examining the DI itself and documenting the changes over time, we find that: 1) lack ofwriting is a symptom of other challenges in pursuing the doctoral degree, and 2) a balance ofwriting time and professional development is needed to support students. Although heavilygrounded in research data (e.g., comparative analysis of quantitative and qualitative datagathered in each of the prior Dis), herein we describe the evolving design of the DI and lessonslearned to date.IntroductionData show that underrepresented minority (URM) engineering students have lower rates ofcompletion and higher rates of attrition in their doctoral studies than their majority peers [1].Previous research has argued that this higher attrition rate is caused by motivational
withthree components: 1) hands-on training seminars, 2) communication challenges putting thetraining into practice on video and for audiences reflective of the professions discussed in theprogram, and 3) mentorship by a non-program institutional STEM alumnus/a. This paper will present the program design and research results from the first year. Usinga mixed methods approach, we sought to examine the extent to which graduate students’perceptions of communication confidence and awareness of STEM career opportunitiesimproved over the course of the program. We also aimed to measure their communication skillsto different audiences and obtain feedback on the most impactful program components. Dataincluded pre/post-surveys, focus groups, and
, mathematics, andengineering, with 1,201 responses being complete. Using these 1,201 responses, descriptive andbi-variant statistics were performed and reported with regards to the research question.The anticipated results included how, if at all, the three concepts of self-sufficiency, sense ofbelonging, and social self-efficacy vary among different graduate student demographics, and ifthese demographics have an impact on the prevalence of mental health problems. The hope is thatSEM graduate students, faculty, and staff can use these results to influence individual andprogrammatic changes to improve SEM graduate student mental health.IntroductionAttention to mental health in young adults has increased over the years [1]. With enrollmentincreasing 28
ePortfolio. IntroductionThe utility of the singular disciplinary approach in higher education is dwindling, as solutions fortoday’s most complex problems often require multidisciplinary and interdisciplinaryperspectives. For instance, trends within the materials science and engineering fields suggest thatmaterials development is slow to offer viable solutions for the practical needs of advancingtechnology [1]. To address these concerns, the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI), announcedby the White House in 2011, recommended an interdisciplinary approach in engineeringeducation by employing an informatics framework to further enhance materials discovery anddevelopment [1]. While such initiatives provide
-centered strategies for promoting, supportive, diverse environments in graduate education Colleen E. Bronner, Alin Wakefield, Kara Maloney University of California, Davis Jean VanderGheynst University of Massachusetts, DartmouthIntroductionCurrent STEM graduate education is not meeting the needs of all students. In the 2018 GraduateSTEM Education for the 21st Century report, educational leaders call for transformation of thecurrent STEM graduate education to a system that is 1) student-centered, 2) provides diverse,equitable, and inclusive environments; 3) supports graduate student mental
Significant Achievement by an Individual from the US Distance Learning Association, and a national Emmy for a documentary he both wrote and produced.Mr. Chris Hoehn-Saric, Shorelight EducationJanet Donghee KangDr. Katherine Newman c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Synchronous Cohort-Based International EducationAbstractMany universities are striving to reach a broader audience of students by expanding into the inter-national market, especially for graduate degree programs. The two dominant types of educationalofferings to international students are (1) online degree programs or (2) establishment of an interna-tional branch campus. Both approaches present significant challenges
half a century meant that we were able to startwith a blank slate in our quest to reinvent the DEng. We could creatively consider those aspectsof the traditional PhD education we wished to preserve, and identify those that we wanted tojettison.We began with what we consider the heart of doctoral education: mentored, original research.That, we knew we must keep. Then we asked ourselves: What can we change? What are ourconstraints?Item 1, Residency1. We understood that we cannot expect our students to reside near campus.They could be anywhere in the world. If they are nonresident, will they have access to thefacilities they need to do their work?Item 2, Time Commitment. A master’s degree can be tackled in the evenings and on weekends.The
describes the outcomes of a successful program development and approvalprocess and the planned phasing of its implementation. The development team treated the1 Corresponding Author: M. Dyrenfurth, mdyrenfu@purdue.eduexisting program approval mechanisms, as found in most universities and states, as a staged-gate approval process. This necessitated the development of (1) a conceptual proposal, (2) acompetitive analysis, (3) a detailed program plan, (4) an implementation plan, and (5) aformal proposal with supporting data as required by the state coordinating body for highereducation.The program that evolved from this process was an industry-facing, distance/on-campus-hybrid professional doctoral program permitting extensive tailoring of the
identify and coordinatecourse offerings comprising the management and organizational leadership portion of the programcurriculum. Details of the curriculum are discussed further in the next section. A summary ofgraduates can be found in Figure 1. Numbers heavily rely on marketing and recruitment efforts.Program directors have changed over the years which may affect graduation rates. Also enrollmentis affected by industry and the job market. Those reaching a stall in their career may decide toreturn to school in order to open more opportunities. Doctor of Engineering Graduate History 8 7 Number of Graduates 6 5
American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Transition Zone: a training ethos designed to scaffold a PhD degreeAbstractThe Transition Zone is our bespoke training programme to support transitions throughdifferent stages in a researcher’s career: (1) into doctoral studies as a high performingresearcher, (2) through doctoral studies to make the most out of their doctorate and associatedtraining and, (3) on exiting, to empower and equip them as highly employable graduates. Thispaper focuses on the first (i.e. ‘Transition In’) and the second transitions (i.e. ‘TransitionThrough’). The purpose of this paper is to offer a programme evaluation of these twotransitions in order to assess whether the
program assessment plan includescourse-level and program-level assessment components [1] while the short-term plans usuallyinclude assessment of limited number of program outcomes at the course level; the long-termplans include assessment of all program outcomes over the course of multiple semesters andyears.To ensure continuous improvement, many engineering educators incorporated assessment plansand approaches into their courses. Assessing student learning at the course level has beencommonly studied and reported on. Many faculty employ formative and summative assessmenttechniques in course assessment. A formative classroom assessment technique [2] example hasbeen developed and incorporated to achieve ongoing course assessment for the
. Figure 1 summarizes this organizational structure. Successfulcompletion of a set of proficiencies implies successful completion of the aligned outcome.Learning activities are then aligned to one or more proficiencies within the settings of courses orother learning opportunities. Therefore, a well-designed program will have explicit alignment inboth directions, from learning activities to all levels of proficiencies to outcomes to programgoals.Figure 1. Organizational structure of generic program goal, outcome, and proficiency levels.Constructive Alignment in Interdisciplinary Graduate CurriculaThe authors found very few studies examining design of graduate curricula that applied theunderstanding by design framework developed by Wiggins and
design a curriculum and guides them through the process of developing a course in their field. • ENE 685 Engineering Education Methods (3 credit hours), provides students with a variety of techniques for teaching courses that are both engaging and effective. • ENE 687 Mentored Teaching in Engineering (1 credit hour), enables students to deepen their understanding of teaching and learning through feedback and reflection as they perform their regularly assigned teaching duties. • ENE 695 Succeeding as an Engineering Professor (3 credit hours), covers other skills valuable to faculty members such as writing proposals, selecting and mentoring graduate students, and managing projects.All four courses
graduate school, be it degree deliverables or requirements topublish, and engineering students are entering graduate school underprepared for these writingtasks. Beyond the writing demands of the graduate program, it has been shown that writing skillsare critical in both industrial and academic careers [1, 2]. But engineering graduate students rarelytalk to their advisor about the writing process and many have not taken a writing intensive coursewithin the last two years [3]. Students procrastinate on writing assignments, either because of anunfamiliarity with the writing process or by sheer aversion to writing, and this procrastinationbecomes a major source of anxiety [4, 5]. Writing is a critical skill for engineering graduatestudents and
groupsin STEM graduate degree programs was a limitation for this study, but it also pointed to animportant gap in the literature, which must be addressed in order to create effective interventionsthat broaden participation in STEM graduate studies and furthermore in the STEM ecosystem.Introduction and Literature ReviewAlthough there has been a slow increase of research aimed at understanding URM graduateretention, researchers have made great strides in understanding the factors that influenceeducational attainment for URM STEM undergraduates. Early exposure to STEM is one of theprimary predictors of interest in STEM for undergraduate minorities [1]. The transition fromhigh school to college and students’ adjustment to the college educational
skills. These five ontological aspects were defined andoperationalized for use in the assessment, for which assessment questions can be written as anext step. This paper adds to the limited literature on engineering Ph.D. students’ researchexperiences by presenting the process of selecting and applying a theoretical framework,literature review, and defining measurements in an assessment.Tags: graduate students, assessment, research experiences, professional practice, theoreticalframework1 IntroductionFor several decades the National Academies [1-4] have raised serious concerns over thepreparedness of engineering Ph.D. students for professional practice, especially with translatingtheir knowledge to impact in practice [1]. More recently, ASEE
fulfillment of their graduate degree. In this work, we describe thedevelopment and characteristics of the worksheets and report some preliminary results of a studydesigned to assess their perceived impact and usefulness from a student’s perspective.IntroductionThe abundance of literature on developing research questions ([1] – [3], to name a few) concur:there are grand ideas, good ideas, and doable ideas. In the case of executing a research project,being able to recognize these differences is essential to moving the project from planning to datacollection to analysis, and finally, to implementation [4]. However, developing researchquestions is a skill that many graduate students lack. Most graduate students do not haveextensive experience in research
experience of the new doctoral students and postdoctoralresearchers. Given the high attrition rates in graduate education, the retreat was also designed tofoster retention by integrating attributes of the Workforce Sustainability model.The retreat was framed around four objectives: (1) build community, (2) communicate groupnorms and expectations, (3) develop individual strategic plans, (4) and introduce research skills.The retreat encouraged individual and collective reflection on goals, deliverables, andexpectations. The experience was guided by the notion of beginning with the end in mind and, inthis case, meant aligning individual professional development plans with that individual’s long-term career goals and vision of the research group. The
readings, an online discussion board, seminar-style discussions during classmeeting times and a semester-long research project. The paper explains the context for thiscourse, its role in NDSU’s graduate programs and the factors that led to course creation. Thetypes of content that were included are discussed and the discussion board questions andresources are included as an appendix.1. IntroductionIn the Fall 2019 semester, North Dakota State University (NDSU) launched a new graduate-levelresearch methods course focused on cybersecurity. This course is a part of the North DakotaState University’s graduate certificate in cybersecurity as well as a key component of M.S. andPh.D. programs in cybersecurity that are under development. The development
have all spoken to the critical need to cultivate an engineering workforce thatrepresents our entire national population [1-4] By investing in building a robust community ofengineers, a school can reap the educational benefits that result from a diverse student body inhigher education, where student interactions with those who are different contribute tointellectual self-confidence, engagement, complex thinking, motivation to understand theperspectives of others, citizenship, and motivation to achieve [5-11] These benefits have beenshown to translate into the workplace, where diverse teams have been proven to be better able totackle today’s complex societal challenges [12-18].To this end, the School sought to dramatically grow the PhD student
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.Dr. Diane L. Peters, Kettering University Dr. Peters is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Kettering University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Engineering Industry Perspectives and Policies Related to Employees’ Pursuit of Engineering Doctoral TrainingI. IntroductionSupporting multiple pathways through engineering education, including at the graduate level, is acommonly cited priority in conversations about the future of engineering [1], [2]. Similarly,increasing the
, this declaration of need does not answer thequestion of how. One possible direction focuses on improving the field relevant, but non-technical skills that help engineers as professionals. The authors of this paper have recentlycompleted the first round of a pilot program that professionally develops graduate engineeringstudents [1]. As a part of the program, students compare self-given competency ratings to thosefrom select peers and their academic advisor. This multi-source feedback (MSF) approach todevelopment gives participants a glimpse of their professional reputation from different angles.After all rater’s submit their feedback, ratees meet with their advisors and create a developmentplan based on these results. Equipped with multi
similar results. Through this paper, the authors share best practices andlessons learned as well as a blueprint for any institution looking to go through a similar process.Suggestions are made as to how instructors might leverage the digital assets created through thisprocess to benefit their on-ground students.I. IntroductionThe landscape of course offerings in higher education has shifted greatly within the past decade.One of the greatest changes has been the evolution of online courses. In fall 2015, 29.7% of allhigher education students were taking at least one distance education course [1]. Over the pastfew years, online education enrollments have been increasing at a rate that exceeds the growth ofenrollments in higher education overall
information, data and science literacy skills that will allow them to succeed in a global economy. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018Implementing a Graduate Class in Research Data Management for Science/Engineering StudentsIntroduction: Research data management (RDM) is an integral part of engineering and science graduatestudent life, both during graduate school and in their future occupations. Federal agencies,including NSF[1], NIH[2], and USGS[3], are now requiring the submission of a DataManagement Plan (DMP) when submitting proposals for funding. Carlson et al. further advocatefor RDM by stating “… it is not simply enough to teach students about handling data, they mustknow
a Masters degreein Data Science in 2014. This is a two-year program covering courses in rigorous Math andprogramming, as well as courses entailing soft skills such as visual storytelling and consultingskills.One of the challenges for faculty on the admission committee in the past few years has beenselecting the best criteria for student admission. Typically, in engineering disciplines theadmission decision is based on students’ performance on courses such as calculus, physics andpre-engineering topics [1]. However, due to the nature of Data Science field the applicants comefrom very diverse undergraduate programs. For instance, some of our top graduating students hadan undergraduate degree in Creative Writing or Healthcare. We have
that help emerging scholars become capable, critical, andgenerous readers of published disciplinary scholarship. Specifically, we note the potentialimportance of considering the synergy between individual and group contributions, the balancebetween seriousness and lightheartedness, and the need for both opportunities to learn andopportunities to be aware of learning.IntroductionReading published scholarly work is a central activity in academic life. Further, readingpublished scholarly work is a challenge [1], [2], [3]. Such challenges are further exacerbated infields characterized by flux in what is acceptable methodologically, epistemologically, anddiscursively [4], [5]. Such flux is common in interdisciplinary contexts. While approaches
schools in the US [1]. For example, the University of Marylandhas a “Future Faculty Program” in their College of Engineering that requires programparticipants to enroll in three one-credit hour training courses, co-teach a course with a facultymentor and also mentor a less-experienced undergraduate or graduate student. The programcurrently has 25 students enrolled in the program, though students in Computer Science canparticipate as well [2].Another offering available to graduate students is the Georgia Tech “Tech to Teaching” program.Here, students can complete two levels of training: Level 1: Foundations of Teaching andLearning and Level 2: Teaching Capstone. The Level 1 training requires students to complete10 foundational learning outcomes
facilitate, throughmetadiscursive support, the socialization of international students in the University ofMississippi graduate engineering programs into written discursive practices of theircommunities.Theoretical BackgroundCentral to this discursive challenge that many international graduate students face upon entranceinto graduate programs is the notion that students must be socialized, or enculturated, into theoral and written discourse of their respective discourse community. This idea of discoursesocialization is cleverly viewed by Casanave [1] as a set of “writing games” for which studentsmust learn the rules—or learn how to adapt the rules—in order to participate in their discoursecommunities. Too often it is assumed and expected that
development for STEM graduate students, the Council ofGraduate studies recommended, “Greater alignment among employers and universities to ensurethat the professional development experiences provided to advanced STEM graduate students arerelevant, and where possible tailored, to employer needs.”1 They also recommended greaterpartnerships between STEM graduate programs and employers to better prepare students whowere going into non-academic careers, and that professional development complement thestudents’ academic coursework.1 Professional Science Master’s (PSM) degree programs werestarted in the late 1990’s to meet industry’s demand for STEM graduates who also had businessprofessional skills.2The Master of Science in Professional Science (MSPS
from their competitors and prospective studentsenjoy increased access to information about various programs. Armed with this data, prospectivestudents can identify, apply to and enroll in the program that best supports their specific careergoals.Background Graduate programs in the U.S. play an important role in advancing their graduates’ careergoals. In the last 30 years, overall enrollment in graduate programs has continued to increase at arate higher than undergraduate degree enrollment, with individuals obtaining their master’sdegrees increasing 240% between 1985 and 2013 [1]. However, in the 10-year period ending in2013, obtaining a master’s degree became a “less popular” option for students. A strong U.S. andglobal economy provides