Conference Session

Research in Faculty Development

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Tareq Daher, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; Lance C. Pérez, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; Wayne A. Babchuk, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; Leilani A. Arthurs, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Tagged Topics

Faculty Development Constituency Committee

conducts research on the history, epistemology, application, and instruction of qualitative research across disciplines, research ethics, grounded theory, ethnography, grounded ethnography, and mixed methods. He is also involved in several other research tracks including faculty teaching and evaluation strategies, interdisciplinary collaboration, teaching applied anthropology, Kalahari San land and resource rights, re- search to practice links in minority health care, and student and instructor perceptions of the impact of social media on student success. With a broad and diverse background in both education and the social sciences, he strives to bring a holistic and interdisciplinary approach to all aspects of teaching

Conference Session

Evidence-based Practices in Faculty Development

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sarah E. Zappe, Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Megan Huffstickler, Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Joseph C. Tise, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Thomas A. Litzinger, Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Sven G. Bilén, Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Tagged Topics

Faculty Development Constituency Committee

incentives offered by the college’s teaching and learningcenter. A sense of community yet autonomy also encouraged faculty to participate. Barriersincluded implementation ambiguity, time required to implement and to prepare, and a perceivedlack of expertise in some of topics involved in the innovation such as ethics. Faculty resistance tochange, the logistical concerns of the course, and characteristics of the university, as well asinterpersonal dynamics also impacted the likelihood of adoption. The results are discussed in termsof implications for faculty developers and teaching and learning centers.Introduction and Literature ReviewIn the past several decades, engineering education has seen a significant increase in the amount ofresearch and

Conference Session

Revealing the Invisible: Engineering Course Activities that Address Privilege, -Isms, and Power Relations (Interactive Session)

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Joel Alejandro Mejia, University of San Diego; Diana A. Chen, University of San Diego; Odesma Onika Dalrymple, University of San Diego; Susan M Lord, University of San Diego

Tagged Topics

ASEE Diversity Committee, Diversity, Faculty Development Constituency Committee

Tagged Divisions

Design in Engineering Education, International, Liberal Education/Engineering & Society, Minorities in Engineering

conversations about equity anddiversity in the classroom. The engineering curriculum is not neutral, and knowledge is producedwithin a power-driven social and cultural system [3, 4]. ABET student outcomes are not entirelytechnical and include that students must have an understanding of professional and ethicalresponsibility, the broad education necessary to understand engineering impacts in a global andsocietal context, and knowledge of contemporary issues. Nevertheless, discussing the societaland ethical implications of engineering and technology is often a daunting task for bothengineering students and instructors [5].At our university, as part of a National Science Foundation (NSF) Revolutionizing Engineeringand Computer Science Departments (RED

Conference Session

Faculty Development Work-in-Progress Poster Session

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jim L. Borgford-Parnell, University of Washington; Ken Yasuhara, University of Washington; Kamal Abdulla Ahmed, University of Washington; David Schipf, University of Washington

Tagged Topics

Faculty Development Constituency Committee

3 7% resilient 3 7% critical thinker 2 5% ethical 2 5% resourceful 2 5% trusting 1 2%Our first observation is that a majority of the codes are interpersonal in nature. That is, theyidentify a characteristic of a person that makes sense or is relevant only in the context ofinterpersonal activity. Consider, for instance, a more obvious