Paper ID #32535Welcoming and Building Community for Graduate Students Through Re-moteTech EnvironmentsDr. Marianna Savoca, Stony Brook University Marianna Savoca is both an administrator and faculty member. She teaches career development, leader- ship, and external relations, collaborates with faculty on research and programmatic initiatives, as well as oversees internships and practicum experiences for graduate and undergraduate students. She leads campus-wide efforts to scale career development and access to high-impact experiential education for students in all majors and degree levels. She is Co-PI on two NSF-funded
graduate students. Therefore, our tricks of the trade focus on the use ofePortfolios specifically within the graduate student population, using it as a reflective space fordevelopment within professional roles. We argue that the potential uses of ePortfolios as a method for graduate students todevelop integrative professional identities through the use of a narrative process would combinethe theories and practices of teacher education programs with students in engineering disciplines;as these students are the future of the STEM professoriate, it is important that they develop asreflective practitioners who are able to use their multiple professional identities (in this case,focusing on being both a researcher and a teacher) together in
mathematics and science in California and Oklahoma. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 A Framework for Examining Engineering Doctoral Student Role IdentityAbstract This paper presents the Role Identities of Doctoral Engineering Doctoral Students(RIDES) framework for the examination of engineering doctoral students’ role identities.Identity of engineering students at the undergraduate level has been widely explored, butcomparably few studies have explored identity at the doctoral level [1]. Identity development isfundamental to becoming part of the community of practice of graduate school and academia(e.g., [2]); thus
emphasis within the engineering education community (see Table 1). Of 34 total paperswith interventions for communication education, the vast majority tried to incorporate communi-cation principles into students’ coursework, either through dedicated courses or integration intotechnical courses. The same survey indicates that the majority effort has focused on undergraduateeducation, with only six total interventions targeting graduate students.Particularly conspicuous is the absence of writing center research at ASEE and FIE for the pastthree years. This absence is consistent with the observation that writing center studies have re-ceived relatively little attention outside the Writing Center Journal (WCJ), even in written compo-sition studies let
. Page 26.368.8The program requirements align with the disciplinary idea of combining engineering andeducation disciplines. In general, the coursework comprises of core engineering courses allowingthe students to develop a graduate level of understanding of engineering content, as well as,understanding different educational theories. To build a background about engineering educationas a field of inquiry, these programs require students to take foundational engineering educationcourses which cover the history and philosophy of engineering education, relevant theoreticalframeworks, assessment and evaluation techniques, current research and future trends, etc.Lastly, to develop the ability to conduct educational research, the programs require the
target themsystematically within programs. Therefore, it remains to the graduate students to createknowledge to support each other during their journeys through graduate education. Thus, thisstudy takes the approach of researcher to participant, to uncover our own experiences as ESLgraduate students. The experiences we have during our doctoral training influence the development of anidentity as researchers and as potential future scholars that will facilitate the education of the newgenerations or will perform successfully in non-academic contexts. The construction of suchidentities would influence our persistence in our graduate programs. A recent study aboutengineering doctoral students used Identity-Based Motivation theory to explore
Visualizing Arguments to Scaffold Graduate Writing in Engineering EducationAbstractMany graduate students come to engineering education research with technical backgrounds inengineering. This can present a challenge for them in learning to write social science research,with new expectations around the structure of academic arguments for the field of engineeringeducation research. Existing research suggests that even graduate students familiar with writingstrategies struggle when entering new communities of practice and disciplines. Although somescholarship has focused on writing, minimal strategies for encouraging argumentation through arhetorical approach have been developed for graduate students. Unlike a focus on writtenproduct
aim to innovate,” strongly criticizing the engineering educationresearch community for not practicing what they preach. In recent discussions of this concern, ithas been identified that “…the issue is not simply a need for more educational innovations. Theissue is a need for more educational innovations that have a significant impact on studentlearning and performance, whether it is through widespread and efficient implementation ofproven practices or scholarly advancements in ideas, methods, or technologies (p. 5).6 ” Effortstowards this end have included the development of frameworks and strategies to make the linkbetween knowledge generated in the learning sciences to the practical delivery of education moreexplicit and implementable5,9,10
experiences with becoming an engineering education researcher (Adams et. al, 2006;Gardner & Willey, 2016; Siddiqui, Allendoerfer, Adams, & Williams, 2016) have suggested: (1)a shared domain such as engineering education be supported through sharing personalexperiences by those in the field, (2) community building is supported through collaboration withothers with similar and different background and experiences, and (3) sharing stories reveals thetrue nature of professional work. An important distinction is that these studies focus onresearchers and educators while our study focuses on doctoral students. Moreover, traditionalstudies take a researcher/participant approach that distinguishes between researchers andparticipants. Our
best focused in the coursework. The researchshould be guided with a looser rein.Intellectual Character of Graduate Study: Increasingly, engineering work in both industryand in academic preparation is undertaken in project form, most often through multi-disciplinaryteams. In the graduate education context, engineering students are traditionally expected toundertake, complete and document an independent project of significant scope. The ‘significantscope’ dimension often clashes with ‘independence’, as many of the relevant problems incurrent-day engineering are multi-disciplinary, or at least multi-dimensional, and are bestaddressed by teams.The graduate disquisition is intended to be a substantive intellectual product. The project nature,as
four tenets (community,identity, practice, and meaning) are well distributed in graduate education. For example,coursework most easily fits into the “practice” category but incorporates aspects of “community”(potentially working with others in class), and “meaning” as courses apply theoretical material topractical relevant engineering applications. A research component of a graduate program, too,spans multiple sectors, falling mainly into the “meaning” category, earning depth and expertisethrough a research experience, but also promotes development of “identity,” “community” withlabmates, and “practice” in the application of coursework principles to real research problems.Layered on top of CoP theory is a more specialized theory, that of
AC 2010-1957: DESTINATION UNKNOWN: GENDER DIFFERENCES INATTRITION FROM GRADUATE STUDY IN ENGINEERINGLisa Frehill, Self employed consultant Lisa Frehill is an evaluation consultant with more than a decade of experience evaluating educational programs. She earned her PhD at the University of Arizona in 1993, after which she was on the sociology faculty at New Mexico State University and then the PI for New Mexico State University’s ADVANCE: Institutional Transformation award. Current projects focus on: engineering workforce; gender and ethnic issues in access to STEM careers; and women’s international participation and collaboration in STEM.Amanda Lain, Freelance Consultant has an MA in
AC 2012-5183: EASING INTO ENGINEERING EDUCATION: AN ORIEN-TATION PROGRAM FOR GRADUATE STUDENTSStephanie Cutler, Virginia TechWalter Curtis Lee Jr., Virginia Tech Walter Lee is a Graduate Assistant and doctoral student in engineering education at Virginia Tech. His pri- mary research interests focus on diversity and student retention. He earned a B.S. in industrial engineering from Clemson University.Dr. Lisa D. McNair, Virginia Tech Lisa McNair is an Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. Her research includes interdisciplinary collaboration, communication studies, identity theory, and reflective practice. Projects supported by the National Science Foundation include
Tech. He currently serves as the Director of Programs for the Graduate Student Assembly and is the founding president of the Graduate Engineering Mechanics Society, both at Virginia Tech.Ms. Amy L. Hermundstad, Virginia Tech Amy Hermundstad is a doctoral student and Graduate Research Assistant at Virginia Tech. She received her B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Colorado State University and is currently pursuing an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education. Her research interests include the professional development of engineering students through out-of-class activities.Michael Stewart, Virginia Tech Michael Stewart (Ph.D. candidate, Third Lab, Center for Human-Computer Interaction, Dept
when faculty would contact the Global Outreach and ExtendedEducation (GOEE) group to set up the lecture capture portion of their course. Group membersbegan sharing the college’s vision for the future of online education. Over the semesters, interestbegan to build and several faculty started reaching out to discover more about what could bedone to make their courses more online friendly.The initial course to go through the DFO process was Materials Science & Engineering (MSE)598: Concepts in Materials Science. Planning began in the latter part of Fall 2016 and continuedinto the Spring of 2017 when the actual development of digital assets and the building of thecourse in the LMS. The first iteration of the course under this new process was
; • Practice or • TaughtNaidoo9 • Traditional PhD • Professional • PhD by publication work based doctorate Hancock & Walsh10 found and cited studies of doctoral students and their training in othercountries (p.39): “for example Akay11 on doctoral engineers in America; Cumming12 onAustralian doctoral students; Colebunders13 on PhD training in developing nations; andLanciano-Morandat and Nohara14 on PhD training in France and Japan). Indeed, the 2010 reportby the Commission on the Future of Graduate Education in the
education, her research interests include engineering education, particularly as related to innovation, professional identity development, and supporting the recruitment and persistence of underrepresented students within engineering.Dr. Shanna R. Daly, University of Michigan Shanna Daly is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Michigan. She has a B.E. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Dayton (2003) and a Ph.D. in Engineering Edu- cation from Purdue University (2008). Her research focuses on strategies for design innovations through divergent and convergent thinking as well as through deep needs and community assessments using design ethnography, and translating those
University of Dayton (2003) and a Ph.D. in Engineering Edu- cation from Purdue University (2008). Her research focuses on strategies for design innovations through divergent and convergent thinking as well as through deep needs and community assessments using design ethnography, and translating those strategies to design tools and education. She teaches design and en- trepreneurship courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels, focusing on front-end design processes.Ms. Erika Mosyjowski, University of Michigan Erika Mosyjowski is a PhD student in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan. She also earned a Master’s in Higher Education at Michigan and a Bachelor’s in
personaldevelopment through collaboration, knowledge sharing, and analysis. I will briefly introduceexamples of learning communities developed within Colleges of Engineering—including that ofNew Mexico Tech and the École de Technologie Supérieure in Montreal, Canada—that havereported both success and challenges.STEM FellowsSimpson et al. (2015) sought to address the lack of graduate level-writing support of engineeringstudents at their institution, New Mexico Tech, a university who has strong specialized programsin areas such as mechanical engineering, atmospheric and astrophysics, earth sciences, andpetroleum engineering. Simpson and colleagues developed a graduate STEM CommunicationFellows program aimed at “creating opportunities to develop organic
, her research interests include engineering education, particularly as related to systems thinking, organizational cultures, professional identity development, and supporting the success and ideas of underrepresented students within engineering.Dr. Shanna R. Daly, University of Michigan Shanna Daly is an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Michigan. She has a B.E. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Dayton (2003) and a Ph.D. in Engineering Edu- cation from Purdue University (2008). Her research focuses on strategies for design innovations through divergent and convergent thinking as well as through deep needs and community assessments using design ethnography, and
. Enhancing Engineering Education Research Capacity through Building a Community of Practice. in Proceedings of the 2005 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. 2005.13. Walker, G.E., et al., The Formation of Scholars. First ed. 2008, San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 232.14. Wenger, E., Cultivating Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. 1998: Cambridge University Press.15. Nettles, M.T. and C.M. Millett, Three Magic Letters-Getting to PhD. 2006, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 329.16. Lovitts, B.E., Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study. 2001, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. 307.17. Golde
. Page 23.146.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 Am I a Boss or a Coach? Graduate Students Mentoring Undergraduates in ResearchAbstractYOU’RE@CU is a mentoring program in which graduate students are paired with 1st or 2nd yearundergraduate engineering students to conduct research is now entering its third year ofoperation at The University of Colorado Boulder. The undergraduate mentees benefit fromexposure to a research community and the process of doing cutting-edge engineering research,while the graduate student mentors benefit from the experience of being a mentor, defining aproject and guiding a novice engineer through the ups and downs of doing research
Annu. Conf. Expo. 14. Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H., & Oware, E. (2006, October). Engineering a professional community of practice for graduate students in engineering education. In Frontiers in education conference, 36th Annual (pp. 1-5). IEEE.15. Kolikant, Y. B. D., McKenna, A., & Yalvac, B. (2006). The emergence of a community of practice in engineering education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2006(108), 7-16.16. Allie, S., Armien, M. N., Burgoyne, N., Case, J. M., Collier-Reed, B. I., Craig, T. S., ... & Jawitz, J. (2009). Learning as acquiring a discursive identity through participation in a community: Improving student learning in engineering education. European Journal of
Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia. He served on DAEC from the formation of the committee in August 2004 to June 2005. Page 11.130.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006 A Successful Student-Initiated Assessment Method for an Environmental Engineering Graduate ProgramAbstractObstacles in assessing academic conditions can include generating interest in assessment effortsin order to achieve high response rates, transcending communication barriers, preservingconfidentiality, minimizing biases from numerous sources, and conducting meaningful statisticalanalyses. A graduate
. These questions were of much significance since by comparing responses for thesetwo sets side by side, one can estimate the contribution of coursework in developing certainskills in the student population. For example, graduate coursework in the program seemed tohave helped students in understanding fundamental concepts in environmental engineering aswas observed from significant difference in the confidence interval (from the UVA results) ofinitial preparedness and contribution of courses in that area. Conversely, for analyzing andinterpreting data, for locating technical literature, for conducting experiments and for written andoral communication, the difference in confidence intervals was not significant. These arecertainly important areas
currently serves as an evaluator for several NSF programs including a National Science Foundation Research Traineeship (NRT) program. Dr. Schutzman has a Ph.D. in Educational Policy and Evaluation in Higher Education from the University of Kentucky, a M.A. from Northern Kentucky University, and a B.A. from Centre College. Methodologically, she is trained in both qualitative and quantitative research and evaluation designs, data collection, analyses, and results dissemination. Dr. Schutzman has extensive experience in program development, implementation, and evaluation in K-12, community college, four-year university, and non-traditional education settings. American c
programs as well as programs in the Engineering Education Systems and Design PhD program. Her research interests include topics related to student persistence, STEM doctoral student experiences, faculty mentorship and development, modeling and analysis of complex manufacturing systems, and the development of new discrete event simulation methodologies. Bekki is the co-director of the interdisciplinary, National Science Foundation supported CareerWISE research program, which strives to: 1) understand the experiences of diverse women who are pursuing and leaving doctoral programs in science and engineering and 2) increase women’s persistence in science and engineering doctoral programs through the development and
Paper ID #19000Getting Great Recommendation Letters: A Practical GuideDr. Katy Luchini-Colbry, Michigan State University Katy Luchini-Colbry is the Director for Graduate Initiatives at the College of Engineering at Michigan State University, where she completed degrees in political theory and computer science. A recipient of a NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, she earned Ph.D. and M.S.E. in computer science and engi- neering from the University of Michigan. She has published more than two dozen peer-reviewed works related to her interests in educational technology and enhancing undergraduate education through hands- on