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
Sheppard. Her work focuses on fostering mindful awareness, empathy and curiosity in engineering students. Beth completed a BS in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Virginia in 2010 and a MS in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford in 2012.Dr. Samantha Ruth Brunhaver, Arizona State University Samantha Brunhaver is an Assistant Professor of Engineering in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University. Dr. Brunhaver joined Arizona State after completing her M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University. She also has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Northeastern University. Dr. Brunhaver’s research examines the career decision-making and professional identity
be a part of this community and hopes to spark the interest of engineering education research within her peer groups and to return to education after industry experience.Mr. Joseph Francis Mirabelli, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Joseph Mirabelli is an Educational Psychology graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign with a focus in Engineering Education. His interests are centered around mentorship, mental health, and retention in STEM students and faculty. He was awarded the 2019 NAGAP Graduate Educa- tion Gold Research Grant award to study engineering faculty perceptions of graduate student well-being and attrition. Before studying education at UIUC, Joseph earned an MS
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
, G. L. Herman, M. M. Hynes, S. S. Jordan, and N. N. Kellam, "The PEER Collaborative: Supporting engineering education research faculty with near-peer mentoring unconference workshops," 2014.[9] E. D. Crede, M. Borrego, and L. D. McNair, "Application of community of practice theory to the preparation of engineering graduate students for faculty careers," Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 2, p. n2, 2010.[10] L. B. Bosman, W. McDonald, and K. Paterson, "A collaborative multi-faculty approach to increase engineering competency through on-line discussions," World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education vol. 17, 2019.[11] R. Adams, C. Berdanier, P. A. Branham, N. Choudhary, T. L
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 point out the variation among those who educate in engineering (tenured/tenure-trackfaculty, graduate students, and contingent/adjunct faculty), which is not always acknowledged.By not paying attention to such variation, the impact of work done in engineering educationresearch may be limited. In an effort to illuminate these variations, we report on research thatexplores some details of the educator experience. In this paper we ask: what does it look like tobe an educator working to adapt an existing curriculum for a new term, in our case a curriculumpreviously taught in Autumn 2021 and adapted for use in Winter 2022? Broadly, the curriculumwas a 10-week seminar titled Dear Design: Defining Your Ideal Design Signature where
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
Engineering (ICSE), Executive Director for Gulf Coast Environmental Equity Center (GCEEC), Director for the Solid Waste Sustainability Hub, Director for the Gulf Coast Center for Addressing Microplastics Pollution (GC-CAMP), and Director for the Sustainable Asphalt Materials Laboratory, as well as the founding faculty advisor for the Society of Sustainable Engineering. He teaches a mixture of undergraduate and graduate engineering courses. Dr. Wu is a committee member for Transportation Research Board (TRB) AJE35 and AKM 90, a member of American Society of Civil Engineer (ASCE), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and Academy of Pavement Science and Engineering (APSE), as well as an editorial member for
. Panelists were selected toprovide a breadth of perspectives. Panelists provide insights in the paper and during the panelinto a) choosing not to move on and remain at an institution, and b) choosing and explaining whythey moved on. Panelists explore what benefits and costs arose from each decision. Whilediverse panelists were selected, the organizers realize that the panelists offer only their ownexperiences, and so there will be focused time for questions and input from the participants. Abroad range of experiences and wisdoms regarding this challenging decision are shared in thismanuscript as well as during the interactive panel discussion on career self-authorship.IntroductionThis paper presents perspectives from four women in engineering who
experiences, implications, or effects of a phenomenon across settings [21], we will gleangreater understanding of women’s curricular and career decision-making process.In each country, we conducted focus groups with each of our EUAs—undergraduate students,faculty members, and PEs—in the three country sites. In this particular paper, we explore thepatterns of career decision-making within and across two EUA (faculty vs. PEs) in the Malaysiancontext. Focus groups were chosen to illuminate the social and psychological mechanismsunderlying women’s educational and work choices and any perceived structural constraints andopportunities shaping those choices. The study of women in multiple sectors of the workforceallows us to gain greater insight into
. 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
womenprofessionals (script, growth stage). Her mom was a teacher but left her career to stay at homewith her when she was born (script, growth stage). Her mom had a friend who was a lawyer andran for office. She recalls her mom sometimes questioning her friend’s decisions, but other timesshe was very proud of her. Even though her mom left teaching to stay home, Louise thought shewould continue working once she had children (script, exploration stage). However, she didn’thave any role models or examples to guide her in how this could work. When graduating fromcollege, a pregnant woman interviewed her for a job. She vividly remembers thinking it wasgood that this woman could balance working and being a mom (script, exploration stage). Onceshe started working
Paper ID #28985Toward the Development of a Scale Linking Underrepresented EngineeringFaculty’s Workplace Experiences & Career OutcomesDr. Jeremi S London, Virginia Tech Dr. Jeremi London is an Assistant Professor in the Engineering Education Department at Virginia Poly- technic Institute and State University. London is a mixed methods researcher with interests in research impact, cyberlearning, and instructional change in STEM Education. Prior to being a faculty member, London worked at the National Science Foundation, GE Healthcare, and Anheuser-Busch. She earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in Industrial Engineering, and a
promising findings of this research and the encouraging feedback of the student community motivated him to pursue this line of research in his NSF CAREER award in 2017. Since then, he has built a coalition within the university to expand this work through multiple NSF-funded research grants including IUSE/PFE: RED titled ”Innovation Beyond Accommodation: Leveraging Neurodiversity for Engineering Innovation”. Because of the importance of neurodiversity at all levels of education, he expanded his work to graduate STEM education through an NSF IGE grant. In addition, he recently received his Mid-CAREER award through which, in a radically novel approach, he will take on ambitious, transdisciplinary research integrating
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
. Simmons’ research is supported by awards from NSF, including a CAREER award. She oversees the Simmons Research Lab (www.denisersimmons.com), which is home to a dynamic, interdisciplinary mix of undergraduate and graduate students and a post-doctoral researcher from various colleges and de- partments at Virginia Tech who work together to explore engineering and construction human centered issues with an emphasis on understanding difference and disparity.Dr. Ashley Shew, Virginia Tech c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Exploring Professional Identity Development in Undergraduate Civil Engineering Students Who Experience DisabilitiesAbstractRecent calls throughout the
.— AthenaDemanding advisors who lacked a robust work-life balance and failed to instill a passion for theirresearch in their graduate assistants presented participants with an undesirable career model inacademia. Participants whose advisors were yet to attain tenure exhibited the most acute disdainfor a future in academia. Students in this situation began to question their desire to becomefaculty, which caused them to reevaluate why they were pursuing a doctorate at all.The relationship participants had with their advisors formed a crucial component of theirexperience. Most participants spoke about their frustrations working with faculty memberswhom they did not perceive as being held accountable for subpar mentorship and, in some cases,exploitation of
constellation ofmentors as elements that support the success of our Scholars.3.1 MentoringMentoring is traditionally a relationship in which an experienced person provides technical,career, and psychosocial support to a less experienced person [1]–[3]. Technical insights mightinclude problem-solving, approaching internships/jobs, interacting with faculty members, orlearning the unwritten rules of an organization. Career-related functions could includesponsorship, supporting visibility, providing ideas, feedback and suggestions, and protectionagainst risks [4]. Additionally, psychosocial issues might include work-life balance, respondingto discrimination, being confident, coping with disappointment, or growing as a person.Regarding engineering, a number
person to coordinate a system like healthcare in the US? In thefaculty context, how do faculty members, students, administrators, government funders, andothers come together through documentation and in person to coordinate, for example, tenurepractices? I was interested in extending this to engineering student life – how did ruling relationsinfluence the structure of undergraduate education? And did it influence engineering differentlythan the other “letters” of STEM? So I built this theory into my CAREER grant proposal, titledLearning from Small Numbers (LfSN). I grounded my argument in both engineering educationresearch and women’s studies literature, and argued that: 1. the choice of much existing engineering education research on gender
differentinstitutions.As described in [1], US graduate engineering research remains focused on preparing students fora shrinking pool of academic jobs and most students are dissatisfied by the lack of socialrelevance of their research. An article detailing the state of graduate education points out, “mostgraduate programs will, in fact, fail to deliver the training that students desire and societydesperately needs. Graduate training remains focused on preparing students to addressdisciplinary knowledge gaps valued in a shrinking pool of faculty positions. While we invitestudents to apply for degrees based on their motivations to change the world, once they arrive,we do not prepare them to be successful change-makers. Current students report beingdiscouraged from
certain degree programs, an issueespecially important for ET students due to the “loose coupling” of degree and employment [17].Where retention of students is concerned, peer mentoring has been shown to increase retentionand self-esteem among students [18]. Among first-generation college students, campus mentorscan provide meaningful messages that influence their decisions throughout their college careersand equipping them with the ability to deal with academic challenges [19]. Therefore, thesupport students receive from both faculty and peers can affect decisions to remain in theirmajor, their confidence, and their decision to remain in college. By asking graduates about thesupport they received through their college education, areas for
example, teams can gothrough multiple rounds of ideating, prototyping, and testing their designs to iteratively developa solution that is co-created with community members. As another example, during producttesting the teams may learn more about the users and the community that may support anupdated definition of the problem statement. Thus, teams must document their design process tocreate a compelling set of evidence to support their design decisions and tell an impactful designnarrative.Community stakeholder participation is crucial for a successful design project. Students aretaught to use a stakeholder map to identify how individual community members are involved inthe design process. For example, some community members are highly involved
faculty so we can't use them." and "getting feedback from students on whatworks well".Go it Alone. Definition: The instructor either creates their own IM, modifies existing IM to suittheir course needs, and/or indicates they select existing IM using their own judgment andknowledge.Seven instructors mentioned creating or selecting IM alone, without the involvement of others, inresponses to questions 5, 6, & 7. Examples include "I write and distribute some materialsmyself" and "Materials developed by colleagues and myself".Peers & Colleagues. Definition: When an instructor mentioned persons or groups of personsthat influence their IM selection decisions, such as faculty, instructors, or institutional employeesboth within and outside of the
majorsin higher education, engineering is a professional major (i.e., engineering bachelor’s degreeprograms prepare students for careers in the engineering profession; an engineering bachelor’sdegree is prerequisite for gaining employment as an engineer). With this understanding of theprofessional nature of engineering study, the traditional success marker of degree attainment wasconflated with the participants’ social mobility/career goal in this study. Based on the co-creatednarratives, it is clear that all participants desired to work as engineers. Moreover, 11 of 14participants indicated that degree attainment was a personal marker for success. Therefore, degreeattainment as a marker for success cannot be wholly separated from the social
dissertations.Data Collection. An interview protocol was developed and piloted with two recently graduatedreturners to test the strength of questions and understand the breadth of possible answers. Wemade minor changes to the interview protocol based on the pilot.Next, data were collected using semi-structured interviews organized by the protocol which isconversational in nature, covering the areas of previous writing experience, transfer of writingexperience, and personal perspectives associated with their transition in writing style (SeeAppendix A). The graduate student researcher interviewed each participant separately ininterviews that lasted approximately one hour. Interviews were audio-recorded.Data Analysis. The data were analyzed for emergent themes
, 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