able to: • Apply the design thinking process to identify a specific problem and develop a creative and/or innovative solution to address this problem. (Design Thinking) • Function effectively on a team. (Teamwork) • Demonstrate a knowledge of the country(ies) and culture(s) of their team members. (Global Competency)Students worked in one of three different types of teams: • IVE teams included two students from a US institution (either Bucknell or Clemson) and two from An-Najah. • US non-IVE teams included four students from Clemson University. • Palestinian non-IVE teams included four to five students from An-Najah.The reasoning for having these three different types of teams included that (a) there
-institutional collaboration space cannaturally become a live classroom where involved graduate and undergraduate students—thenext generation of engineers and engineering researchers—witness the ethical and professionalstandards in practice and accept and emulate them as the norm in the profession.AcknowledgmentThis study is supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research under award number Grant #N00014-23-1-2260. References[1] L. Fleming, S. Mingo, and D. Chen, “Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 443–475, Sep. 2007, doi: 10.2189/asqu.52.3.443.[2] J. L. Hess, J. Ströbel, and A. O. Brightman, “The development
Operating an Innovation Cebter to Nuture Future Engineering Innovators," in 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2024.[2] "Quick statistics 2022,"The University of Hong Kong, https://www.cpao.hku.hk/qstats/files/Archive/2022.pdf.[3] C. Keller, J. F. Prosise and P. J. Parker, "A Learner- and Equity-Centered Approach to Maker Spaces,," in Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, 2022.[4] D. M. Riley, L. D. McNair and A. S. Masters, "An Ethnography of Maker and Hacker Spaces Achieving Diverse Participation," in the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, OH, 2017.[5] G. Richard and S. Giri, "Inclusive collaborative learning with
,”focused on interactions between those living in Allen Field, a neighborhood in Houston, and thegovernment entity that facilitated the managed retreat process13. “Flooding in Allen Field has gottenworse and more dangerous as climate change feeds stronger storms and new developments furtherupstream reshape the area’s floodplains”13. As a response, the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) in 2020 forced onto Allen Field residents a buyout program, which allowed them to“[s]ell their houses to the county at market value and get assistance to move out of the floodplain”13.Buyout ProgramBuyout programs avoid the problem of moving people to safer areas but, as the experiences of theFijian citizens showed, relocation is not the only problem faced by
STEM field. The "STEM Identity Scale" developed by Setren et al. is acommonly used instrument that evaluates students' sense of belonging and identification withSTEM disciplines (2019). Additionally, studies have used surveys to assess students'identification with stereotypes and their connection to STEM (Cheryan et al., 2017).Belongingness is typically assessed using self-report measures that gauge students' feelings ofinclusion, social acceptance, and connection within their academic community. The"Belongingness Scale" developed by Good et al. is widely utilized to measure students' sense ofbelonging in STEM fields (2012). Expanding on Good et al.’s work in belongingnessmeasurement, Walton and Cohen have also employed surveys to assess
restructured. It seems likebelonging is a term that offices are allowed to include in their name as opposed to diversity, andalready many offices have removed or switched around the words equity and inclusion.”Karter noted that “I wouldn’t say there has been any major closures or seen any offices dissolve,but it’s been more just trying to find a way so that we are still providing the necessary resourcesand support for our students to succeed in whatever it is that they do without, I guess, reallyclearly naming it as this is for a certain group. This new legislation, it does say that we are able toprovide things for underrepresented [students]. It’s just how can we define theunderrepresented.”Morgan noted that “My particular office[’s]... mission
–1622, 2021.[17] S. R. Torres-Harding, B. Siers, and B. D. Olson, “Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Social Justice Scale (SJS),” Am. J. Community Psychol., vol. 50, no. 1–2, pp. 77–88, Sep. 2012, doi: 10.1007/s10464-011-9478-2.[18] L. Burnell and D. L. Agan, “Compassionate Care: Can it be Defined and Measured? The Development of the Compassionate Care Assessment Tool,” Int. J. Caring Sci., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 180–187, 2013.[19] T. Hacker, “The relational compassion scale: development and validation of a new self rated scale for the assessment of self-other compassion,” University of Glasgow, 2008.[20] B. A. Lown, S. J. Muncer, and R. Chadwick, “Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The Schwartz Center
and ongoing challenges, framing our next steps for more equitableprogramming.An Inclusive Model for First Year DesignStructurally supporting Engineering Identity WorkThe objective of the program model and its associated courses, “Lead-by-Design” and “FirstYear Design,” is not only to bring more opportunities for engineering practice to lower-divisionundergraduate students but to build learning communities that support the ongoing identity workof developing engineers as they navigate the university ecosystem. Lead by Design positionsupper-division undergraduate students as leaders in their area(s) of expertise. Prospectivestudent-teachers apply to the program as a team with a course proposal; those accepted enroll inthe quarter-long, 5-unit
.” - MalikahIn this case, the project itself reinforces the backbone functionality of the NF team by forgingnew connections among sites scaffolded by the existing bonds of the NF team and the networkmore broadly. Malikah describes how the NF team’s project provides resources for mentorshiprelationships with marginalized students within the network. The project that Malikah sees asimportant to her time on the NF team is framed in the backbone conceptualization.The effectiveness of the backbone conceptualization of the team is dependent on the uniquecontexts within which the NF works. Greg describes that he “see[s] the NF as- as a way forsharing ideas that come up at sites as a way of keeping sites aware of each other and mostimportantly, as a way of
department chair.Spring 2020Figure 2. Prior to the interview, we ask each student to complete a journey map indicating theirhigh and low points throughout the semester. The high and low points (as seen on the Y axis)represents their positive and negative experiences. Adriana’s Journey Map for the secondsemester of Year 3 in engineering. In November of 2019, I went to a SWE conference and that was a huge high for me because I got multiple internship offers for this summer. It was unlike anything I had been to before; it was amazing. That conference is such an incredible opportunity because there ’s hundreds of companies there and they’re all there to hire women, which is not something that you get usually in engineering. There were some
commonalities in their individual ways of experiencing innovation(see Table 1). These categories formed a hierarchical progression from less comprehensive tomore comprehensive ways of experiencing innovation along two dimensions: Focus ofInnovation Activities and Extent of Innovation Process (see Figure 1). It should be noted that thefinal four categories (5–8) were each at the highest level of comprehensiveness in the outcomespace. They differed primarily on the Focus of Innovation Activities dimension.The Focus of Innovation Activities dimension addressed the area(s) that individuals prioritizedduring innovation activities (e.g., technical, human, or enterprise). In less comprehensivecategories (1–4), this dimension represented participants
traveling and resulted in short reportsafter travel.Site visit reports: Participants completed reports for each site visited. These forms consisted offive question prompts and resulted in formative, reflective reports that captured their experiencesat each visit and also acted as informal journals that they could use in the future to identifytrends, concepts and/or innovations that they found notable. The reports also served as a recordfor their continued investigation into their individual inquiry question(s).Sector Reports: Upon return, participants were paired up on teams based on their specific areaof renewable energy expertise to complete sector reports which compared and contrasted theGerman and U.S. energy industry, educational pathways
) and a Doctorate in Education from Northeastern University (2022) where she recently completed her dissertation in elementary STEAM education. She also worked as a professional engineer in the athletic footwear and medical device industries for 10 years before joining the faculty at Northeastern University in 2006.Mrs. Claire Duggan, Northeastern University Claire Duggan serves as Executive Director for The Center for STEM Education at Northeastern Univer- sity. She is a Co-Pricipal Investigator for the NSF Bernice Johnson Includes Alliance, Engineering PLUS, the S-STEM grant, S-POWER, and an NSF REU site, REU Pathways.Mr. Jeffrey Xavier, SageFox Consulting GroupAmi N. SlaterKenneth Rath
. Medin, C. D. Lee, and M. Bang, “Point of View Affects How Science Is Done,” Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/point-of-view-affects-how-science-is-done/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2023).[4] S. C. Hill, “When I Learned the Value of Diversity for Innovation,” Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-i-learned-the-value-of-diversity-for-innova tion/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2023).[5] C. Cole et al., “What Factors Impact Psychological Safety in Engineering Student Teams? A Mixed-Method Longitudinal Investigation,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 144, no. 12, p. 122302, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1115/1.4055434.[6] A. Edmondson, “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams,” Adm. Sci. Q
tellus why they took these photos/videos and what they mean to them [BLINDED]. Each interview was approximately 60 minutes in length and led by a team member at thatinstitution; often a second team member was present in a supporting role to ask follow-upquestions. All interviews were conducted over Zoom so they could be recorded and allowed forflexibility with the student schedules, particularly as we started this research during the Covid-19pandemic. Interviews were then transcribed and coded by the faculty researcher/s at the sameinstitution as the participant. Participant anonymity is ensured as much as possible withpseudonyms and at times, slight changes to the contextual information or timeline to reduce thespecificity that could
critical pieces of evidence to uncover:1) researchers and practitioners work together and that 2) partners feel as if they are a valuedmember of the team. The indicators (as defined by the Five Dimensions framework), codes thatwe established based on the indicators, and corresponding questions are outlined in Table 2. Table 2: Dimension 1: Codes for Building trust and cultivating partnerships. Indicator Code Corresponding Questions Researchers and practitioners Inclusive Collaboration (IC): Re- How often do you collab- routinely work together searchers and practitioners rou- orate with the other part- tinely work together and all feel as ner(s
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Resources[1] “Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019 | NSF - National Science Foundation.” https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/ (accessed Apr. 12, 2019).[2] M. Estrada et al., “Improving Underrepresented Minority Student Persistence in STEM,” CBE—Life Sci. Educ., vol. 15, no. 3, p. es5, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038.[3] M. Ong, N. Jaumot‐Pascual, and L. T. Ko, “Research literature on women of color in undergraduate engineering education: A systematic thematic synthesis,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 581–615, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1002/jee.20345.[4] M
-2119930. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. The authors thank Dr. Anni Reinking who contributed to the framing of thedata collection and analysis and assisted on the data interpretation. Drs. Amy Slaton and KaylaMaxey also contributed to framing the study.References[1] Awards/degrees conferred by program (CIP), award level, race/ethnicity and gender, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2011–2021. [Online]. Available: https:// nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data[2] National Science
, for her assistance incoordinating the experiment itself, and for her indispensable mentorship and encouragementevery step of the way.References[1] D. A. Harrison, K. H. Price, J. H. Gavin, and A. T. Florey, “Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1029–1045, 2002, https://doi.org/10.2307/3069328[2] D. van Knippenberg, C. K. W. De Dreu, and A. C. Homan, “Work Group Diversity and Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 1008–1022, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008[3] S. W. DeGrassi, W. B. Morgan, S. S. Walker, Y. Wang
learning environments [18].References[1] M. Castells and C. Blackwell, “The information age: economy, society and culture. Volume 1. The rise of the network society,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 25, pp. 631–636, 1998.[2] H. V. Haraldsson, Introduction to system thinking and causal loop diagrams. Department of chemical engineering, Lund University Lund, Sweden, 2004.[3] M. A. Dolansky, S. M. Moore, P. A. Palmieri, and M. K. Singh, “Development and validation of the systems thinking scale,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 35, pp. 2314–2320, 2020.[4] K. E. Dugan, E. A. Mosyjowski, S. R. Daly, and L. R. Lattuca, “Systems thinking assessments in engineering: A systematic literature review,” Systems