included writing code,designing software architecture, and teaching corporate education. His writing in industryincluded design documentation, test plans, proposals, standards documents, process documents,user documentation, and some business documentation. His audience for these documents wasgenerally his peers, and the documentation was intended to be informative, used for training andoccasionally for decision-making. He said that in his industry experience, “everyone assumesyou must already know how to write” because of being a university graduate. He also mentionedthat he modified his writing based on the audience, including their preferences for format, anddiscussed the issue of length and level of detail. In his experience, design documents
initiatives were launched at MIT. Onewas the Communication Lab, a departmental writing and technical communication center staffedby peer tutors (graduate students and postdoctoral researchers). Communication Labs have beenimplemented in four departments, including Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS).Another intervention was a graduate-level communication course, which the EECS Communica-tion Lab helped design and operate.The details of these two interventions are described in this section, followed by analysis and com-parison in Section 4. ASEE FIE Approach 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Total References Course 0 2
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
inquiry group consisted of the authors of this paper as co-researchers and co-subjects and is situated in our shared interest in graduate education andlearning. While we are at different stages of the doctoral program, we have the mutualexperience of completing the first year of the program at the same institution. We engaged in co-operative inquiry sessions, focused on learning within ourselves and with others, to make newmeaning from our experiences. Reflections during the formative first year of doctoral trainingwere explored as well as reflections and memos generated as part of the inquiry process.Through the co-operative inquiry process, this study offers insight into opportunities for peer-to-peer mentorship and learning enrichment in
finalized list of competencies is shown in Table 2 These competencies werebroadly similar to our initial list shown in Table 1, but combined some of the competenciestogether and reflects specific emphases in graduate engineering education.Behaviorally Anchored Rating ScaleWhile the competency model described above is the core structure of the assessment protocol,there is a distinct need to create a framework for students, advisors, and peers to provide morespecific, behavioral feedback. Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) were adopted in thecurrent study to rate performance. Typically, BARS are presented as a scale with several pointsand the rater chooses a level to indicate an individual’s current performance. One of the criticalaspects of
Paper ID #19042Energy Science and Engineering Graduate Education at Tokyo TechProf. Jeffrey Scott Cross, Tokyo Institute of Technology Jeffrey S. Cross received a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Iowa State University in 1992. He has worked in Japan at Fujitsu Lab Ltd., National Institute for Inorganics Materials, and at Tokyo Tech for over 20 years and is fluent in Japanese. Jeffrey is Prof. in the School of Environment and Society, Dept. of Transdisciplinarity Science and Engineering and graduate coordinate for the Energy Science and Engineering Major. He teaches online courses on academic writing and on education
priorities. Second, most students wanted toimprove their academic writing skills, but few took ownership to write on their own. This is notunusual for busy graduate students, however programs exist to assist graduate students withbecoming better academic writers so a decision was made to include such as effort. To that end,a graduate student writing consultant, one that has been trained in supporting graduate studentsin the writing process, has been brought in to conduct weekly writing sessions with cohort 2where various topics are discussed and writing is peer reviewed. Students are required to engagein both the learning community and writing community in the future. We will continue tooptimize the interdisciplinary graduate education program as we
needs in their areas.BackgroundCreating a wellness culture, connection, community, and professional sense of belonging arevital elements to all graduate students from the most well-adjusted and engaged to the mostdisenfranchised and fragile. Sense of belonging includes fit in the academic discipline, beingrespected and valued by peers, in the research group, by the faculty, and program representatives.Wellness initiatives not only lead to more engaged and productive students, the initiatives areassociated with increased retention and completion rates (Okahana, H., Allum, J., Felder, P.P., &Tull, R.G. 2016). Creating a thriving culture also enhances recruitment and increases enrollment.Mind, body, and spirit are integral to both health and
Paper ID #18996Applying to Graduate School in Engineering: 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
Professoriate, students are encouraged to thoughtfully andpurposefully engage with their peers through the course discussions. This is especially true in thelectures covering global perspectives in higher education. Since its inception, the course hasattracted students from a variety of backgrounds around the world. International students in thecourse are invited to present on the educational formats, standards, and requirements of the earlyeducation and higher education systems in their home country. These presentations evoke a richdialogue around differences and commonalities between education systems around the world.Throughout the semester, students are required to keep a weekly journal of their thoughts andexperiences throughout the course, blog
graduate education, online engineering cognition and learning, and engineer- ing communication.Dr. 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 learning. Luchini-Colbry is also the Director of the Engineering Futures
: Reflection on the design project 0.93 Element L: Presentation of designer’s recommendations 0.95 Element N: Writing like an Engineer 0.75 Average interrater reliability 0.90DiscussionApplication of the evaluation instrument to the artifacts demonstrated the validity of utilizing theEngineering Design Process Portfolio Scoring Rubric on design journals in a technology course.Using interrater reliability and the EDPPSR rubric will make future artifact analysis with thistool a valid research method. This reliability is demonstrated by the Cronbach’s alpha valuesachieved by the
is required) ⇧ Classes start in difficulty around senior-level electives in undergraduate, but may specialize based on professors’ interests ⇧ If not in class or doing research, time is spent studying with classmates; the community here is important to getting through ⇧ Likely dedicating 60+ hours a week balancing classes and research projects ⇧ Social life may suffer a bit, but doesn’t go away PhD ⇧ Most of your time (60+ hours per week) will revolve around your research (e.g., reading papers, gathering or analyzing data, writing papers/proposals) ⇧ Publications are a big part (conferences, journals, magazines