havein research publications by causing the postdoc to feel unprepared and take another position,stretching their time as a postdoc past the productive peak of 3 years [4]. In Nowell et al’s
school in each modality, participants have done substantial writing anddevelopment on their own projects, and they delve into methodological issues of collecting,reducing, and analyzing data from the perspective of noticing ideas (e.g. in classroom video,student free responses, or interviews) and regularizing that noticing (e.g. through generativecoding). Near the end of the field school, participants receive deep collaborative feedbackfrom facilitators through the “riff on a project” modules, and they plan explicitly for the nextsix months of research and development work.Flow of one moduleA typical flow of a module starts by orienting participants to the topic and learning goalsassociated with that module; and eliciting their ideas, hopes, and
theseintegrated courses on student learning. Students have been receiving FANUC certificates formaterial handling and operation through the Industrial Robotics class. Now, they have theadditional option of obtaining FANUC Robot Operator licensing I and II through NOCTI, whichwill serve as an added certification beyond the standard course completion certificate. If thisintegration is successful, the future goal is to include MET students and develop an automatedassembly system with vision capability for CNC parts and manufacturing.Research Question and Assessment PlanThe main research question that we are planning to address is “How does the integration of"Automation & PLC" and "Industrial Robotics" courses, combined with faculty
. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Lessons Learned: “I Can’t Build It, Because They Won’t Come:” Faculty Survey Response Rates in Engineering Education ResearchObtaining faculty perspectives to enhance higher education teaching practices is an essential stepin assessing and planning professional development and training. However, procuring this crucialfeedback can often feel like an insurmountable challenge. In a recent research study aimed atgathering faculty feedback through an anonymous online survey, a notable revelation emerged –faculty members exhibit reluctance to participate in surveys. The question that arises is, how canwe gain an understanding of the collective faculty
. This section is still in development. This section aims to provide anassessment method that looks at the project's impact, developed through the PDC, on the students'understanding of the pre-defined course outcomes. Some measures being considered forassessment are course-specific student learning objectives and/or ABET student learningoutcomes.Future WorkThe PDC will continue to be developed and assessed for its effectiveness. Specifically, assessingthe impact of the PDC in reducing perceived barriers to implementing projects in courses byfaculty. Additionally, plans for evaluating the PDC’s effectiveness in helping to develop projectsare planned. To disseminate the PDC process to the larger STEM education community,workshops will be developed
designers on diffusion rates. To betterunderstand the adoption data that has been collected, surveys were sent to training participantsafter the school year had started to better understand how they intend to use or are using theinformation from the trainings. While intentions to behavior changes do not always correlatestrongly to actual behavior changes, articulating specific things they intend to do does increasethe likelihood of the intentions being realized [17]. The relevant questions in the survey were: • Even before participating in this workshop, I planned to use Gradescope in at least one of my courses during the upcoming year. (1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: neutral; 4: agree; 5: strongly agree) • After
board, he or she will need a well-maintained shipon voyage, not a dry-docked program. In our interim roles at separate institutions we bothemployed an interim version of preliminary strategic planning (idea generation and seeking,organization, and beginning consensus building) toward a much-needed new strategic plan.However, we each ultimately left these efforts in draft form as we transitioned out of the interimrole. This built momentum and energy under interim leadership and gifted the incoming Deanfreedom to chart the next course with the benefit of the clarifying thinking already performed. Tosummarize, a main interim goal is to set the stage for your successor (which could end up beingyou – more on this below).The Role (delivery stage
grouped into cohorts based on theirdiscipline or sub-discipline (e.g., first-year engineering design, solid mechanics, electronics,etc.). The faculty in each cohort worked together during the workshops (brainstorming andbouncing ideas off each other) and also met regularly throughout the semesters to refine coursecontent and share successes. At the conclusion of the week-long workshop, each faculty memberreported on an idea for a course module and an action plan. During the following year, thefacilitators would meet with the faculty for reporting (i.e., accountability) sessions. At the end ofthe academic year, each faculty member would close-the-loop with a report of pluses (successes)and deltas (changes for the following course offering). During
institutions to develop aQuality Enhancement Plan (QEP), which must focus on improving specific student learningoutcomes and/or student success. Our SACSCOC accreditation was most recently reaffirmed in2016 and our QEP, EDGE: Enhanced Discovery through Guided Exploration, was designed toenhance student learning by infusing creative inquiry (CI) throughout the undergraduateexperience. With EDGE, we implemented an integrated curricular and co-curricular plan thatenabled our students to develop the skills to formulate CI questions, decide on proper approachesto address them, explore relevant evidence, and produce and present their findings or creations.From 2016-2021, 170 EDGE course grants were funded in all eight of our Colleges or Schoolsfor faculty