included three aspects/factors of gendered microaggressions: (1) SexualObjectification, (2) Silenced and Marginalized, and (3) Assumptions of Inferiority. Participantswere asked to identify their position title, position track, age, and ethnicity.The scores on three aspects/factors of gendered microaggressions were calculated by averagingacross items that loaded on each factor with the range of 1~7, with higher scores indicatinghigher frequency of the experience being asked. On Sexual Objectification, 25% of theparticipants who responded agreed they either experienced stereotypes of women or wereobjectified on their physical appearance. On Silenced and Marginalized, 40% of those whoresponded agreed they were either ignored in a professional
physics, mathematics, andmechanical and electrical engineering, while simultaneously equally or even overrepresented infields such as biosciences, environmental science, and biomedical engineering [1]. This unequaldistribution of female talent persists, despite increased awareness and achievement in STEMamongst high school age women [2]. In many respects, this situation is similar to the medicalprofession, where women are entering and completing medical school at equal rates to their malecolleagues, but they are concentrated in specific specialties, such as pediatrics and familymedicine, while sparse in others [3-7]. Orthopaedic Surgery is one of the least gender diversemedical specialties, with 4% women in practice and 14% in residency [5
completed the entire survey and remained in the data set. Respondents could be removedfrom the data set if 1) they chose not to disclose their gender or 2) were not members of theindustrial distribution industry.3.2 Materials & DesignThe questions were adapted from the Society for Human Resource Management’s DiversityClimate Survey Templates and questions developed by DiBartola et. al. 2011. Our surveyinstrument asked men and women different questions using skip logic. Women were asked toelaborate on any experiences they have had regarding gender stereotypes. Additionallyrespondents were permitted to decline answering any of the survey questions. The resultsindicated that while we had a survey completion of rate of 282, many respondents chose
-grid and renewable integration, platform system design and optimization, performance guarantees for service and supply-chain systems, and reliability and maintenance optimization. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Systematic Team Formation Leading to Peer Support and Leadership Skills Development1. IntroductionWithin a typical university environment, there are many courses that are taught in multiple sectionsand are multi-disciplinary. Within such settings, this paper aims to examine the role of teamformation on the following: 1) the learning of students, as measured by end-of-term grades,especially the weaker students; and 2) the quality of team leaders
Faculty forOrganizational Retention and Management. TRANSFORM initiatives aimed to increase therecruitment, retention, advancement, and leadership development of female faculty in STEMdisciplines at a Master’s L institution by adapting strategies proven successful at researchuniversities. The grant has been operationalized through three strategies: (1) Dual CareerServices aiming to provide employment opportunities to accompanying partners via the creationof a consortium and a website; (2) Research Initiation Awards supporting advancement andtenure needs by providing release time and funds to early-career female STEM faculty; and (3)Leadership Developments increasing education opportunities in the areas of leadership forfaculty and
engineering. Studies show that a lack of identification with engineering and byengineers often motivates students to migrate out of engineering into other majors.1 Attempts todefine identity in the context of engineering education necessitate a deeper understanding of theterm “identity.” While definitions of identity vary across disciplines, how identity is formed isstill a central and driving question. For example, what are the components that predictengineering identity and what does engineering identity predict? We posit there is more to engineering identity than just feeling like an engineer or seeingoneself as an engineer. This definition is limited and does not take into account the various facetsof personal identity that contribute to
improved term and overall GPAs while in college. [1] Further, evidence suggests that theway students start their college career often indicates how they will finish. [2] At NortheasternUniversity, General Chemistry for Engineers is the first challenging course a student entering theengineering program takes that serves as model for subsequent coursework in the fullengineering curriculum. Among engineering students, where historically males are the majority,females often have been seen as the primary seekers of SI. Retaining female students inengineering and enabling their overall academic success has been a subject of great importancefor engineering programs.The first portion of this study focused on the grade progression of the students enrolled
disabilities) 1,2,3,4 .This statement should be alarming to anyone, because it means that nearly 70%—women, ethnicminorities and persons with disabilities—of the American workforce is not fully engaged in thetechnology sector.As can be seen from figure 1, in the nineteen eighties, more than 30% of all graduatinguniversities CS majors were women. By 2010, that number was less than 20%. Two folk theorieshave been historically offered to explain this phenomenon. The first states that women are notgood at maths, while the second states that maths is a strong indicator of CS aptitude. These twofolk theories are tied together to explain the low participation rates of women in CS. Nevertheless,from figure 2, we see that intended CS majors do not have the
students.3 Though much research has been conducted on predicting what willlead students to pursue engineering, exposing P-12 students to engineering to foster interest at anearlier age2, and determining why students leave engineering4, few studies have been conductedon how undergraduate engineers who persist to graduation develop throughout their collegecareers. Thus, in recent years, the framework of engineering identity and the factors thatencompass it, based on previous research on physics and math identities, has been used as a lensto study engineering students.Engineering identity is both a subset of and affected by the larger student identity, which alsoincludes personal and social identities.1 Identity can be defined as how students
participation and recognition withinthat social sphere37. Based on prior work in science education and a symbolic interactionismapproach to understanding engineering role identity, the construct of identity, in our framework,is based on three measurable dimensions of students’ beliefs about theirperformance/competence, the recognition they receive from others, and their interest inengineering. These are not the only identities that an individual may hold, but they capture astudents’ subject related identity within engineering. A representation of this framework can befound in Figure 1.Recognition plays a significant part in identity development and has more recently become afocus in science identity research. A student’s perception of how others view
areinterrelated. The purpose of this study is to investigate cross-group differences (male vs female)among freshmen and senior engineering students in order to better understand how engineeringstudents perceive their personality and authenticity across engineering and non-engineeringcontexts. The research questions guiding this effort are: (1) What personality profiles are engineering students displaying as freshmen and seniors in engineering environments? (2) What variations in personality profiles and authenticity are present among engineering students’ different roles in engineering and non-engineering environments?MethodologyQuantitative methods and cross-sectional research are used to complete this study. Quantitativedata was
professionals.1 This studyfocuses primarily on the engineering workplace which, for this study and paper, encompassesboth traditional engineering fields as well as computer science. The engineering workforce inparticular, while critical to global competitiveness, faces potentially significant shortages.2 Theconsistently low unemployment rates associated with engineers as compared to other professionsand overall national unemployment rates in the United States3 confirm that such a shortage doesindeed exist. In response to unmet needs for talent in engineering, the National Academies4 haveissued a broad and urgent call to increase recruitment and retention in engineering. Shortages ofengineers and other workers trained in related science and technology
conferences. Dr. Gong received 2014 NDSU Development Board of Trustee Endowment award and 2014 NDSU Centennial Endowment award. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 WIECE: Women Undergraduates in Electrical and Computer Engineering Summer Research ProgramThe Women Undergraduates in Electrical and Computer Engineering (WIECE) SummerResearch Program was an intensive eight-week research program for women undergraduates inElectrical and Computer Engineering (ECE). Our goal was to build distinctive experiences thatcan propel female undergraduate students to enter graduate school.1. Motivation.ECE is one of the largest engineering disciplines and it is also one of the oldest
Seminar Seriesb c d Figure 1. Flyer and brochures from the first four years of the Seminar Series. (a) 2012- 2013 was a simple word document flyer, (b) 2013-2014 had an image of DNA generated by a faculty member and student, (c) 2014-2015 was a purchased image, (d) 2015-2016 was illustrated by an art professor at the University who will oversee future covers created by students and faculty.supportive climate, enhancing promotion and leadership, and increasing retention of womenfaculty in STEM. Support for a seminar series that would increase faculties’ networkingopportunities and allow a young female to take on a leadership role in the organization of theseries was in
utilize engineering economy, decision, and data analysistools on a real world engineering problem related to the maritime transportation system.Case Study IntroductionThe Mississippi River, including its main channels and tributaries, is a vital component ofcommodity transport in the United States. It flows 2,350 miles from Minnesota through thecenter of the United States to the Mississippi River Delta at the Gulf of Mexico[1]. It is estimatedthat approximately 600 million tons of commodities transported via the Mississippi River eachyear, including 125 million tons from the Upper Mississippi River (Minneapolis, Minnesota toCairo, Illinois) and 470 million tons from the Lower Mississippi River (Cairo, Illinois to the Gulfof Mexico)[2]. Multiple
employing quantitative methods are likely of most interest to practitioners who wouldwant to evaluate the effectiveness of this pedagogical approach before implementation in theclassroom. As a means of identifying future possible frameworks for further investigation on theimpact of peer coaching on female engineering students, this study explores the followingresearch questions: (1) How does student opinion about coaching transform through this class?(2) What new or revised perspectives do students gain, as both coach and coachee? (3) How doescoaching equip engineering women for the transition to the workforce? Findings indicate thatstudents’ initial apprehension about coaching progresses into recognition and experience ofbroad potential impact
Subdisciplines: Challenges and OpportunitiesIntroductionThere are many benefits to a diverse workforce of civil engineers. In particular, work-placeinnovation, creativity, knowledge and productivity have been shown to be enhanced when manyperspectives and experiences are represented.1 As the civil engineering profession tackles someof big challenges facing society in the 21st century, it is critical that we are able to recruit andretain the most talented students, regardless of gender or race/ethnic background. Unfortunately,engineering schools continue to be challenged by student retention, and, for example, only about70% of entering engineering freshman at our large public university graduate with anengineering degree within six years. Although
differences exist between male and female students regarding preferences forvarious pedagogical practices, such as collaborative learning. Additionally, we know thatstudents may construe an instructor’s gender as influencing their capacity to be role models,teach effectively, and produce scholarship. Less well known is how male and female instructorsview specific classroom strategies, as well as how often they use those strategies. To aidunderstanding, the newly developed Value, Expectancy, and Cost of Testing EducationalReforms Survey (VECTERS) was applied. VECTERS was based on expectancy theory,implying instructor decisions to integrate, or not integrate, classroom strategies are based on (1)perceived value for both students and self, (2
hard-of-hearing women faculty. Project objectives include: 1) Refine and strengthen targeted institutional structures, and install practices that promote representation and advancement of women faculty. 2) Improve the quality of women faculty work life, professional development, and incentive/reward structures. 3) Align institutional, administrative, and informal systems of power and resources to support and sustain progress by shaping the political frameworks that impact representation and advancement of women. 4) Enhance the working environment and support career advancement for women faculty using symbolic measures that emphasize issues of meaning within the organization.Other concurrent
published in Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, International Journal of Public Administration, and Energy Policy.Dr. Rachel R. Stoiko, West Virginia University Dr. Rachel Stoiko is a postdoctoral fellow at West Virginia University. She is interested in the intersections of gender, work, and family. Specifically, she works on projects related to career decision-making and development, institutional diversity and inclusivity, and student success in STEM. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 1 Dialogues toward Gender Equity: Engaging Engineering
focuses on the topic ofnegotiation, with an emphasis on providing practical ideas and strategies relevant to academicprofessionals at both entry-level and mid-career who find that they need to negotiate a careeropportunity. The paper will review negotiation basics, as well as discuss what can be negotiated,how one might proceed to discuss these, and how listening is critical to negotiation. By viewingnegotiation as a “wise agreement”1 that seeks to meet the needs of both parties to the extentpossible, this paper presents several common cases or scenarios that illustrate the importance ofunderstanding the elements involved both from the faculty member’s perspective as well as fromthe perspective of their department head, dean or
engineering students who have made it beyond traditional exit points inengineering, and into upper division courses. This understanding will be developed throughaddressing the following research questions (RQ):RQ 1) What experiences, affective domain traits, and social capital resources explainengineering students’ development of engineering role identity and feelings of belongingness?RQ 2) In what ways are these experiences unique for first generation engineering students whencompared to continuing generation peers?This increased understanding will be further utilized by the research team in subsequentqualitative phases of the research project by exploring grounds for causation and thedevelopmental role of any significant factors play in development
having theproblem, and the many more who support the common cultural understanding of thephenomenon as a problem. To help focus the thinking in this framework, McDermott proposes athree-stage framework to take different levels of the problem into account. In Stage 1, anindividual is conceptualized as having problems completely on their own; any problemsidentified are simple evidence of the individual’s own intellectual, moral, cultural, etc. deficits.In Stage 2, an individual is viewed as experiencing problems on the basis of social structuresmuch larger than them; and any problems identified can be explained as the natural result ofhaving been socialized to occupy that position in society. Finally in Stage 3, the problem isviewed as being
). We do note, however, that thissituation did not emerge as a theme in our interviews, probably because—as Meadows andSekaquaptewa argue—students saw their assignment to non-technical work as self-determined,and therefore not an issue they thought to complain about.Part I ResultsStudents routinely encounter problems in their teamsConsistent with the EC2000 criteria, 98% of students (n=664) reported participating on at leastone team, with the average student participating in three teams in the most recent year.Table 1 shows that team problems are very common: 85% of engineering students reported atleast one team problem in their STEM classes in the most recent year. Moreover, many of theseissues appear to have limited students’ opportunities to
Latin III grades predicted the college English grades. This same study, further,stated that performance in a college English course may be predicted by using a high schoolEnglish course, any high school secondary language score, general high school grade pointaverage, or the Cooperative English Examination. They also noted that, regarding gender andprediction, vocabulary scores are extremely important in predicting the success of boys inCollege English. However, general information scores are more important for girls in theprediction of success in College English.[46] In Table 1, entitled “Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients Between College English andVarious Measures,” shows that the coefficients of prediction used in the study
education. She can be contacted at cynthia.e.foor-1@ou.edu.Dr. Susan E. Walden, University of Oklahoma Dr. Susan E. Walden is the founding Director of the Research Institute for STEM Education (RISE) and an associate research professor in the Dean’s office of the College of Engineering (CoE). She is also a founding member of the Sooner Engineering Education (SEED) Center. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Barriers to Broadening Participation in Engineering Competition TeamsIntroductionDespite years of efforts to increase diversity in STEM, engineering continues to be a white maledominated discipline. The low representation of female and minority
initialparticipants, a size optimal for large group training as well as small group work with the fourmentors. Professors, academic advisors, and academic support staff were solicited for studentnominations. Due to the timing of the program funding, the request for nominations was not sentuntil the last week of the semester, resulting in 15 nominations received. Nominees were askedto complete an application and were subsequently interviewed by at least two of the mentors. Ofthe 15 nominees, 13 were invited to join the program (one student didn’t respond for aninterview and one student was graduating). Table 1 shows the demographics of the male studentcohort. Once selected, these students were asked to come to campus prior to the start of theautumn semester
science teachers’ integration of the engineering design process to improve science learning. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Systematic Review of the Funds of Knowledge Framework in STEM EducationIntroductionFor over two decades, there have been significant and consistent calls to increase the quantity anddiversity of engineering graduates to not only support the workforce demand but also to improveengineering solutions to better reflect the demographics of the U.S. population.1–4 However, thecall to increase the diversity of engineering often has been centered on simply increasing thepercentages of underrepresented groups in engineering. Once these
credibility or respect 13, 19; andlack of mentoring and/or sponsorship by a senior colleague. 11, 13, 18, 20These findings from the faculty climate survey, objective data review, and benchmarking laid theground work for the successful submission and subsequent funding of the National ScienceFoundation Institutional Transformation (IT) grant. The AdvanceRIT (NSF Award #1209115project was implemented in 2012. The objectives of this project are to: 1. Refine and strengthen targeted institutional structures, and install practices that promoting representation and advancement of women faculty. 2. Improve the quality of women faculty work life, professional development, and incentive/reward structures. 3. Align institutional
diversity, particularly the recruitment of womento that particular program. Aligning with the goal, the following objectives were developed.Objective 1: Increase the enrollment and retention of the female engineering students.Objective 2: Improve female students’ attitudes and perceptions toward careers in engineeringfields.Objective 3: Enhance female students’ self-efficacy in the learning of engineering.Objective 4: Increase the six-year graduation rate of female students (currently at 53% for theuniversity). The department placed an emphasis on increasing the general graduation rate of allwomen students as opposed to just women engineering students to be aligned with theuniversity's strategic goals.In alignment with these objectives, from 2011