researchers, the amount of storage space was not the issue of concern, but rather it wasthe organization of the datasets that posed a logistical challenge. One faculty member mentionedthat neither they nor their associated graduate students or collaborative researchers have theskills, resources, and time available to organize data in a meaningful way. For some AE faculty,such an organization project would not be worth the effort anyway: “[If] we think the data's not really going to be used, and we're the only ones who's going to use it, that's a lot of effort to go to make all that information and organize it and then it's a waste of time if no one does it. So in the short term aspect to us, it doesn't help us. Too labor
the development of programs that assist entering freshman engineering students, including academically disadvantaged students, succeed during their first year. Of particular note are the highly successful counseling and cooperative learning programs for first-year stu- dents that he created within the freshman engineering programs at Purdue University and at the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Budny has numerous publications and presentations on engineering education. He is widely recognized for outstanding teaching, receiving awards at both Purdue and Pittsburgh Universities, plus national and international awards. Dr. Budny is very active in ASEE within the Freshman Programs and the Educational Research and Methods
Paper ID #22223Influences on Variability of Perceptions of Behavior on Student EngineeringProject TeamsEmily Miller, University of Virginia Emily Miller is a graduate student in Systems and Information Engineering at the University of Virginia. She has previously worked for the National Integrated Cyber Education and Research Center and as a researcher at the University of Virginia, Olin College of Engineering and Ohio State. Her research interests include motivation, expertise recognition, and teamwork.Prof. Reid Bailey, University of Virginia Reid Bailey is an Associate Professor in the Department of Systems and
as part of a dual level(undergraduate and graduate) elective course on science diplomacy.IntroductionScience diplomacy – the triune approach of: 1) scientists acting as diplomats; 2)diplomats facilitating scientific collaboration; and 3) cultural diplomacy via scientificgatherings and international exchange – is both a long-standing and a recently re-emergedaspect of international relations [1]. For example, the first Ambassador of the UnitedStates was inventor-scientist Benjamin Franklin, and the first Secretary of State wasfarmer-scientist Thomas Jefferson. More recently, in 1961, Article 3 of the ViennaConvention on Diplomatic Relations was written to highlight that, “the functions of adiplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in
of 90 engineering students to better understand what experiences made the greatestimpact. These experiences are also present in the literature on leadership development [5], and arecommon practice in existing engineering leadership programs [4, 6, 7].Leadership and EngineeringLeadership has been studied for almost as long as human history, with the ancient works of theGreeks, Romans, and Chinese all exploring the topic [8]. Despite this long history and an evergrowing research base [9], there is little evidence of a commonly accepted definition of the topic.This sentiment has led to the conclusion stated in The Nature of Leadership that “given thecomplex nature of leadership, a specific and widely accepted definition of leadership does not
of the field and its innovations[18]. One network analysis study ofcommunity and collaboration, for example, revealed a lack of diffusion across the engineeringeducation research (EER) community, and the network analysis illustrated the shape of thediscipline’s network. The authors then used the analysis to locate disciplinary pockets as well asareas and topics of interests. In this article, we follow scholars outside the field to take morenarrow approach[20]: rather than explore a network to discover themes or locate topics ofinterest, we instead interrogate one particular topic, intersectionality, to understand the way thefield has used the term, the way it has gathered around particular key texts, and the citationaltendencies that support
culture, some students were able to thrive, while others’ low levelsof self-efficacy prevented them from having successful experiences. Since most REU studentsworked individually, opportunities for mutual support among research teams were not developed.This project determined to create research experiences that would address these issues. With aPBL approach in mind, engineering faculty members recruited students with a variety of STEMbackgrounds to work collaboratively on a complex problem in transportation engineering. Theresearch was intended to be a collaborative effort among students to reach their common goal.This paper has described the REU as it has developed over two years.During the first year of the project (summer 2018), the eight
California, Santa Cruz. Beckett’s continuing dissertation research examines a community-university collaboration situated in a low-income, predominantly Latino community, that created and used digital stories as artifacts and learning tools to engage members of the community (parents, teachers, district officials, union leaders, students, non-profit service providers, etc.) in reflection and dialogue around the economic, social, and cultural barriers that constituents face when advocating for student academic achievement, and to identify the strengths and solidarities that can be created to change the school system to better serve the student body (Beckett, Glass, & Moreno, 2012). Beckett has presented her research at
, Texas A&M University Blaine is currently a graduate student earning his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology with an emphasis in Research, Measurement, and Statistics at Texas A&M. His research is primarily focused on issues of equity in STEM education.Camille S. Burnett, Prairie View A&M University Camille S. Burnett, Ph.D., ACUE, is Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education and Director of the SMaRTS (Science, Mathematics, Reading, Technology, and Social Studies) Curriculum Resource Lab in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Prairie View A&M University. She has almost 20 years of combined experience in the K-12 and higher education settings. She is also the principal investigator for
underrepresentation of minoritizedwomen, including African American or Black, Hispanic or Latina/Latinx, and Native Americanor American Indian women. Therefore, the computing education research community (CER)have explored pedagogies to improve computing students' learning outcomes based on existinglearning theories. Few studies have reviewed pedagogies in the context of social constructivism.Social constructivism is a learning theory defined as the collaborative co-construction ofknowledge. Social constructivist pedagogies have enhanced learning outcomes for minoritizedwomen in other STEM fields, but their effects have not been studied extensively in CER. Wereference intersectionality theory to guide our search around gender/race/ethnicity, critique
careers, and are focused on those who are underrepresented in STEM and underserved. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018Promoting the STEM Pipeline and Enhancing STEM Career AwarenessThrough Participation in Authentic Research Activities (RTP, Diversity) AbstractTo promote the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) pipeline andenhance the participation of students who have been historically underrepresented in STEMfields in the U.S, a team of faculty investigators with diverse expertise in STEM, education,public health and medicine have been working collaboratively on a National Institutes of Health(NIH)-funded STEM education project
started theiracademic journey at a community college46. In addition, 40% of those with a bachelor’s andmaster’s degree in engineering from 1999 to 2000 attended community colleges as part of theiracademic journey47. The main reason students choose to begin their higher education pathwaywith community colleges is the need to reduce financial costs of their education. According to a2005 National Research Council study, community colleges have not achieved their full potentialfor the following reasons:(1) a lack of understanding among parents, teachers, counselors, and students of theeffectiveness of community colleges in producing engineering graduates;(2) less than effective articulation agreements (policies and program designed to foster
grassroots. As engineering education scholarship develops its transnational agenda, I alsooffer this research design, my findings, and pedagogical efforts as points of entry for scholarsand educators to reconfigure the relationship between teachers, learners, and the contexts inwhich their interactions are situated.Background: Engineering to help (ETH) trendsTrends in the internationalization of service learning in engineering education suggest aburgeoning interest among students, universities and professional organizations in tackling issuesof social and economic development.4,5,6,7,8 Diverse campus-based and professional programshaving labels including humanitarian engineering, service learning, sustainable development,social entrepreneurship are
. & Mclean, M. (1996). Peer Observation of Teaching and Staff Development. Higher EducationQuarterly, 50(2), 156-171.10 Bell, M. & Cooper, P. (2013). Peer Observation of Teaching in University Departments: A Framework forImplementation. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 60-73.11 Woodman, R. J. & Parappilly, M. B. (2015). The Effectiveness of Peer Review of Teaching when performedbetween Early-career Academics. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 12(1).12 Carroll, M. P. (2014). Shoot For The Moon! The Mentors and the Middle Schoolers Explore the Intersection ofDesign Thinking and STEM. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4, 14-30.13 Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006
Paper ID #16930Group Problem Solving Coupled with Hands-on Activities: Conceptual Gainsand Student Confidence in an Introductory Biomechanics CourseDr. LeAnn Dourte Segan, University of Pennsylvania Dr. LeAnn Dourte Segan is a senior lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pa. Her primary teaching focus is in the field of solid biomechanics at the undergraduate and graduate levels.Dr. Emily R Elliott, Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Pennsylvania Emily R. Elliott is an Associate Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of Pennsylvania. She received her PhD in Biomedical
explanation for this is that, on average, faculty spend the most time with53 students, compared with staff, administrators, and advisors. For most courses offered in higher education,54 this time is at least three hours per week; for research mentoring, the faculty contact time can increase55 dramatically [12]. Classroom interactions between students and faculty have a significant potential to56 influence students’ graduation path [13]. Yet, concerning the instruction by faculty, engineering students57 reported that the quality of instruction in engineering was lower than in their non-engineering courses58 [14], [15]. A 2017 study by Gandhi-Lee et al. found that most faculty are unaware of actions that59 positively influence STEM
designed to provide global competency to students so that claimsabout the success of educational practices might be evaluated [1] in [11]. This study contributesto the body of knowledge on how to and what prepares engineering students to be ready for theglobal job market and society they will face once they graduate by understanding how studentscome to appreciate cultural differences to interact effectively with different others in the contextof a global engineering course. This research supports the lifelong learning concept and ways todevelop the five competencies rated most important by the industry, which includes appreciatingand respecting cultural differences, collaborating and working on a multicultural team, using
residential treatment center for adolescent girls in Arlington MA, focusing on program evaluation and outcomes after discharge. Since 2011, Dr. Tripathy has been teaching in the Sociology department at University of Massachusetts Lowell. She received teaching awards for applied and experiential learning in 2013 and 2014, was promoted to Associate Teaching Professor in 2018, and received the UMass Lowell Teaching Excellence Award in Sociology in 2018. From 2016-2019, Dr. Tripathy was the Director of the Bachelor of Liberal Arts program, an interdisciplinary major with an enrollment of 250 undergraduate students. During 2018- 2020, she collaborated with Dr. Kavitha Chandra to utilize participatory action research (PAR) as an
-methods research on and for people at work, ensuring that organizations intentionally center the human experience. Sreyoshi has spoken at over 100+ global venues, addressing diverse audiences ranging from academics, NSF PIs, in- dustry leaders, entrepreneurs, and professionals to students or high-schoolers starting out with Computer Sciences, helping them strategize and broaden participation, as well as explore, understand, and apply emerging technologies. Sreyoshi is committed to broadening participation among underrepresented mi- norities in engineering and serves as a Senator at the Society of Women Engineers. She is also part of the Advisory Board at the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech and serves as an
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
students. In 2018 and 2019, she collaborated with Dr. Kavitha Chandra to utilize participatory action research (PAR) as an evaluation approach for the Research, Academics, and Mentoring Pathways (RAMP) summer program for first-year female engineering students.Prof. Kavitha Chandra, University of Massachusetts, Lowell Kavitha Chandra is the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs and Professor of Electrical and Com- puter Engineering in the Francis College of Engineering at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. She directs the Research, Academics and Mentoring Pathways (RAMP) to Success program that aims to estab- lish successful pathways to graduate school and interdisciplinary careers for new undergraduate students
Paper ID #43928Promoting Equity and Cognitive Growth: The Influence of an AuthenticLearning Assignment on Engineering Problem-Solving SkillsDr. Boni Frances Yraguen, Vanderbilt University Boni Yraguen is an Instructional Consultant with the Vanderbilt Center for Teaching. Boni is passionate about engineering education. She has led and participated in various educational studies on the impact of student reflections, authentic learning assignments, the use of technology in the classroom, and graduate education.Elisa Koolman, University of Texas at Austin Elisa is a Ph. D. student at the University of Texas at Austin. They
perspective, we can also usediscourse identity to determine students’ internalization of the discipline’s ethical canons anddisciplinary identity based on how they discursively position themselves in relation to the valuesof the profession. For example, research conducted by Dannels [17] and Douglas and colleagues[43] explored the discursive practices utilized by students throughout a variety of academiccontexts. They found that students did not perceive themselves as engineers; they perceivedthemselves as students working for a grade that would lead them to graduate from an engineeringprogram. In these studies, these students utilized discourse to maintain their student identitiesand separated themselves from engineers. To strengthen the link
international students. The analyses for answeringour two research questions were conducted independently in this exploratory study.Study ParticipantsStudy participants were students from a first-year engineering course in the spring semester andmost students were in their first year of study (more than 91%). This data consist 1477 studentsworked on 409 teams. Among the participants 370 were females,1102 were males, and 5students selected other or not prefer to answer. 1166 students were US-citizen and 311 wereinternational. Also, 899 students were White, 338 Asian, 33 Black, 129 Hispanic, 1 NativeAmerican, and 48 “Other.” There were 29 students who declined to answer. We are focused atteam-level effects rather than individual-level experiences, so we
Paper ID #37108Where Are We, and Where to Next? ’Neurodiversity’ in EngineeringEducation ResearchTheo Sorg, Purdue University Theo Sorg (they/them) is a third-year PhD student and National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. They received their Bachelor’s de- gree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering at Purdue University. As an undergraduate, they also received a Cooperative Education Program certificate for their work as a Pathways Intern at NASA’s John- son Space Center. Their research interests focus on challenging problematic conceptions and
enhance analytical abilities and promote problem-solving skills usingmultiple levels of abstraction [15]. Institutes define the CT according to unique goals and standards, meaning no unifiedCT definitions exist among researchers. For example, the International Society for Technologyin Education (ISTE) defines CT as a systematic approach for solving problems in computersciences and other subject areas and careers [16]. According to the K–12 Computer ScienceFramework, CT is closely related to computer sciences, specifically the capabilities ofcomputers for solving various problems using algorithms. The framework includes corepractices for promoting the computing culture, collaborating using computing, definingcomputational problems
lecture.IntroductionThis research paper explores the ways in which engineering postdoctoral scholars describe theappeal of pursuing a career in the professoriate. Scholarship concerning engineering careertrajectories presently lack the depth necessary to understand the arc of the career from student topostdoctoral scholar to professor (Jaeger et al., 2017; St. Clair et al., 2017; Su, 2013). Aninvestigation of this trajectory is critical for those invested in increasing the number ofunderrepresented minorities (URMs; African American, Latinx, and Native American) andwomen entering the professoriate and earning tenure. Researchers have found postdoctoraltraining is crucial for a scholar’s productivity and ability to compete for professorships (Andalibet al., 2018
external to internal ability to define theself assists in the social and professional development of students.25Context of CourseProgram and Course DescriptionThe University of Michigan’s Multidisciplinary Design Program was established in 2007. Asseen in Conger et al., students were excited to begin their engineering programs at the university,but there was a disconnect from what they learned in their courses to their professional practiceafter graduation.26 MDP is but one piece of the university’s commitment to prepare engineersfor the 21st century and beyond. Recognizing the need for cooperation and collaboration amongdifferent disciplines in the design process, a common experience for all engineers, MDP, wascreated to allow students and teams
multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary settingthat provides the basis for robust and sustainable solutions. In this proceeding, we present ourobservations, challenges, and learnings garnered over eight years of hosting the summer schooland detail the current program design, which has evolved to reflect lessons learned.1. The ProgramThe US-Denmark research and education program, funded for the first three years by the DanishAgency for Science, Technology and Innovation and the following five years by US-NSF PIRE,is a cooperative and collaborative partnership between two US universities: Universities ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz and Davis (UCSC, UC Davis), and two Danish universities: AalborgUniversity (AAU) and the Technical University of Denmark
participating in studies on technologies for disability, overlookingtheir much-needed insight, and treating them as unequal engineering partners in the design andresearch processes [2]. Another literature survey focused on ASEE publications noted that therewas a significant lack of research focusing on disability as an identity and on the experiences ofstudents with disabilities in engineering education [3].Several works have explored the stigma, social exclusion, systemic marginalization, devaluation,and feelings of “otherness” experienced by students with disabilities in engineering education[4], [5]. These consequences were attributed to a variety of reasons, including the lack of rolemodels with disabilities, educators’ misconceptions about the