delivery – makingsure students learn statics or thermodynamics or transport phenomena – has only an indirectrelationship to professional practices; that is, the mastery of the content is somewhat removedfrom the ability to apply that content within professional work, and not all technical content(even “core” content) is relevant to all positions students may take upon graduation. The utilityvalue these capstone faculty address, however, is linked directly to job experiences andexpectations that most (if not all) students will encounter in post-graduation work.It is important to note that other utility factors also played into faculty decisions, includingmeeting goals set by outside companies, being fair to students/team members, studentinterest
of EM and educational research.Thirdly, some educational institutions offer faculty-led writing groups as another opportunity forfaculty members to accomplish personal and career goals. In these cases, it's common for thefaculty members in these groups to be randomly assigned and receive the benefits of peerfeedback on their research [25, 26]. However, there is the possibility to get paired with people ofdifferent disciplinary interests and motivational levels. Despite a seemingly successfulbeginning, the lack of motivation, monetary benefits, and similar education or researchbackground still possess challenges.This professional development experience, an entrepreneurially-minded SOTL virtual writinggroup, overcomes these barriers through
Paper ID #18637New Faculty Learning Community as Retention Tool for UnderrepresentedMinoritiesDr. Anne-Marie A Lerner, University of Wisconsin, Platteville Anne-Marie Lerner is an associate professor in mechanical engineering at the University of Wisconsin - Platteville. Her professional interests include inclusive in-class and out-of-class supports, investigat- ing effective teaching pedagogy for remote delivery as well as to nontraditional students, and education assessment. She received her PhD in mechanical engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology in 2008.Dr. Christopher Frayer, University of Wisconsin
to receiving NSF funding, the researchers piloted the journey mapping methodologywith a small group (n=8) of doctoral students attending a summer seminar in June 2021 at aResearch-Intensive state university in the Southwest United States (#IRB2019-58). Doctoralstudents in two graduate engineering programs housed within the same department were invitedto participate. (The course in which the research was conducted is required for one of the degreeswhile students in the second doctoral program may take the course as an elective.) After studentswere informed of the research goals and methods, they were asked for consent to participate.After they consented, one researcher, who is not a member of the students’ program or thedepartment in which
moderate research activity (R-3). Currently there are 974undergraduates in the College.Overview of ProgramDeveloped in conjunction with industry leaders, engineering alumni, faculty, and students,Career Compass is a series of six required courses and two optional courses. The first six coursesare completed during the first three years of the undergraduate curriculum and the two optionalcourses may be completed during the fourth year. Program content is grouped around four majorthemes as follows: 1. The Engineering Profession 2. Setting the Stage for Personal and Professional Success 3. Post-Graduation Career Planning 4. Effective Communication Skills for the 21st CenturyCareer Compass is largely self-directed and
this workshop. We first proposed a much broaderrange of topics than initially planned. From biomimicry, green chemistry to sustainable designand sustainable business, the students received a much richer and broader overview onsustainability & innovation in biomass. The structure of the workshop was also much morestudent-centric because each 1-hour lecture was accompanied by a case study developed aroundthe 3 C’s of the KEEN network: curiosity, connection and creating value. During our CoPmeeting, several times we discussed negative (and incorrect) connotations for the concept ofentrepreneurship. Through recommendations from the CoP Faculty and VentureWell team, wegradually immersed our graduate students into developing an active
. Page 26.812.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Gender and Department Heads: An Empirically-Inspired Literature ReviewAbstract: Inspired by storytelling circles with female academics, this article examines therole of department heads vis-à-vis gendered career experiences and women’s persistentunderrepresentation among science and engineering faculty members. It focuses on the levelof power heads are afforded, presents new and understudied perspectives on the departmenthead literature, and suggests research horizons and policy recommendations. Five gendereddimensions of department head literature are identified and discussed. Given that departmentheads
courses in the core curriculum to the more complex, authentic problems and projects they face as professionals. Dr. Koretsky is one of the founding members of the Center for Lifelong STEM Education Research at OSU.Dr. Jana Bouwma-Gearhart, Oregon State University Jana L. Bouwma-Gearhart is an associate professor of STEM education at Oregon State University. Her research widely concerns improving education at research universities. Her earlier research explored en- hancements to faculty motivation to improve undergraduate education. Her more recent research concerns organizational change towards postsecondary STEM education improvement at research universities, in- cluding the interactions of levers (people
Colorado Boulder.Dr. Samantha Ruth Brunhaver, Arizona State University Dr. Samantha R. Brunhaver is an Assistant Professor within The Polytechnic School, one of six schools in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University. She is a mixed-methods researcher with focus on the preparation and pathways of engineering students. Her specific research interests include engineering student persistence and career decision-making, early career engineering practice, faculty pedagogical risk-taking, and entrepreneurial mindset. She completed her B.S. in Mechanical Engineering at Northeastern University and her M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University. Prior to ASU, she worked as an
University of Notre Dame.Simran Moolchandaney, University of Notre Dame Simran Moolchandaney is a class of 2023 undergraduate student at the University of Notre Dame major- ing in Computer Science and minoring in Bioengineering. Outside the classroom, Simran is an NCAA Division 1 Fencer, and an active SWE member who zealously engages in community service work.Gabrielle Tanjuatco, University of Notre Dame Gabrielle Tanjuatco is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame in Mechanical Engineering in the Class of 2021.Caroline Lubbe, University of Notre Dame Caroline Lubbe is a Chemical Engineering student in the University of Notre Dame Class of 2023. American c
Science in Computer Science with honors in 2019 from Florida International University. She is dedicated to improving women and minoritized students’ retention and persistence in computer science. Her research interests include exploring inclusive pedagogical practices, implicit theories of intelligence, disciplinary culture, and their effects on women’s and minoritized women’s persistence in computer science. She is passionate about improving diversity and equity in computer science by conducting research that promotes inclusive learning environments. Her goal is to complete her Ph. D. and become a computer science (education) faculty member to continue serving the computer science education community through
Perception of Student Performance,” Int J Engng Ed, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 257–263, 2006.[11] K. Parker Brown, “Mentors and Role Models: Are They Important?,” Leadersh. Manag. Eng., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 49–50, Oct. 2001, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2001)1:4(49).[12] P. Lockwood, “‘Someone Like Me can be Successful’: Do College Students Need Same- Gender Role Models?,” Psychol. Women Q., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 36–46, Mar. 2006, doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00260.x.[13] G. Lichtenstein, H. G. Loshbaugh, B. Claar, H. L. Chen, K. Jackson, and S. Sheppard, “An Engineering Degree Does Not (Necessarily) an Engineer Make: Career Decision Making Among Undergraduate Engineering Majors,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 227–234, 2009
has been published in The Routledge Handbook of Communication and Bullying and in Communication, relationships, and practices in virtual work (IGI Global). Dr. Linvill applies an or- ganizational communication lens to her classes on Business Principles, Ethics, Negotiation and Decision Making, Organizational Behavior, and Organizational Leadership, and to Awareness Trainings related to destructive workplace behaviors presented at local high schools. Dr. Linvill is a Member of the Advisory Committee on Equity for the Office of the Vice President for Ethics and Compliance at Purdue Univer- sity. She has also served as a Mentor for the USAID Liberia Strategic Analysis Program, mentoring an early-career Liberian woman
members hold [28, 30].Epistemology relates to the justifications, warrants, or rationale that support decisions or actionswithin the community about what knowledge is true[28, 30]. There are “things to know, ways ofknowing them, and ways of finding about them” [31], especially in design and engineering.“Epistemic frame theory suggest that learning to solve complex science, technology,engineering, and math (STEM) problems from being part of a community of practice” [32]. In this exercise, we defined a summer college preparatory engineering and design class asa community of practice where students were performing authentic tasks in which they coulddevelop or expand an epistemic frame. We focused on the interactions that occurred
responsesfrom nonbinary or gender nonconforming students in 2019 an 2020 respectively, however, therewere too few responses to be included as a statistical category. The threats to validity are dis-cussed in subsection 2.4. The first study was conducted in the Spring quarter of the 2018-2019 academic year.It consisted of 96 questions that ranged from binary response questions to Likert scale ques-tions and short answer questions. Initially there were 175 responses and after removal of non-computing majors, computer engineering majors, and off-topic responses, 154 remained. Theresults consist of both graduate and undergraduate computing students, and a summary of respon-dents’ demographics can be found in Table 1. The second study was
information. Next, an OSU graduate student in speech communication presented anevening session on effective oral communication. Finally, the REACH participants shared anevening meal and additional personal discussions with nine female mentors. The mentors wereaccomplished professionals in Oklahoma, as all are practicing architects or engineers.Academic ModulesArchitectureTo begin understanding the aspects of the career of an architect, students were asked to designan artist’s display module for a park in downtown Oklahoma City. The students werechallenged to rethink their conventional notions of what an artist’s display module could be;they were asked to consider the problem as “functional sculpture”. Issues of public circulation,image, and display
and graduate student professional development.Dr. Thomas A. Litzinger, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Thomas A. Litzinger is Director of the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education and a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Penn State. His work in engineering education involves curricular reform, teaching and learning innovations, assessment, and faculty development. Dr. Litzinger has more than 50 publications related to engineering education including lead authorship of an invited article in the 100th Anniversary issue of JEE and for an invited chapter on translation of research to practice for the first edition of the Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research. He
faculty mentoring, as both can work togetherto provide a more complete mentoring experience. For example, students who may not want todiscuss certain personal issues with a faculty member may be more open with their peer mentor.Finally, research mentoring is provided though a three-hour workshop certifying the students as“Ready For Research,” and requiring the students to volunteer for and present a poster at theUniversity of Cincinnati’s Undergraduate Research Conference held each year in April. FSSPScholars who participate in a faculty-led research project are encouraged to present their work atthe conference, and others are guided to present a poster reflecting their freshman-year FSSPexperience at the conference.Pathway to Graduate School
they prepared?An issue of concern with including serviceefforts by engineering students inengineering education is that little is Figure 1. Faculty, under pressure from all sides, are theknown about the impacts of such efforts. valve operators for producing the graduates neededWhile some university-level assessments to address requirements of many higher educationhave been conducted,20, 38 coordinated,multi-institution, long-term assessment efforts are just beginning to examine outcomes for allstakeholders (e.g. students, faculty, institutions, and partners). This includes LTS impacts on theABET Criterion 3a-k learning outcomes, students’ self-efficacy, identity, motivation
leave from his role as an instructor of engineering at Harding University. His research interests include professional socialization of engineers, social cognition in engineering, community-driven design, and interpretive phenomenology.Dr. William C. Oakes, Purdue University, West Lafayette Dr. William ”Bill” Oakes is the director of the EPICS program and one of the founding faculty members of the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. He has held courtesy appointments in Mechanical, Environmental and Ecological Engineering as well as Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education. He is a registered professional engineer and on the NSPE board for Professional Engineers in Higher Education. He
strategies such as increasethe workload, maintain workload, and prove the aggressor wrong also seem to be more appealingto undergraduate students (100 of the 142 indirect advocating strategy responses). In the followingexample a first-year student used two avoidance strategies: ignore the aggressor and rise: “Ignored them and moved on” P280Several undergraduate students also selected the approach to the situation based on the aggressor.These participants were willing to use advocating strategies when the aggressor was a peer andwere inclined to use avoidance strategies when the aggressor was an authority figure. On the otherhand, none of the graduate students mention using these decision criteria.Engineering majorThe analysis did not find
studying mechanical engineering and doing research in engineering educa- tion—the perfect combination of her interests.Dr. Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University Dr. Sheri Sheppard is in the Design Group of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford. Besides teaching undergraduate and graduate courses on structural analysis and design, she serves an administrative role as Associate Vice Provost for Graduate Education. Her research focuses on the study of educational and career pathways of people interested in technical work (and how to make K-20 education more supportive of these pathways).Dr. Helen L. Chen, Stanford University
students overcome the common thematic challenges in graduate school,broadly categorized into subject matter learning, scholarly development, conflicting norms of challengeand support, conflicting academic and personal values, impostorism and belonging, and identity threats. Inthis study, we employ this conceptual framework as an a priori coding schema to help us understand howthese elements may manifest, or manifest differently, for very early-career graduate students, as a way tointerpret students’ perceptions on their transitions into and through graduate school. In this study, we areparticularly interested in how the challenges emerge in these first semesters, and how faculty (and byextension, departmental programming/support structures) may or
with the outcome), homework, and projects.Discipline ModulesThe objectives of the discipline modules were to • Provide a vertical dive into an engineering discipline, in the context of the Engineering Grand Challenges. • Provide an overview of the major department or program, including lab tours, meeting faculty members, etc. • Present the discipline from the perspective of invited practitioners.As shown in Table 4, the modules were rotated each five weeks so that during the course of the15-week semester a student participated in three discipline modules. Prior to enrollment,students were given registration instructions to review the three combinations of majors for themodules, and then to select the section (room
education; learning in the workplace; curricular and pedagogical development; and the preparation of professionals for social justice goals.Naeun Cheon, University of WashingtonMs. Elba Camila Moise, University of WashingtonDr. Susan Bobbitt Nolen, University of Washington Professor of Learning Sciences & Human Development c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Investigating Student Perceptions of an Engineering Department’s Climate: The Role of Peer RelationsDiversity in engineering remains low despite decades of rhetoric and efforts to broadenparticipation and retention. Social and cultural groups historically underrepresented in STEMeducation and careers
, skills,attitudes, norms, and knowledge needed for membership in a professional community; in thecase of engineering, as a professional researcher or faculty member 26-32. In the case ofinternational students, socialization may also encompass an understanding of the socialexpectations and cultural norms of the host country. Socialization plays an important role in thegraduate school experience, and when unsuccessful, may contribute to the decision to depart thedegree program. Where graduate student socialization differs from professional socialization isin the requirement that graduate students become socialized not only to the graduate schoolenvironment, but to the professional role as well 33. Issues relating to graduate studentsocialization
for Wright State’s engineering college: to develop a first semester course experiencethat addresses the inability of first year engineering students to successfully advance quicklyenough through the traditional calculus sequence, resulting in unacceptably high attrition [3].Like at Wright State, the Engineering Math course is centered on hands-on lab experiences,emphasizing an application-oriented, active approach to studying math topics subsequentlyapplied in core engineering courses. Taught by engineering faculty, course topics includeexamples from physics, engineering mechanics, electric circuits, and programming. A goal of thecourse is for students to demonstrate their prowess in applying mathematics knowledge, so thatthey can begin to
engineering careers and curriculum is well-known. ABET lists“an ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create acollaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives” as astudent outcome in its outcomes-based assessment of engineering curricula [1]. Early careerengineers often describe effective teamwork and interpersonal skills as the most importantcompetencies in their jobs [2, 3]. The formation of teams can significantly affect how well a teamworks together, and team formation and function have been studied in engineering curriculum fordecades [4–6]. Previous research has shown that teams are more effective when instructors createthe teams considering students
the Journal of Engineering Education, and associate editor for IEEE Transactions on Education. Dr. Finelli studies the academic success of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), social justice attitudes in engineering, and faculty adoption of evidence-based teaching practices. She also led a project to develop a taxonomy for the field of engineering education research, and she was part of a team that studied ethical decision-making in engineering students. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 WIP: Understanding How International Graduate Students in Engineering Fit into American Culture through the Lens of Gender Pronouns: A Pilot StudyAbstractInternational
onschedule, encourages consistent communication amongst students and professors. For mostprojects, the amount of work is so large that one person alone cannot handle it [9]. That is why ateam is required. A team’s success is also strongly dependent on team culture. A strong teamculture relies on effective communication, vision, and trust [10]. While educators recognize theimportance of project management and team culture, simply relying on the capstone experiencefor students to naturally develop, practice, and master this skill set may not be prudent. Studentteams regularly fail to meet faculty members’ expectations in terms of project management andstruggle to develop a productive team culture. This deficit can be addressed in many ways butfirst