study skills, how touse university student services, and how to become holistically involved at the university. Summer Scholars was established to (1) promote the holistic development of enteringengineering students, (2) develop a sense of community before their first semester of university,(3) introduce students to the academic rigor of a highly ranked four-year institution, (4) fosterunderstanding of successful campus involvement, and (5) provide students with co-curricularexperiences to develop their identity as an engineer. The primary objective of this study was tounderstand the effect of Summer Scholars on student long-term GPA patterns, retention, pathwaychanges, and sense of belonging.BackgroundUnderrepresented Students in
onBlack undergraduate engineering students reveal a prevalence of identity saliency, persistence,and support resources for undergraduate engineering students, but that more intentional andcreative studies were needed to understand the experiences of Black students in STEM. Researchefforts to explore the complexity of the underrepresentation of Black engineers at every levelhave resulted in a common agenda with an “ultimate goal to improve, enhance, and transformlearning and work environments” [6, p. 107].Black undergraduate engineering students encounter many challenges in their pursuit of anengineering degree. Some of these challenges include stereotype threat, a “predicament in whichmembers of certain social groups must deal with being judged
, 9-11 weeks during the summer months [33], [34], [35]. Students have theopportunity to work directly alongside faculty and graduate student mentors, complete an oralpresentation or research paper, and sometimes pursue publication of their work [34], [36].Students who participate in REU programs are commonly asked to answer surveys that detailtheir perceptions of their skills and experiences [11], [34], [37], where students commonlyexpress having an increase in research skills, such as keeping lab notebooks and writing/readingresearch papers [31], laboratory skills [34], and collaboration [37]. In Nepal et al.'s study [11],students answered pre- and post-surveys about their experiences in mechanical, industrial, andsystems engineering REU
positions. After two yearsof working as engineers and completing technical, design, and professionalism credits, studentsgraduate with a B.S. in Engineering. Participants in this study are a part of the IRE STEMScholars program, which helps financially support low-income, high achieving students for theirBell Academy semester, and provides additional mentorship and career development supportresources through to graduation. This program supports a diverse population of individuals ontheir pathway to graduation, with a range of backgrounds and experiences [1].This work will notfocus solely on low-income experiences, but rather the more nuanced identities and experiencesof the students [2].Engineering Identity and BelongingEngineering identity is
Paper ID #25209Student Designers’ Interactions with Users in Capstone Design Projects: AComparison Across TeamsMr. Robert P. Loweth, University of Michigan Robert P. Loweth is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Michigan. He earned a B.S. in Engineering Sciences from Yale University (2016), with a double major in East Asian Studies. He also holds a Graduate Certificate in Chinese and American Studies, jointly awarded by Johns Hopkins University and Nanjing University in China. His current research focuses on how undergraduate engineering students approach front-end design
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. He received his B.S. in Civil Engineering in 2011 with a minor in philosophy and his M. S. in Civil Engineering in 2015. His research focuses on understanding engineers’ core values, dispositions, and worldviews. His dissertation focuses on conceptualizations, the importance of, and methods to teach empathy within engineering. He is currently the Education Director for Engineers for a Sustainable World and an assistant editor for Engineering Studies.Mr. Paul D. Mathis, Purdue University, West Lafayette Engineering Education PhD undergraduate student at Purdue University. Previously a high school educa- tor for six years with a masters in education curriculum and BS
, there were 442,273 international students in China in all, in which48,394 majored in engineering, ranking only below the numbers of students majored inthe traditional popular majors-Mandarin Chinese (169,093) and Western Medicine(49,022). In addition, with China joined the Washington Accord as a signatory countryand lots of engineering programs taught in English was developed for internationalgraduate students further increase of international engineering students can be expected. Existent studies have explored the motivation, social-cultural adjustment,learning experiences of international students in China. Nevertheless, few studies haveexplored their learning outcomes. Considering the shift towards outcome-basededucation in global
connections towardslearning engineering concepts. To achieve this objective the following research question wasexamined, ‘How do undergraduate engineering students understand and perceive learning throughthe cognitive domain of learning?’ A qualitative research design approach was used, and theinterview questions were designed based on the six hierarchy levels of cognitive domain(knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).ProcedureThe different steps used in this study include IRB approval, pilot interview, participantsrecruitment, and conducting interviews are described in this section. First, the study and theinterview protocol were approved by the Institution Review Board (IRB). The pilot interview wasconducted
of Engineering. This paperpresents the first-year development, implementation, and outcomes of the program with plans forfuture program improvement.First-Year Implementation of the S-SMART Summer Research Internship ProgramIn 2022, the S-SMART Summer Research Internship Program was piloted with a cohort of tenstudents participating in four research projects across three engineering disciplines - civilengineering, computer engineering, and mechanical engineering. Each project team wassupervised by at least one faculty advisor and one SFSU student peer mentor.Recruitment and Selection of Program ParticipantsThe S-SMART interns were selected through an online application process. The applicationform, created on Qualtrics, asked for information
engineering andbusiness students. Concept-Space functioned both as a detailed portfolio to document individualwork processes (graded) and as a team workspace for developing an innovative technologicalproduct for a valuable market. Before diving into these case studies, we will first examineConcept-Space itself and how its design draws from multiple properties of mental structures.2. Description and Foundations of Concept-SpaceConcept-Space was developed through a design process. It started with a comprehensiveexploration of available data from various domains and a synthesis of this information into aframework that was used to define a set of design requirements. This phase was followed by fouriterations of design, prototype, pilot study (with
exposure to civil engineering disciplines. This study introduces a blended teachingapproach, in which students are actively involved in delivering lectures on selected topics, ratherthan relying solely on the instructor. Pre-class and post-class surveys were administered to thestudent presenters to gauge their perceptions on delivering team lectures. The surveys also aimedto assess whether their knowledge improved, their roles in team presentations, and theirdevelopment of effective presentation skills. Additionally, audience feedback on the grouppresentations was collected and it was observed that the majority of students reported an increasein their knowledge after lecture delivery. This not only developed a sense of student ownershipin the
. Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online learning, 22(1), 205-222.25. Shackelford, J. L., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Contribution of learner–instructor interaction to sense of community in graduate online education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(4).26. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 1-440.27. Kittur, J. & Tuti, S. (2024). Conducting Qualitative Research Study: A Step-by-Step Process. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations. 28. Chakraborty, M., & Muyia Nafukho, F. (2014
Identity, and Affective AwarenessAfter this model was applied to program development, program developers completed amixed-methods study including a survey to collect qualitative and quantitative data to evaluateprogram effectiveness at creating a transformative educational experience for participants [3].The findings of this study included key impacts of the program and recommendations for futuredevelopment:Key Impacts of the EECS Design Student Communities of Practice Program [3]: 1. Instructors of engineering education seeking to facilitate transformative learning experiences for their students should create their own auto-ethnographic teaching narratives and engage in interdisciplinary dialogues to share values and understanding
improving the culture and environment of undergraduate education experience for all students, particularly those from underrepresented groups.Mrs. Risa D Hartman, The University of Texas at Austin, NASCENT Center Risa Hartman oversees multiple Education and Outreach programs at the University of Texas at Austin. Her roles include: Staff Education and Outreach Director for the Center for Dynamics and Control of Materials, a Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) and as the Pre-college Ed- ucation Director for the NASCENT Engineering Research Center focused on nanomanufacturing. She manages programs in the areas of graduate student traineeship and career development, undergraduate research, Research
efforts have significantly more training for science education and, practices in quantitative methods, 86-99.anecdotally, we have observed that imbues a science-oriented lens whereby the distinctions and[14] Pleasants, J. & Olson, J.K. (2019) "Refining an Instrument and Studying Elementary Teachers’ Understanding of the Scope of Engineering," Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER): 9(2).[15] Pleasants, J., Olson, J. K., & De La Cruz, I. (2020). Accuracy of Elementary Teachers’ Representations of the Projects and Processes of Engineering: Results of a Professional Development Program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1-22.[16] Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus
upfront transdisciplinary knowledge to engineering students supports the adoption ofan HDT methodology and whether it is a viable approach in engineering design education.Additionally, it examines the impact of adopting holistic emotional, cognitive, and mentoringlearning practices on students. It also assesses their perceptions of various skills and practicessuch as critical reading, flexibility in modes of thinking, communication, analog practices,empathy, ethics, time management, and team dynamics. Furthermore, it explores how thesepractices influence academic success in college and students’ ability to recall knowledge whenneeded.Moreover, it continues the longitudinal study into its fifth year, tracking four cohorts ofsecondary students who
toward more inclusive behavior? It’s also interesting to note theuntraditional nature of these two students, their identities, and their experiences. S34, though hadmultiple identities which are underrepresented in engineering, enacted behaviors towardinclusivity and overcoming bias. On the other hand, S17 who matches a traditionallyoverrepresented group in engineering experienced inclusive behaviors from others whichimproved his experience during and after the HEP. Clearly, the expected results as demonstratedby quantitative studies around engineering and DEI are not exhibited among these two students.Their experiences show that individuals are unique and complex and cannot be simplified tostatistical data which further emphasizes the need for
factors influence diverse students to choose engineering and stay in engineering through their careers and how different experiences within the practice and culture of engineering foster or hinder belongingness and identity development. Dr. Godwin graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in Engineering and Science Education. She is the recipient of a 2014 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Educational Research and Methods Di- vision Apprentice Faculty Grant. She has also been recognized for the synergy of research and teaching as an invited participant of the 2016 National Academy of Engineering Frontiers of Engineering Ed- ucation Symposium and 2016 New Faculty
of the Engineering Educa- tion Faculty. He received his Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from Texas A&M and Masters of American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Paper ID #35151 Science in Software Engineering at SMU. He has 28 years of industry experience in most aspects of soft- ware development and product lifecycle. Robert Lightfoot is a Ph.D. student at Texas A&M University in Interdisciplinary Engineering. His research focuses on engineering education.Mr. Drew Steven Casey, Texas A&M University Drew Casey is a Graduate Research
persistence in an engineering major at a university. Despite current researchthat identifies best practices for STEM interventions that support the formation of youngwomen’s STEM identity (AAUW, 2010), a persistent research gap exists on how women’sexperiences affect their decision to enter and persist in engineering. Increased knowledge aboutwomen’s K-14 experiences, including the supports that may have influenced persistence, willprovide additional insight into how to construct an environment that encourages young women toenter and persist in engineering majors.This mixed-methods sequential study utilized a survey and a focus group to provide insight intofemale students’ feelings of self-efficacy and perceptions of the academic, social, and
framework for studying college impacts on students. Paper presented to the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 4. Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Tran, M. C., Newman, C. B., Chang, M. J., & Velasco, P. (2011). “We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions with faculty in different college contexts. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 553-579. 5. Owens, E. W., Shelton, A. J., Bloom, C. M., & Cavil, J. K. (2012). The Significance of HBCUs to the Production of STEM Graduates: Answering the Call. Educational Foundations, 26, 33-47. 6. Jackson, D. L. (2013). A
Park Evaluators, an American Evaluation Association affiliate organization and is a member of the Amer- ican Educational Research Association and American Evaluation Association, in addition to ASEE. Dr. Brawner is also an Extension Services Consultant for the National Center for Women in Information Technology (NCWIT) and, in that role, advises computer science departments on diversifying their under- graduate student population. Dr. Brawner previously served as principal evaluator of the NSF-sponsored SUCCEED Coalition. She remains an active researcher with MIDFIELD, studying gender issues, trans- fers, and matriculation models in engineering.Dr. Joyce B. Main, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering
following research question wasexamined, ‘How do undergraduate engineering students understand and perceive learning throughthe affective domain of learning?’ A qualitative research design approach was used, and theinterview questions were designed based on the five hierarchy levels of affective domain(receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization).ProcedureThe different steps used in this study include IRB approval, pilot interview, participantsrecruitment, and conducting interviews are described in this section. First, the study and theinterview protocol were approved by the Institution Review Board (IRB). The pilot interview wasconducted with an undergraduate engineering student randomly selected from the population toassess
the engineering college.While aspects of university-specific environments could be considered, what has been reportedin literature in various studies is that high school preparation and ranking is a factor which canhave a large impact on retention through the first year of college up to and through graduation[1-3] [4]. Such results have encompassed STEM students [1-3]; business students [3]; emphasison underrepresented minority (URM) students[4].; and more [2, 3].For example, a team out of University of North Texas (UNT), tracked cohorts of studentsthrough a seven-year continuum, in their three largest “majors”– STEM, Business, andEducation – to discern the number of students dropping out of the university, switching majors,and/or graduating
variety ofengineering courses [19]. Literature concerning the implementation of reflection have tended toemphasize the nature of the intervention and the impact of reflection on student performancemetrics.B. Reflection Knowledge Gains Instrument RKGIThe Reflection Knowledge Gains Instrument (RKGI) is a self-report tool that was developed tocapture students’ learning from reflection activities [20]. Initially, the instrument contained 72items contributing to 16 factors and was piloted with 127 undergraduate engineering students allwithin their last year of university study. Exploratory factor analysis was completed to reduce thenumber of items to 16 and the number of factors to four contributing to: Engineering Self(professional identity as an
President of the Student Government Association, and a member of the MSU chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers. Active in community outreach, he is also President of SMOOTH, an innovative student organization fostering Black male achievement and collaboration across disciplines, backgrounds and cultures.Dr. Keyanoush Sadeghipour, Temple University Keya Sadeghipour is currently a Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Bioengineering and serves as the Dean of the College of Engineering since 2003. He is a graduate of Mechanical Engineering from the University of Manchester Institute of Technology, UK which is now the University of Manchester. He has been involved in receiving over $7 M funding from various
students’ priorknowledge that is applied to real projects through individual and/or team based structures [6]. As such, arevitalized approach to capstones within building engineering is logical.In response to the curricula needs on the topic of collaborative multi-disciplinary design, an industryfoundation (The Thornton Tomasetti Foundation) supported a senior design capstone course that exposedfuture project managers to work on highly collaborative teams [7]. Based on the foundation’srecommendation and an early pilot study [8], the material developed there transformed how one optionfor the capstone project within Penn State Architectural Engineering (AE) is conducted. The discussion ofthis paper reports of 9 years of implementing a multi
emphasis includes faculty development and mentoring, graduate student development, critical thinking and communication skills, enhancing mathematical student success in Calculus (including Impact of COVID-19), and promoting women in STEM. Her technical research focuses on sustainable chemical process design, computer aided design, and multicriteria decision making. She also has extensive experience in K-12 STEM education and program evaluation and assessment. She has held a variety of administrative positions: 1) Director of STEM Faculty Development Initiatives-Clemson, 2) Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies in the College of Engineering, Computing and Applied Sciences-Clemson, 3) Interim Director of Student
the type of intervention. The study is not longitudinal, not all interventions wereimplemented for the same group of students.The first-year intervention occurred in the introduction to engineering course. All engineeringand computer science majors take an introduction to engineering course during their first fallsemester. In fall 2015, all sections of the course included a one-lecture workshop on diversity inSTEM. The workshop was designed and led by an academic advisor who works with at-riskengineering students. Goals of the first-year intervention: • Increase awareness of the lack of diversity among students and professionals in engineering. • Increase awareness of privilege as it relates to identity, majority and
educational opportunities into the curriculum through capstone design courses, realistic case studies facilitated by professional engineers, mentorship experiences, and interviews with engineering leaders across the career trajectory. Each of these activities can be used to help engineering students value and develop organizational skills before they secure their first job. 4) While the relatively recent introduction of accreditation bodies (ABET, CEAB) to engineering education may feel like a constraint to many professors, the graduate attributes generated by these bodies can be used creatively as a pedagogical framework. When used as a regulatory checklist, the