colleges to undergraduate serving institutions and research-focused universities,both with and without engineering education degree programs.1 With such a wide range ofinstitutions being served with Student Chapters, it can be difficult to ensure that all needs are metand all Chapters have the same goals.According to the ASEE Student Chapter Mission,1 the general mission of Student Chapters is: I. To develop relationships with local schools (K-12) and aid them in fostering student interest in future careers and study in engineering and engineering technology II. To encourage engineering undergraduate students to continue their studies on the graduate level III. To increase the interest of engineering graduate students in
creates a more open relationship between graduate students, making a betterenvironment for research and creation.IntroductionLaTeX is a document preparation system that is widely used to write research papers, theses, anddissertations. LaTeX is especially suited to create technical and scientific documents 1 . H´ector andNadra, the authors of this paper, needed to write masters theses and journal publications usingLaTeX. Both of us had no experience using LaTeX, putting us in the tough position of learningLaTeX in a very short amount of time. At the time, we were both students of the Electrical andComputer Engineering (ECE) department. We perceived the ECE climate as one in which LaTeXwas viewed as a tool that should have been learned implicitly
paper also describes the future direction in this initiative and the ongoingstrategies being implemented to measure the success of the portfolio project.ObjectivesThe objectives of the engineering portfolio at IIT are to:(1) Offer opportunities to students to compile a record of their accomplishments within theengineering distinctive education thematic activities, design their path to graduation with anenriched curriculum, and build on an open-ended self-guided career plan based on masteredskills and demonstrated achievements;(2) Provide potential employers with an extended resume with a more comprehensive record ofprofessional background of a new engineering graduate; and(3) Provide educators with an assessment tool for student learning
, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering reportpublished by the NSF, with significant variance by subfield.1 The proportion of womengraduating with a bachelor’s degree in computing disciplines has decreased. 1 In 2012, the U.S.Congress Joint Economic Committee affirmed that, “Women’s increased participation in theSTEM workforce is essential to alleviating the shortage of STEM workers” in the United States.2The ASEE Diversity Task Force has identified increasing the percentage of undergraduatefemale students to 25% by 2020 as a strategic goal.3 Explanations for the continuedunderrepresentation of women include the impacts of the social structures of society, educationand the professions on women’s participation, as well as the
career. Youremotional health might not be as straightforward to manage. Graduate school has emotional highs(e.g. success in research, accepted papers) emotional lows (e.g. rejected papers, failed tests) andstress. I learned that my emotional health is not something I could ignore. Taking time foryourself is important during your graduate school career. The last lesson of the paper is aboutsetting goals and finding opportunities to achieve your goals. A common goal for earning yourdoctorate should be preparing you for your career in either academia or industry.My BackgroundI am currently a Visiting Assistant Professor at Kettering University and I defended mydissertation on April 1, 2016, about 31.5 months after starting my Ph.D. in Systems
focuses on the topic ofnegotiation, with an emphasis on providing practical ideas and strategies relevant to academicprofessionals at both entry-level and mid-career who find that they need to negotiate a careeropportunity. The paper will review negotiation basics, as well as discuss what can be negotiated,how one might proceed to discuss these, and how listening is critical to negotiation. By viewingnegotiation as a “wise agreement”1 that seeks to meet the needs of both parties to the extentpossible, this paper presents several common cases or scenarios that illustrate the importance ofunderstanding the elements involved both from the faculty member’s perspective as well as fromthe perspective of their department head, dean or
nanotechnology was improved, and that they would bebetter equipped to field questions that visitors to the museum might have.Due to the positive response from attendees, a second event was scheduled on a related topic:The origins of atomic theory. This presentation had a similar goal to the first: provide museumvolunteers and staff with a foundational understanding of the topic, which would in turn allowthem to improve the understanding of visitors. After this presentation, attendees were asked tocomplete a short survey about the presentation; the survey questions, and aggregated responses,can be seen in Figure 1. The survey was developed using well documented principles for Likertstyle surveys34,35,36,37,38, though due to its short length some
assistance to other sites using the materials. An outlineof the CBI challenge and how the challenge supported course content for the systems thinkingand water science courses are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The CBI challenges for the other coursesare listed in Table 3. The computer science was not completed and is currently underdevelopment for implementation in 2015.Table 1: Challenge and Outline of Systems Thinking Course Systems Thinking Challenge: Model and build a functional low temperature difference Stirling engine from everyday household materials Weekly Module Content Connection to CBI Challenge 1. Systems Introduction and The term system is introduced to students in the context of Basic Theory a
development.Introduction Times have changed. There is a new message emerging. The future of engineering, and some would say of society, depends on its delivery. The new message starts with the recognition that engineering design is a social and humanistic field, as well as a technical and scientific one; and that, like other professions, human impact is placed at the center of the process [1].This excerpt is taken from Diane Rover’s Journal of Engineering Education AcademicBookshelf review of the National Academy of Engineering’s (NAE) Changing the Conversationreport. The conclusion of Rover’s article, much like the report she reviews, is clear – “in an ageof ‘messaging’”, messages have the power to transform engineering education.A
of female engineers has increased from approximately 1% in the 1970s to 20%today while rates for females entering construction have shown minimal growth. This increaseseems promising, but there has been a decrease in the enrollment of female engineers since 2008in several countries (Beddoes & Borrego, 2011).Low female enrollment in engineering has long been acknowledged as a problem by engineeringeducation researchers. While the problem is well documented through admissions data,researchers are still in the process of identifying motivational factors for females into the field(Johnson & Sheppard, 2004). Architecture and Construction are experiencing similar issues withlower enrollment rates, but the fields have less data on this
engineering specific mechanics of solids course.this study is to identify patterns in the way expert and noviceengineers approach problems to better inform future Problem Solving Session-research in the field of engineering mechanics. A complex and unique engineering problem was created with the following qualities:Research questions: 1) Include basic engineering concepts found in a mechanics of solids course1) How do experts approach demanding engineering 2) Be presented in a way in which an expert’s intuition alone cannot be used toaaproblems? formulate a solution.2) How do students approach
Education faculty and doctoralstudents from Purdue University. Each year, the IGERT-MNM pedagogy module is led by theEngineering Education collaborators from Purdue. The main objective of the module is to helpthe IGERT Trainees and associate trainees develop pedagogical expertise in order to integratepedagogy within their disciplinary areas. To accomplish these objectives trainees were expectedto: 1. Understand pedagogical techniques and apply them to science and engineering activity and curriculum design 2. Identify best practices in methods of communicating scientific content to learners 3. Be able to implement backward design principles 22 to complete a deliverable for use in a classroom setting 4. Gain experience with
that were identified by the participants will be discussed in therespective sections as well. Institutional. The institutional elements that were identified focus around the specific milestoneswithin the PhD process that are created by the institution/department that the student is part of. Table 1shows the different process components identified by the special session facilitators as well as thoseidentified by each of the participant groups. The components were aligned to help identify elements thatwere present for all groups and places there were gaps or differences between the groups.In general, all of the groups agreed on roughly the following pathway through the PhD process: 1. Apply and get into graduate school; 2. Complete
successful interactions and learning outcomes.1-3 One important challenge centers onthe interactions between students from groups negatively stereotyped as poor performers inengineering (e.g., women and under-represented racial minorities) and others. A body of researchin psychology indicates that students from these marginalized groups may have qualitativelydifferent group work experiences compared to others, which may contribute to their self-selection from engineering and thus their group’s under-representation in engineering fields.Recent research suggests that the negative experiences of people from marginalized groups onengineering student design teams can influence many factors that contribute to persistence andsuccess, such as development of
Institutional Research, Planning,and Assessment (IRPA) Office and the other worked as a member of the Center for the Practiceand Scholarship of Education (CPSE). For the IRPA placement, the funding was provided Page 26.1569.4through grant support, while for the CPSE placement, funding was secured through multipleinternal sources (e.g., collaboration with other programs). As mentioned previously, the fourstudents all participated in meaningfully different projects (detailed in Table 1). In each case, thestudent had contact with faculty, staff, members of the upper administration, and undergraduatestudents at RHIT. Table 1
between student and teaching assistantperceptions or between subgroups of students.MethodsA mixed methods survey was implemented with 12 Likert scale questions paired with a freeresponse portion (Appendix A). The study was designed using a concurrent triangulationstrategy (Fig. 1) as described in Creswell (2012)15 because it was anticipated that quantitativeresults would need to be corroborated and expanded by qualitative responses. Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Data Collection Data Collection Quantitative Qualitative Data Analysis
Page 26.616.2more as a metaphor for conveying students’ experience of disappointment than to insinuatemalicious intent.(i)In K-12 engineering programs, the overwhelming curricular emphasis is on engaging, design-based classroom activities: open-ended, hands-on projects requiring creative synthesis acrossmultiple domains of knowledge on the part of the student.1 In university engineering programs,students confront an educational philosophy that can be characterized as exclusionary and builtupon a “fundamentals first” approach to learning:2 analytically rigorous, rote learning of basicprinciples in math and science (e.g., calculus, chemistry, physics) followed by engineeringsciences (e.g. statics, fluid dynamics) followed by engineering analysis
students in public universities is around 50%, while the graduation rates at private universities are around 69%1.This paper aims to broadly explore and discuss how student and professor expectations mayinfluence students’ conceptions of engineering identity, their acquisition of knowledge andskills, as well as their plans for navigation through the “engineering pipeline” by analyzing theinterview responses of two freshman engineering students and one engineering faculty member.MotivationsAs stated earlier, it is important to acknowledge that engineering identity is not necessarily asconcrete or fixed as research might suggest13,14,19. It is likely that each individual studentpossesses a different understanding of the engineering profession, as
Fridaysand our annual STEM challenge. We propose that a model similar to this could be successfullyand beneficially implemented more widely, with the goal of increasing both interest andretention in STEM fields.IntroductionThe goal of Bridges to STEM Careers is to increase retention rates and general interest in theSTEM programs offered by the university.1 The name itself refers to a bridge, reaching fromcommunity college, through university, all the way to a successful STEM career. The primarymethod of achieving this goal has been to forge mutually beneficial relationships among faculty,student mentors, and students. We believe that our goals are best effected on a personal levelrather than an institutional level, and that by focusing on
, lead by a graduate TA. The special MERIT section meets once a week, and is worth 1 credit hour on students’ transcripts in addition to the credit hours from the primary course (much like lab sections). MERIT is not a remedial section. The students work problems that are very difficult for the median freshman. Each problem takes a group of four students an hour or two to solve. Problems are more openended than homework or exam problems and demand substantial thinking from the students. Students are evaluated on attendance and participation, rather than the completeness or correctness of their solutions. In this environment students have ample time to really understand concepts, rather than race toward the correct solution. After completing
supports high schoolstudents interested in advancing to STEM degrees at institutions of higher education, and itprovides a near peer mentor experience that can assist the Junior Chapter members as theyproceed through the process of seeking and transitioning to university studies. We are workingto help students advance what we call the “SHPE driving pillars:” (1) academic development, (2)professional development, (3) outreach/community service, (4) leadership development, and (5)chapter development.The UTEP MAES/SHPE Student Chapter welcomes Junior Chapters with student membershipfrom all ethnicities for the purpose of increasing the number of Latino youth that enter andcomplete Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) related careers
education and identity development. Page 26.298.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Building a Community of Practice: Discipline-Based Educational Research GroupsEngineering Education is a growing field. Twenty-three universities have doctoral programs inengineering education while numerous others offer certificates, courses, or the option to pursueengineering education research in traditional engineering disciplines.1 Sixteen institutions haveASEE Student Chapters, offering another way for students who are interested in engineeringeducation research to
Program Assessment Workshops, IDEAL and the assessment webinar series. He also directs activities related to the workshop facilitator training and professional development. Page 26.1615.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Undergraduate Facilitators’ Perspectives of Engineering Summer Programs 1. Introduction Summer programs are often used by universities to recruit students into engineering by educating and inspiring them. Programs have various target audiences and objectives. For example, some programs are targeted at
, prospecting via targetedemail, presenting the couple as a package deal, and balancing career with family responsibilitiesThe National Context for the Dual-Career Job SearchDual-career couples are increasingly common in the workforce in the United States.1 This trendis applicable to engineering in general, academia in general, and by extension to STEMacademics in particular. Recent reports demonstrate these trends and their impact on the STEMacademic job seekers and their partners.Within engineering, the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Talent Council surveyedmembership in May 2011 and found that about half of all petroleum engineers were part of adual-career pair. In a December 2011 follow-up survey of members aged 45 and younger, theyfound that