et al., "On the Road to Becoming a Professor: The Graduate Student Experience," Change, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 18–27, 1999.[26] E. Hocker, E. Zerbe, and C. G. P. Berdanier, "Characterizing Doctoral Engineering Student Socialization: Narratives of Mental Health, Decisions to Persist, and Consideration of Career Trajectories," 2019.[27] P. J. Miller and R. Fossey, "Mapping the Cultural Landscape in Engineering Education," J. Eng. Educ., vol. 99, pp. 5–22, 2010.[28] I. Bleijenbergh, M. L. Van Engen, and C. J. Vinkenburg, “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,” An Int. J., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2013, doi: 10.1108/02610151311305597.[29] G. Sharma, "Pros and cons of different
“IF THEY KNOW, THEY WILL COME:” Collaboration between Penn State Harrisburg SDCET Program and Secondary Education Sofia M. Vidalis, Ph.D. & Joseph J. Cecere, Ph.D., CPC Pennsylvania State University at HarrisburgAbstractHigh school graduates continuing their formal schooling at higher education institutions mayexperience confusion as they explore and try to understand possible careers related to majorsthey think they want to pursue. High school counselors and teachers strive to keep abreast of thechanges and advancements in new and transforming careers in order to properly advise students.This information is important as students schedule
, resilient, and successful University graduates. The McCormick Administration decided to build an advising model based on a learnercentered concept sometimes called the AdvisingasTeaching paradigm. Traditionally, FirstYear students at Northwestern University were assigned to a faculty adviser, in a department based on their stated intended major. Undeclared students were randomly assigned to a faculty member. This advising model gave incoming students a home department, but not necessarily the department undeclared students wanted. In addition, students that changed majors, or were exploring majors, often needed to find their own connections with faculty in other departments. Lastly, in addition to helping students new to the university
interests, philosophies and general world view. You want to choose someone with whom you feel comfortable and who will give you the individual support you may want. Try to get acquainted with several faculty members in your department before making a definitive choice. Ask the opinions of other graduate students.• Make sure you can get along with a potential advisor on both a professional and personal level. You will be spending a great deal of time together—in most scientific fields, five or six years—so you need to work together comfortably. You and your advisor should be able to communicate openly and honestly. This doesn’t mean that you and your advisor should be best friends, just that you can work together professionally.• Ask around
DevelopmentThe development of this program is detailed in Somerton et al [1]. A proposal for this collegeteaching certificate program was formulated by a committee of faculty and graduate studentsduring the 1998-99 academic year. The proposal was forwarded to the Dean of the College ofEngineering at Michigan State University, and after review by the administrative group of thecollege, the decision was made to go forward with the program. A coordinating committee ofthree faculty members (the authors of this paper) were identified to develop the two coursesassociated with the program. One purpose of this coordinating committee was to provide, on arotating basis, the instructor for the first three offerings of the theory and practice course. Thecollege
institution offers an ABET accredited engineering degree (Engineering Scienceand Industrial Engineering) and each graduates ~7-12 engineers per year. Sharing expertise,capabilities, and faculty time are important considerations in developing the program because ofthe very small size of each school’s departments.The mission of the program is to allow students to practice engineering skills while they developstrong communication and teamwork skills, gain global perspective, and learn socialresponsibility through projects for persons with disabilities that otherwise could not affordassistance, both locally and globally. At each institution the program is incorporated intorequired sophomore and junior-level design-intensive courses. The course is offered
motivated toengage in PBL activities for external rewards (i.e., grade or promotion).Self-efficacy refers to a student’s confidence in his or her ability to be successful in a particularlearning endeavor. Research shows that self-efficacy is an important factor related to positivelearning outcomes and can moderate the amount of effort learners put forth in achieving specificlearning objectives25. In this study, we defined self-efficacy as pre-service teachers’ confidencein their ability to apply PBL methods in the classroom.Critical thinking refers to the degree to which students apply previous knowledge to newsituations in order to solve problems, reach decisions, or make critical evaluations with respect toperformance standards26. In order for
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition Page 6.985.3 Copyright © 2001, American Society for Engineering Education Ultimately, as engineering faculty members, we are educating students to become goodpeople, not simply good engineers. We hope that our efforts will help students know how toapply what they have learned in such a manner as to make a contribution to their families,communities, and themselves (not simply their superiors) without sacrificing an inordinateamount of time, energy, and commitment to their work. We do not want our students to sacrificea sense of personal well
multidisciplinary contexts and develop theirprofessional knowledge and skills. The intent was to engage over 100 undergraduateengineering students each year in a serious pursuit of ways in which progress can bemade on these challenges.Each semester, the program begins with engineering faculty members. A solicitationis sent to all engineering faculty members inviting proposals to support teams ofstudents. The incentive is that the College provides support for up to one graduatestudent who will work with an undergraduate student team, usually ten or moreundergraduate students. The graduate student will help the team with their technicalknowledge and often greater experience about the subject matter. Combiningundergraduate students, and graduate student, and
(unsolicited specialrequests from students or other faculty members, extra service loads as the “tokenrepresentative” of an underrepresented group, emotional labor and management at home, etc.),these labors were amplified once the uncertainty of COVID-19 hit students, colleagues, and athome. True to our experiences, the pandemic exacerbated the already known gendered dynamicsbetween students, and students and faculty; but our narratives seek to explore how these knownstudent and colleague behaviors were experienced and understood by the researchers during theuncertain climate of the pandemic. We believe our storied experiences of the gendered andinstitutional stressors of the pandemic that unmoored us will resonate with academics at large,and with
. Faculty members and students are being surveyedand spoken to concerning the items to be placed in the brochures and on the web.Current WorkAn effort is being made at Michigan State University to prepare documentation, both written andweb based, to provide younger engineering students with connecting strands between coursestaken at the lower tier of study and the upper tier. It is a work in progress; and the details of theproject, its current status, and future directions will be explored. Page 7.959.1 “Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
was originally designed, it doesrepresent an ambiguous, ill-defined environment in which faculty encounter a range of projects,personalities, and skill levels, and must often act in the moment to make quick decisions on classmanagement and pedagogical approaches throughout a class period or team meeting10, 11. Givenits successful use in engineering education by Sattler and Turns, CDM was used in the study tosolicit details of faculty practices that address both content and tacit knowledge within a givensituation, and explore how the knowledge was used to address the situation7.CDM employs a semi-structured, case based interview protocol in which the interviewer guidesthe participant in selecting an incident, providing a detailed account of
program, obtainingfunding, securing laboratory facilities and equipment, teaching courses, and weeding through theseemingly countless requests to serve on university and research-related committees and activitiesare all demands placed on new faculty members. Unseen to most graduate and doctoral students,these tasks present an imposing reality to the beginning faculty member. Decisions at the beginning of a tenure-track appointment regarding the use of limited timecan have lasting effects on one’s professorial career. Successfully handling the demands of atenure track appointment and negotiating the “tenure gauntlet” requires an astute balancing act.Having a skilled mentor to assist in choosing appropriate activities and career strategies
teaching o Team projects, with a balanced evaluation of three elements - group dynamics, technical merit, and communicationTable 2. University of Memphis Mission StatementThe University of Memphis is a member of the State University and Community CollegeSystem of Tennessee and is governed by the Tennessee Board of Regents. As an urbanuniversity, The University of Memphis provides a stimulating academic environment forits students, including an innovative undergraduate education and excellence in selectedresearch areas and graduate programs. The academic environment extends beyond thecampus boundaries to encompass the entire community. o Education is enhanced through exposure to diversity in the composition of the student body, faculty
target tracking and physical layer communications. Her work on target detection and tracking is funded by the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Nelson is a 2010 recipient of the NSF CAREER Award. She is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, and the IEEE Signal Processing, Communications, and Education Societies.Dr. Margret Hjalmarson, George Mason University Margret Hjalmarson is an Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Education at George Mason University and currently a Program Officer in the Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Infor- mal Settings at the National Science Foundation. Her research interests include engineering education, mathematics education, faculty development
AbstractThis paper explores what elements and concepts should be included in a pre-college, widelyavailable digital course designed to better guide, inform, and prepare high school studentsinterested in pursuing a career in engineering. The purpose of the course is to provide a digitaltool for exploration by high school students and their advising network as they seek to gain abetter understanding of what an engineering education and career entails. As the investigationhas progressed, the potential benefit of developing separate courses for “guide and inform” and“prepare” is appearing. This paper will focus on the development of the comprehensive coursewith the understanding that there is potential for a separation by themes tuned to
. Page 15.683.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Implementing Ethics Across Engineering CurriculaAbstractThis paper explores the origins, rationale and implementation of a faculty developmentworkshop in ethics for engineering faculty. This is part of the development of an ethics acrossthe curriculum approach to prepare undergraduate engineers for their professionalresponsibilities. The workshop emerged from research into the “best practices” of ethicseducation for engineers, sponsored by the Dean of the College of Engineering and conducted byan ethics faculty member and a Philosophy Ph.D. candidate. The results of that research pointedtoward the ethics across the curriculum approach, which the Dean endorsed. The
from the survey instrument (more than 200 respondents). ● 90% talked with family before changing majors. ● 73% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their decision to change majors. ● 68% had taken an Introduction to Engineering course and indicated it was helpful in deciding to change their major. ● 67% chose their major before they chose the institution. ● 56% changed their major because it no longer aligned with their interest and another major suited them better. ● 25% changed their major within two (2) semesters, with 30% changing their major after one semester. Very few students changed their major after 3 semesters. ● 16% had one bad experience with a faculty member, where 19
and their teachers. Theprogram is designed to address each one of the above mentioned skills.A major problem that currently exists in the schools in the United States is the lack ofappropriate methods and tools which should be used to motivate students to explore careers inscience and engineering (Anwar, 1998). In most of the schools, excellence in mathematics isregarded as a key to success in science and engineering. Students are taught numerousmathematical concepts without teaching them how these concepts are put into application in thereal world. Many math teachers are unfortunately unaware of how engineers and scientists usemathematics to solve real-world problems (Mowzoon, White, Blaisdell, and Rowland, 1999). Byinfusing science and
hard data from their own students. Therefore, the goals of the workshop design were to guide North Carolina A&T faculty in gaining: 1) an understanding of three findings from a large-scale study of the engineering student experience; 2) an awareness of the types of decisions explicitly and implicitly made in teaching; and 3) an appreciation of the implications of research findings for their own teaching. In an effort to promote faculty buy-in for the workshop, several months before the scheduled event the entire faculty was introduced to the agenda of the planned workshop which consisted of a presentation of findings, followed by general discussion and small group work to explore
: Designing Program Educational ObjectivesAbstractIndustrial Engineering programs prepare graduates for a wide range of jobs in a wide range ofindustries. Having faculty members choose a focus for a program, design a new program, orredesign an existing Industrial Engineering program can be contentious. This paper presents amethod, using descriptions of real jobs, to help faculty members talk about the types of jobs forwhich the program is preparing graduates and to talk about how well the program is preparinggraduates for those jobs. The method allows agreements and disagreements to emerge andprovides a way to talk about them. This method has obvious applications in designing programeducational objectives and in reviewing and updating program
facilitators for change.There are several challenge areas for any curriculum change. They are:• Any significant redesign of curriculum offerings requires the coordination and consensus ofmany faculty members, and crosses different departmental and college boundaries. At the sametime, faculty members already have substantial workloads in research and teaching.• The current university reward system does not encourage efforts in curriculum redesign.Faculty members are rewarded for individual achievements within the university and the academiccommunity in the broadest sense. Within the university, faculty are rewarded for the number ofpublications, the number of graduate students advised, and the amount of funded researchobtained. This is the primary
aiding studentsin making informed decisions [1]. Activities like peer discussions and reflective essays can helpstudents articulate and explore their professional aspirations, fostering self-awareness andaligning their studies with their career objectives.Finally, instructors are key in modeling the significance of motivation and passion by sharingtheir professional journeys and demonstrating their enthusiasm for teaching and engineering.Such leading by example, enhanced by engaging passionate teaching assistants, underscores thevalue of dedication in both educational and professional contexts. This comprehensive approachaims to instill in FYE students an appreciation of the critical roles that motivation, drive, andpassion play in their
leadership, what works, and new approaches to explore through constructivecriticism from the learning communities that includes faculty, students (peer groups), and thecommunity they serve. Therefore for this article, learning communities will be defined “asgroups of people engaged in intellectual interaction for the purpose of learning” (Cross3, 1998). 3Service learning at Jackson State UniversityThe mission of the Department of Technology is to provide a nationally accredited program,which serves the technical, managerial, and communication needs of persons desiring to enter oradvance professionally in an industrial technology related career
management projects. She works extensively with food banks and food pantries on supply chain management and logistics focused initiatives. Her graduate and undergraduate students are integral part of her service-learning based logistics classes. She teaches courses in strategic relationships among industrial distributors and distribution logistics. Her recent research focuses on engineering education and learning sciences with a focus on how to engage students better to prepare their minds for the future. Her other research interests include empirical studies to assess impact of good supply chain practices such as coordinated decision making in stochastic supply chains, handling supply chains during times of crisis and
individualpositionalities are included within this section to provide audiences with a lens to view the results.Amanda Singer was a graduate teaching assistant within Michigan Technological University’sFirst-year engineering program at the time of this study’s development and data collection. Dr.Michelle Jarvie Eggart is an assistant professor within the Department of EngineeringFundamentals at Michigan Tech and taught the sections of the First-Year Engineering (FYE)courses in which students were surveyed for this work. Dr. Akua Oppong-Anane is an assistantprofessor and academic advisor within the FYE program at Montana Technological University.Like Dr. Jarvie Eggart, Dr. Oppong-Anane was the course faculty member for the section ofstudents surveyed at Montana
digital signal processing.Dr. Tonya Smith-Jackson, Virginia Tech Dr. Smith-Jackson is an Associate Professor in the Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engi- neering. Her specialty areas are cognitive ergonomics and system safety.Carl B. Dietrich, Jr., Virginia Tech Carl Dietrich is a research faculty member at Virginia Tech, where he completed Ph.D. and M.S. de- grees after graduating from Texas A&M University. He worked with the Defense Information Systems Agency, Arlington, Virginia and Bell Northern Research, Richardson, Texas and conducted research on adaptive and diversity antenna systems and radio wave propagation. His current work in software defined radio (SDR) includes leading projects
growing phenomenon ofreflects the challenge in preparing students for a career in industry. scientists and humanities in academia working separately and In 2023, the Technology Management faculty at the struggling to collaborate, which he called the “two cultures.”University of Bridgeport created an Industry Advisory Board [5] In his argument, he says this phenomenon will lead to lessconsisting of regional executives from large corporations. This innovation in society as well as hindering the problem-solvinggroup reiterated the concept of communication breakdowns, in capabilities of any organization. Snow concluded his lecture bythis case between engineers and business professionals
Paper ID #43708Board 87: Work in Progress: The 2TO4 Project - Facilitated Transition from2-Year to 4-Year Electrical and Computer Engineering StudiesDr. Kenneth A Connor, Inclusive Engineering Consortium & Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Kenneth Connor is Program Officer at the Inclusive Engineering Consortium (IEC), whose mission is to enable MSI ECE programs to produce more and better prepared graduates from groups that have been historically underrepresented in ECE careers. He is also an emeritus professor in the Department of Electrical, Computer, and Systems Engineering (ECSE) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI
student the Department of English at Old Dominion University. She teaches composition, scientific, digital, and technical writing, and her research interests include professional and technical writing, as well as sound studies, games, and simulation.Dr. Pilar Pazos, Old Dominion University Pilar Pazos is an Associate Professor and Graduate Program Director in the Engineering Management and Systems Engineering Department at Old Dominion University. Her areas of research include team-based work structures, collaborative learning, knowledge management and decision making.Dr. Daniel Richards, Old Dominion University Daniel Richards, Ph.D. is assistant professor of technical and professional writing in the Department of