, Carnegie Mellon University Andrea Francioni Rooney is the Director of Undergraduate Programs for the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. She serves as an academic advisor for un- dergraduate students and works closely with faculty on the undergraduate curriculum. She also teaches professional writing courses for the department.Dr. Millard L. McElwee, Exponent Millard McElwee is an engineering and tech scholar who draws upon his education and industry experi- ence in electrical utilities, offshore mooring, and large-scale transportation systems to provide innovative solutions to various energy sectors. Millard is a licensed contractor (highways, roads, and bridges) in his
-secondary levels.Prof. Joseph M LeDoux, Georgia Institute of Technology Joe Le Doux is the Executive Director for Learning and Training in the Department of Biomedical Engi- neering at Georgia Tech and Emory University. Dr. Le Doux’s research interests in engineering education focus on the socio-cognitive aspects of highly interactive learning environments, inclusion and peer jus- tice, and the impact of story-driven learning and personal narratives on students’ empathy, self-concept, and identity. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2022 Cultivating Inclusivity: A Systematic Literature Review on Developing Empathy for Students in
to calibrate and compare their own progression through their degreeprograms to the progress of their peers. As implied by curricular flowcharts (another importantartifact), the default progression for engineering students begins in the first semester with Calc1, proceeding onwards through the math sequence and ideally completing the required coursesby the fourth semester of their undergraduate careers. Consequently, students classified as notready for Calc 1 who start at Pre-Calc in their first semesters are already “behind” their peersfrom the start of their college experiences while students who place into Calc 2 or 3 their firstsemesters are “ahead.” Feeling behind rather than ahead can be potentially detrimental to studentattitudes and
conflict, etc between stories showing student stories patternsEach conversation was analyzed using deductive coding techniques. They were each coded twice – once withnarrative coding and then again with thematic coding.The Narrative codes included structures of storytelling such as aspects of plot such as conflict and resolutions,setting, and characters. Characters in the stories included the students, their home communities, elders & mentorson campus, peers, and the structures themselves.The thematic coding utilized the nine tenets of TribalCrit to determine which showed up in the stories ofIndigenous engineering students and determined
across the Undergraduate Curriculum: Preliminary Results from the Collaboration Across Boundaries (CAB) Pedagogical StudyS. Monisha Pulimood1, Diane C. Bates2, and Kim Pearson31Department of Computer Science, The College of New Jersey2Department of Sociology, The College of New Jersey3Department of Journalism and Professional Writing, The College of New Jersey1. INTRODUCTIONDespite the growing need for scientific literacy, colleges and universities offer most scientificcontent in courses offered in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). Thispaper reports on the evaluation of the Collaboration Across Boundaries (CAB) pedagogy, whichincorporates project-based, community-engaged learning in
, emphasizing theimportance of predictions and discussions with peers before viewing the simulations.The following research focuses on the perception of students facing a physics course for thefirst time, implemented with an active methodology based on Sokoloff and Thorthonmethodology called Interactive Lecture Demonstration [14], which has been modified.Despite the modifications made to this methodology, which can be found in the literature,there are few reports on students' perceptions of these modifications. Therefore, we aim toanswer the following question: What is the perception of non-physics major studentsregarding the modified ILD?Didactic methodologyThe didactic methodology used in this study is the Interactive Lecture Demonstration (ILD)by
their peers without disabilities [7, 8]. Students with disabilities must oftenspend more energy than their peers to negotiate physical, cultural, and bureaucratic structures ofthe university to effectively access the curricular and co-curricular resources necessary tosucceed.Our work addresses this vital need by heeding the call of the Research in the Formation ofEngineers (RFE) program to explore the “development of identity as an engineer and itsintersection with other identities” [9] by using grounded theory to understand how students withdisabilities develop (or fail to develop) professional identities. Moreover, because practices andexperiences can vary widely across fields, particularly with respect to physical and cognitiveexpectations
problem of retaining students in a program of study in engineering has long beena problem for engineering educators…Roughly fifty percent of the students who begin inengineering leave the field before receiving their engineering degree [1].” According toAnderson-Rowland [2], the enrollment of minority freshman in engineering had increased morethan six fold during the 1980s and 1990s. However the attrition rate for freshman engineeringminorities was still high. Moreover, after five years of study, the graduation rate for minoritystudents (African American, Hispanic American, and Native American), is much lower than thatof non-minorities. Peter Schmidt [3], writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, noted thatinadequate preparation for college
Paper ID #27504The Social and Conceptual Function of Uncertainty in Open-Ended Project-Based LearningColin Dixon, Concord Consortium Colin Dixon holds a Ph.D. in Learning & Mind Sciences from the University of California, Davis. He researches the development of STEM practices and agency among young people creating things to use and share with the world. He writes about equity and identity in making and engineering, the role of community in science learning, and how youth leverage interests and experiences within STEM education.Prof. Lee Michael Martin, University of California, Davis Lee Martin studies people’s efforts
modeling studies of industrial odors and wellbeing in Colorado com- munities, diesel exhaust pollution, indoor environmental quality and respiratory health, asthma and air pollution, and radon. She has published over 60 peer reviewed articles on air quality.Dr. Joseph L. Polman, University of Colorado Boulder Joe Polman is a Professor of Learning Sciences and Science Education, as well as Associate Dean for Research, in the School of Education at University of Colorado Boulder. He designs and studies project- based learning environments for youth in schools and community programs. He focuses on learning and identity development connected to practices of science, literacy, history, and journalism, with a particular aim
cultural change surrounding gender.Gender in EngineeringEngineering has been described as a hegemonic, masculine culture [1]. Societal and interpersonalgender dynamics, a lack of role models, and lack of community in the field can cause women toalter their gender presentation and sense of self or to leave ‘feminine traits’ at the door in order tofit in [2]. It has also been documented that women in engineering experience a slowerdevelopment of engineering identity and a diminished sense of belonging [3]. LGBTQ+ peoplein STEM have reported similar experiences, including a rate of closeting that is double thenational average for all LGBTQ+ persons, and report higher levels of harassment anddiscrimination than their ‘straight’ peers [4]. While the
2015 23 13 9 Total 45 22 (49%) 19 (42%)A major feature of the SIIRE program is student enrichment through the participation inprofessional development programs [3, 4]. SIIRE students are encouraged to participate inresearch and co-op or internship opportunities throughout their academic tenure to better preparefor graduate school or employment. Faculty, local engineers from industry and peers havevolunteered to serve as formal or informal mentors for SIIRE students, either individually or insmall groups.Professional development workshops are regularly hosted for the SIIRE students on a variety oftopics, including [3]: • Resume Writing and Job Search
assignments are detailed below: 1. Develop a single-phase impedance model 2. Develop the primitive impedance matrix for an overhead line 3. Modify code written in 2. to output the phase impedance matrix and calculate the shunt admittance matrix 4. Develop a single-phase transformer model 5. Develop a single-phase autotransformer model 6. Develop a voltage source (ideal substation) modelUsing 1-6 students were asked to write a professional report based on their simulator. This wasan open-ended assignment in which students had control over how they wanted to presenttheir simulator to an investor. Students were asked to come up with a couple of test casesshowing its functionality and were asked to use as many concepts from the course as
majorconsiderations for student persistence. Additionally, several studies have found that students aremore reluctant to leave an institution after joining a campus organization [7]. Social connectionsallow students to “bond with other students to achieve a common goal,” such as completing theirdegree program [8].Additionally, non-academic factors like social support (level of social support a student feels theinstitution provides) and social involvement (extent to which a student feels connected to thecollege environment, peers, faculty, and others in college, and degree to which a student isinvolved in campus activities) positively affect student retention [9]. Therefore, it is importantthat students have a variety of opportunities to engage with peers
supplemental readings prior to each engineering discipline’s discipline specific lessonproviding background knowledge for each activity. Students were tasked to work in groups on anopen-ended project applying knowledge of the six disciplines introduced throughout theprogram. Problem-based learning through the assigned project allowed students to develop skillssuch as teamwork, oral communication, time management and project management. During thefinal program session, students gave an oral presentation to peers, parents and programinstructors detailing their design solutions to a real-world problem. Evaluation instruments of theoutreach program’s design included pre- and post-questionnaires for assessment of theinteractive sessions, and their impact
Paper ID #14786Racial Microaggressions within the Advisor-advisee Relationship: Implica-tions for Engineering Research, Policy, and PracticeDr. Brian A. Burt, Iowa State University Brian A. Burt is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Iowa State University. He studies graduate stu- dents’ learning and achievement, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds in STEM fields. He also examines the institutional policies and practices that influence students’ educational and work- force pathways. His research, writing, and teaching and advising directly relate to his personal journey as a collegiate student
scholarly publications in journals, books, and conferences, 60 presentations at national and international events, and $4M in external funding for research, development and technology transfer. In addition, he has supervised ap- proximately 60 research students on Ph.D., M.S, B.S., and other research and development projects. Dr. Schaefer is a registered Professional Engineer in Europe (Eur Ing), a Chartered Engineering (CEng), a Chartered IT Professional (CITP), and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA) in the UK, as well as registered International Engineering Educator (Ing-Paed IGIP). From 2013 to 2014 he served as IGIP’s Founding President for the US region. Dr. Schaefer serves as a peer reviewer for approx
. Four original case studies were developed using the Herreid(1997) definition of the components for a good case study used in the sciences.12, 13 TheNational Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS) model recommends several keyfactors for developing a good case.12 These are: 1) the case tells a story; 2) it focuses on aninteresting-arousing issue; 3) the case is set within the past five years and can be real or fictionalas long as it is factual; 4) it creates empathy with the central characters; 5) the case must havepedagogic utility; and 5) the case is short. Cases submitted to NCCSTS are peer reviewed andpublished in a database. Table 1 lists the four cases and tour developed for the educational studyto be used in the laboratory
, reading reference material and maintaining a laboratorynotebook. To supplement students’ research experience, YSs participated in weekly meetings, inworkshops geared to teach students technical writing, poster creation and presentation skills, andin technical and career development seminars where faculty members and guest speakers gavespecial interest talks around nanotechnology and manufacturing (See Table 2 for a sample ofdaily schedule).Table 2: Sample of daily schedule week 2 to 6 9am Arrive at Research Center, check in with mentors and begin research 12pm Lunch at the cafeteria 1pm Workshop on technical writing skills 3pm Begin scientific poster creation using skills learned in workshop 5pm Depart for the
from both supportivefaculty and peers (p. 879).Professional IdentityAccording to Chickering and Reisser, a foundational component of one’s overall identity iscompetence, most relevantly captured here in one’s professional identity [19]. The Communityof Practice (COP) [20] model is a widely adopted framework in the professional identityliterature that has been useful in understanding engineering identity (e.g., [21-23]). TheCommunity of Practice model consists of members of a professional community who surround acore of practicing experts. Belonging in this community is experienced through three modalities:imagination (i.e., how can I see myself as a member?), engagement (i.e., how can I participate inthis community?), and alignment (i.e., how
have: 1. Develop innovative solutions to significant, real-world problems. 2. Work with others, such as team members, project sponsors, and faculty members. 3. Situate their work in the relevant social context(s). 4. Develop and deliver a clear, convincing oral presentation and 5. Write an extensive professional report. Students’ course grades are based on: 1. Professional management of their project andeffective communication with all parties. 2. Quality of deliverables‐ both in implementation andreport. 3. Timely achievement of project milestones and deliverables. 4. Professional behavior. 5.Peer and self-evaluation (see Table 1) were infused in the above grading scheme. One
comments you may have.” only two students responded with comments regarding their beliefs on societal impact in the healthcare industry (R1) and their appreciation for the lecture (R1 and R2). R2 in response to online format due to restrictions on in-person classes following university COVID-19 safety measures. Table 4. Concluding questions from the post-survey asking students (Q6-Q7) if they thought the topics were beneficial for engineers to learn and if they would recommend the topics to their peers. Free response resulted in two comments supporting their positive feelings towards the content.4.2 Thematic Analysis The final portion of the course required students to form groups to research, write a review
systems design, development, and consultation firm. She joined the faculty of the School of Engineering and Computer Science at Baylor University in 1997, where she teaches a variety of engineering and computer science classes, she is the Faculty Advisor for the Women in Computer Science (WiCS), the Director of the Computer Science Fellows program, and is a KEEN Fellow. She has authored and co- authored over fifty peer-reviewed papers. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 The Challenge of Preparing iGen Students for Engineering and Computer ScienceAbstractA recent suicide by an engineering student began
participant shared that his drive to be successful in this environment, through increasing hispublication record, created strife within his lab and led to a misunderstanding among his peers: It was kind of reported to the supervisor that I was not helpful, or I was pushy, and I was demanding papers . . . if I did not have that pressure, I would not have run into the trouble with my colleagues and my supervisor. So, I feel they're interconnected. They [colleagues] may not have understood that I was driven to write papers because of the requirement from faculty hiring committees.This individual believed his career goals and relationships with his peers were at cross-purposes,which resulted in a competitive
know what exactly, I know the area I want to go into. I just need to find the gap in that area and dig into it and exploit it… (March, 2018)”As data collection continued, over time, participants’ responses to the anticipatory cognitionquestions shifted focus from topic selection and problems that were hindrances for getting startedwith their research projects to problems they did not anticipate with the actual implementation oftheir research, specifically about writing and data collection. For example, one participant stated, “The main challenges, at this time, (long pause) lit review, literature review, designing, the appropriate instruments and administering that. That is the plan for the summer, which is upon
a keyaspect of professionalism in STEM. However, our findings also show that dominant figures havethe ability to drastically change LGBTQ+ students’ perspective of professionalism. We alsoexplore how LGBTQ+ students face a culture of silence in STEM environments, unable orunwilling to give voice to their discomfort. LGBTQ+ students experience a lack of solidarityfrom their peers, contributing to a silent, chilly experience in STEM classrooms and labenvironments. Our third theme, identity concealment, investigates how students conceal theirLGBTQ+ identities as a mechanism for survival in STEM. A lack of LGBTQ+ dominant figuresin STEM, a culture of silence, and reinforcement that straightness is a professional requirementin STEM has
universities.RedShirt programs are one example of this type of asset-based student support program aimed atbroadening participation in engineering for students from minoritized racial or ethnic backgrounds orfrom under-resourced high schools and geographic regions (Myers et al., 2018). RedShirt programsprovide an alternative admissions pathway for students who do not meet traditional admissions criteriafor highly selective engineering colleges, but still have the desire and potential to be an engineer.RedShirt programs focus on building strong peer networks and communities to support academicsuccess, communities that are initiated through required summer bridge experiences and reinforcedthrough “high-touch” advising, study sessions, and targeted coursework
development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills[11], the opportunity to work with like-minded peers and mentors [8], and the chance to learnabout careers in STEM fields [10]. In this article, the authors review the literature on high schoolSTEM hands-on summer camps and discuss their potential impact on student learning and careerdevelopment. Also, the paper outlines the hands-on activities of the summer camp hosted oncampus in the summer of 2022 and their impact on participant students.BackgroundAccording to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2021, there were approximately 10 millionworkers in STEM fields. This number is expected to increase by 11% by 2031—a growth rate thatis more than twice as fast as all other occupations
this study. Thecriteria used were the following. (1) The main focus of the paper must be on engineering, science, or STEM students more broadly. While there is important work to be done with students in other fields, our focus was on the STEM classroom. (2) The paper must have been published in the last twenty years. Given how much high- achieving and honors programs have changed through the years, we thought only getting the research from the last two decades would yield the most useful results. (3) The paper must be from a peer-reviewed journal or academic conference. We wanted only high-quality studies to be part of the systematic review and felt this criterion would better ensure quality. (4) The
with visibleidentities is simpler, marginalized people with invisible identities also seek community [1] [2] [3][4]. One such group of invisible marginalized people in STEM are LGBTQ+ engineers, whonavigate a chilly, heteronormative climate in higher education [5] [6]. Additionally, prior studieshighlight how students with multiple-marginalized identities face more barriers than those withone or fewer marginalized identities [7] [8]. Students resist this chilly climate and can overcomethese barriers by forming communities of support, gaining power within the department, andinteracting with peers to create a more inclusive culture [2]. Resistance to this environment canbe influenced by the visibility of students’ marginalized identities [1