withoutwell-defined requirements might struggle meeting such course expectations. While both project-styles potentially result in good projects, equitably assessing both within the same course canprove quite challenging.While most students tend to respond favorably to their design experiences, it should berecognized that this major design experience does, in fact, introduce a certain level of stressbeyond that typically associated with other courses. The size and complexity of projects pursuedin most senior design programs are often the most complex project students have experienced atthis point in their academic careers. Additionally, many students are stressed when required toformally communicate [5], yet such communication is a common component to
Anne College (later Universityof Maryland Eastern Shore). As with most of the segregation schemes of the era, Princess Annewas poorly funded, never fully staffed with qualified personnel, and never had proper investmentin infrastructure. Parallel to the public education enterprise, the inequality of the system waspropagated by racist and intransigent stakeholders and justified through various legal loopholesand racist cultural assumptions.One particular aspect of inequality between the two systems was access to professional trainingin specific career paths. In the 1930s, this was brought to the fore by a legal challenge to theUMD law school in Baltimore. The result of this legal challenge was a new separate-but-(more)-equal law school at
another career; Interest is the enjoyment (or lack of) experienced in doingengineering activities; and Utility is the perceived usefulness (or lack of) of becoming anengineer and/or earning an engineering degree (Matusovich et al., 2010). The authors conductedlongitudinal semi-structured interviews of 11 participants (5 men and 6 women) during their fouryears of undergraduate engineering education. They found that all four Eccles’ value categoriesare present; that attainment value plays a prominent role, but not an exclusive role, inparticipant’s choice to earn an engineering degree; and that the four categories are not mutuallyexclusive. In summary, the researchers found that participants can be categorized with high orlow engineering-related
factors influence diverse students to choose engineering and stay in engineering through their careers and how different experiences within the practice and culture of engineering foster or hinder belongingness and identity development. Dr. Godwin graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in Engineering and Science Education. She is the recipient of a 2014 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Educational Research and Methods Di- vision Apprentice Faculty Grant. She has also been recognized for the synergy of research and teaching as an invited participant of the 2016 National Academy of Engineering Frontiers of Engineering Ed- ucation Symposium and 2016 New Faculty
the U.S. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). http://engineering.tufts.edu/me/people/wendell/Chelsea Joy Andrews, Tufts Center for Engineering Education and Outreach Chelsea Andrews is a Ph.D. candidate at Tufts University in STEM education. She received a B.S. from Texas A&M University in ocean engineering and an S.M. from MIT in civil and environmental engi- neering. Her current research includes investigating children’s engagement in engineering design through in-depth case study analysis. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Elementary student engagement with digital engineering notebook cards
’ race, gender,and major on their notecards, we would like to ask for their year in school. This would allow usto explore how students openness to diversity and cultural change efforts fluctuate from the timestudents begin their college career through graduation. For the group responses, we did not askstudents to record the gender, race, or major make-up of their small group. Going forward, wewould like to capture this information in order to see how the diversity of the small groupsimpacts the discussion. This would enable us to explore questions such as: Are white malesmore receptive to the case study when they are in a group with multiple women or people ofcolor? How do the experiences of women and people of color change when they are the
shown in the perception of makingand engineering, as participants in the making community were also found to relate their work tothe work engineers perform and found both fields to be admirable. This correlation may suggestthat there could be a smooth transfer of interest and a higher likelihood for students involved inmaking to self-identify as engineers, thereby building their tenacity in continuing to study theSTEM fields in their future educational and career endeavors.3. MethodsWe conducted a multisite case study which explored two underrepresented populations ofstudents and their engagement with 3D printing, a common digital fabrication tool that is widelypopular with the maker movement. We provided students at each site with access to 3D
Alabama. Dr. Burian’s professional career spans more than 20 years during which he has worked as a de- sign engineer, as a Visiting Professor at Los Alamos National Laboratory, as a Professor at the University of Arkansas and the University of Utah, and as the Chief Water Consultant of an international engineer- ing and sustainability consulting firm he co-founded. He served as the first co-Director of Sustainability Curriculum Development at the University of Utah where he created pan-campus degree programs and stimulated infusion of sustainability principles and practices in teaching and learning activities across campus. Dr. Burian currently is the Project Director of the USAID-funded U.S.-Pakistan Center for
July 1953. As another example, Crosland collaboratedwith W.H. Cady of U.S Finishing Company in Rhode Island to write Literature of Dyes,Mordants, and Bleaches, a 15 page chapter in volume 10 of Literature Resources for ChemicalProcess Industries, published by the American Chemical Society in 1954. Additionally, Croslandwas co-editor of the April 1954 issue of Library Trends (Box 1, Series 1).ConclusionCrosland devoted 46 years of her career to help establish and develop an outstanding library withan excellent science and technology collection, providing high quality service to Georgia Techstudents and faculty. In her final 1970-1971 annual report, Crosland stated “I leave behind twomagnificent buildings, one of the finest collections in
technological solutions that address pressing societal needs at the intersection of health care and engineering. Dr. Sienko is the recipient of an NSF CAREER award and several teaching awards including the ASME Engineering Education Donald N. Zwiep Innova- tion in Education Award, UM Teaching Innovation Prize, UM Undergraduate Teaching Award, and UM Distinguished Professor Award.Mrs. Amy Hortop, University of MichiganMs. Elizabeth Ann Strehl, University of Michigan Elizabeth is an undergraduate student at the University of Michigan studying Biomedical Engineering and Applied Mathematics. She has worked as a research assistant for Dr. Robin Fowler in the Technical Communication Department of the College of Engineering for
still do, that engineeringgraduates will have better career and advancement opportunities, but it is too early to confirmwhether that is indeed true or not. For the employers of our graduates, we believed that withengineering programs we would be able to provide them with better prepared graduates than wecould with the engineering technology programs. Part of this was due to aforementioned increasein foundational math and science courses, and the ability to achieve more depth in upper-divisioncourses as a result. In addition, we knew that we would be able to increase the number of creditsin the programs as we transitioned from engineering technology to engineering, so we felt that wecould add content without having to give up any content that
students to learn more about STEM and possibly choose it as afuture career. While these hopes were future-oriented, they were also intentionally part of thelessons and activities. Jill explained her hope that students will take on STEM identities whileengaged in classroom work, I would love for them to start to be little engineers where they are keeping their own little engineering notebook and saying okay this is how I’m going to make a table, this is what the table is going to look like and then make the graph afterwards.By putting students in the position of STEM professionals in the classroom, Bob had similarhopes, “And so, hopefully, and maybe no one will from there, but I hope some of the kidsthere…maybe they will want to
the genderdemographic).Situating the researchersVanasupa: I am a white-looking female engineering professor who identifies as male. My whitetransgender state has come with unearned benefits and disadvantages during my engineeringeducation journey. While often the only female in my courses of white males, I honestly did notquestion whether I belonged since I felt like “one of the guys.” Over the course of my career, Iinternalized the cultural narrative that I was “less than” my male peers. I often encounter themasculine norms above in the culture of engineering education – in what is valued (or notvalued); in the language, habits, and ways of interacting that are accepted as “normal,” in theworkplace behaviors that are deemed “unprofessional
. Targeting these types of activities may be effective atreducing student loneliness. Diehl et al. conclude their study with the following: Universities are a perfect setting for conducting interventions to support students in attaining a healthy lifestyle (e.g., by offering sport courses) and also for giving them the opportunity to start their professional career being healthy. Giving support at this stage of life is important in preventing lonely students from “being trapped in loneliness as they age”Moving forwards, the authors are planning improvements for the 2020 fall break intervention.Speaking with students who remained on campus, there is clearly appetite to increase the numberand variety of social activities running during the week
in Fig 1), ECD projectshave been motivated by faculty and students desire to help, personal and career goals, desires tostudy and work abroad, and desires to solve problems and to gain hands on experience onimpactful work [1][2]. Since then, some scholars have called our attention to how the focus ofwell-intentioned ECD projects on technological fixes and deliverables tend to leave out criticalreflections of engineers’ motivations to be in these projects, and of the processes required tobuild trust and determine communities’ priorities and desires [3][4]. Unfortunately, these calls tocritical reflection in the ECD space are often overshadowed by the continued emergence ofmilestones and challenges (e.g., UN Sustainable Development Goals, NAE
. colleagues and clients) and their awareness of their obligations to, for example, provideassistance and be honest [6], [27], [28]. Individuals tend to orient themselves to the people in theirenvironment; that is, they tend to be able to imagine themselves in the positions of people withwhom they come into contact [6]. The alignment of engineering students is significantly associatedwith the majors and careers they choose to pursue [6]. Therefore, when facing ambiguous ethical 8dilemmas, orientation to others in their environment is likely to predict microethical understanding[6].Bairaktarova and Woodcock (2015) also found that differences in individual
Company it was a significant learning opportunity to manage people related toa field in which they themselves did not have expertise in: Since I'm relatively new in my career, I've learned how to lead a group of people without necessarily knowing all the answers, if that makes sense. … So, being able to lead the students and direct them in the right way, even though I don't know where they're going to go and I don't know what the answers are going to be, that's something that's been my biggest learning.3.2 Project outcomesThe value of gaining new ideas, products, services and concepts was explicitly and frequentlymentioned in all of the five cases in the first round of interviews. As the projects developedand the later
interviewed for this analysis, with eachinterview following a semi-structured interview script and lasting approximately 90 minutes.Students volunteered to be interviewed after a brief introduction to the project by the authorsduring the participants’ engineering courses; additional students were invited to participate viasnowball sampling. The students in this analysis represent a diverse array of majors inengineering and lab-based sciences, at all levels of their respective undergraduate careers, avariety of socioeconomic and regional backgrounds, multiple political perspectives, and adistribution of genders (including trans/gender non-conforming students).The interview protocol moved from rapport-building questions, through open-ended
challenges for educators [12].Engineering education scholars Juan Lucena and Jon Leydens suggest incorporating contextualdetail into more traditional technical problems that students are presented with. They proposedoing so by asking traditional technical questions in ways that require students to interrogatepotential circumstances of problems they are given in class [13]. This can be done in ways thatdo not forfeit the technical requirements demanded of an engineer, but rather complementlearning in the classroom to better mirror (and prepare students for) the socio-technical worknecessary for acting as Engineering Changemakers or, simply, for successful careers inengineering.This paper details the first iteration of a module to incorporate
influence of students’ individual characteristics(e.g., personality, prior knowledge, values, motivations) on their interpretation of theirexperiences and subsequent understanding or perspective shifts [8]. Further, student decisions toengage in global activities after returning from a global experience can increase the long-terminfluence of the global program on their attitudes and career plans [9]. These studies suggest thatalthough the structure and components of global programs can influence program outcomes,there can still be different pathways for students who have the same experience. As argued byStreitwieser and Light, global education research has often focused only on aggregate programoutcomes and not individual student experiences, but
fromtheir disciplines, they also develop and apply professional skills important to team functioning,which will translate to their future careers. The large-scale, long-term projects mirror situationsstudents will encounter in the workforce. As they join large ongoing projects, they are onboardedby peers, but also take responsibility for their own learning as they get up to speed. They dealwith decisions made in previous years and with documentation developed by others; conversely,their own documentation becomes a resource for the team. They also learn and apply professionalcommunication skills, communicating problems to the appropriate individuals and navigatingconflict. 6. Multi-disciplinary teams are encouraged but not required. Multi
Vir- ginia Tech Engineering Communications Center (VTECC). Her research focuses on communication in engineering design, interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, design education, and gender in engineering. She was awarded a CAREER grant from the National Science Foundation to study expert teaching in capstone design courses, and is co-PI on numerous NSF grants exploring communication, design, and identity in engineering. Drawing on theories of situated learning and identity development, her work includes studies on the teaching and learning of communication, effective teaching practices in design education, the effects of differing design pedagogies on retention and motivation, the dynamics of cross
faculty member at Oklahoma State University working on terahertz frequencies and engineering educa- tion. While at Oklahoma State, he developed courses in photonics and engineering design. After serving for two and a half years as a program director in engineering education at the National Science Founda- tion, he took a chair position in electrical engineering at Bucknell University. He is currently interested in engineering design education, engineering education policy, and the philosophy of engineering education.Dr. Jennifer Karlin, Minnesota State University, Mankato Jennifer Karlin spent the first half of her career at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, where she was a professor of industrial
Post- doctoral Fellow and a 2018 NSF CAREER awardee in engineering education research. Dr. Svihla studies learning in authentic, real world conditions; this includes a two-strand research program focused on (1) authentic assessment, often aided by interactive technology, and (2) design learning, in which she studies engineers designing devices, scientists designing investigations, teachers designing learning experiences and students designing to learn.Dr. Jamie Gomez, University of New Mexico Jamie Gomez, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer III in the department of Chemical & Biological Engineering (CBE) at the University of New Mexico. She is a co- principal investigator for the following National Science
perspectives.Notwithstanding the issue of finance, or indicators of issues for research raised by this study,as for example, levels of required mathematical attainment, Krupczak shows there is plentyof research to be done in this area that is not being done and should be done. He writes,“one suggestion for research might be to inquire of those engineers whose career paths haveled them out of engineering into positions in which they are making contributions in otherspheres of activity. Engineering is well known for the fact that many formally trained asengineers are now fulfilling other responsibilities that may also be occupied by individualswith other types of formal training. All types of business and management are obviousexamples but individuals formally trained
members of the “ADA Generation,” or the first children togrow up with legally mandated access to education. The oldest of these young people are now intheir late twenties and early thirties, still fairly early in their careers. Since they were often thefirst Deaf students in their engineering programs, their engineering educations have beenconducted, with very few exceptions, entirely in spoken English.The state of sign language usage in postsecondary engineering educationDeaf engineers and their sign language interpreters (hereafter, “interpreters” will refer to signlanguage interpreters in this paper) have been using sign language to communicate abouttechnical topics for many years. However, due to Deaf engineers largely being educated