ismany engineering faculty have not had formalized teacher and curriculum development trainingand tend to adopt grading practices and policies they were exposed to as students [4]. As a result,grading has become an important yet unpredictable measure of performance that can drasticallyshape the ways students navigate their undergraduate experiences to become engineers.To date, little work has explored the interplay between course grades and professional identityformation in undergraduate engineering programs. However, these links have been highlighted inliterature that tends to describe engineering educational culture as inherently valuingperformance and productivity encompassed by an aura of exceptionalism. For example, Stevenset al. [5
vulnerable to equating productivity with self-worth—is particularly relevant, as theseself-beliefs directly reinforce behaviors that can either help (i.e., help-seeking, proactive goalsetting, skill-acquisition) or hinder (i.e., social withdrawal, engaging in avoidant behavior,lowered aspirations) personal advancement and career prospects [6]. In this capacity, self-efficacy was identified as an emergent theme and subsequently coded for in the data.The academic pipeline and graduate student attritionThe path through graduate school is neither straightforward nor logical, with many pushes andpulls that may advantage some and disadvantage others. Despite the depoliticization culture andsocialization of engineering particularly among the STEM
Paper ID #38465Unpacking Engineering Faculty’s Discrepant Views of Mentoring throughthe Lens of Attachment TheoryMrs. Jennifer Hadley Perkins, Arizona State UniversityDr. Samantha Ruth Brunhaver, Arizona State University Samantha Brunhaver, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor within The Polytechnic School of the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University. Her primary areas of research include engineering ca- reer pathways and decision-making, undergraduate student persistence, professional engineering practice, and faculty mentorship. Brunhaver graduated with her B.S. in mechanical engineering from
paradigms that undergird engineering education, practice, and industry [12],[14]–[17]. Typically, these explorations are concerned with the paradigms, or beliefs aboutknowledge (epistemology), the nature of being (ontology), and methodological threads inengineering education. Many scholars also study the sociocultural norms and assumptions thatexist within formative engineering spaces [18]–[22]. However, one underexplored area isengineering research more broadly. Most work examining engineering culture concerns itselfwith connections to the education and training of new engineers. Explicitly exploring the spaceof engineering research, which is often occupied by graduate students, engineering faculty, andresearch scientists, would provide critical
could be made more explicit and potentially broadened to include a wider rangeof communication styles and ways of being.We envision any departmental reform process, qualifying exams and beyond, to be a collaborativeone with faculty working alongside students. The Carnegie Foundation’s book, “The Formationof Scholars: Rethinking Doctoral Education for the Twenty-First Century” explores manyavenues of growth for higher education. One of their key highlights is the importance of studentinvolvement in evolving an educational program. Students are “the secret weapon for change”,and they found that when faculty were asked to work alongside students while reforming theirprograms, the faculty’s most transformative
also improve a students’aspiration to transfer (Wang et al., 2017), particularly when students form relationships withuniversity faculty and graduate students (Lenaburg et al., 2012). Community college faculty areaware of the importance of partnerships, and many desire to collaborate with members ofindustry to provide professional development opportunities for students (Smith and Wingate,2016). However, professional development is not enough if it does not also help students affordto stay in college. Kruse et al. (2015) discuss the “sticker shock” of tuition when transferringfrom a community college to a university, an effect which can be worsened when studentsreceive scholarships at the college but not at the university. Financially
. Evanoff et al., “Work-Related and Personal Factors Associated With Mental Well- Being During the COVID-19 Response: Survey of Health Care and Other Workers,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 22, no. 8, p. e21366, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.2196/21366.[34] S. Cohen, T. Kamarck, and R. Mermelstein, “A Global Measure of Perceived Stress,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 385–396, 1983, doi: 10.2307/2136404.[35] J. Kim, J. Oh, and V. Rajaguru, “Job-Seeking Anxiety and Job Preparation Behavior of Undergraduate Students,” Healthcare, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 288, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.3390/healthcare10020288.[36] K. Park, S. Woo, K. Park, J. Kyea, and E. Yang, “The Mediation Effects of Career Exploration on the
supportive cultures and networks that allow women to comfortably pinpoint,refine, strengthen, and achieve their career objectives. This study found that about half ofacademic alters were faculty members, suggesting that they play crucial role in shaping careerchoice [65]. Academic alters can take a role of encouraging Asian women to participate inservices and activities, in order to capitalize on the interests and intentions of Asian women incivil engineering fields. Most students meet with an academic advisor once or twice a year toplan their studies or courses for the following semester. This meeting is significant because itallows students to discuss whether they would like to continue in their current major or pursuesomething new. In order to
campus elements contribute to crafting students' learningoutcomes and growth. The initial work of this paper will explore and synthesize researchliterature through critical consciousness lenses to continue illuminating the voices spoken bywomen of Color and making visible their challenges as faculty members. We presenttransformative, multidimensional, and participatory action research (PAR) approaches foracademic institutions to incorporate, encourage, support, and expand women of Colorfaculty. PAR seeks collaboratively to comprehend social issues and action to bring about socialchange. Overall, we identify and summarize existing findings from previous research literaturein which articles were selected relevant to women of Color challenges and
research laboratories and focus on documenting learningprocesses as they unfold during daily practices in the laboratories. Specifically,the goal of our study is to observe and document how graduate students, and otherlab members, learn from one another within the cultural space of the laboratory,and what aspects of laboratory culture facilitate and what impede learning. To thatend, we use cognitive ethnography, an ethnographic approach combined withcognitive science to study cognitive processes through participant-observation oftwo engineering research laboratories. We identified the following themespertaining to learning experiences: scaffolding (structured activities orapprenticeship), peer-to-peer learning, self-directed and self-regulated
campaigns for all SHPE members and connections with faculty and currentgraduate students were also used to spread the word.Fig. 1, shown on the next page, is an example of a LinkedIn post that was created. It was sharedmainly by SHPE staff that have connections with those noted as candidates for both mentors andmentees.The majority of participants heard about the program through personalized mail merge emails.All mentee candidates that could be supported were accepted. Only one was declined due to thetiming of when that applicant was planning to apply to graduate school. A wait list was createdfor those mentee applicants that the program did not have enough mentors to accommodate, andthose applicants were the first invited to participate in the
directly from theirgraduate student mentors as they recently went through the application process. Having agraduate student mentor from the same or a similar marginalized community in STEM alsoallows an undergraduate to discuss their goals with someone who is academically further alongin their career without facing the challenge of approaching faculty that may not understand orrecognize their academic, professional, and personal barriers. Figure 3: (a) Preferred method of communication for all mentoring pairs, and (b) Hours that each pair spend with each other per month. One of the program’s key traits is giving flexibility to the mentoring pairs in when andhow frequent they decide to meet. We analyzed how the
, andservice, typically in their third year. Such reviews are often part of contract renewal. They canalso be used to help junior faculty gain a deeper understanding of the P&T process andexpectations and to get feedback on one’s progress toward promotion. Utilizing pre-tenurereviews in this way, has the advantage of providing a mechanism that falls outside informalchannels of communication and is equally accessible to all.Our research explores UD faculty members’ experiences preparing for P&T – and, in particular,whether pre-tenure reviews (which are conducted in years 2 and 4 at UD) were useful forclarifying P&T criteria and expectations. As an exploratory study, we are first trying to figureout where people are getting their information
that graduate students who identify as neurodivergentmay experience a lack of sense of belonging, an imbalance between work demands and personallife, and the development of mental health challenges such as anxiety and burnout. The fact thatstudents’ neurodiversity is invisible to others in the graduate school environment unless theychoose to disclose it may result in a dissonance between students’ sense of self and abilities. Thestigma associated with disability labels contributes a heavy cognitive and emotional load asstudents mask neurodivergent traits and navigate decisions about disclosure of theirneurodivergence.Masking NeurodiversityIn this analysis, we found that the neurodivergent students in this study exhibited behaviorsrelated to
)). Intended Audience and Size: To facilitate interaction, each of the four organizers will coach between two and four teams of three individuals (i.e., one student/postdoc, one junior/mid-career faculty, and one senior faculty/administrator). This yields a lower bound 24 participants and an upper bound of 48 participants (i.e., 1/3 each of student/postdoc, junior/mid-career, and senior/administrators). Workshop Organizers: 1. DanOerther,MissouriS&T,oertherd@mst.edu, https://people.mst.edu/faculty/oertherd/index.html,FellowAEESP,previouslyAEESPBOD member,priorworkshoporganizerin2017andin2019 2. AngieBielefeldt,UniversityofColorado,Boulder,Angela.Bielefeldt@colorado.edu, https://www.colorado.edu/even/people/angela
that utilize a WATPS are more competitive in the global workforce[3], [5], [6]. However, there is reluctance to adopt a WATPS due to a lack of class time, time toprepare, and incentives; student resistance; and the faculty researcher/teacher identity tension [7],[8], [9], [10].A forced change requires instructors to adapt their teaching practices. Forced changes comeabout as a result of pandemics and natural and humanitarian disasters as well as accreditationmodifications and department and university unilateral academic policy decisions. In all of theseexamples of forced change, the motivation for change is external and may be time sensitive. Oneexample of a forced change was the COVID-19 pandemic; it provided an external reason
faculty mentorship, the pathway into and through graduate education, and gender and race in engineering.Dr. Allison Godwin, Purdue University, West Lafayette Allison Godwin, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the Robert Frederick Smith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at Cornell University. She is also the Engineering Workforce Development Director for CISTAR, the Center for Innovative and Strategic Transformation of Alkane Resources, a Na- tional Science Foundation Engineering Research Center. Her research focuses on how identity, among other affective factors, influences diverse students to choose engineering and persist in engineering. She also studies how different experiences within the practice and
. According toa 2005 paper by Ogilvie [51], the MITE program serves the following purpose (note that thisprogram is now called the “My Introduction to Engineering” program but is titled differently inOgilvie’s article, written 15 years ago): “The Minority Introduction to Engineering (MITE) program at The University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) is a five-day summer residential program designed to spark students’ interest in engineering as an exciting career choice. MITE offers 100 high school juniors and seniors the opportunity to discover engineering through hands-on experience and interaction with engineering students, faculty, staff, and practicing engineers. While residing on the UT campus, MITE
professors, peers, or the institution. As such, our research questions areas follows: • What are the consistent and contrasting stories of two LGBTQ+ engineering students’ experiences at an HSI? • How do two LGBTQ+ engineering students attending an HSI feel they could be better supported?4. Conceptual FrameworkFor this study, we utilize draw on the Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (MMDI)framework [15] to understand how our participants perceive the salience of different dimensionsof their identities as they discuss their experiences of marginalization in engineering. The MMDIillustrates that one’s personal identity is composed of multiple layers of intersecting socialidentities (race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexual
immigrant from Kenya and is of a cultural background recognized as anunderrepresented minority in STEM [19].The two faculty mentors interviewed are research scientists in Biomedical Engineering andAssistant Professors in the Biomedical Engineering Department of the host university. Bothfaculty members have established labs with undergraduate and graduate student researchers aswell as a staff scientist.Table I – Participants family and academic background. Intern Self- URM in Parent Parents’ Part of MLSC School System (Alias) identifies STEM Interviewed Careers (Alias) Intern First Yes None Father – RN Yes
individual interviews instead. We recruitedparticipants by emailing campus organizations and student groups, explaining the purpose of thestudy, and seeking students who identified as marginalized within their engineering experience.Students then scheduled an individual interview with two members of the research team,conducted over Zoom. We include some of these data, selected for race, in this paper and explorethem further in other publications [28]–[30].We had developed our classroom observation protocol, now scheduled for fall 2020, anticipatingin-person instruction. Due to the institution’s decision to offer online instruction in addition toin-person instruction in fall 2020, to manage logistical constraints of having students work onteams when
shift in engagement. This shift can be the result of either or both thequantity or quality of engagement perceived by faculty. Faculty likely had to develop alternativemeasures of engagement since their ability to watch students pay attention and take notes in realtime was diminished.Next faculty cited an appreciation for UDL. Faculty cited increased accessibility and equity oflecture material influenced their decision. Many online tools have been designed with this in mind,but because of the start-up time-investment of learning the tools, and not necessarily meshing wellwith in-person lecture material faculty may have been slow to adopt them. When forced by thecircumstances, and given the chance to experience the benefits of tools designed to
graduates from ourprogram has been historically low, and one reason for this is the number of students who changetheir declared major to either design, or they leave our program entirely, in the initial two yearsof the curriculum. It is this condition that warranted a change in the way we approach teachingand mentoring beginning students in our program.Literature ReviewA review of literature found that most studies regarding early faculty involvement and mentoringof students within the first few years of their academic careers were focused on the STEM fieldas a whole and there are limited studies specifically addressing ARCH and ARCHE students.The role of an Architectural Engineering faculty member in an architectural design studio is alsolimited
information about the classes). I guess for me I had to take an extra semester because I wasn't ever told that a class that used to be offered every semester was going to change to every other semester.” (Student 7).Students may not be aware of how and where to get course-relevant information. If suchinformation is not accessed timely, it may have devastating effects on their academic career. Forexample, the above student had to take an extra semester just because some very basic courseinformation was not delivered to them when it was needed the most. The college of engineeringadministration may facilitate seminars and presentations delivering such information. Faculty, whoact as the front people for the institutions could play their role in
thenumber of hours needed per semester and the possibility of taking summer courses to expeditetheir graduation timeline. To address these needs, a web-based advising app was developed tohelp faculty advisors create error-free schedules to help empower students to take responsibilityfor their graduation timeline.After using the app for some time, it was essential to determine students' satisfaction levels whencreating their tentative schedules through the app.IntroductionEfficient academic advising is critical for putting students on the path to academic success inhigher education. During an advising session, a student meets with a faculty member to receiveguidance on academic planning for the upcoming semester and for registering for
from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Trenton Robert Douthwaite ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023Engineering Management Student Study-Abroad Opportunities: Design Considerations for EM Programs and Faculty MentorsAbstractLeading an undergraduate program in Engineering Management (EM) can be challenging due tothe need to balance the requirements of accreditation engineering topics (ET) and the desire toinspire students through study-abroad opportunities. Often, foreign colleges do not offer thesame level of ET rigor, putting students at risk of falling behind and not graduating on time. Thispaper proposes one approach to planning and creating student opportunity. It begins
channels. E-mentoring can be beneficial for graduate students who may not have easy access to mentors in person. 6. Reverse Mentoring: In this type of mentoring relationship, the mentee takes on a mentoring role for the mentor. This can be useful when the mentor is seeking to learn more about the experiences and perspectives of the mentee, such as when a senior faculty member mentors a graduate student from a diverse cultural background.There are several types of mentoring relationships that can be used to support graduatestudents in STEM fields. Each type has its own advantages and can be used in differentsituations depending on the needs of the mentee and the goals of the mentoring relationship.Components for successThere
effort (incremental theory; orincremental belief)” [8].Resilience is the ability of a person to cope with and adapt to changing circumstances successfully.For many engineering students, the adjustment to college from high school includes stressors bothrelated and unrelated to academics. New living conditions, routines, and challenging classes allcontribute to the stress of undergraduate students in engineering [6]. Students that have higherresilience have been shown to have better mental health and well-being, better educationaloutcomes, and better employability [4, 8, 12].Exploration of these theories specifically in engineering contexts is limited. Tek and colleaguesexplored the effect of self-efficacy in an introductory programming course
faculty and graduate students involved in these activities. Today, only a very smallpercentage of engineers and scientists who are involved in research are exposed to technologycommercialization training or activity. At many research universities, the primary role for facultyis very oriented towards scientific production, more than either teaching or entrepreneurialengagement. Many individual and institutional factors are believed to influence academicresearchers’ decisions regarding whether to engage in academic entrepreneurship, and whether tocontinue to stay involved. Therefore, increasing participation requires a comprehensiveunderstanding of academic researcher motivations.Motivation for EntrepreneurshipMotivation is defined as “a set of
constructed identities allow for the reproduction of social inequality, with a focus on understanding the ways institutions of higher education and other social struc- tures challenge or uphold hegemonic environments in which majority populations accumulate power that harms students underrepresented in certain contexts. ˜Maricela Banuelos, University of California, Irvine Maricela Ba˜nuelos received her Sociology B.A. from the University of California, (UC) Santa Barbara in 2016, and graduated with Summa Cum Laude. She received her master’s in Educational Policy and Social Context from UC Irvine in 2020 and is currently pursuing her Ph.D. in Sociology at UC Irvine with an emphasis in Chicano Latino studies