Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 7

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kaitlin I Tyler, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Yanfen Li, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Nicole D. Jackson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Wan-Ting Chen, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign; Chaoyang Liu, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Rohit Bhargava, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

about thevarious aspects of the application package and then implement said information in drafts of theirown7. While other programs exist for faculty preparation at this university, iFEAT alone givesthe participants a copy of faculty job package at the end.In order to understand the efficacy of the program, surveys have been conducted at thebeginning, middle, and end of each year 7,8.This is the third year iFEAT has been run. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the breakdown of thethree different program years. For Year 3, dramatic changes have been made. The majority ofthese changes revolve around the research statement.Figure 1: Year by Year Breakdown of iFEAT Program StructureYear 1 and Year 2 Data:The motivation for the Year 3 changes come from

Conference Session

Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Agnes G d'Entremont, University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Hannah Gustafson, University of British Columbia

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Minorities in Engineering, Women in Engineering

her PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the University of British Columbia. Her research focus is biomechanics. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 PANEL: Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of TeachingStudent evaluations of teaching (SET) are important in the university setting for determiningtenure and promotion. In 2000, 88% of deans surveyed reported their colleges “always used”systematic student ratings to evaluate faculty teaching performance, and that number increased in2010 to 94%1. Given the widespread usage of SET, it is important to consider biases, such asthose due to gender, that may influence these evaluations. In particular, engineering has a lowproportion of women

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 6

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Gloria Ma, Wentworth Institute of Technology; Lili Ma, New York City Colledge of Technology

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

-long roboticsworkshop. Table 1 lists the lesson plans for both Year 1 and Year 2. As can be seen, manymodifications were made in Year 2. Table 1: Lesson Plan Semester # Year 1: 2014-2015 Year 2: 2015-2016 Hardware Assembly and Graphic Overview of Robotics; Graphic 1 Programming Programming Introduction to ROBOTC (1): Introduction to ROBOTC (1): Motor 2 Motor Behavior Behavior Introduction to ROBOTC (2): Introduction to ROBOTC (2): Motor

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Monica Farmer Cox, Ohio State University; Jung Sook Kim, Ohio State University; Matilde Luz Sanchez-Pena, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering); Joyce B. Main, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering); Ebony Omotola McGee, Vanderbilt University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

male dominance in the field.1 Among thechallenges women faculty face include gender disparities1 and unfavorable environments thatpush them out of the engineering profession.2 Discrimination against women, however, may notbe fully accounted for by gender alone, particularly for WOC who face the “double bind” ofexperiencing challenges as women and as people of color.3,4,5 Despite the acknowledgement ofunique challenges facing WOC in engineering, there is a dearth of empirical research of WOCfaculty in engineering.6,7 New research should explore the complex experiences of WOC acrossvarious institutional and social contexts. With growing interests in the perspectives of WOC inacademic and nonacademic (e.g., Margo Lee Shetterly’s bestselling

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Eugene Judson, Arizona State University; Lydia Ross, Arizona State University; Keith D. Hjelmstad, Arizona State University; Stephen J Krause, Arizona State University; Casey Jane Ankeny, Arizona State University; Robert J Culbertson, Department of Physics, Arizona State University; James A Middleton, Arizona State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

, in higher education it is common to find that facultymembers are evaluated for their work in three principal areas: scholarship, teaching, and service.However, these areas are not necessarily held in the same regard vis-à-vis institutional orscholarly respect. Work output is most typically defined as productivity of refereed publicationsand grants obtained and not primarily in terms of teaching or advising students.1, 2In recent years, organizations such as the National Science Foundation have promoted theconnection between teaching and research, such as through the Engineering Research CentersProgram. However, evidence exists that faculty who emphasize teaching and advising more thanresearch are not viewed as role models in academia

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 3

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Marissa H. Forbes, University of Colorado Boulder; Angela R. Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder; Jacquelyn F. Sullivan, University of Colorado, Boulder

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

and their percentagefemale enrollments and bachelor’s degrees awarded to women.1 In that study, percentages of totaldegree credit hours comprised of free electives and course choices were delineated for 84 highly-regarded (in terms of US News & World report rankings) engineering programs. Significantcorrelations were found between curricular choice and percentage female enrollments andbachelor’s degrees awarded to women; the greatest correlations were found for mechanicalengineering (a discipline with a low percentage of women enrolled8). The results pointed to theneed for additional research to ascertain whether undergraduate engineering programs can attractand graduate more women by providing more customizable degree program options.In

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 7

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kelsey Morgan Irvin, University of Missouri, Columbia; Elizabeth Hiteshue, Bain & Company; Samantha Laurel Swanson; Caroline Missouri Wochnick, Augsburg College; Hannah Bech, AmeriCorps VISTA; Amanda Marie Kapetanakis, Augsburg College; Mary Yvonne Lanzerotti, Air Force Institute of Technology; Derrick Langley, Space and Missile Center, Enterprise Ground Services Office (SMC/ADZS); Michael Geselowitz, IEEE History Center at Stevens Institute of Technology; MaryAnn C. Hellrigel, IEEE, IEEE History Center; Gregory Alan Good, American Institute of Physics

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

participatingstudents graduated with a STEM degree. Interviews collected in this project are previouslypublished on the IEEE Engineering Technology and History Wiki (ETHW). Following the oralhistory interviews, the students write reflections to answer the following three research questions(RQ). RQ#1 is “What are the key factors that led to the success of the distinguished leaders?.”RQ#2 is “What are the crucial skills that enabled their success?.” RQ#3 is “What is the impacton my career path?”One objective of this paper is for the participating female students, who are majoring in STEMfields, to present their reflections on the three research questions. A second objective is for thestudents to describe the impact, if any, that carrying out interviews of

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Heather Walling Doty, University of Delaware; Robin Andreasen, University of Delaware; Dandan Chen, University of Delaware

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

to our study because at our institution theADVANCE team works with department chairs as a means of improving departmentalmicroclimates to foster faculty job satisfaction. Department chairs receive little formal trainingas administrators45 so it is understandable that they encounter situations (such as a pregnantfaculty member) that they’re not readily prepared to handle. Our primary aims through ourdepartment chair activities are (1) to provide information and case studies on policies andprocedures that affect faculty work life and advancement, and (2) to provide space for discussionso that chairs may network and learn from each other’s experiences.Institutional mentoring, in this context, refers to formal (institutionalized with explicit

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 7

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Agnes G. d'Entremont, University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Hannah Gustafson, University of British Columbia; Katherine A. Lyon, University of British Columbia ; Jonathan Verrett P.Eng., University of British Columbia; Kerry Greer, Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia; Atif Shoukat Ali, University of British Columbia

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

earned her PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the University of British Columbia. Her research focus is biomechanics.Katherine A. Lyon, University of British ColumbiaDr. Jonathan Verrett, University of British Columbia Dr. Jonathan Verrett is an Instructor in the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. He teaches a variety of topics with a focus on design in chemical and biological engineering. His pedagogical interests include open education, peer- learning and leadership development.Dr. Kerry Greer, Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia Kerry Greer is an Instructor 1 in the Department of Sociology, at the University of British

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 4

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kath Xu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dawn Wendell, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Andrea S. Walsh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

engineering majors, an unheard-of percentage among peer schools and largeengineering programs. This figure, moreover, surpasses even MIT’s current overallundergraduate ratio of 46.1% female (“Number of Women Students”).And this figure surpasses those of other engineering programs which traditionally skew heavilymale as well, such as electrical engineering and computer science. Figure 1, which compares theundergraduate female percentages at MIT to the percentage of bachelor’s engineering degreesawarded to women nationally, illustrates the striking progress made by MIT, and the mechanicalengineering department in particular.Figure 1:​ The ratio of the female percentage in engineering departments at MIT to those nationally basedon most recent statistics

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 7

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ali Ahmad, Northwestern State University; Jerie Pedescleaux, Northwestern State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

a more personal and interesting manner are a good example of such innovations.The percentage of women involved in various STEM fields remains relatively low, especially inengineering. However, K-12 female students involved in mathematics and science courses tendto perform on par with their male counterparts, with female students showing a higher tendencyto enroll in advanced science courses (22% female versus 18% male). The exception to this iscomputer science and engineering courses, in which male students are more likely to enroll thanfemale students with engineering at 3% versus 1% and computer science courses at 7% versus4%. In higher education women earned 57.3% of bachelor’s degrees in all fields in 2013 and50.3% of science and

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 3

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Emma Kaeli, Northeastern University; Tyler Byrne Cole, Northeastern University; Bradley Joseph Priem, Northeastern University; Rachel Lauren Shapiro, Northeastern University; Paul DiMilla, Northeastern University; Rachelle Reisberg, Northeastern University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

to have a lower level of competency. Despite these findings, less than 1% of studentsreported that the gender of an instructor affected their use of SI. It was found, however, thatstudents, especially female students, more often reported that they found their male instructors tobe more intimidating than female instructors. It was also found that students who had reportedhaving an intimidating male instructor were less likely to seek SI. As shown in previous studies,use of SI has had a positive impact on student performance in a course. Therefore it is possiblethat the gender of a student and their instructor could impact overall student performance.Introduction and BackgroundThe study discussed in this paper sought to determine the impacts

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 6

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kaitlin I. Tyler, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Nicole Johnson-Glauch, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Jessica A. Krogstad, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

explicitly shows how concepts areconnected.The main goal of the restructuring the camp was to reduce this confusion and improvecomprehension. To do this, we utilized the transfer of learning theory. The transfer of learningtheory states that comprehension of topics can be shown when students have an opportunity toput both new and old information to use when solving a new problem15. Royer discusses the ideain depth and brings to light the idea of using transfer of information as an indication thatunderstanding has been gained16. Different degrees of understanding can be achieved whentransfer occurs in different ways. A schematic explaining the degrees of concept mastery can beseen in Figure 1. Figure 1: Royer’s Varying Degrees of

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 6

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Chrysanthe Demetry, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Elizabeth Long Lingo, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

in-depth longitudinal case study data, we find that reform involves anongoing process of wrestling with strategic ambiguity. More specifically, we identify three inter-related micro-processes that inform efforts at reform: 1) negotiations over the what of promotioncriteria and systems; 2) struggles over who controls the formulation of promotion policy andinterpretation of criteria; and 3) decisions over how the change process itself should unfold(externally or internally aligned). This paper makes several new contributions to the field: 1) weintroduce the idea of strategic ambiguity as something that is negotiated and navigated ratherthan something to be eliminated; 2) we provide a more nuanced understanding of the micro-processes that

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 6

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jessica Ohanian Perez, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Understanding the Intersection of First Generation Degree Seeking Women, Engineering, and Public UniversitiesThe California State University system (CSU) is the largest university system in the nation. TheCSU system is comprised of 23 regional campuses and as of fall 2018 has an enrollment of481,210 students. While the state comprises about 12% of the US population, it only producesabout 10% of the engineering degrees awarded [1]. Not only is the state lagging behind onengineering degree production; but also on the rate at which women earn engineering degrees.The CSU system grants engineering degrees to women at a rate of 16.8%, trailing the nationalaverage of 20

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 4

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Andrea Nana Ofori-Boadu, North Carolina A&T State University; Dongyang Deng, North Carolina A&T State University; Cheryl Monique Stevens, North Carolina A&T State University; Kayla Gore; Iyshea Borders-Taylor, North Carolina A&T State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

minority womenrepresentation in male-dominant engineering and technology careers.INTRODUCTIONWomen participation in STEM disciplines is still very low as women are not persisting inengineering and technology programs due to stereotype threats, weak professional identities, andpoor sense of belonging [1]. While extreme gender gaps in STEM fields such as biology nolonger exist, women are still underrepresented in engineering and technology fields as a result ofbiases and stereotypes associated with disciplinary differences [2][3]. Women make up only 9%of the construction workforce, with professional women being only 2.8% [4]. Minority womenare severely underrepresented in engineering and technology fields, with only 1% earningbachelor degrees in

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 4

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Vukica M. Jovanovic, Old Dominion University; Otilia Popescu, Old Dominion University; Carol L. Considine, Old Dominion University; Karina Arcaute, Old Dominion University; Krishnanand Kaipa; Stephanie G. Adams, Old Dominion University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

/ electrical engineering technology. .IntroductionGirl Scouts is girls only, non-profit organization focused on character development throughwholesome reading, charitable works, and social activities under the guidance of role modelwomen [1]. Girl Scouts has been in existence since the organization was founded in the UnitedStates by Juliette “Daisy” Gordon Low in 1912 [2]. This girl-centered organization offeredactivities traditionally inaccessible to young women at that time, such as outdoor recreation andleadership events [2]. Many of these activities are related to identity development and discussionabout gender specific standpoints, while some involve striving for excellence and independence,and others are more related to helping or supporting

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Renee M. Desing, Ohio State University; Rachel Louis Kajfez, Ohio State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

bachelor’s degrees earned by women in the U.S. has remained between 18.1% and20.5% from 2000 to 2015, with women receiving 20.1% of degrees in 2015 [1]. By contrast,women’s representation in the engineering workforce has been steadily increasing since the1990’s, from 8.6% in 1993 to 14.5% in 2015 [1]. However, according to statistics from 2010,within five years of graduation, 36 percent of women who obtained engineering bachelor’sdegrees either left or never entered the field and within fifteen years after graduation, 60 percentof women who earned engineering bachelor’s degrees had left the field [2]. Despite the recentincreases, these numbers indicate that women are still underrepresented in the workforce and thatretention of women engineers in

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 4

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Chaoyi Wang; Michael Frye, University of the Incarnate Word

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

students in grades six through eight to measure their self-reported attitudes inmathematics, science, engineering and technology. The results showed a significant increase incampers’ self-perceived attitude in mathematics. In addition, semi-structured interviews wereconducted with 22 campers to explore how the camp experiences altered attitudes toward STEMstudy and impacted their career interest. Interview findings indicated (1) campers hadopportunities to develop STEM, robotics, and programming knowledge through various hands-on activities which made the camp fun and interesting, (2) teamwork and single-gender learningenvironment helped campers become more open to STEM subjects, and (3) coding andprogramming were two major themes in miniGEMS that

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 6

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Denise Wilson, University of Washington; Jennifer J. VanAntwerp, Calvin College; Joanna Wright, University of Washington; Lauren Summers, University of Washington

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

Statistics predicts growth of 13.4% from2014 to 2024 in jobs for STEM-related post-secondary teachers [1]. Women are a growingpercentage of PhDs in STEM but are not proportionately represented among assistant professors[2]; to support this employment growth it will likely be necessary to attract more women to thefaculty. Of even more significance is that STEM faculty play a critical double role in the healthand gender make-up of the future STEM workforce. Research shows that role models have animportant impact on career pathway decisions made by women engineering students [3]. Mostengineers are first exposed to the profession through their STEM faculty, so if this group is notdiverse, or if diverse workers (such as women) are perceived to be

Conference Session

PANEL: After #MeToo: What’s next for Women in the Engineering Workplace?

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jennifer J VanAntwerp, Calvin College; Denise Wilson, University of Washington; Sandra D. Eksioglu, Clemson University; Joanna Wright, University of Washington

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

in order to raise awareness regarding sexual assault and abuse among women of colorand to promote empowerment among women who had been abused. On October 15, 2017, theterm went viral on twitter as #MeToo when actress Alyssa Milano encouraged those who hadbeen sexually harassed or assaulted to use the hashtag to draw attention to these issues. Thecurrent movement was stimulated by sexual assault allegations against the film producer HarveyWeinstein earlier in 2017. Since 2017, the number of allegations for sexually based misbehaviorand criminal acts against women has skyrocketed, as women have come forward from manywalks of life to speak of their experiences [1].The #MeToo movement has also stimulated renewed concerns about a lack of

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 6

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Naomi C. Chesler, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Dante Fratta, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Elizabeth C Harris, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Wayne P. Pferdehirt, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Heidi-Lynn Ploeg, Queens University at Kingston; Barry D. Van Veen, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

evaluation of teachingAbstractEngineering teaching assessment at the college-level should provide: 1) data to assess the qualityof instruction provided by an instructor; 2) instructors with actionable information on how theirinstruction may be improved; and 3) evidence of effective instruction for tenure and promotionpurposes. Many institutions rely primarily on student evaluations of teaching (SET) for teachingassessment. Peer evaluations of teaching are rarely used outside of the tenure evaluation periodfor assistant professors. Recent research has provided compelling evidence that SET havesignificant systemic bias with respect to gender, race, and sexual orientation and moreover do notassess teaching effectiveness. These biases and limitations

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 3

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Jennifer Serne, Central Washington University; David Wesley Martin, Central Washington University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

methods such as Construction Management at Risk, Design/Build,Lean Construction, and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) now account for most constructioncontracts.1 However, the use of these increasingly collaborative project delivery systems does notensure collaboration. For example, although Lean Construction proponents frequently employthe principles of IPD, success does not occur on every project. The reasons for failures areconsiderable, but one commonly cited cause is the inability of the construction managers, onthese projects, to manage conflict in a cooperative manner or adjust their mindsets to operatewithin a collaborative framework. Although individuals with strong records of success onprevious projects are often selected to manage

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 6

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Shawn Fagan, Temple University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

were designed to guide the study in the exploration of the livedexperiences of eleven female students in an undergraduate engineering program. These questionsprovided a foundation for gaining a detailed understanding of how the participants made sense oftheir experiences and factors that were influential in their choice and persistence in engineering.1. How might choice and persistence take shape for women in an undergraduate engineering program? a. What roles do pre-college engineering-related learning experiences play in women’s choice of engineering as a major? b. How do women overcome social and cultural barriers in their persistence in an engineering program?ParticipantsThe recommended sample size for

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 3

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Shaundra Bryant Daily, Duke University; Jessica Sperling, Duke University; Megan Gray, Duke University; Medha Gupta, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology; Amy Arnold, Duke University; Kelly Perri, Duke University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

IntroductionIt is no secret that computing fields have a diversity challenge. In 2016, 57% of bachelor’sdegree recipients were female; however, only 19% of computer and information sciencebachelor’s degrees were earned by females. This gender gap in computer science education alsotranslates into the professional world where women hold 57% of professional occupations, andless than 25% of computing professions [1]. With numerous reasons cited, including stereotypesof the field, a lack of role models [7], and a desire to help others, attracting and retaining womenin the field is challenging; yet, it is crucial to push the discipline forward.The Duke Technology Scholars program, which began in 2016, aims to address the femaledisparity in computing fields

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 7

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Cynthia Lester, Georgia State University; Sahithya Reddivari, Georgia State University; Forough Ansari, Georgia State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

college isproactively working to address issues of access and success through three strategic approaches:1) the formation of new female-led student clubs aimed at encouraging a growth mindset inengineering; 2) the creation of academic-based collaborative learning spaces which supportsynergistic activities between faculty and students; and, 3) student engagement in the form ofwraparound services based in co-curricular programming. It is through these efforts that theauthors hope to further the discourse among engineering educators on how to improve access andthe success of female engineering students especially within the first two years of the collegeexperience.Strategic Approach I: Female-led Student ClubsBackgroundOver 30 years ago, world

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 3

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Maral Kargarmoakhar, Florida International University; Monique S. Ross, Florida International University; Zahra Hazari, Florida International University; Mark A Weiss, Florida International University; Michael Georgiopoulos, University of Central Florida; Ken Christensen P.E., University of South Florida; Tiana Solis, Florida International University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

Bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering from Elizabethtown College, a Master’s degree in Computer Science and Software Engineering from Auburn University, eleven years of experience in industry as a software engineer, and seven years as a full-time faculty in the departments of computer science and engineering. Her interests focus on broadening participation in engineering through the exploration of: 1) race, gender, and identity in the engineering workplace; 2) discipline-based education research (with a focus on computer science and computer engineering courses) in order to inform pedagogical practices that garner interest and retain women and minorities in computer-related engineering fields.Prof. Zahra Hazari, Florida

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 5

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Litany H Lineberry, Mississippi State University; Sarah B. Lee, Mississippi State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

solving skills. Many researchersand practitioners propose moving from using the acronym STEM to science, technology,engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM). The difference in STEM and STEAM is theinclusion of arts of any kind, aligning artistic creativity with STEM learning. Zimmerman andSprung concluded that motivation and self-confidence in computing for females is increasedwhen they can learn CS in the context of a content area, they are already comfortable with [1].Recognizing this cross-disciplinary connection approach, Mississippi State Universityresearchers in 2014 integrated a physical art component module that enabled girls to designrobots using crafting material, with positive results. In 2019, the team piloted a 4-day camp

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 6

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Lourdes A. Medina, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez; Saylisse Davila, University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez; Olga Beatriz Rivera, Amgen Manufacturing Limited; Nolgie Oquendo-Colon, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus; Maria Angelica Velazquez, Montana State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

recruitment, retention, and progression is presentedalong with their positive or negative impact. Finally, the model was revised once more toincorporate the results of an ADVANCE program carried out at a minority-serving institution.I. IntroductionWhile females around the world continue to advance to leadership roles, they still facediscrimination and are treated unfairly in many different settings; particularly, the ones inScience, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education. Females in STEM are mostlyunderrepresented and constantly face recruitment and retention issues. This phenomenon isaddressed as the “leak in the pipeline” [1] – fewer females over time advance to careers inacademia. Females in academia and many other engineering work

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 6

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Agnes Germaine d'Entremont P.Eng., University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Kerry Greer, University of British Columbia; Katherine A. Lyon, University of British Columbia, Vancouver

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

disciplines with a range of female enrolments (12.6% to 33.6%) toexamine for changes: chemical engineering (CHEM), mechanical engineering (MECH),electrical engineering (ELEC), and civil engineering (CIVL) (Table 1). These are the four largestdisciplines, with total undergraduate enrollment among them making up nearly half of all USengineering students. Because of their large size, about 44% of all female undergraduateengineering students in the US are enrolled in these disciplines. However, these traditionaldisciplines are still highly male-dominated, with an enrollment of less than 18% women overall.Table 1: Distribution of total and female undergraduate enrollment among disciplines, anddistribution of female enrollment within disciplines, for all