Conference Session

WIED Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Anna M. Zajicek, University of Arkansas; Shauna A. Morimoto, University of Arkansas; Aparna S. Terdalkar, University of Arkansas; Valerie H. Hunt, University of Arkansas; Joseph J. Rencis, University of Arkansas; Rodica Lisnic, University of Arkansas

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

AC 2011-1486: RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES FOR GENDER EQUITY:LESSONS FROM COHORT 1 AND COHORT 2 ADVANCE INSTITUTIONSAnna M. Zajicek, University of Arkansas Anna M. Zajicek is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Arkansas. Her scholarship has been devoted to the intersectional nature of social inequalities, discourse, and social change. She has been involved in interdisciplinary research projects examining successful strategies to institutionalize programs and policies aimed at the advancement of historically underrepresented groups in STEM disciplines. Her current publications focus on institutional transfomation, women in STEM disciplines, and the integration of an intersectional perspective in social science

Conference Session

WIED Olio

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Natalie C.T. Van Tyne P.E., Colorado School of Mines; Chester J. Van Tyne, Colorado School of Mines; Kathryne Van Tyne, University of Chicago

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

found that, irrespective of gender, students who had a 5% higher self-evaluation scorethan their team evaluation score actually received lower course grades than those who under-valued their contribution to their team. These results indicate that small, engineering-focusedinstitutions may provide a learning environment and underlying support system for women thatresult in greater self-efficacy; or they may indicate that this type of institution attracts womenstudents who already have a strong commitment to the study of engineering and the necessarytenacity to succeed in this field.IntroductionTeamwork in engineering education provides students with important experiences that arerepresentative of the modern engineering workplace.1, 2 While

Conference Session

FPD V: Gender and Engineering Education: A Panel Discussion and Workshop

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Yevgeniya V. Zastavker, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering; Debbie Chachra, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering; Caitrin Lynch, Olin College of Engineering; Alisha L. Sarang-Sieminski, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering; Lynn Andrea Stein, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs, Women in Engineering

between the experiences of women in undergraduate engineering programs and their malecounterparts.1-5 Many existing explanations of women’s under-representation in engineering andphysical sciences are based on differences in intrinsic values, psychological needs, preparation,work-related values, family obligations, and lack of “critical mass.”3,6-14 Without ruling out thepossible significance of these factors, this paper explores an alternative factor, one over whichthe engineering profession itself might have greater control: the culture of our classrooms. Inparticular, we introduce several frameworks from the psychology and gender studies literaturethat shed light on how classroom climate plays a role in student experience and, in turn, in

Conference Session

Panel on Recruiting and Retaining Women and Underrepresented Minority Students

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Hyun Kyoung Ro, Pennsylvania State University; Rose M. Marra, University of Missouri, Columbia; Ardie D. Walser, City College of the City University of New York, Grove School of Engineering; Patrick T. Terenzini, Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Lois Calian Trautvetter, Northwestern University; Susan M. Lord, University of San Diego

Tagged Divisions

Minorities in Engineering, Women in Engineering

and grouptutoring sessions as well as personal, professional and academic mentoring. Four of our six casestudy institutions also offered “living and learning” communities that used an all-inclusiveapproach to support student retention. For this panel session, we also examined if engineering seniors’ plans to work in oroutside of an engineering profession differed by gender and race/ethnicity. The P2P surveycontains three measures for this analysis, tapping students’ expectations that after graduationthey will: 1) be a practicing engineer in industry, government, or non-profit organization; 2)work in engineering management or sales; and 3) work outside engineering. We found thatwomen students were less likely than men to plan to be a

Conference Session

WIED Olio

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Peggy Layne, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Molly R. Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

quantitative and qualitative indicators of change and provides deeper insightinto the impact of interventions on the experiences of women faculty. This paper uses feedbackon the impact of ADVANCE program activities from focus groups of female engineeringprofessors and quantitative data from faculty surveys to explore perceptions of climate and work-life balance in the college of engineering.National Science Foundation's ADVANCE programWomen have made much progress in science and engineering over the past 30 years, but theyremain underrepresented in both degree attainment and academic careers in many STEMdisciplines.1-3 In 2007, women earned 47% of science and engineering doctoral degrees awardedto U.S. citizens and permanent residents, up from 33% in

Conference Session

Engaging Students in Engineering (ENGAGE)

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Susan Staffin Metz, Stevens Institute of Technology; Sheryl A. Sorby, Michigan Technological University; Tricia S. Berry, University of Texas, Austin; Carolyn Conner Seepersad, University of Texas, Austin; Ana Maria Dison, University of Texas, Austin; Yosef S. Allam, The Ohio State University; John A. Merrill, Ohio State University; Wally Peters, University of South Carolina, Department of Mechanical Engineering; Erica Pfister-Altschul, University of South Carolina; Sarah C. Baxter, University of South Carolina; Guangming Zhang, University of Maryland, College Park, Department of Mechanical Engineering; James A. Leach, University of Louisville

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

Education Innovation Center, College of Engi- neering, The Ohio State University, 244 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210-1278; email: allam.1@osu.edu.Dr. John A Merrill, Ohio State University Dr. John Merrill is Director of the First-Year Engineering Program at Ohio State University and a part of the management team for the Engineering Education Innovation Center. He is advisor to Engineers for Community Service, the Student Instructional Leadership Team, and a co-ed Engineering High School Explorer Post.Wally Peters, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of South Carolina Wally Peters has been a Professor at the University of South Carolina since 1980. He has received both the Mungo

Conference Session

WIED Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Emiko Hirose Horton, Shibaura Institute of Technology; Kumiko Miki, Nihon University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

inworking places in Japan. However, among those corporations that answered the survey, theratio of female engineers was only 1.3%.Ratio of female students Page 22.860.2 The ratio of female students in engineering fields among the member institutions was11.6% in universities and 16.5% in colleges of technology. According to the 2010 BasicSchool Survey of MEXT (= Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology),the ratio of female students in educational institutions as a whole is 41.1%, an increase of0.4% from the previous year (Fig. 1). The number of female students has been increasingsteadily. However, the ratio of female

Conference Session

Recruitment & Retention of Women I

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Elizabeth Litzler, University of Washington; Priti N. Mody-Pan, University of Washington; Suzanne G. Brainard, University of Washington

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

that changes are needed in theengineering classrooms, and the need to think about women as a diverse group. Femaleundergraduate engineering students are typically studied with little attention paid to theintersection of race/ethnicity and gender. Some researchers consider this dual minority status tobe a “double-bind 1” while other researchers look at how attributes of certain underrepresentedracial backgrounds offer advantages to female students in Science, Technology, Engineering andMathematics (STEM) fields 2. Despite continued calls for disaggregated data on race and gender,few datasets have detailed information on student experiences with sufficient representation ofunderrepresented minorities to facilitate statistical analysis 3.Using

Conference Session

Reports from ADVANCE Institutions

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Marisol Mercado Santiago, Purdue University; Alice L. Pawley, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Jordana Hoegh, Purdue University; Dina Banerjee, Purdue University, West Lafayette

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

AC 2011-1956: INSTITUTIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY AS A METHOD TOUNDERSTAND THE CAREER AND PARENTAL LEAVE EXPERIENCESOF STEM FACULTY MEMBERSMarisol Mercado Santiago, Purdue University Marisol Mercado Santiago is a doctoral student in the School of Engineering Education, Purdue Univer- sity, and a research assistant in the Research in Feminist Engineering (RIFE) group. She has a M. E. in Computer Engineering and a B. S. in Computer Science (with honors). Among her research interests are (1) culturally responsive education, (2) engineering studies, and (3) art and engineering education. Address: School of Engineering Education, Armstrong Hall, 701 W. Stadium Ave., West Lafayette, IN 47907. mercado@purdue.edu.Alice L. Pawley

Conference Session

Reports from ADVANCE Institutions

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kristen P. Constant, Iowa State University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

Technology is a land grant institution with strength inscience and engineering. The university, with about 28,000 students and 1,750 faculty, has 8colleges, the second largest of which is the College of Engineering with a faculty of 225. IowaState’s faculty is 28.9% women in tenured or tenure eligible positions, but the College ofEngineering (COE) has only 10.1% women faculty.1 Additionally, the attrition rate for ISUwomen faculty in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) issignificantly higher for women as compared to men (especially in the first three years).2Although these numbers are less favorable than national averages, ISU has demonstrated a strongcommitment to increase the diversity of the faculty and has invested

Conference Session

Myths About Gender and Race

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Peggy Layne, Virginia Tech

Tagged Divisions

Liberal Education/Engineering & Society, Minorities in Engineering, Women in Engineering

Committee. Page 22.1456.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Myths of Race and Gender: The Engineering “Pipeline” Metaphor and the Careers of Female Deans of EngineeringIntroductionWho does engineering is important, since engineers are key contributors to the design oftechnologies that shape our world.1 While women have made significant gains in their proportionof degrees earned and their representation in the professoriate in the past 30 years, they remainsignificantly underrepresented in engineering.2 In 2009, women earned just 17.8% of the 74,387bachelor’s degrees awarded in

Conference Session

Myths About Gender and Race

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Amy E. Slaton, Drexel University

Tagged Divisions

Liberal Education/Engineering & Society, Minorities in Engineering, Women in Engineering

attempts to correct minority underrepresentation in the engineering disciplines,educational researchers, cognitive psychologists, and scholars in related fields have since the1980s developed many studies centered on the notion of student self-efficacy. 1-6 These studiesseek to measure the degree to which under-represented minority or otherwise marginalizedstudents experience a sense of self-confidence or feeling that they are able to counter "barrierconditions." Those conditions might include discrimination or other challenging social andintellectual situations encountered in college. While such studies are certainly preferable to adenial of differences between minority and majority experiences, they intentionally or otherwisesupport the notion

Conference Session

Myths About Gender and Race

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Deborah Kilgore, University of Washington; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University; Cynthia J. Atman, University of Washington; Debbie Chachra, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering

Tagged Divisions

Liberal Education/Engineering & Society, Minorities in Engineering, Women in Engineering

makes a difference, but is there a difference in motivation? Some findings from the Academic Pathways StudyIntroduction Despite years of research and intervention, women continue to be underrepresented inengineering [1]. In 2008, women comprised 18.4% of all recipients of an engineering degree [2],continuing an historical trend spanning the last 30 years, during which women’s share ofengineering degrees has remained stable or even declined. One of the goals of the AcademicPathways Study (APS) of which the present analysis is a part, was to contribute to the ongoingdialogue about underrepresentation in engineering, on both explanatory and remedial topics. Thepresent study discusses some APS

Conference Session

WIED Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jorja Kimball, Texas Engineering Experiment Station; Margaret Hobson, Texas A&M University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

andgoverning groups across the nation are beginning to scrutinize time to graduation rates ofbaccalaureate degrees.1 The US Department of Education recently increased the reporting ofuniversity graduation rates from six to eight years, due to the increasing length of time studentsare taking to complete a baccalaureate degree. The increase in time to complete a degree isattributed to factors, such as increased cost of attendance and student employment to help pay forcollege, which may cause part-time enrollment. 2, 3 A study by an NSF funded engineeringeducation center, indicates that the pool of engineering students remains those entering as firsttime students, since very few students migrate into engineering from other degree paths.4 Thereare many

Conference Session

Recruitment & Retention of Women II

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Elizabeth T. Cady, National Academy of Engineering; Norman L. Fortenberry, American Society for Engineering Education; Catherine Didion, National Academy of Engineering

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

engineering bachelor’s degrees increased from lessthan 1% to 13% over that time frame, with women earning 41 bachelor’s degrees in those twodisciplines combined in 1966 and obtaining 2,571 electrical and 2,107 mechanical degrees in2006. Because those two disciplines have historically made up over half of the engineeringdegrees and in 2006 comprised 36,026 (53%) of the total engineering bachelor’s degrees1, thisindicates a serious problem in recruiting, retaining, and advancing girls and women in thesefields. See Figure 1 for number of bachelor’s degrees earned by women and men in engineering,electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering for the years 1966 to 2006 (Note that no datawas available for 1999).Although women’s underrepresentation in

Conference Session

WIED Olio

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Carmen G. Villa, Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City; Elsa Gonzalez, Texas A&M University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.5 Clark, M. C., Revuelto, J., Kraft, D., & Beatty, P. (2003). Learning to work in teams. Journal of Student-CenteredLearning, 1(3), 171-178.6 Romkey, L. (2007). Attracting and retaining females in engineering programs: Using and STSE approach.Retrieved April 10, 2008 from http://www.asee.org/conferences/paper-view.cfm?id=55187 Heyman, G., Martyna, B., & Bhatia, S. (2002). Gender and achievement-related beliefs among engineeringstudents. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, (8)1, 41-53.8 Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention.Formula for student success (pp. 215-244). Westport, CT: American Council on Education

Conference Session

Recruitment & Retention of Women II

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Donna Milgram, National Institute for Women in Trades, Technology & Sciences (IWITTS)

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

model isthat these short-term projects and programs do not include long-term dedicated staff to carry outstrategies; however, this heavier reliance on STEM faculty and administrators means that theprojects are less vulnerable to fluctuations in funding and that they encourage the full “buy in” Page 22.1555.3and support of those same faculty members and administrators.In its own project model, the Institute for Women in Trades, Technology and Science (IWITTS)has chosen to focus on this integrative and institutional approach for increasing the number ofwomen in STEM for several reasons: 1) out of a belief that focusing on strategies for

Conference Session

Recruitment & Retention of Women I

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Lois Calian Trautvetter, Northwestern University; Rose M. Marra, University of Missouri, Columbia; Lisa R. Lattuca, Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Katie L. Piacentini, University of Missouri - Columbia; David B. Knight, Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

Despite nearly 20 years of recruitment and retention efforts focused on female students,women constituted only 19% of engineering students in 2007. A cross-case analysis of sixengineering schools based on rich qualitative data from faculty, student, and administratorinterviews, as well as observations and documents, provides a unique opportunity to identifytrends and unique practices used to address the recruitment and retention of women engineeringstudents. This paper focuses specifically on how these institutions implement K-12 outreach,admissions, summer/bridge, and first and second-year support programs. We find three themesthat support recruitment of female students: 1) historical commitment, institutional type, andgeographical location; 2

Conference Session

WIED Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Aura Tuulia Paloheimo, Aalto University, School of Science and Engineering; Kaisa Pohjonen, Aalto University; Pirjo Helena Putila

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

in our university?It should be noted that all of our degree programs in the university would have qualified forresearch of the reasons why secondary level school girls choose the highly male-dominatedengineering fields. However, with the interest in the most problematic cases, the research wasdirected to scrutinize the most male-dominated degree programs: computer science,automation and systems technology and electronics. The proportions of female students in theresearched degree programs are presented in the Table [1]. The reader should observe that theofficial numbers of students registered in the university are much higher than the number ofstudents that actually begin their studies

Conference Session

Recruitment & Retention of Women I

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mary Ayre, University of South Australia; Julie E. Mills, University of South Australia; Judith Gill, University of South Australia

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

in the CREW2 survey withthose in the ATU survey. A full report of the CREW2 survey, which includes comparisonbetween the female and male responses, has been made elsewhere7.Comparisons of ATU and CREW2 respondent personal and employment profilesYear of graduation, age and further studyAlthough the sample numbers obviously differed (56 for ATU compared with1187 for CREW2)the distribution of graduation dates and ages was very similar, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.The age distribution of the ATU respondents showed that 71% were under 40 years of age andthe corresponding figure for female CREW2 respondents was 84.4%.A higher engineering-related qualification was held by 8.9% of ATU respondents, comparedwith 20.0% of female CREW2 respondents

Conference Session

WIED Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Lorelle A. Meadows, University of Michigan; Denise Sekaquaptewa, University of Michigan

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

videoto determine the contribution of each team member to the presentation content, breaking downthe presentation slides into a series of 6 categories representing an array of technical levels: 1. Title Slide or Final Slide Page 22.1449.5 2. Introduction or Summary or Recap     3. Background 4. Overview Description of Design Solution (What it looks like) or Alternative Designs or Conclusions or Recommendations 5. Detailed Description of Design Solution (What it does/How it works/Cost/Drawbacks and Refutation) 6. Technical Specifications (materials, properties) or Testing Results or

Conference Session

WIED Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Beth M Holloway, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Teri Reed-Rhoads, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Lorie Groll, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

environment. We use Guinier,Torres and Strum’s “Miner’s Canary” theory that minority group behavior is an important tool asa leading indicator of change to help provide insight for faculty and administrators interested inunderstanding the ways in which admissions criteria, pedagogy, curriculum, and institutionalenvironments need to be changed to not only support the needs of the minority groups but makethe environment healthier for all2.Moore, Brown & Scarupa6 reported that indicators are often underutilized in “the broader socialpolicy arena” (p.1) despite their widespread acceptance in so many other fields. Yet theseindicators can provide valuable information to policy makers on the macro, meso, and microlevels6. Moore, Brown, and Scarupa6

Conference Session

WIED Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Silvia Carreno-Castillo, Universidad de las Américas, Puebla; Aurelio Lopez-Malo, Universidad de las Américas, Puebla; Enrique Palou, Universidad de las Américas, Puebla

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

.MethodologyTwo research questions investigated in this qualitative study are:1. Can a boundary metaphor aid in understanding engineering faculty members’ explicit or implicit descriptions of engineering or their discipline within engineering?2. How do faculty members’ descriptions interact with historically and socially influenced ideas about women’s and men’s work?Ten engineering faculty members were interviewed from a small Mexican private institution ofhigher learning committed to first-class teaching, public service, research and learning in a widerange of academic disciplines including business administration, the physical and social sciences,engineering, humanities, and the arts. These faculty members were selected from a pool ofpotential

Conference Session

Recruitment & Retention of Women I

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Matthew J Miller, University of Maryland; Robert Lent, University of Maryland, College Park; Paige E Smith, University of Maryland, College Park; Bevlee A. Watford, Virginia Tech; Gregory M. Wilkins, Morgan State University; Matthew M. Jezzi, University of Maryland; Kayi Hui, University of Maryland, College Park; Robert H Lim, University of Maryland, College Park; Nicole A Bryan, University of Maryland, College Park; Helena Mimi Martin, University of Maryland, College Park

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

Conference Session

Recruitment & Retention of Women II

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Suzanne Keilson, Loyola University, Maryland; Irah Modry-Caron, Loyola University, Maryland

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

incoming students‟ educational goals and the major that they ultimately completed. For purposes of subgroup analysis, African-American, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanic/Latinos are grouped together as “ALANA.” Also, all STEM undergraduate degree programs that are offered at the institution are grouped into four disciplinary categories as shown in Table 1 although the Computer Science degree should not properly be thought of as a technology degree and the speech pathology program is rather distinctive and separate from the other science programs in a number of ways. Table 1: Crosswalk between STEM Majors to STEM Disciplines Major STEM

Conference Session

WIED Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Lisa M Frehill, National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

engineering degrees have been uneven at the bachelor’s level,shown relative increases at the master’s level and a slow but steady increase at the doctoral levelas shown in Figure 1. Unlike many other areas of science, technology, engineering andmathematics (STEM), a bachelor’s degree rather than an advanced degree, is the principlecredential for entre to the engineering profession. Among students who earned a bachelor’sdegree between 2003 and 2006, Figure 1. U.S. Engineering Degrees 1979-2008median earnings for those whosecured employment upon Number of U.S. Engineering Degrees by Year and Level, 1979 - 2008graduation were $50,000, which is

Conference Session

Myths About Gender and Race

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Carroll Suzanne Seron, University of California, Irvine; Erin A. Cech, University of California, San Diego; Susan S. Silbey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Brian Rubineau, Cornell University

Tagged Divisions

Liberal Education/Engineering & Society, Minorities in Engineering, Women in Engineering

Science in Cognitive Science from MIT. Professor Rubineau’s research focuses on the informal social dynamics that generate and perpetuate in- equalities in organizations. This focus has yielded three primary research streams: (1) referral dynamics and job segregation, (2) social network effects and sex segregation in engineering, and (3) professional socialization of physicians and racial disparities in patient care. The first stream, referral dynamics and job segregation, explores practices and policies organizations can implement to reduce the segregating effects of recruitment using word-of-mouth referrals. The second stream, social networks and sex segregation in engineering, scrutinizes the role of a person’s

Conference Session

Reports from ADVANCE Institutions

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jan Rinehart, Rice University; Eden B. King, George Mason University; Mikki Hebl, Rice University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

, Perspectives of IO Psychology, and Group and Organization Management, integrates organizational and social psychological theories in conceptualizing social stigma and the work-life interface. This research addresses three primary themes: 1) current manifestations of discrimination and barriers to work-life bal- ance in organizations, 2) consequences of such challenges for its targets and their workplaces, and 3) individual and organizational strategies for reducing discrimination and increasing support for families. In addition to her academic positions, Dr. King has consulted on applied projects related to climate ini- tiatives, selection systems, and diversity training programs, and has worked as a trial consultant. She is

Conference Session

Reports from ADVANCE Institutions

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Suzanne Zurn-Birkhimer, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Susan Ruth Geier, Purdue University; Chris Sahley, Purdue University, West Lafayette

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

ADVANCE-Purdue, focuses on developing programming andimplementing activities for the success of all faculty designed around three goals: 1) to increasethe number of women of color in STEM faculty positions, 2) to improve the success of allwomen STEM faculty, and 3) to engage all faculty in transforming the institution. ADVANCE-Purdue continually provides the campus leadership with evidence of program effectiveness thatwill offer a basis for campus-wide changes to policy and practice.Ultimately, PCFS seeks to support all women faculty in their career paths and hence developedthe Leadership Institute (LI). The goal of the LI is to provide leadership developmentopportunities and enhance the success for post-tenure faculty, with a focus on STEM

Conference Session

WIED Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Cassandra Groen, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology; Jennifer Karlin, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology; Andrea E. Surovek, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

program does not completely solve everyorganizational problem and does not ensure the success of its participants. Below are somecommon myths and misconceptions when implementing and carrying out a mentoring program.Myth #1: A Mentoring Relationship is Strictly DyadicAs previously discussed, the traditional concept of a mentoring relationship is a dyadic one; anolder individual guides a younger individual through various career and life paths. Manyinstitutions and organizations have attempted implementing such programs. Often programsconsisted of a program coordinator that blindly paired mentors to protégés. Depending on theinstitution, mentoring pairs belonged to the same college and even the same department.Mentoring pairs were then required to