Paper ID #42974Small Shifts: New Methods for Improving Communication Experiences forWomen in Early Engineering CoursesDr. Jonathan M Adams, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott Jonathan Adams is an assistant professor of rhetoric and composition and the writing program administrator at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, AZ. His research on rhetorical theory, infrastructure, and communication pedagogy informs his teaching of courses in rhetoric, composition, and technical communication in engineering.Ashley Rea, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, PrescottBrian Roth, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
improve technical writing instruction in laboratory courses, a multidisciplinary team ofprofessors in the departments of Writing and Engineering (1) developed a curricular frameworkthat integrates common practices of teaching technical writing in tandem with existing engineeringlaboratory courses and (2) trained a set of students to be Engineering Writing Fellows (EWF),undergraduate engineering students who tutored peers in their technical writing assignments. Thispaper will share the student and instructor opinions of these initiatives employed in the LinearCircuits Analysis Laboratory course. Analysis of the initiatives was conducted via student surveyand comparison of student writing pre and post EWF tutoring. Results show students
ability of scholarship, writing their career goals, and aligning their actions with their goals [12].Similarly, another facilitated peer-mentoring program with women faculty members yielded positiveimpact on academic skills and manuscript writing [14]. Another research involving junior doctors foundthat peer mentoring promotes psychosocial well-being by helping build support structures, building asense of community, and allowing the new interns navigate their professional environment.Related to peer mentoring is the use of accountability partners as a way of generating motivation towardsgoal achievement [17, 18, 19]. Accountability partners are based on the idea that having a peer partnercan influence one’s commitment towards a personal goal
Paper ID #40935Ethics Case Study Project: Broadening STEM Participation by NormalizingImmersion of Diverse Groups in Peer to Near Peer CollaborationsDr. Brian Aufderheide, Hampton University Dr. Brian Aufderheide is Associate Professor in Chemical Engineering at Hampton University. He com- pleted his PhD in Chemical Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. His areas of expertise are in advanced control, design, and modeling of biomedical, chemical and biological processes.LaNika M. Barnes, Albemarle County Public Schools (Charlottesville, Virginia) LaNika Barnes, a certified High School Science and Equity Resource
) What does writing look like in engineering? • Increase peer and instructor dialogue in feedback [Chong 2012] Theory of situated cognition:* Written, oral, and visual communication exercises: 2) Which skills do engineering students
lack the structured guidanceand technical proficiency necessary for success. While they are often required to write, theirpreparation may be insufficient, hindering their competence and readiness for workforcedevelopment. This pilot study introduces a 9-week intensive course designed to address this gapby providing comprehensive instruction across a range of essential topics. These include goalsetting, topic selection, the research life cycle, ethics and misconduct, AI usage (such asChatGPT), and various writing skills such as illustration, data analysis, citation, and references.A key feature of the course is the opportunity for students to write a state-of-the-art reviewpaper, guiding them through the entire process—from drafting to peer
technical writing skills in STEMdisciplines is well documented. Solutions have been proposed, implemented, and inconsistently sustained.One approach to improving disciplinary technical writing is through Writing Assignment Tutor Trainingin STEM (WATTS). WATTS is an interdisciplinary, collaborative approach in which STEM faculty workwith writing centers and generalist peer tutors to provide just-in-time assignment-specific feedback tostudents. WATTS research was funded by an NSF IUSE collaborative grant (award #s 2013467,2013496, & 2013541). In WATTS, the STEM instructor collaborates with the writing center supervisorand prepares materials for the tutor-training including assignment examples, a glossary of terms, areas ofconcern, and the
Situation/Inspiration of thewriting assignments between FYC (English 101) and the introductory engineering laboratorycourse (Mech 309). English 101 Mech 309Students Freshmen JuniorsGenre of writing Research paper Lab reportassignmentsAudience College student peers (general Engineers and engineering college academic audience) student peers (general audience in the engineering field)Purpose To introduce students to To introduce students to academic writing
Paper ID #29292Using Creative Writing as a Tool for Learning Professional Developmentin Materials Science and EngineeringDr. Sabrina Starr Jedlicka, Lehigh University American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020Using Creative Writing as a Tool for Learning Professional Development in Materials Science & EngineeringAbstractCourses in professional development can be a catch-all to address student skill building in areassuch as technical writing, communication, career path reflection, and ethics. While each of theseskills is important to student development, the
Paper ID #21934Writing as a Method to Build Better Engineers: Examining Faculty Percep-tions of Writing’s ImportanceElizabeth Kovalchuk, Montana State University Elizabeth Kovalchuk received her BS in Industrial and Management Systems Engineering from Montana State University in 2017 while serving as a writing tutor and peer coordinator at the campus writing center. She currently works for Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Keyport, WA as an Industrial Engineer. Her research interests include engineering education, engineering management, and narrative training.Dr. William J. Schell IV P.E., Montana State University
Sus- tainable Design & Construction (2016); University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri; Master of Arts in Architectural Studies (2005); Institute of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Sofia, Bulgaria; Professional Diploma in Architecture (1991). Teaching Experience: Senior Lecturer, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, College of Engineering, Construction Management Program (2010-present) Interests: Sustainable Building Design and Construction Materials; Engineering Education Pedagody American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Writing Good Reflection Questions
Paper ID #43068Work in Progress: Establishing a Peer-Mentoring Program for Transfer First-YearEngineering StudentsMrs. Leslie Bartsch Massey, University of Arkansas Leslie Massey is an advanced instructor in the First-Year Engineering Program at the University of Arkansas. She received her BS in Biological Engineering and MS in Environmental Engineering from the University of Arkansas. She previously served as a project manager for the Arkansas Water Resources Center, but returned to join the College of Engineering faculty in 2013 to pursue her passion of teaching.Mr. Chris Cagle ©American Society
) working with writing centertutors, (2) creating (in-house) discipline-specific writing-intensive course, (3) building upsupport groups consisting of peers, advisors and writing specialists. For the purpose of thisstudy, I review below only first two areas of interest. For a fuller review of the currentlandscape of graduate-level writing support available in engineering, readers should refer toBatson [4].Working with writing center tutorsAs a university-wide service to students, employees and faculties who need professionalsupport for any kind of writing task, writing centers have long served as a default solution toproblems in writing. Engineering professors also commonly recommend the tutoring serviceat the writing center to those who struggle
Media at Polytechnic University (now NYU Polytechnic School of En- gineering), and her Ph.D. in Educational Communication and Technology at New York University. Her mixed methodology research, focusing on interdisciplinary studies, has been presented at numerous na- tional and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed book chapters and journal articles on varied topics such as technical writing, the future of science education, game design, virtual reality, and problem solving. Her book is entitled Cases on Interdisciplinary Research Trends in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Studies on Urban Classrooms (Information Science Reference, 2013).Dr. Candido Cabo, New York City College of
, students did their best to adapt to the new way of learning, but the change intheir educational experience was drastic. In particular, students lost the opportunity to engagewith peers in person and form personal connections with them. This is especially concerninggiven that, as Alexander Astin writes, “the student's peer group is the single most potent sourceof influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years" [15, p. 54][3].The existing knowledge base repeatedly validates the importance of peer support in both socialand academic systems in college. Ideally, students should have all the resources they need tocommunicate with peers, whether in a physical or virtual learning environment. However, webelieve that due to the abrupt
included writing code,designing software architecture, and teaching corporate education. His writing in industryincluded design documentation, test plans, proposals, standards documents, process documents,user documentation, and some business documentation. His audience for these documents wasgenerally his peers, and the documentation was intended to be informative, used for training andoccasionally for decision-making. He said that in his industry experience, “everyone assumesyou must already know how to write” because of being a university graduate. He also mentionedthat he modified his writing based on the audience, including their preferences for format, anddiscussed the issue of length and level of detail. In his experience, design documents
have a dedicated time and place to get together towork on, improve on, and progress in their writing [8]. Funded by Graduate School, this writinggroup allowed peer discussions and interactions, as well as presentations by facilitators on avariety of writing topics [8]. This small group environment for dedicated writing is similar to theWriting Sessions described in our paper, but without the limitation of disciplines, or the type ofwriting. The importance of writing beyond graduate school has long been recognized by multiplegroups so much so that several institutions have incorporated writing related workshops andprograms for faculty [13]-[17]. Most of these efforts, though focused on writing engagementsand improving writing competencies
changeeffort, along with two co-peers. The change effort focused on developing realistic designchallenges for core courses, increasing use of rubrics and attention to professional skills inassessment, and teaching technical writing in ways that align to research-based approaches.Data collection and analysisWe collected multiple kinds of data to document faculty participation. We recorded andtranscribed multiple faculty meetings, including professional development workshops, retreats,and industry advisory board meetings, observed faculty teaching, and gathered field notes andreflective accounts. To supplement these naturalistic data, we invited faculty to be interviewedusing semi-structured questions, resulting in seven audio-recorded interviews that
report on thehelpfulness of feedback from both the course instructor and student peers, the results were notconclusive17,18. More generally, while there are many studies comparing peer and instructorfeedback in other domains such as English writing, rigorous characterization and comparison ofpeer and expert feedback in engineering design is limited.Taking a grounded theory methodological approach19, the wider aim of this research is toanalyze actual feedback provided by students and course instructors in design review meetingsthat utilize peer review and to expose the characteristics of each, with the ultimate intent ofevaluating and comparing their benefits and suitability. The focus of this paper is on the first stepof this process, which is
Georgia TechPeer Leader Resources Survey 1: What do you want out of a peer mentor in ECE Select all that apply Self-developed Discovery Studio? Write-in provided Survey 2: What support did your peer leader in ECE Discovery for “any other types Studio provide? of support” • Help completing ECE Discovery Studio Assignments • Help building a community at Georgia Tech • Help finding opportunities at Georgia Tech • Help navigating difficult
articial intelligence, information processing, and engineering education. He is the author of numerous research and pedagogical articles in his areas of expertise.Dr. Xiangyan Zeng, Fort Valley State University Xiangyan Zeng received her Ph.D. in computer science from University of the Ryukyus, Japan. She is currently a professor of computer science at Fort Valley State University. Her research interests include image processing, pattern recognition and machine learning.Dr. Chunhua Dong, Fort Valley State University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Enhancing Computer Science Program through Revising Curriculum, Peer Tutoring/Mentoring, and Engaging Students in Undergraduate
Paper ID #49649Integrating Peer-Led-Team Learning (PLTL) and Design Thinking to improvestudent success in Engineering StaticsProf. Haiying Huang, The University of Texas at Arlington Prof. Haiying Huang is a professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and the Director of Engineering Education at the College of Engineering at the University of Texas Arlington. Her research interests include design thinking pedagogy, collaborative learning, and faculty development. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 1
a team of 4 or 5students). Thus, based on the technical quality of the bridge designs, the lower peer ratings forMiddle Eastern students may reflect biased ratings by peers, while the lower peer ratings ofChinese students appear to have some objective justification.It is possible that in fact Middle Eastern and Chinese students contributed less to the team projectthan majority peers, on average. Putting together the written report and completing the groupdiscussion elements could be distributed unevenly among team members. For example, thosewith better writing skills may naturally take on these tasks. While the quality of the bridge itselfcreated by Middle Eastern students was comparable to average students in the course, the MiddleEastern
Paper ID #33981Near-Peer Mentoring and Early Exposure to Computer Science –Quantitative and Qualitative ResultsDavid Hartenstine, Western Washington University David Hartenstine is a Professor of Mathematics at Western Washington University. He earned his PhD at Temple University.Perry Fizzano, Western Washington University Perry Fizzano earned his BS degree in Computer Science from Widener University and his MS and PhD in Computer Science from Dartmouth College. He had stints in academia and industry prior to joining WWU in 2005. He served as department chair from 2012 - 2019. His research interests are in optimization
own reviews, which violates the college level governance documents’ specification thatfaculty will not be responsible for initiating the review of their teaching. In addition, eachdepartment chair brought their own expertise and approach to the process of review. While thiscan allow for each chair to tailor the approach to the individual faculty member under review, itdoes not ensure that the evaluation addresses the criteria required to write a robust letter insupport of the faculty’s teaching to be included in a successful dossier for promotion and tenure.Because of a lack of standard procedures, the department chair benefits from a peer review ofteaching program in several ways, including eliminating uncertainty around who is
can change the ways we collaborate, learn, read, and write. Teaching engineering communication allows her to apply this work as she coaches students through collaboration, design thinking, and design communication. She is part of a team of faculty innovators who originated Tandem (tandem.ai.umich.edu), a tool designed to help facilitate equitable and inclusive teamwork environments.Mark Mills, University of Michigan Mark Mills (he/him) is a Data Scientist on the Research & Analytics team at University of Michigan’s Center for Academic Innovation. He directs and supports analytics across CAI’s portfolio of educational technologies. His experience is in prediction and classification of longitudinal and hierarchically
Paper ID #32353Pair-to-Pair Peer Learning: Comparative Analysis of Face-to-Face andOnline Laboratory ExperiencesDr. Nebojsa I. Jaksic, Colorado State University, Pueblo NEBOJSA I. JAKSIC earned the Dipl. Ing. (M.S.) degree in electrical engineering from Belgrade Uni- versity (1984), the M.S. in electrical engineering (1988), the M.S. in industrial engineering (1992), and the Ph.D. in industrial engineering from the Ohio State University (2000). He currently serves as a Pro- fessor at Colorado State University Pueblo teaching robotics and automation courses. Dr. Jaksic has over 90 publications and holds two patents. His
Paper ID #28522Comparing Effectiveness of Peer Mentoring for Direct Admit andCollege-Ready FreshmenDr. Teresa J. Cutright, The University of Akron Dr. Cutright is a Professor of Civil Engineering at The University of Akron. She has a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering with emphasis on environmental remediation techniques with over 20 years of experience conducting site assessments, soil characterizations and treatability studies for a variety of environmental contaminants. In addition she also conducts education research via an EPA education grant and a NSF Scholarships for STEM education. Most recently she
. During class, one team after another came to the board to present theirsolutions to their peers and answer questions about the topic. If necessary, the faculty wouldclarify the answer in writing on the board. Due to the language barrier, when the faculty talked itdid not help students understand the material. The Ugandan students learned the material byworking through problems together, talking to each other, and asking each other questions. 4Figure 1: The figure on the left represents typical instructor-led learning (blue) supplemented withlearner-centered (green) activities such as team based learning, think-pair-share, and reviewing tutorials.Due
Paper ID #15120Gender in the Workplace: Peer Coaching to Empower Women in the Class-room and as ProfessionalsDr. Jennifer L. Groh, Purdue University, West Lafayette Dr. Groh joined the Purdue Women in Engineering Program (WIEP) in 2009. She received a B.S. in microbiology from Purdue University, and a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of Oklahoma. Prior to joining WIEP, she was the Graduate Programs Coordinator in the Purdue Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering. As Associate Director of WIEP, Dr. Groh administers the undergraduate Mentee & Mentor Program and the Graduate Mentoring Program, teaches two Women in