through the confirmatory factor analysis. The ultimate purpose of this work is toshed light on factors that influence science, engineering, and mathematics graduate studentmental health so that graduate students, faculty, and staff can use these results for both individualand programmatic change. This study will help do so by providing some direction and guidanceto those who wish to use the larger HMN survey in future analysis.IntroductionThere has been a rise in mental health problems reported among college-aged individuals andthese mental health concerns have been shown to have a lasting impact on students [1-3]. Studieshave shown that there are unique stressors to the graduate student experience and that thesemental health concerns (e.g
Engineering from RPI, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Princeton. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Work in Progress – A Problem-Based Curriculum in Support of Structured Learning Experiences to Prepare Ph.D. Candidates for Independent ResearchStephanie Cutler1, Yu Xia1, Cliff Lissenden2, Francesco Costanzo2, Thomas Litzinger1, & Bruce Gluckman2 1 Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education, Penn State 2 Engineering Science & Mechanics, Penn StateIntroduction In
UTEP to receive his Doctorate in Toxicology, where he studied the compensatory mechanism resulting from the loss of the multi-drug resistance transporters 1 (MRP1). He attained a Post Doctoral position at UTEP where he collaborated in the discovery and development of small molecules used for the treatment of prostate cancer.Dr. Harry Meeuwsen, The University of Texas at El Paso - El Paso, TX Dr. Harry Meeuwsen’s PhD training at LSU-Baton Rouge was in motor learning and control, followed by a Post-doc in motor control at UW-Madison where he worked on NIH grants focusing on lower limb control in older adults and fine motor control in Parkinson’s patients. During his training he employed methods and instrumentation
ofanalysis, so we have presented the data that has been collected to date, but also recognize there aremany contributing variables. We will continue to collect and analyze data to assess the impact ofthe various initiatives of the Lead TA more concretely.IntroductionThe attrition rate of doctoral students is approximately 50% [1], [2]. Although retention ofundergraduate students has been well studied, the recruitment and retention of graduate students,specifically doctoral students, is less understood [3]. Research suggests that contributing factorsto high attrition for doctoral students include: unclear expectations, conflicting requirements,lack of consistent supervision, conflicts with an advisor, coursework and inadequate funding [4],[5
identification of students likely to complete a graduate degree, we sought tochange our process and the way we evaluate students for admission. For this, we changed theapplication and review process to include an assessment of applicants’ non-cognitive variablesbased on Sedlacek’s work and the Fisk-Vanderbilt MS-PhD Bridge Program admissions model[1-3]. In 2016, our Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) Department piloted theincorporation of these changes. Consequently, MSE increased the enrollment of women andunderrepresented minority students by 19% and 57%, respectively and we will be evaluating theimpact of the changes on performance metrics and completion rates over time. Ahead of thisapplication cycle, we have made changes to the applications of
students for study and researchin graduate school. The authors have implemented this approach for the past two years andhave noticed positive results including increased graduate enrollment and an increased qualityof graduate research. We highlight these results by presenting case studies in which we followthe progression of several students through undergraduate senior projects and graduate studies.IntroductionIn the past few years, the authors reported their efforts of enhancing students’ learning byutilizing a systems approach [1] - [4]. These methods focus on the functionality of systemblocks to improve students’ understanding of system performance parameters. Positive resultshave been observed in strengthening students knowledge development
graduate school. It discusses the development a student goes through as theyjourney through graduate school and focuses on the transition from being a follower tobeing a leader. This paper has two main goals: 1) to remind faculty of their own graduateexperiences and encourage them to better know and understand their students and 2)provide students with guidance about what to expect and how to succeed. Ideas aboutdealing with the pressures of graduate school, making life choices, independence,responsibility, networking and growth are also presented.1.0 IntroductionWhat is graduate school? “Graduate school or ‘grad school’ is a school that awardsadvanced degrees1.” Okay, but really what is graduate school? This paper provides astudents perspective
’ share of doctoral degrees in engineering has increaseddramatically (in 2004 temporary residents accounted for 57% of engineering Ph.D.s), womenand under-represented minorities’ (URM) share of engineering doctoral degrees also increased:women earned 17.6% while URMs earned 3.2% of engineering Ph.Ds. Data showing theincreasing diversity of U.S. master’s and doctoral recipients of engineering degrees are shown inTable 1.As shown by the data presented in Table 1, graduate education in engineering has undergonesubstantial structural changes: the numbers of degrees earned per year has increased while thediversity of students has undergone dramatic changes over the past 25-30 years. This increasingdiversity poses special challenges for faculty who may
Mentor/Mentee Interactions • Structure – Bi-Weekly Group Meetings – Mentor/Mentee Evaluations • Assessment – Program Data CollectedFigure 1. Adapted from Systematic Mentoring Model2 to illustrate the structure and dynamics of the FAMU-FSU NSBE Chapter Stratus Mentoring ProgramThe incorporation of a systematic and well structured mentoring framework and the mission andprinciples of the National Society of Black Engineers had far reaching benefits to both thestudents who ran the program (mentors) and the students who participated (mentees) which
representatives explain to the studentswhat the company does and some the job positions available. These types of events provide anopportunity for students to make a good first impression with the company. Through theconversations, a student can also get a good understanding of the company and decide whether ornot to seek employment opportunities with that particular company. The employmentopportunities can consist of internships, cooperative (Co-op) education rotations, and full-timeemployment. Internships and co-ops are the best way for a student to get a broad exposure toindustry while still in school [1].Another opportunity where student can gain exposure to companies is when faculty membersbring industrial representatives to class for presentations
current trends in curricula, and assesses the value of the Master’s Degree ascurrently implemented for the engineering practitioner.Background:The earliest mention of Master’s Degree dates to the thirteenth century, when Master’s Degreewas the top of three offered degrees: Scholar, Bachelor, and Master. At this time the Master’sDegree, also sometimes called Doctor or Professor, meant teacher. In the intervening yearsDoctor became the more common moniker for this degree.[1]There are currently three major types of engineering Master’s Degrees in the US: thesis, non-thesis with exit exam, and non-thesis course-based only. Statistics rarely show specificitybeyond the degree conferred.There were 40,650 Master’s Degrees awarded in engineering in the US
Michael G. Jenkins is chair and professor of Mechanical Engineering at University of Detroit Mercy where is specializes in materials, mechanics of materials, machine design and reliability/probability. He has been involved in pedagogy in higher education for the past 15 years and test engineering and R&D activities for the past 25 years. His post PhD positions include 12 years at University of Washington in Seattle, 5 years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and 1 year as a postdoctoral invited researcher at the University of Tokyo. Prior to his PhD he worked at PACCAR Technical Center for 2.5 years. He has authored or co-authored over 75 archival publications, over 100 proceedings
)program. This paper reviews development, implementation, and maintenance phases ofthe balance scorecard. Guidelines and lessons learned throughout these processes arepresented. The process of selecting a software program to help maintain the balancescorecard is discussed.IntroductionBalanced scorecard was first introduced in the early 1990s by Dr. Robert Kaplan ofHarvard Business School and Dr. David Norton, a president of a Massachusetts consultingfirm. Balanced scorecard is a tool that “translates an organization's mission and strategyinto a comprehensive set of performance measures that provides the framework for astrategic measurement and management system”.1 The balanced scorecard has replacedthe traditional performance measurements that
• recruitment • undergrad research • preparation for grad school • admissions evaluator training • financial aid • community building • mentoringIn Table I below, we list these areas and the stakeholders who can best support each one of them.While progress in achieving diversity at the graduate level continues to be made, true diversitywill only be achieved by each of these groups continuing their efforts and sharing theirknowledge. Table 1: Summary of Key Strategies and Stakeholder Responsibility Adminis- Faculty Diversity Govern- Professional Corporate Student Students trators Program ment Societies / Sponsors Groups
of graduate studies impacting practicing professionals, project management issues,and job search issues.1. IntroductionIt can be said that, from many aspects, the best time for an engineering student to obtaintheir Ph.D. is after a period of working in industry. By the time one completes five toseven years of higher education, students can be “burned out” and otherwise not ready forthe rigor of a Doctoral Degree. By breaking at this point and working in industry for afew years, students can obtain a better understanding of the practice of engineering thancan be obtained from the classroom and co-operative (co-op) or internship experience.Furthermore, they can better understand exactly what area of engineering they wish topursue in their
, Negotiating the Ideal Faculty Position. The workshops at RiceUniversity are funded through a National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE institutionaltransformation grant. At each of these workshops, a national invitation was extended and 350-730 women responded with applications. This level of response clearly demonstrates the interestin the topic and, at the same time, the lack of information available to women in their localinstitutions.One to three follow-up surveys have been completed by the workshop participants. Thelongitudinal data show that these workshops have had a strong impact on the participants’ careerpaths, with a high percentage pursuing (and succeeding in) academic careers.The workshops have three goals: 1. To provide critical
discussed. Our data are obtained from a survey ofcurrent and former EGSMs. We conclude by describing how both the formal professionaldevelopment sessions and the on-the-job training and experiences helped to prepare alumni ofthe EGSM program for their careers in both industrial and academic settings.1. IntroductionGraduate students carry out a significant portion of the teaching activities in many engineeringcolleges within large research institutions. In order to maintain a high quality of teaching, and toprovide opportunities for graduate students to grow as teachers, the University of MichiganCollege of Engineering pays special attention to the training of GSIs. The Center for Research onLearning and Teaching (CRLT) administers a day-long
community, we have recognized the benefit ofpartnering with various campus organizations. These partnerships enable us to have a broadimpact relative to our group size. In order to build and retain a substantial membership base, wehave attempted to identify and focus on those program areas that appeal to a large audience inthe engineering community. The topics are selected to fill needs and supplement engineeringeducation provided by departments within the college. A discussion on future initiatives focusedon increasing and maintaining interest in our student chapter is presented.PART 1: Where We Have Been – History of the ASEE Student ChapterThe ASEE student chapter was formed to provide an interdisciplinary organization for graduatestudents of
, sample 10 minute lecture, open-ended project and/or design activity, andhourly exam. In addition students develop teaching philosophy and teaching interest statementsto help define themselves as teachers and for possible future job searches. One of the mostsuccessful initiatives in this highly interactive course has been the implementation of “teachingpartners,” who support each other through the process, providing feedback on all materialsdeveloped. In this paper, I describe this course and provide suggestions for faculty consideringteaching such courses themselves.Course historyThis course had its origins in my participation in the National Effective Teaching Institute, runby Profs. Richard Felder and Jim Stice in 1994 1. This was an excellent
assistance of the engineeringdepartment’s industrial advisory board and posted on the internet. Seventy on-lineresponses were obtained, along with sixteen paper copies. Employees of companies suchas International Truck & Engine, Raytheon, UnderSea Sensors Inc., ITTAerospace/Communications Division returned most of the surveys. The results aresummarized in Table 1. Table 1. Results of industry surveys. B.S. Computer Engineering 6% B.S. Electrical Engineering 27% Degree obtained B.S. Mechanical Engineering 29% B.A./B.S. Computer Science 20
arguments supporting that perception. She notesthat the structure of knowledge and appropriate strategies for conveying that knowledge varyconsiderably from one discipline to another, and suggests that development programs forgraduate students (and faculty) are best presented in a disciplinary context. A number ofengineering schools have published descriptions of their graduate student training programs. Theprogram topics fall into two somewhat overlapping categories: (1) common TA responsibilities,such as grading and assisting in laboratories2 and (2) teaching.2–10 The most effective discipline-specific TA training program we know of is one that hasbeen conducted for many years in the College of Engineering at Cornell University.2 Training
, ordecisions based on their own experience as students” resulting in teaching practices which are“often disconnected from the literature base in education.”1 The National Science Foundationfunded project described in this paper seeks to develop theoretically-grounded instruments thatprovide pedagogical feedback to graduate teaching assistants about the quality of theirinstruction. This project began with the testing of a modified portion of the VaNTH ObservationSystem (VOS)5-11. The VaNTH Engineering Research Center (an acronym based on the names ofthe member institutions: Vanderbilt University, Northwestern University, University of Texas atAustin, and the Harvard/Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Science andTechnology
thisanalysis were: 1. What percentage of all faculty openings is interdisciplinary? 2. Are there more interdisciplinary faculty openings at doctoral institutions than at other types of institutions? 3. Are there more interdisciplinary faculty openings in engineering than in science or humanities and social sciences? 4. Are there more interdisciplinary faculty openings at senior rank than at junior rank? 5. Does motivation for interdisciplinary hiring come from the institutional level? In other words, do institutions with many science and engineering interdisciplinary openings also have many social science and humanities interdisciplinary positions?To address these, we built a database of academic job postings appearing on
assessment.Assessment questions we would like to answer in these first few years of the project are: 1. How does the Graduate Teaching Fellow workload and level of responsibility compare to other departments? 2. Are Graduate Teaching Fellows receiving appropriate training and mentoring for their teaching activities? 3. What is the effect on other teaching assistants of interaction with elite Graduate Teaching Fellows?The role that Graduate Teaching Fellows (GTFs) and other graduate teaching assistants play inthis first-year program is called workshop leaders. There is little difference in the way GTFs andother workshop leaders are treated, other than being assigned fewer sections. Because of this,and the interest in interactional effects
experienceto date.1. Introduction:Graduate Program Assessment is a fairly new academic process. Objectives and desiredoutcomes for the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) program at the University ofOklahoma (OU) are well established and were published earlier [1]. Strategic and tactical actionplans have been put in place to affect assessment of the Program. Instruments are in place forgathering ‘Outcomes’ data while students remain on this campus. Quantifiable interpretation ofdata from these instruments as strong, independent metrics of the program's success has yet to beaccomplished. To date, primary focus has been on assessing progress of Thesis- andDissertation-producing students. Positive trends on quantitative data are impacted by
regulations are someof the concerns faced by international students. Due to various rules and regulations encounteredby students combined with India and China becoming the fastest growing nations, high calibercompetitive students are decreasing in spite of an increase in students coming to the U.S. topursue advanced degrees. The number of international students studying at U.S. universities hasgrown significantly during the past 50 years, from 49,000 students in 1950s to about 583,000students in 20071. After September 11th, the growth rate of recruiting international students wasreduced by approximately 1% in 2002 and due to more stringent security measures implemented
students who are engaged inthematically intertwined research projects but who belong to diverse engineering programs andrelated programs in life sciences and physical sciences. All doctoral students must learn how todisseminate their research and learn from the research of others. However these challenges areamplified by the major differences in knowledge base, terminology, and culture that exist in theincreasingly multi-disciplinary and cross-functional contexts of engineering in the 21st century.We are exploring how our forum for research interchange, developed as a core activity forresearch fellowship recipients of an Integrative Graduate Education Research and Training(IGERT) grant from National Science Foundation[1], can contribute towards