made them think deeply about their goals and how to achieve them.Undergraduate research opportunities: Undergraduate research funded by the CREATE programhas been very well received by both scholars and their faculty research mentors. A total of sixteenscholars were placed in laboratories of engineering professors who indicated interest in givingthem a research experience. An evaluation was conducted on scholars’ performance and allresearch mentors deemed that their scholars had participated satisfactorily. Some scholars havedecided to pursue graduate school based on these experiences.Career and graduate school guidance: CREATE may have given information on careers andgraduate school a bit too early in the program to the second cohort and
sociotechnical integration,including service courses for the core curriculum, service courses serving other engineeringprograms, an interdepartmental graduate program, and departmental minors and anundergraduate major. In this paper, we focus attention on program development considerationssurrounding our undergraduate BS in Design Engineering program. This program is built upon a“general engineering” framework with two significant exceptions. First, the programsystematically situates “design” expertise at the program’s core, both in terms of students’ expertidentity and in terms of the curricular structure. Second, the program offers wide-ranging “focusareas” as an alternative to disciplinary depth. The curricular logic is that students developdomain
experiences for veterans to motivate them tocontinue to graduate school or pursue a career in Naval STEM research. A mentor program wasimplemented to provide research faculty mentors, Navy engineering mentors and an expandedmentor network to support the student veterans. The program is well received at bothuniversities and has demonstrated a positive impact on the undergraduate student veterans.Several program challenges are presented along with methods used to overcome those challengesto provide a better experience for both the veteran students and faculty mentors.IntroductionThis paper discusses the development and execution of a multi-year veteran research exchangeprogram between the University of Tennessee and the University of North Carolina at
majors than peers who identify as men [6], [16]. This sectionhighlights three barriers to sense of belonging: negative faculty interactions, negative peerinteractions, and stereotype threat. Though it has clearly been established that sense of belonging is an important factor inretaining women undergraduate engineering students, there are some potential barriers that havebeen documented to prevent students from experiencing belongingness. Blair et al. found thatfaculty have the ability to positively or negatively impact women STEM majors’ success [17].Upon studying faculty in a variety of STEM programs, researchers identified three-primarypositions related to how faculty members approach the idea of gender equity: gender blindness,gender
5State’s Learning Resource Network (LRN) and is free to University faculty, staff, and students.Through videos and interactive vignettes that address a broad array of identity characteristics(e.g. age, disability, nationality, language, race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation), itprovides a clear set of 6 techniques that individuals can use to halt verbalized instances of bias atthe micro- and macro- levels in non-confrontational but effective ways. The training materialsalso include a workbook that allows students to practice the techniques learned and that is used,in part, as an assessment mechanism for the homework grade.Armed with the techniques presented in both the DEI Overview lecture and the “Ouch! ThatStereotype Hurts” bystander
are noteworthy: the group whose members strove to drive globalimpact had the greatest positional authority and were all white men; the group whose proudmoments involved mobilizing and empowering others included an over-representation ofwomen; and the two groups whose proud moments involved limited structural interdependence,were more racially minoritized and internationally trained than the full sample. The first twotrends reflect gendered patterns of privilege while the first and third reflect the normative powerof white privilege and domestic graduate advantage in engineering organizations and Canadiansociety.DiscussionWhat did senior engineers learn from these proud moments in the context of their careers? First,they gained socio-technical
decisions as wellas inclusion of the person or communities that will potentially be impacted by their work.To introduce the concepts of Design Justice in their courses, faculty members can start by readingthe Design Justice book [4], which contains many examples throughout the text. A case studycould be a good starting point, especially one that students can easily relate to. For example, thecase about the Spirometer, a device used to measure lung capacity. This was invented at a timewhen it was believed that race determined lung capacity, so the device was built with a racecorrection factor. When employers were sued for asbestos related lung-diseases caused due tolong exposure, Black employees would have to demonstrate worse lung function than
currently a graduate student in the Lyles School of Civil Engineering at Purdue University pursuing a PhD in Architectural Engineer- ing with a focus in indoor air quality. She has had several opportunities to engage in education with undergraduates and community members, and has recently been honored to be able to practice advising undergraduate service-learning teams. She was formerly a co-instructor for this weeklong Civil Engi- neering summer course for high school students, where she enjoyed creating interactive activities to build student’s intuition of the indoors and built environments.Joshua Carpenter, Purdue University Joshua Carpenter received his B.S. degree in Surveying and Mapping from the University of
(PASE) student organization at the University of Florida.Mrs. Amy G. Buhler, University of Florida Amy Buhler is an engineering librarian at University of Florida’s Marston Science Library. As the liaison librarian for Agricultural & Biological Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Engineering Education, and Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Amy provides collection management, library instruction, litera- ture search assistance, and research consultations for the faculty, students and staff of these departments. Her research relates to assessment of information seeking behaviors, library instruction, and the creation and marketing of library services. She has been a member of the UF faculty since 2001 and holds
opportunities, internships, and undergraduateresearch. The submission options also align with tenets of Universal Design for Learning [46],allowing students to demonstrate their knowledge in preferred ways. The three options were ashort self-recorded video, such as from a phone; meet in-person or over zoom to discuss withinstructor; or a standard write-up. Giving options to the traditional assignment that requiressubmitting a written response may be helpful for students who struggle with grammar, whichsometimes includes international students, for example.In this educational intervention, FWV was added as an option on two assignments. It was ofinterest if students would elect to explore FWV or select the other alternatives. The choices thatstudents
highlight this. Rarely, however, are there spaces andplaces for women in engineering to discuss these tensions. We wanted to create space so thosecoming after us can do the real work to move toward sisterhood.Race affects cross-racial mentoring relationships at all levels of higher education includingsenior faculty to junior faculty, faculty to postdocs, and faculty to graduate students [1]–[3]. Forexample, common factors that shape cross-racial mentoring of Faculty of Color include “anawareness of the mentee’s cultural experience” by the mentor, “open-mindedness”, and “trust,comfort, and common ground” [3]. Davis and Linder [4] further call to action the necessity toacknowledge and candidly discuss whiteness in cross-racial relationships between
Curitiba, Brazil; native communities in the Amazon in Villavicencio, Colombia; and underserved communities in Piura, Per´u. Dr. Santiago is passionate about providing experiential learning opportunities to both undergraduate and graduate students with a focus on Hispanic and female students. She is currently Co-PI of UTEP’s NSF-AGEP program focusing on foster- ing Hispanic doctoral students for academic careers; the Department of Education’s (DoE) STEMGROW Program to encourage students Latino(a) students and students with disabilities to pursue STEM careers; and DoE’s Program YES SHE CAN that provides support and mentoring to female pre-college students. She is also a member of two advisory committees to the UTEP’s
in educational systems, will help with student retentionin engineering classrooms. Hence, diversifying the workforce results in a career path that is notrooted in the current patriarchal norms [3].In a post-secondary engineering faculty, that would mean the diversification of both faculty andthe student body to include more women and people of color. Creating a more inclusiveenvironment that stems from gender, race and ethnic diversity allows for new experiences andknowledge to be introduced [3]. Nielsen et al. highlight how gender diversity contributes to teamdynamics by enhancing creativity, decision making, and problem solving when compared to all-men research teams. This is largely due to the ability of women to recognize their
intervention is to focus on foundational engineering design “tools,”defined broadly as sites for mutual understanding and collaboration. These “boundary objects”[22] can serve as an opportunity for learning by both STS- and engineering-trained educatorswith the goal of achieving robust sociotechnical integration. This integration is to be achievedvia a sequence of three activities: First, an engineering-trained faculty member will demonstrateto our mixed faculty how they teach the tool to their students, including its conceptualfoundations (if relevant), application, and possible limitations or constraints to application.Second, an STS-trained faculty member will demonstrate to the group how that sameengineering design tool might be deconstructed and
color, queers, nonbinary and trans people with disabilities.” For more information, visithttps://www.sinsinvalid.org/.Ableism is very much present in higher education settings. In his book, Academic Ableism,Timothy Dolmage [2017] provides an in-depth exploration of the history of ableism in academia,where disabled people have long been treated as inferior or faulty specimens to be studied, ratherthan as vibrant, valuable, contributing members of the scholarly community [40]. Althoughdisabled students and scholars gained a certain degree of legal protection in educational settingsunder the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, this protection did little to change thefact that post-secondary environments are designed for non-disabled
methodologies they used. In both studies, the faculty team members metat least weekly with the student team members during all study stages to offer advice andprovide accountability for progress. The first, second, and fourth authors have collaboratedon previous reviews of methods within their own research experiences, driving them toconsider comparisons between approaches to research methods [16]. The first and secondauthors made mid-career transitions to partake in EER scholarship at an institution withoutmany formal EER resources. Thus, this research, and any work which provides resourcesfor new or learning EER scholars, is of particular value to them. The authors acknowledgethat their various stages of learning influenced their comparisons of
into two courses in the civil engineering technology program at the higher educationinstitution and explore the students’ understanding of sustainability-related content and measuretheir engagement with the material and confidence in carrying out the EOP learning outcomesthat aligned with respective courses. The goal is to increase students’ interest in sustainabilityprinciples and concepts and encourage other faculty to adopt the EOP framework for theircourses.BackgroundThe integration of sustainability principles, practices, and values is critical for engineeringeducation. Civil engineers, in particular, should demonstrate an understanding of sustainability toprepare them to address global challenges, promote ethical practices, meet industry
Engineering, English,Communication, Rhetoric, Theatre, Visual Art and Design, Science and Technology Studies, andEngineering Education. Our teaching responsibilities run the gamut of transdisciplinaryinstruction, including communication, science and society, professionalism, team skills,leadership and ethics, and responsibilities as an artist-in-residence, with instruction andsupervision at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Our research interests reflect theseactivities and our career stages span from graduate school to near retirement. We are united by acommon interest in how engineering students develop mindsets that enable effective humanisticpractice, and we share common values in supporting our students’ development of
project topics lead somestudents to explore optical properties in detail, while others focused on thermal properties, theinfluence of specific deteriorative environments, etc.Incorporating sociotechnical thinking further contextualized the real-world nature of the project,helping to emphasize to students that design decisions have broad consequences and reinforcethe need to consider both social and technical factors in engineering practice. The introduction ofa design project in the sophomore or junior year, and teaching of a selection tool like EduPack,additionally helped to prepare students for their capstone design experiences. These outcomeswere achieved while still covering the basic materials science content common to an introductorycourse
some cases, they were personally impacted by them. For example,one student hadn’t previously considered engineering as related to social justice. She wasn’tinterested in pursuing a career in the technical-focused engineering field, but after seeing theconnections between engineering and social justice, she had a change of heart and wasreconsidering that decision: I also learned that engineering can involve social justice issues as well. Before, I did not think I would end up pursuing any sort of career in engineering because I never enjoyed the technical aspects of what was previously required. Once introduced to our project, I was intrigued to not only address modern sustainable food systems through methods
Participants watched a 7.5-minute QUAL video, which highlighted several examples of HC involving a marginalized Latino student and faculty member. Participants then defined HC in their own words and provided personal examples of engineering HC. (4) Emotions Participants selected an emotion QUAN & QUAL they felt corresponded to six HC statements and whether their emotion was
-to-PeerRottman and Reeve reference the use of curricular integration strategies to introduce ethics andequity to students. Faculty members offer an invitation for instructors to incorporate case studiesor co-construct classes that allow for modules to present ways in which these ideas are exploredand demonstrated in real world contexts.Accessibility: Students with disabilitiesAt Carnegie Mellon, course materials are adjusted for file format and font to make it easier forstudents with visual disabilities to view. [19].Only a few articles outlined concrete steps for implementation. A few touch on professorsorienting students to understand equity in engineering through the Liberal social justice theory.“Liberal social justice theory frames
served in various roles in student affairs administration and as a faculty member in several Gender Studies and Communication Studies departments. She holds a Ph.D. in Com- munication Studies from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, an M.A. in Psychology from South- ern Illinois University-Carbondale, an M.A. in Higher Education Administration from the University of Louisville, and a B.A. in Psychology and English from Illinois College. Jamie has published chapters in edited book collections and in a number of scholarly journals, including: AFFILIA: Journal of Women and Social Work; Kaleidoscope: A Journal of Qualitative Communication Research; Journal of Research in Personality; Experimental and Clinical
key words in both topics relate to the structure andrelationships built into “Engineering and. . .” programs. Topics 2 and 4 fall under the theme ofidentity and culture, as the key words focus on an engineer’s sense of self and career. Topic 3falls best under the teams and groups theme, as the key words relate to the features of individualsand groups that contribute to teamwork. 14 Topic 1: Program Topic 2: Topic 3: Team Topic 4: Topic 5: Design Learning Skills Identity MentorshipKeyword 1 student engineers kgi identity mentorsKeyword 2
Engineering and Technology at Old Dominion University (2016–2019), Department Head and Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech (2011–2016) and held faculty and administrative positions at Virginia Commonwealth University (2008–2011) and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1998–2008). Her research interests include: Broadening Participation, Faculty and Graduate Student Development, International/Global Education, Teamwork and Team Effectiveness, and Quality Control and Manage- ment. In 2003, she received the CAREER award from the Engineering Education and Centers Division of the National Science Foundation. Dr. Adams is a leader in the advancement and inclusion of all in science, technology, engineering
equal balancefor Introversion and Extroversion, which is perhaps surprising from engineers who often arestereotyped as “shy” or “introverted”. The results for how students “gather information”indicates a near equal balance for Intuition and Sensing, and similarly the results for howstudents “make decisions” indicates a near equal balance for Thinking and Feeling. As reportedin Table 2, the most significant difference for Jung Personality Type was observed in a strongpreference for Judging over Perceiving (i.e., a total of 50 individuals versus 24). A similar trendhas been regularly reported in courses in this Department (i.e., [8, 9, 10]). Therefore, based uponthe trends in Jung Personality Type, the use of clear “lists of instructions” was an
conducted with pro-gram alumni and a member of CIRCUIT leadership; and the second-round interview is with twoadditional stakeholders (e.g., alumni, mentors). We standardize our questions but retain the abilityto explore topics and details relevant to individual applicants. Each interview lasts approximately30 minutes. At the end of the process, each interviewer fills out a rubric recording their detailedand overall impressions, in an effort to minimize bias and normalize acceptance criteria. Finaladmission decisions are made by program leadership, ensuring consistency. The values of the stu-dents chosen to participate match the core mission of the CIRCUIT program. Students are notmere beneficiaries of the program but rather are partners with
skills but rather that engineers shouldalso understand the broader context of their decisions and they should recognize the potentialimpacts.This approach of generating collaborative partnership projects between IAB members andacademic institutions using SD was first done with the University of Wisconsin-Platteville’sMEIE Department in Spring 2022. The participants participated in the SD process of 10 rulesover 3 hours, to generate Pathfinder projects that have a high impact and are easy to accomplishin a short time frame. Nineteen industry partners, five faculty members, and 4 staff frominstitutional advancement participated in the workshop to explore the Framing Question“Imagine that University of Wisconsin-Platteville’s MEIE graduates
component of engineering degree programs acrossaccredited engineering universities [1][2]. While the capstone experience may be different foreach university, all projects serve as an opportunity for students to gain practical experience byapplying the many topics learned throughout their undergraduate education, and thereby preparefor work after graduation. The research and design are completed from September to Februarywith several progress presentations and reports throughout. Oral presentations are delivered inMarch and the end-of-project report and presentations are given during the first week of April toother faculty members, students, and industry professionals. Through the end-of-yearpresentations, students are given the opportunity to
awarenessof soft skills in the educational community and effort by policymakers [3], the soft skills gapcontinues to occur for the engineering graduates [4]. Students and faculties devote more attentionto academic success due to the orientation of school curriculum and assessment [5], lackingopportunity for students to learn the necessary soft skills in a traditional class setting. Mentoring has been one of the most effective pedagogical approaches and has beenwidely adopted in education and related fields [6]. In addition, social interaction plays a criticalrole in how learners construct knowledge and skills through the social constructivism lens [7].Thus, we designed an interdisciplinary robotics mentorship model, where the