Engineering GSIs (Fall 2007) (a) EGSM respondents (graduate students only) (b)Figure 2. Comparison of Career Choices considered by (a) Fall 2007 CoE GSIs and (b) Fall 2007 graduatestudents who have participated in the EGSM program5.3.2 Responses of Former Mentors in AcademiaLecturers or tenured/tenure-track faculty respondents also indicated that the EGSM programinfluenced their teaching practices. One faculty member said, “My time as [an EGSM] was theonly time as a graduate student when I could discuss teaching
intersecting theories that lend themselves well to strategies for the “careand keeping” of graduate students. By considering the processes and mechanisms by whichgraduate students develop, faculty members can reform or revise their leadership practices(formally and informally) to better meet the needs of graduate students at various stages in theiracademic careers. Although these theories may seem disparate, they intersect and overlap in anacademic research group context. As we lead the attendees of this interactive panel workshopthrough the following activities, we ask them to reflect on how these theories impact how theymake decisions for their research group and how theory-guided decisions might help themimprove or plan for effective and productive
-Serving Institutions (MSIs) overall and support continued educational innovation within engineering at these in- stitutions. Specifically, she focuses on (1) educational and professional development of graduate students and faculty, (2) critical transitions in education and career pathways, and (3) design as central to educa- tional and global change. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Graduate Student Perceptions of an Ideal Mentor in Engineering and Computing at a Minority Serving Institution: Preliminary ResultsAbstractReports from the National Academies and Council of Graduate Schools suggest that
design and entrepreneurship courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Her work is often cross-disciplinary, collaborating with colleagues from engineering, education, psychology, and industrial design.Dr. Diane L Peters, Kettering University Diane Peters is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Kettering University in Flint, MI. Her engineering education research focuses on the interaction between industry and academia.Prof. Steve Skerlos, University of Michigan Professor Steven J. Skerlos is Arthur F. Thurnau Professor at the University of Michigan. He is a tenured faculty member in Mechanical Engineering and Civil and Environmental Engineering. He also serves as a UM Distinguished Faculty
, “Employers Rate Career Competencies, New Hire Proficiency,” December 11, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/employers-rate-career-competencies- new-hire-proficiency/. [Accessed February 3, 2019].[15] W. Hsin and J. Cigas, “Short Videos Improve Student Learning in Online Education,” Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 253–259, 2013.[16] L. Hurtubise, B. Martin, A. Gilliland, and J. Mahan, “To Play or Not To Play: Leveraging Video in Medical Education,” Journal of Graduate Medical Education, vol. 5 no. 1, pp. 13– 18, 2013.[17] R. H. Kay, “Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive review of the literature,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 28
from data analysis: To transition from their current career path into an academic career path; To change the focus of their industrial career into a new specialty area; To advance further along their current career path.In this paper, we discuss these categories and the students who chose those paths. We alsoaddress the implications for graduate schools regarding the recruitment and support ofreturning students.IntroductionReturners are those with undergraduate degrees who work outside of academia for at least fiveyears and come back to the academic setting to earn a graduate degree. However, little researchexists on this group, and in STEM fields especially, to shed light on the reasons why they makethe decision to return
visitors to the site with a unique opportunity to engage thematerial for quick answers to vexing questions or to learn essential and advanced skills that maybe used now and throughout the entirety of their careers. Page 23.427.2IntroductionProjects in the interdisciplinary CareerWISE research program, supported by the NationalScience Foundation, have two goals: (1) to better understand and explain the interplay betweenthe person and environmental conditions that affects attrition amongst students enrolled inengineering and sciences graduate programs, and (2) to strengthen personal and interpersonalskills identified as significant in assisting women
program.The program relies mainly on faculty research funds to employ graduate students. Recruitinggraduate students to partner with faculty on research is an essential part of developing newleaders in the field and maintaining a high quality BME PhD program. Excellent students notonly assist with current faculty projects, but are also producers of their own innovative research,which they carry with them into their careers post-graduation. To this end, the department seeksto recruit a diverse group of students from leading undergraduate engineering institutions eachadmission cycle.Historically, the UT Austin BME PhD program has not enrolled as many students as desiredfrom certain student populations. While the program has been successful enrolling a
overall identity in the community of practice of graduate school. This work contributesto the limited number of studies on engineering doctoral students’ identity, and may haveimplications for persistence and representation amongst engineering doctoral students.Introduction Doctoral students develop multiple role identities as they enter the community of practiceof academia through their graduate school experience [2]. Identity is the “kind of person” one is,derived from one’s performance in social contexts, rather than from one’s internal state [6]. Arole identity, specifically, is how an individual relates to the characteristics and expectationsassociated with a role or position they are enacting [7]–[9]. For example, how an
. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking the case study. The Sociological Review, 39(1), 88-112.25. Padula, M. A. and Miller, D. L. (1999) Understanding graduate women’s reentry experiences: Case studies of four psychology doctoral students in a midwestern university. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 327-343.26. Mills, N. L., & McCright, P. R. (1993). Choosing the Ph. D. Path: A Multi-Criteria Model for Career Decisions. Journal of Engineering Education, 82(2), 109-117.27. Countryman, K. (2006). A comparison of adult learners' academic, social, and environmental needs as perceived by adult learners and faculty.(Doctoral dissertation).28. Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective
countries,such as Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) system in India. The objectives of the internationalREU program were similar in that undergraduate students from international institutions getimmersed in the university research environment, so they consider the graduate school option.The REU Program for National Students. The program coordinator emailed flyers to facultyat different supporting universities or travelled to various universities within driving distance topersonally recruit students. Utilizing an online application process, the program coordinator andseveral faculty members selected and matched top applicants with faculty members who sharemutual areas of interests in aerospace engineering. This meant that not one single
purposes other than matching yourpre- and post-experience responses. MENTORINGMentoring is an important aspect of an undergraduate research experience. A mentoring encounter is defined as anopportunity for you to interact with an individual (e.g., faculty member, post-doctoral or graduate student, staffmember, another student) who helps to guide you through your research experience. Mentoring encounters couldoccur on an individual basis (i.e., you and one person) or they may occur in group settings (e.g., weekly laboratorymeeting, group research team meeting). The questions in the next section explore your mentoring experiences inrelation to your summer research experience.1. Who do you consider
another endorsement of the ‘you’ve done goodthings.’” He hopes there is more freedom to work and less administrative duties involved in hisnew job after he earns his Ph.D. in comparison to the military lab.KristenSituating the CaseTaking the advice of an engineering faculty member, Kristen joined a non-profit organizationafter graduation for the summer to investigate cookstoves for developing countries. She met herhusband there, and they decided to spend the next few years fulfilling their humanitarian sense ofduty. Kristen was a pre-school teacher, worked with special needs children and adults, and re-joined the non-profit organization as a laboratory manager. She created test protocols, wrotereports, and traveled to developing countries. After
well [laughter].” Other challenges encountered by mentors included: the mentor did not know much aboutthe student’s project, differential goals between the mentor and student, different preferences forwork time (early vs late in the day), communication, and having enough of a “heads-up” aboutgetting an REU student. This last challenge may be a factor of lack of communication betweenthe mentor and the supervising faculty member, as all faculty members were provided withinformation about their REU student prior to the start of the program.Discussion The purpose of the current study was two-fold: 1) to explore the ways in which graduatestudent mentors approach mentoring REU students; and 2) to study the impact of the
students in these results shared that there was an extreme difference inwhat they expected of their graduate endeavors and what they actually experienced, whichtranslated into them feeling alone and exiled [13]. Isolation or exclusion is one of the primefactors for a decrease in retention of URM students [19]. Others acknowledged the impact thatthese issues had on their ability to function as a normal member of STEM society. Thealienation from faculty and peers often resulted in a lack of confidence and comfort withcommunicating in order to gain understanding, attend meetings, request help, or even participate[19][12]. Due to a lack of STEM faculty and peers that represent similar life narratives andcultural norms [18], many minoritized students
research partnerships [1]. In support of this overall goal, the followingobjectives are addressed: 1. To provide underrepresented and financially needy undergraduate students with information on the benefits and opportunities associated with graduate education 2. To provide underrepresented and financially needy undergraduate students with enhanced financial support and career experiences to improve the likelihood of completing both a B.S. and an M.S. in engineering 3. To provide personalized integrated industry and academic mentoring and professional development that results in increased enrollment and completion of graduate engineering degrees involving industry beneficial research 4. To increase
first cohort of doctoral students participating in thepilot program.Training ModelTraining in professional or “soft” skills, although not new in graduate education, is commonlydone on an ad hoc basis, as a ‘bolt on’ to a student’s program of study. Further, professional skillstraining is often targeted towards career placement and generally offered to students who areadvanced in their graduate studies. While there has no doubt been some success in following thisimplicit approach, we sought to explore how a more explicit approach might better serve STEMgraduate students.The innovative model (see Figure 2) piloted through the GS LEAD program challenges thatparadigm by positioning critical professional skills development [15], [13], [5] at the
faculty members' understanding ofissues of diversity. Other programs deal with diversity during a sequence of courses onimproving teaching skills and succeeding in an academic career60. Many of these professionaldevelopment programs have been established as part of a national "Preparing Future Faculty"initiative61 to provide graduate students with multiple mentors in addition to the research advisorand to improve their preparation for all aspects of an academic career, not just research. Moreand more programs to improve faculty understanding of issues in engineering education,including diversity, are also being established. For example, Scales et al.62 describe an initiativeto set up study groups of engineering faculty at Virginia Tech to explore
the Capstone Project Capstone Project Proposal Duration 8 Weeks Formal Presentation Duration 4 WeeksProject Sponsor Advisor Instructor Figure 1 – Two Phases of the Capstone Project Courses FrameworkThe course outline for Part A clearly lays out the details for both parts of the capstone includingthe presentations to be made at the end of each part by all members of a student team.Teams also select a Faculty Advisor during Part A. The Advisor is Subject Matte Expert (SME)in the field. The Advisor can be any one of the
engineering doctoral program to develop at a record pace.Since its inception, the program has grown and prospered. Current enrollment is approximately30 PhD students with two to three students graduating per year. The research productivity of thefaculty members has grown over time along with their connections to local industry. One of thechallenges in being the first doctoral program in the College of Engineering is that the otherdepartments were not as capable of supporting the same level of research and some of theadministrative processes in the university needed to be revised and expanded to support doctoralresearch. For example, an ECE doctoral program will often leverage faculty members andresearch in Physics and Computer Science. At the start
graduate students to post-doctoral staff. Of the workshops offered,three of them—“Designing and Delivering Oral Presentations,” “Doing a 3-Minute ResearchTalk,” and “Designing and Giving a Poster Presentation”—require live presentations of thestudents’ research before an audience of fellow workshop participants. These presentations arefilmed, and students can later access electronic files to review their performance and compare itto the written and oral feedback they receive from fellow students and the instructor.Students receive a list of guidelines for their talk in advance. These guidelines, condensed intoan oral presentation rubric in a table format, are given to audience members to completeanonymously while they are watching their classmates
laboratory.Cam felt well prepared after completing his doctoral program. Professors prepare their studentsfor careers in academia because it is what they know. Though some professors do haveexperience in industry. Cam entered the doctoral program with the goal of becoming aprofessor. His advisor and mentor helped him prepare for an academic career, but near the endof his program he realized that he did not want the pressures of academia. His graduate programgave him technical credibility to pursue other options. Page 25.860.13He stated, in general, universities do not prepare students well to work in teams, followenvironmental and safety regulations, or
in a meaningful way to create an enriching learning experience. Moreover,designing assessments that stretches students’ thought-process is critical to engineeringpedagogy. This is implemented in the course as structured threaded discussion forums, governedby instructors that provide thought-provoking guiding questions followed by peer discussion.This essay also explores the design and implementation of virtual laboratory sessionscomplementing the bi-weekly homework assignments and a final project. It describes theassessment design decisions, based on the overall course learning outcomes, taken to suit theonline learners. The aim of this essay is to inform, the community of asynchronous onlinecomputer engineering educators, of assessment
choose one graduate program overanother remains largely unexplored. Kallio (1995) identified factors for choosing a graduateprogram that appear similar to the criteria for selecting an undergraduate program – “academicreputation of the program, program quality and size, price/cost, financial aid, geographiclocation, contact with faculty, and a student’s individual characteristics such as academic abilityand achievement” [8]. Kallio also noted that graduate students differ from undergraduates in thatspouses, family and work considerations more heavily influence their graduate program choices. In the same research, Kallio asked graduate enrollees in the University of Michigan theirmotivations for choosing the school in a survey exploring 31
their career goals and how this degree was necessary to achieve them.Applicants would apply through an engineering department. Currently applicants apply directly tothe Doctor of Engineering in Engineering degree program. A minimum of one year of experienceis required, and an informal interview is conducted between the program director and the applicant.Additional elements to the application package include: a personal essay describing the applicant’scareer goals and interest in the Doctor of Engineering program, three letters of recommendation,resume, and transcripts. Two of the letters of recommendation must be from faculty at theinstitution who agree to serve on the student’s committee. It is important that students makeconnections and have
. Page 22.1714.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Writing Challenges for Graduate Students In Engineering and TechnologyAbstractGraduate education for most students is the move to deeper exploration of knowledge throughpersonal involvement, primarily through research and writing. By thesis or directed project,many graduate programs in engineering and technology incorporate substantial written research-based projects into the master’s level curriculum to prepare graduates for professional careers orfor further study at the doctoral level. Students in the engineering and technology fields faceseveral challenges in moving to written projects of
cybersecuritygraduate programs, instead of just having general skills [2]. Bocak, Liu and Murphy [2] proposethat cybersecurity graduate programs should incorporate specializations to provide these keyskills to students. Kumar [3] presents one such example: a graduate program in informationsecurity and analytics developed at Coastal Carolina University. Ardis and Mead [4], similarly,discuss the creation of a software assurance-focused graduate program.A wide variety of techniques have been proposed for cybersecurity education. Competitions [5],[6] are an area that has received significant attention. These include competitions where studentsconfigure and defend or defend pre-configured networks [7] as well as in-person [8] and online[9] ‘capture the flag’ style
Education, 2015 Recruitment Efficacy of a Summer Undergraduate Research Program: Impact on Graduate School Intent and SelectionIntroductionSuccessful recruitment of an inclusive student body is essential to enriching the quality ofgraduate programs1, 2. Therefore, universities implement multiple activities to recruit diversestudents for post-baccalaureate studies to their institutions. Some of the recruitment activitiesinclude offering informational meetings, campus tours, career fairs, summer research programs,and assistantships3 to prospective students.Poock3, who surveyed members of the National Association of Graduate AdmissionsProfessionals (NAGAP), found that NAGAP members “perceived only one of the twenty fiverecruitment
into academia from the workforce. They often have less recent experience withadvanced mathematics curriculum [11], have different work style preferences than their youngerpeers [12], and may be more likely to have significant family responsibilities like care forchildren or aging parents that make balancing their academic and personal commitments morechallenging [13], [14].Our team’s earlier research used Eccles’ Expectancy Value Theory (EVT) to explore the factorsthat might influence returning and direct-pathway students’ decisions to enroll and persist inengineering doctoral programs [7]. Expectancy-value theory suggests that individuals’achievement related choices are motivated by their expectations of success (or competencebeliefs) given a
tensionswithin the development of an engineering identity9. Engineering and technical communicationsresearchers also argue that a part of this success is that within such verbal-based activities,students are practicing the authentic engineering discourse needed to consider oneself “anengineer” 10.At the graduate level, some level of professional or academic identity has been achieved throughbachelor’s level education. However, the expectations for disciplinary socialization are muchstronger within the apprenticeship model of graduate education in the U.S. As graduate studentswork under a particular member of an academic discipline, they are able to participate fully inthe activities, the expertise, and the communication patterns of the discipline11,12