from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and a Ph.D. degree in Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy from Cornell University. Dr. Main examines student academic pathways and transitions to the workforce in science and engineering. She was a recipi- ent of the 2014 American Society for Engineering Education Educational Research and Methods Division Apprentice Faculty Award, the 2015 Frontiers in Education Faculty Fellow Award, and the 2019 Betty Vetter Award for Research from WEPAN. In 2017, Dr. Main received a National Science Foundation CAREER award to examine the longitudinal career pathways of engineering PhDs.Dr. Catherine E. Brawner, Research Triangle Educational Consultants Catherine E. Brawner is
past several decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on the importance of engineerspossessing important professional skills, including global readiness or awareness. In 2004, theNational Academy of Engineering (NAE) described the Engineer of 2020 as being proficient in“interdisciplinary teams [with] globally diverse team members” (p. 55).1 As the NAE stated,“While certain basics of engineering will not change, the global economy and the way engineerswill work will reflect an ongoing evolution that began to gain momentum a decade ago.” (p. 4).Engineering graduates will be called to solve increasingly global problems and to work in teamsthat contain members who are either from international locations or are globally distributed.Across the
degrading behavior,students can interpret that inaction as tacit support for bad behavior.20-22 One advisor mentions atime when the team had some members with “grating personalities,” during which he spent moretime assisting with interpersonal relations than usual. He felt that he needed to intervene as thosestudents were contributing to a hostile climate for new members. Finally, a young advisorbelieves that his wife exerts positive influences on team cultures. His wife, a highly successfulengineer in industry, provides input during design critiques and reviews and aids introubleshooting. They sometimes bring their young children to team activities. She becomesvisible proof of a successful engineer who is also a wife and mother, an important role
studentsperceive to be most responsible for their build-up of social capital, as well as how the resultingsocial capital influenced school and/or career decisions in CS. With an understanding of CSSI’simpact on students’ persistence in CS, our findings will inform the design of future CS supportprograms such that they encourage and build social capital and persistence amongunderrepresented students in the field, ultimately working towards greater diversity in CS.Background A. Persistence in CSPersistence refers to an individual’s commitment (whether intended or realized) to stay in a field.Its study is motivated by the substantial opportunity cost that results when undergraduatestudents leave the field [26] and CS’ highest attrition rates among Science
Catherine Mobley, Ph.D., is a Professor of Sociology at Clemson University. She has over 30 years experience in project and program evaluation and has worked for a variety of consulting firms, non-profit agencies, and government organizations, including the Rand Corporation, the American Association of Retired Persons, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. Since 2004, she been a member of the NSF-funded MIDFIELD research project on engineering education; she has served as a Co-PI on three research projects, including one on transfer students and another on student veterans in engineering.Dr. Catherine E. Brawner, Research Triangle Educational Consultants Catherine E. Brawner is
., is the director of the University of Washington Center for Evaluation & Research for STEM Equity (UW CERSE) and an affiliate assistant professor of sociology. She has been at UW working on STEM Equity issues for more than 15 years. Dr. Litzler is a member of ASEE and a former board member of the Women in Engineering ProActive Network (WEPAN). Her research interests include the educational climate for students, faculty, and staff in science and engineering, assets based approaches to STEM equity, and gender and race stratification in education and the workforce. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021Who benefits most from a holistic student
choices. Firstly, a fundamental factor that contributes to prior experience is individuals’ deep-seated passion for flight and aviation. Several studies found that this passion often develops at ayoung age and serves as a primary motivator for individuals to pursue aviation education [11],[6], [12]. One study of professional female pilots found that their decision to pursue a career inaviation happened at 18.2 years of age [14]. A replication study done with graduates from acollegiate aviation program found this number to be 15.2 years of age [15]. This underscores theimportance of creating an interest in aviation at an earlier age if students are to enroll in acollegiate aviation program prior to entering the workforce. In addition
, and largely presumed by professional associations and licensingbodies. Many formal courses and programs have in turn been created to promote professionalresponsibility and ethical integrity among engineering graduates. Other interventions (e.g.,service learning programs) have also been developed to more broadly challenge engineeringstudents to develop as engaged citizens and community members. Yet there has been a notablelack of research on measures and understandings of social and ethical responsibility amongundergraduate engineering students. Further, few studies have looked at how such indicatorschange over time and are impacted by specific kinds of learning experiences. As a result, facultyand administrators often have little evidence to
and retaintheir Pell funding; such an observation suggests that throughout one’s academic career at acommunity college students receive some form of college attending support.26 With that form ofcollege attending support, institutions may be improving college attendance and completion.(2) Program Planning and Execution Support. Our second determined category of pedagogicalpractice refers to services designed to facilitate student decision-making about program choiceand accommodating program requirements within the constraints of employment and homeobligations. In contrast to the first type of pedagogical practice, this category assumes theviability of some kind of postsecondary schooling, and instead addresses the uniquecharacteristics of a
and participation for almost 20 years. A series of linked courses and an international service- learning project make up the minor.University of University of Toronto’s Institute for Leadership Education inToronto (2002) Engineering (ILead) began as a small co-curricular program in Chemical Engineering, and over time has grown into a faculty wide institute. Currently offers fourteen elective courses and numerous co- curricular programs on engineering leadership for undergraduate and post-graduate students. U of T also has a dedicated team doing research on engineering leadership.Massachusetts
with industry, providing students with hands-onexperience in this specialized field, but not in an international environment [4], [9], [21] .This study focuses specifically on a subset of the 2023 IRiKA cohort, examining how theirinvolvement in microelectronics research abroad contributed to developing their globalengineering competencies. This study seeks to explore the intricate processes through which globalcompetencies are developed among engineering students at both undergraduate and graduate levelswho possess varying levels of research experience in microelectronics. Through the lens of threeresearch questions, the study examines the influence of the International Research Initiative inKnowledge and Academia (IRiKA) on the global
Graduate/5 year 1i Based on pre data collected in the Fall of 2014 by project evaluators.ii Data presented in the following tables are based on Fall 2014 responses to evaluation surveys.Additional data for spring 2015 are available; fall 2015 data are in the process of being collectedand analyzed.iii Following is a listing of papers available for download review and attendance.References 1. A. W. Astin, What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited vol. 1: Jossey-Bass San Francisco, 1993. 2. R. J. Light, The Harvard Assessment Seminars Second Report 1992: Explorations with Students and Faculty about Teaching, Learning, and Student Life: Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1992. 3. R. J. Light, Making
Associate Vice Provost for Digital Learning at UT San Antonio, where he established the Office of Digital Learning that created a unit focused on innovative delivery across the entire spectrum of technology enabled learning - from in-class to online. Over his career, he has helped a few hundred faculty from varied disciplines develop hybrid and online courses. He has also taught traditional, hybrid and online courses in various STEM disciplines ranging in size from 28 to 250. He is also co-developer of a Digital Academy which was a finalist for the Innovation Award by the Professional and Organizational Development Network and an Innovation Award winner. He was also named as the Center for Digital Education’s Top 30
training programs or identifying existing training available at partner collegelocations.In our research, we are examining faculty, student, and employer perceptions of intrapreneurship,which will provide the data to determine if a need exists to strengthen the entrepreneurialcomponent in the AM curriculum, and include greater emphasis on “intrapreneurial” skills andteam building. Because most recent graduates will not enter the workforce as entrepreneurs, theresearchers will explore how individual students learn and become self-employed, or learn to usetheir local knowledge assets on behalf of their employers; that is, do students see themselves as acontributor to a company and enjoying a career dedicated to helping a firm remain competitive ina
lab and met faculty and graduate students in the department. The programculminated in a Hackathon where teams of up to five students developed an application of theirchoosing and then presented their product to other students and three judges (the professorleading the program, a teaching assistant, and the institution’s chief software engineer). Havingannounced the Hackathon at the end of the day prior to the competition, the lead professor notedthat students had – without prompting – self-selected their own teams by the start of the nextsession that essentially divided students into all-male teams and teams of women with one malestudent. Interestingly, the two teams of mostly women took first and second place, the latter ofwhich consisted of
URMsstudents and proportion of first-generation students in classes. Psychosocial Factors Influencing Course PerformanceSTEM Self-Efficacy STEM self-efficacy, defined as an individual's belief in their ability to excel in STEMtasks and activities [1], plays a pivotal role in shaping students' attitudes and behaviors in STEMfields. Anticipations of personal efficacy dictate the initiation, extent, and sustainability of copingbehavior when faced with challenges and adverse experiences [1]. This belief is influenced byInterest & Engagement Tactics for Success 2prior experiences, accomplishments, as well as social and environmental factors [2]. High STEMself-efficacy
, documentation of work conducted throughout the semester, and completion of a finalprototype.The research and design stages of an independent study can be similar to that of an EngineeringCapstone project however there are some key differences in the student experience. First, in anindependent study, the student usually initiates the creation of the project to explore a topic ofmutual interest with a faculty member. At smaller teaching-focused institutions, many advancedtechnical topics in a student’s major are not covered in-depth and some students would like moreexperience in a particular area out of pure interest or to prepare themselves for a future career inthat field. Secondly, the student is not part of a student design team and often works
use of sustainable economic development and (4) that faculty members andengineers, together, undertake an effort so that engineering education addresses the challengesand social opportunities of the future.In seeking to respond to these demands, universities have been encouraged to play a more activerole in economic development by supporting policies and funding programs forcommercialization of technology and entrepreneurship education [4]. This occurs wheneconomic news shows how global competition, downsizing, decentralization, re-engineering,mergers, and new technologies have made careers more complex and uncertain for graduatesfrom all sectors [5,6]. In this context, political, economic and academic leaders conceiveentrepreneurship as one
professional responsibility among engineering graduates, while a variety of otherinterventions (e.g., service learning programs) have been developed to more broadly challengeengineering students to see themselves as socially engaged citizens and professionals.Nonetheless, there has been a surprising lack of research on development of social and ethicalresponsibility among undergraduate engineering students. Few studies have systematicallyexamined levels of ethical knowledge, decision-making capabilities, and commitments to socialresponsibility among large numbers of engineering students, much less examined how suchindicators change over time and are impacted (or not) by specific kinds of learning experiences.As a result, faculty, administrators, and
position of authority within the group [8].The review paper on engineering leadership development programs by Crumpton-Young, et al.showed common agreement between professional engineers and engineering students about whichskills are most useful for an engineer in a leadership position [9]. But their work showed that thereis a need for richer qualitative data, which our study may be able to help provide. One such studyis by Cox et al., who asked engineering faculty members to assess students strengths, weaknesses,and future learning opportunities [10]. While leadership skills of engineering students maydevelop in many contexts, Knight, et al (2017) found that curricular emphasis on leadershipdevelopment is more reliable than student engagement in
. Daily earned her B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering from the Florida Agri- cultural and Mechanical University – Florida State University College of Engineering, and an S.M. and Ph.D. from the MIT Media Lab.Shira VielDr. Karis Boyd-Sinkler, Duke University Karis Boyd-Sinkler, PhD is the Director of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion and Adjunct Assistant Pro- fessor at Duke University’s Pratt School of Engineering. She plays a key role in providing strategies to strengthen Pratt’s efforts to create and sustain an equitable environment for all members of the Pratt Com- munity including students, staff, faculty, and alumni. She has over 7 years of experience leading multiple mentoring, outreach, and professional
master’s programs is vital for grasping how the nextgenerations of engineers are grappling with the challenges that current and emerging AItechnologies will create.Research QuestionsDrawing on interviews with 62 electrical and computer engineering (ECE) master’s students(described in more detail below), we explore three broad questions related to their perspectiveson AI. (1) What opportunities and dangers do ECE masters students see in artificial intelligencebroadly? Do they exhibit unbridled enthusiasm for AI’s potential? Are they apprehensive orfearful of AI developments and what an AI-saturated future will hold? As the future leaders ofthese technologies, ECE masters students are bellwethers for the views of the engineeringprofession more
• deliver relevant and challenging educational programs to attract an outstanding diverse student body • prepare graduates for rewarding careers in their chosen professions and encourage graduates to extend their level of knowledge through lifelong learning • conduct leading edge research advances engineering science and stimulate the intellectual development and creativity of both students and faculty, • extend exemplary engineering service and transfer knowledge that contributes to the well- being and betterment of society. In order to broaden participation in engineering, UNL COE will broaden the admission reviewprocess to deemphasize student test scores and to
on a qualitative study that explores the uniqueundergraduate engineering experiences of engineers who identify as Central Appalachian. Thisstudy employed interviews to collect data on how engineering students of Central Appalachiadevelop interests, make choices, and achieve success in their academic and career experiences. Interms of engineering education access and job opportunities, the inhabitants of CentralAppalachia have historically faced a unique set of challenges. However, this study took an asset-based approach to understand the unique cultural capital these students hold. The primary goal of this study was to understand the experiences of engineers who grewup in the Central Appalachia region, navigated undergraduate
women and underrepresented minorities. He received his M.S. in Industrial & Systems Engineering from Virginia Tech and his B.S. in Industrial Engineering from Clemson University.Dr. Holly M Matusovich, Virginia Tech Dr. Matusovich is an Assistant Professor and Assistant Department Head for Graduate Programs in Vir- ginia Tech’s Department of Engineering Education. She has her doctorate in Engineering Education and her strengths include qualitative and mixed methods research study design and implementation. She is/was PI/Co-PI on 8 funded research projects including a CAREER grant. She has won several Virginia Tech awards including a Dean’s Award for Outstanding New Faculty. Her research expertise includes using
awarded to Black orAfrican American students in engineering technology than in engineering [1-3]. The rationale forthis trend is unknown, and the amount of research on this very small part of the academe doesnot explore the issues that affect the decisions made by these students as they confront thequestion of what to do with their careers. Various techniques employed by recruiters at differentinstitutions have diverse results, while academic, and environment, may have a role in thechoices made by these students. Understanding these students, their similarities within aninstitution, as well as between programs is anticipated to provide greater ability to recruit, retain,and encourage more diversity within these student populations.Literature
. Bradford “So I tookthe T-group section and much to my surprise, found that it opened up a whole new life to me. Itexposed me to experiences that I had never had before or for that matter had never evenunderstood existed.” [31].With the help of faculty members from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, who have ledhundreds of T-Groups, the author created a modified version of Stanford’s InterpersonalDynamics course, considering the needs of an undergraduate student population. This newlydesigned course, with the T-Group method as its core element, was offered to the undergraduatestudents of Harvey Mudd College during the spring semester 2017 as a pilot and after a verypositive reception (course evaluations 6.77 out of 7) again during the fall
,socioeconomic status is frequently absent in conversations on access and success in engineering[10]. Engineering serves as an opportunity for upward mobility for low-income engineeringstudents, as well as an opportunity for LIS to bring diverse perspectives to solve engineeringproblems [11][12]. However, in the pursuit of an engineering degree, high-income students arefive times more likely than LIS to graduate within six years [13].Within education, researchers link sense of belonging to a variety of significant student outcomesincluding retention, persistence, major choice, and career path [14][15][16]. Sense of belonginghas previously been defined as the “experience of personal involvement and integration within asystem or environment to the extent
socialrelationships and an understanding of social issues is extremely valuable for the development ofengineering students. Unfortunately, engineering programs emphasize the technical content sointensely that most engineering students do not get the opportunity to work with social issuesthus never creating that awareness.The focus on technical aspects of engineering, and the perception that engineering work isobjective, has also led engineering students to think about the profession as apolitical [8, 9].This depoliticization frames engineering as a technical space where the social and politicalsides are tangential to engineering decision-making. Cech argued that students'conceptualization of engineering as apolitical has also created issues related to
sophomore level chemical engineering students. This classwas designed to include many game-based activities. Because of these factors, it is uncertainhow transferrable these results may be to other classroom environments, and these results maynot be generalizable to other student populations. This class contained more males than females;therefore, male reflections had more of an impact on the overall top three themes identifiedwhere there was a difference in perceptions between males and females.ConclusionsEffective communication is an important aspect to any field, including engineering. Withoutproficient communication skills, catastrophic events can occur and a successful industry career isunlikely. However, many engineering graduates do not have