Paper ID #17326Understanding How the 4.0 Guaranteed Plan WorksDr. Mary R. Anderson-Rowland, Arizona State University Mary Anderson-Rowland, Arizona State University MARY R.ANDERSON-ROWLAND is the PI of an NSF STEP grant to work with five non-metropolitan community colleges to produce more engineers, especially female and underrepresented minority engineers. She also directs an Academic Success and Professional Development program, with an emphasis on transfer students. An Associate Professor in Computing, Informatics, and Systems Design Engineering, she was the Associate Dean of Student Affairs in the Ira A. Fulton Schools
Mechanical Engineering from Northwestern University in 1994, and a Master’s in Business Administration from Arizona State University in 2000.Anna Tanguma, Science Foundation Arizona Anna Tanguma brings 10 years of STEM strategic planning and program management experience in higher education environments and initiatives. Anna has a history of promoting and increasing enroll- ment in the programs she manages, as well as developing collaborative relationships with corporate and c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Paper ID #23780community members. Anna has provided successful direction to federally
Paper ID #34427Work in Progress: Building Career Goals and Boosting Self-efficacy inEngineering StudentsDr. Sonia M. Bartolomei-Suarez, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus Sonia M. Bartolomei-Suarez is a Professor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Puerto Rico Mayag¨uez (UPRM). She graduated with a BS in Industrial Engineering from UPRM (1983), a MSIE (1985) from Purdue University, and a PhD in Industrial Engineering (1996) from The Pennsylvania State University. Her teaching and research interests include: Discrete Event Simulation, Facilities Planning, Material Handling Systems, Women in Academia in
adepartmental diversity plan to build these insights into departmental practices and procedures.This paper will explore the process of developing the departmental initiatives and diversity plansas well as report on some initiatives and plans developed. The benefits and drawbacks of theapproach are discussed along with best practices identified to this point.IntroductionOf doctorate degrees granted in STEM disciplines in the U.S. for the past ten years, African-American and Hispanic/Latinx students make up only 2.7% and 3.3%, respectively [1]. After aSTEM student has been in a program for two years or more, the URM doctoral student attritionrate is nearly 50%, with completion rates varying by discipline and ethnicity [2]. In engineering,for example, the
Paper ID #33553Reflecting on 10 years of Centralized Engineering Student DiversityInitiatives (Experience)Ms. Lisa Trahan, University of California, San Diego Lisa Trahan joined UC San Diego’s IDEA Engineering Student Center in 2018 as Director of Strategic Initiatives and Assessment. Ms. Trahan leads planning and development of new student success initiatives and programs within the Center. She provides expertise to assess, improve, and evaluate the impact of the Center’s programs on student retention and success. Previously, Ms. Trahan was a Research and Evaluation Associate at The Lawrence Hall of Science, UC
. Kenneth A. Bright, University of Delaware, College of EngineeringDr. Rachel Davidson, University of Delaware Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering Associate Dean for Diversity, College of Engi- neering Core Faculty Member, Disaster Research Center University of Delaware Newark, DE c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Engineering (verb) Diversity: Using the Engineering Design Process to Develop and Implement a Strategic Plan of Action for Undergraduate Diversity at the Institution LevelJenni M. Buckley, PhD1; Amy Trauth-Nare, PhD2; Kenneth Bright, BA1; Michael Vaughan, PhD1; Rachel Davidson, PhD1 1
recruitmore female students to the STEM fields by showing them the emerging and multidisciplinaryaspects.Our collaboration with the local high school started in Fall 2014 by offering their students a year-long robotics workshop. Our objective is to utilize the robotics workshop to introduce STEMconcepts to high school students, and encourage them to be interested in an engineering andscience career. A sequence of workshop topics were given to introduce the fundamentals ofrobotics science and the basic components of a robotics system, including hardware, software,programming, sensors, and control. The students would gain intensive experience working withthe robots. In addition to introducing the fundamentals, we planned to prepare the students withthe
accounts of the racist history andfoundation of US engineering programs but rather focus our attention on what has been done, isbeing done, and should be done to undo racist anti-Black policies and practices within USengineering programs. For example, the graphic in Figure 2 provides concrete steps on how to become an anti-racist individual. Within higher education, DEI-focused strategic plans have been developed at institutionssuch as the University of California, Berkeley in 2009, MIT in 2010,the University of Michiganin 2016, the University of Toledo in 2016, the University of Wyoming in 2017, and theUniversity of Colorado, Boulder in 2019, to name a few [11]-[17]. Existing strategic plansinvolving DEI provided us with example templates
PlanThe activities of the ASEE Diveristy Committee have been guided by a communal vision andhave informed and been informed by (a) the task force charge in 2009, (b) initial plans developedby the committee in 2011-12, (c) and a formal strategic action plan developed in 2015-16. TheASEE statement on diversity and inclusion describes the Society’s vision as to create and foster environments where every individual is respected and no one feels marginalized. ASEE believes that this can be achieved by supporting the education, recruitment, retention, and advancement of these groups in engineering education, engineering technology education, and the engineering profession. While ASEE recognizes that steady gains have been
McNair Program, 17 of the 27 students indicated that they did intendto pursue graduate studies, and another seven were undecided. Only two students stated thatthey did not plan to pursue graduate studies after completing their baccalaureate degrees. Incomparison, the post-summer survey showed 17 students intending to pursue graduate studies,six undecided, and two not planning to do so. Even though the aggregate numbers of replies areconsistent, quite a few students changed their intentions, indicating that they were impacted bytheir participation in the McNair Program. Half of the students who were undecided before theprogram decided to pursue graduate studies. Conversely, three students who planned to pursuegraduate studies became undecided
University, and a PhD in Industrial Engineering (1996) from The Pennsylvania State University. Her teaching and research interests include: Discrete Event Simulation, Facilities Planning, Material Handling Systems, Women in Academia in STEM fields, Engineering in Education and Access to Post-Secondary Education. From August 2006 through February 2008, she was the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs of the College of Engineering. She was Co-Pi of the NSF’s UPRM ADVANCE IT Catalyst Project awarded during 2008. From 2008-2016, she was Co-PI of the USDE’s Puerto Rico Col- lege Access Challenge Grant Project. From 2015-2018, she was the Coordinator of the UPRM College of Engineering Recruitment, Retention and Distance
. Early respondents were offered a $5 Starbucks gift card for participating. Table 2. Outline of survey questions. Part Description # of Questions 1 Demographics (gender, race/ethnic background, age, etc.), family 13 background, and basic information about current educational activities 2a Undergraduate students only: Experiences during their civil, architectural, 45 or structural engineering education; memberships in student organizations, and future plans 2b Graduate students
questions about what they learned from the program, if the programchanged their goals/plans, and their satisfaction with the program. The pre-survey also gathereddemographic information and background academic information.Table 2: Questions from the pre-survey administered at the start of each summer program. Pre-Survey Question Question Type Participant identification (Student ID Number, Year, Faculty Text boxes and Lists Mentor) Participant background academic information (Major, GPA, etc.) Text boxes and Lists Participant demographic information (Gender, Race and Ethnicity) Select from lists Q: What interested you about this summer program? Open-ended comment Q
. These testimonials are anonymous to faculty mentors.Industry mentoring is the last component of our mentoring plan. The objective of the PSH’sIndustry Mentoring Program is to create a mutually beneficial connection between industrymentors and current STEM students at PSH1, especially with students near graduation. Typically,industry mentors present mentees with a range of options in terms of networking, jobopportunities, and professional development. Most the industry mentors were invited to NSFSTEM meeting sessions, where they gave short presentations, followed by engaging studentsthrough a dialogue and networking opportunities. The benefits of this type of mentoring werealso expressed through scholars’ journals.Finally, one of the other big
Students based on Pell grants 3,035 35.9 4,653 40.1 53Table 2 shows the portion of students in the MET and SM programs who have received Pellgrants and have unmet needs from the 2010-2011 to 2016-2017 academic years. Some numbersin this table overlap (i.e., there are some students who receive Pell Grant and still have UnmetNeeds).College affordability and job placement are becoming critical factors for high school students asthey make their career plans [5]. According to a student loan provider, in 2012, 70% of familieseliminated college choices based on the cost of tuition/attendance. The amount of money thatstudents are supplying towards tuition between student income and borrowing is 30% of the totalannual
briefly present the salient features of the IFYEP model as manifestedin a pilot program at SBC.IMPLEMENTATION OF IFYEPFor purposes of comparison, we briefly indicate the structure of the first semester at SBC beforethe implementation of the IFYEP. Students typically had a fixed schedule of classes their firstsemester, with some divergence (depending upon degree plan) taking place in the secondsemester. For example, first semester students take courses in student success (PSYC 100),computer skills (CSCI 101), composition (ENGL 110), and math (MATH 099 thru 103) inalignment with their placement test. The classes and the instructors more or less operatedindependently, with few students ending up in multiple classes together.The development of the
seniorleadership. A significant milestone was reached when CRP was included in the university’srecently updated strategic plan (Angelo State University, 2019). The goal is to integrate thetenets of CRP into the university’s current understanding of being a student centered institution.Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Faculty Training ProgramThe CRP faculty training program at Angelo State University is a significant part of theCREEME grant awarded to Angelo State University and constitutes just under 20 percent of theannual budget for years 2 through 5 of the five-year grant. The program was conceived ashaving two key elements provided and facilitated by ESCALA Educational Services, Inc. Thefirst element consists of intensive training for faculty members in
Utah.Dr. Mercedes Ward, University of UtahProf. Tariq J. Banuri, University of UtahProf. Sajjad Ahmad, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Dr. Ahmad is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). His teaching and research interests are in the area of sus- tainable planning and management of water resources, water-energy nexus, and stormwater management . He is particularly interested in using systems approach to address water sustainability issues.Dr. Rasool Bux Mahar, Mehran University, Pakistan He is a working as Professor in U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Water at Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro
instructional strategyincluded soft scaffolding with a plan of alternating between “scaffold” and “no scaffold” asnecessary. Research results showed positive student feedback and notable progress in problem-solving activities. Survey responses by participating students showed positive impact of thescaffolding strategy. Also, the students expressed strong interest to further improve theirproblem-solving skills through similar future sessions. The scaffolding case study requiredextensive planning and preparation for the class sessions. In addition, the instructor consideredthe dynamics of non-cognitive factors especially for minorities and small class size. Effectiveinstruction at HBCUs requires more of these pre-planned case studies and/or mini-projects
. The webinars focused on career preparation and planning, time and projectmanagement, and career opportunities in STEM fields. Finally, all the SRI participants wererequired to complete six online personal financial literacy training modules that took about 4 to 6hours in total, including 1) budgeting, 2) behavioral finance, 3) scholarships, 4) repaying studentloans, 5) federal student loans, and 6) using credit cards responsibly.3. Program Evaluation and AssessmentQuantitative and qualitative data were collected through pre-/post- participation surveys. Out of49 SRI participants, we received 43 complete responses. Table 2 shows the demographic data ofthe 43 SRI participants. Table 2: Demographic Data of 43 Survey
being accomplished through a synergetic collaboration ofexpert staff from the Office of Multicultural Recruitment, Academic Affairs, Student Services,the Outreach Office, and the Commission for Women at our university and seasoned role modelfaculty members. The project team has extensive experience working with female and minorityundergraduate students. Rigorous evaluations were built into the management plan to assesstargeted enrollment goals, retention rates, and the impact of mentor/mentee activities, taking intoaccount the unique characteristics of the targeted groups. This proposal was further strengthenedby leveraging the resources of the Office of Development at Penn State Harrisburg to sustain thiseffort over time. This paper deals with
URM students placing lower onaverage than the median student on admission and placement tests [18].The result can be that URM students are more likely to be admitted to pre-engineering programsor institutions with open enrollment. The assumption is that they will need to take remedialcourses before taking courses required for an engineering major.Ten ABET accredited programs were evaluated to see whether a student unprepared for theregular course plan could finish in four years. Random civil engineering programs were selectedsince the author was familiar with the curriculum. Twenty percent had no room for additionalthree-credit courses without overloading. The majority of programs had room for one coursewithout becoming overloaded, and a
toolkit components. The afterschoolexperience culminates in a showcase event where each school’s team shares their afterschoolexperience and demonstrates their exergame innovation in competition inspired by FIRSTRobotics.2TECHFIT planning began in fall 2013, and the first summer professional development programswere offered in summer 2014. The first afterschool programs were offered in fall 2014 with theshowcases occuring in December 2014. A total of 22 teachers from 8 schools in 2 states (Indianaand South Carolina) completed the summer programs.RecruitmentTECHFIT is offered in both Indiana and South Carolina. Different methods of marketing theopportunity were employed in the two states. However, both states required interested teachers
02-03 07-08 12-13Figure 1. TAMUS URM STEM Enrollment from Fall 1992-2016. Data taken from NSF WebAMP survey.As with the URM STEM enrollment data, the URM STEM BS degree data in Figure 2 are alsocyclic as a reflection of the student pool of eligible majors. With few exceptions, growth hascontinued as enrollment has continued to increase. The degree data appear to have more dipssince the time to degree completion varies according to how quickly the students move throughtheir degree plans. Some students may postpone their studies for a year or two and then return tocomplete their degrees once they experience the benefit of a degree in the workforce. TAMUS URM STEM Bachelor Degrees 1,400 1,200 1,000
my ability to apply knowledge ofmathematics, science, and engineering.” 12 statements were derived from select items in theEvaluative Criteria for Accreditation of Physical Therapy Programs (CAPTE) [15]. For example,“I am confident in my ability to exhibit caring, compassion, and empathy in providing services topatients/clients.” The two remaining statements were “I plan to pursue a career is assistivetechnologies” and “I plan to pursue a career in rehabilitation engineering.” The students indicatedtheir confidence on a Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The focus groupquestions included questions about the program overall as well as each component of theprogram. The schedule of data collection events is summarized in
. As part ofthis group, I regularly train men, both on- and off-campus, to better serve as gender equity allies.I am a member of the Commission on the Status of Women Faculty, a committee that works todevelop and enhance gender-equitable policies at North Dakota State University. I am primaryauthor of a series of broadly distributed advocacy tips, have participated in a national webinar onengaging male faculty as gender equity allies, and have given several conference presentationson the same topics. Additionally, I currently serve on the planning committee for the NSF-funded project Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering (TUEE), which has thegoal of enhancing women participation and success in engineering programs.Dr. Holmes: I
needs within realistic constraints 5. Describe introductory concepts of disability studies and how they relate to engineering practice 6. Engage in and evaluate the co‐design process with community members with disabilities 7. Identify the principles of inclusive design and how they benefit diverse communities 8. Devise an action plan to promote inclusivity and accessibility in engineering practiceCourse topics include: (1) disability studies, (2) universal design, (3) participatory design, (4) thehuman centered design process, and (5) prototyping. (See Table I describing course content andsyllabus in Appendix A.) Table I. HuskyADAPT Accessible Design Course Topics and Assignments Topic
student’s time as an undergraduate student. But the cost for a student toattend Tapia is high. In 2020, the student registration fee alone will be $500.Responses to post surveys show that Tapia is at least as effective as GHC in achieving its goalsfor students. Students consistently report being inspired to complete degrees in computing atrates of over 80%, and of having made new connections and learned about new opportunities incomputing at rates of over 90% [24].4 The CDC merged with the CMD-IT in 2016.5 Two cities have hosted Tapia twice—Atlanta (2003, 2017) and Orlando (2007, 2018); Houston, thelocation of Tapia 2001, will host it for the second time in 2020.6 Charts in this figure are from the Tapia 2019 Academic Plan II Benefits Brochure
the recruitment for the second GAIN (virtual) pilot attemptare discussed in later sections of this paper.Program structureThe GAIN peer-mentoring program was planned to primarily consist of flexible interactionsbetween mentors and mentees. As participants were matched into mentoring pairs, there wasplanned to be a brief training session focused on how to connect with each other and to promotea worthwhile professional relationship. In addition to the one-on-one mentoring meet-ups, theprogram was planned to include GAIN-wide events, with VIP faculty or industry guests. At theseevents, all mentors and all mentees would be encouraged to network together and to work insmall teams to perform structured hands-on design and problem-solving activities
between faculty and change agents brought in to facilitate departmentimprovement were met with resistance. This was evident in the first summer of the grant, and isdocumented in an early focus group report: Faculty had the sense there was a plan developed by the RED team to move forward, and that faculty who were not PIs or co-PIs did not have access to the details of that plan. Some co-PIs of the RED grant clarified during the focus groups that the plan is emergent, and that the goals were to develop a plan together. *Some faculty perceived an assumption by the external consultant that the department was in need of a drastic change in culture/climate. *Some faculty perceived a lack