in PHY 191 duringthe past 2 weeks? Please give your best estimate of how many times you've done each of thesethings. (Each item had a 7-point scale, with the points “Haven’t done”, “1 day”, to “More than 5days”.) ● Read the textbook● Reviewed slides or handouts from class● Reviewed your own notes from class● Attended class● Met with the professor outside class (e.g. office hours)● Met with the TA outside class (e.g. office hours)● Gone to a tutoring session for this course● Asked a question during class● Gone to a general study skills workshop● Had a study group with classmates● Done the homework for class● Done additional practice problems● Taken notes
support grit development in first-generationcollege students.Introduction First-generation college students face numerous unique challenges within higher educationthat offer particular opportunities for research and interventions to improve their enrollment andretention. This population has potential to add to the field of engineering as they bring with themunique lived experiences. First-generation college students have been described as invisibleinnovators [1]. Smith and Lucena [1] argue if first-generation college students’ funds of knowledgeare equally valued knowledge as that of the dominant engineering culture, these students’ can belegitimate creators of knowledge and contribute to innovative solutions in the engineeringenterprise
like me like me like me like me like meA person who feels finding an answer to a newengineering problem is thrilling.Not at all Not A little Somewhat Very much Like me like me like me like me like me like me Not at all Not Like Very muchA person who.. like me like me me like meThinks it’s valuable to findways to apply the world’s 4 123scientific knowledge 1 2Feels finding an answer toa new engineering problem 3 4is thrillingThinks engineersdiscussing
in engineering education. Some of these students may include the military as apart of their educational pathways. However, there is little research on the experiences of first-generation student veterans in engineering education. This qualitative study seeks to address thisgap. The investigation focuses on first-generation student veterans in engineering (FGSVEs)(n=15) who were interviewed as a part of a larger study of SVEs (n=60) on four collegecampuses. The study addressed the following research questions:(1) Why do FGSVEs decide to join the military?(2) Why do FGSVEs choose to major in engineering?Results suggest that these FGSVEs join the military to gain some direction and purpose in theirlives and to pay for college. They primarily
impacted my professional development. Professional Impact 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree, 10 Inspired me to emulate the successful women I saw at Inspiration 4-Agree, 5-Strongly Agree the conference.B. Conferences D. Attitudes towards non-technical conference and degree The 38 participants attended 14 different non-technical con- 1) Quantitative Analysis: General statistics and GLM pro-ferences, and those conferences have been grouped according cedure were obtained from the data collected for the questionsto the classification characteristics previously defined
academiayielding dynamic, multifaceted outcomes and serving multiple stakeholders. Corporatepartners strategically generate a pathway for diverse technical talent and optimizelikelihood for retention and advancement. Undergraduate students engage in dynamicexperientiallearningcomplementedbysemester‐longprofessionaldevelopment.TheoverarchingEMIXgoalistostrategicallyoptimizeopportunitiesforindustrypartnersto recruit, retain and advance diverse technical talent. EMIX initiative is designed toprepare women and underrepresented undergraduate interns for seamless transition totheengineeringworkplace.Professionaldevelopment,sponsorresearch,andindustrysitevisitsempowerstudentstooptimizemeasurableimpactthroughouttheinternship
aspects of operating well within groups from an ethical as well as logicalperspective (e.g., authorship, data sharing, etc.). In addition, most/many of our workshops includeactivities that provide experiential practice with working in groups (e.g., small group discussionof ethical case studies) and co-mentorship (e.g., forming working groups with mixed levels ofexpertise). Table 1: Guiding principles for field schools Principle Description Responsive Field schools are responsive to participants’ needs. Playful Researchers play with ideas and data to generate new knowledge. Communicative Dissemination and presentation are integral parts of research activities. Collaborative
students; first-generation students). The findings underline the importance of type and frequency ofinteractions with engineering faculty and perceptions of positive and supportiverelationships for self-efficacy and persistence in engineering.Keywords: engineering self-efficacy; student-faculty interaction I. INTRODUCTION The importance of the role of student-faculty interaction (SFI) in student success hasbeen emphasized by several predominant theoretical frameworks on student persistence andacademic success in higher education [1-2]. Although there are many factors that influencestudent success, researchers seem to agree that SFI has a direct impact [3-7]. Faculty impactstudent aspirations
Hispanic/Latino students haveparticipation rates of 18% and 19% respectively, as shown in Table 1 [4]. The difference is morepronounced for transfer students and first-generation students, with 15% for transfer vs. 30% forstudents who started as freshmen, and 18% for first generation vs. 28% for non-first generation[4].In contrast to these national trends, the Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program at theGeorgia Institute of Technology shows consistent representative enrollment for black andHispanic/Latino students when compared with the campus population. We posit that theseenrollment patterns are not the product of targeted recruiting or a specially tailored program, butreflect student response to a program designed to serve all
was conducted in Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering at OregonState University. Sixteen focus groups and 6 individual interviews were conducted with enteringand soon-to-be-graduating students.Our findings reveal that students who identify along social identity categories that are centered inUS culture (e.g., white, able bodied, straight, male, access to resources…) experience a strongsense of belonging. Of this group, about half are unaware of the unearned advantages linked totheir social location, while the other half articulate an understanding of their privilege.International students and students of color generally expressed a lower sense of belonging in theunit and experiences of marginalized status. A complexly layered
the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. HHS.Esmaili Zaghi, A., Tehranipoor, M., & O'Brien, C. (2016). Major Observations from a Specialized REU Program for Engineering Students with ADHD. 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. New Orleans: ASEE.Flatt, A. K. (2013). A Suffering Generation: Six factors contributing to the mental health crisis in North American higher education. College Quarterly.Foster, C., & Spencer, L. (2003). Are undergraduate engineering students at greater risk for heart disease than other undergraduate students? Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 73-77.Gallagher, R. P. (2008). National Survey
pipeline” (Pell, 1996; Wickware, 1997) and a “chilly climate” (Flam, 1991) in thephysical sciences more generally. For LGBTQ+ individuals, however, claims about underrepresentation inengineering cannot be made because there is no baseline with which to compare. This study providesone small window into the underrepresentation of LGBTQ+ individuals in engineering by investigatingthe following research questions: 1. Are LGBTQ+ students underrepresented in engineering within a large, public, Midwestern university system context based on campus climate survey response rates? 2. How do LGBTQ+ engineering students’ experiences within that university system inform our understanding of their relative representation?MethodThis study
, D., Kilgore, D., Loshbaugh, H., McCain, J., & Chen, H. (2008). Being and Becoming: Gender and Identity Formation of Engineering Students. Research Brief. Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (NJ1).Flores, L. Y., & O’brien, K. M. (2002). The career development of Mexican American adolescent women: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(1), 14.Flynn, M. A., Everett, J. W., & Whittinghill, D. (2016). The Impact of a Living Learning Community on First-Year Engineering Students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 331–341.Gibbons, M. M., & Shoffner, M. F. (2004). Prospective first-generation college students: Meeting their needs through
Redshirt in Engineeringconsortium provide valuable insights regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion in engineering.Four-year engineering and computer science curricula are designed for students who arecalculus-ready, but many students who are eager to become engineers or computer scientistsneed additional time and support to succeed. Providing this type of support is an excellentsocietal investment because these fields benefit from diverse perspectives, including those ofpeople from low-income backgrounds (Carrigan et al. 2015, Strutz et al. 2012). Further,because a technical degree in engineering or computer science can transform thesocioeconomic status of a low-income family in just one generation, providing low-incomestudents support can
Mentoring Network has grown and a variety of academic andpersonal schedules become harder to accommodate. This is one reason for limiting the target sizeof an annual cohort.The orientation typically takes place at a location central to the original ADVANCE institutionsand runs from approximately 9 am to 3 pm on a Saturday in August. The event is facilitatedjointly by members of the Executive Committee and includes structured events as well asbreakfast and lunch during which women are encouraged to mingle with the larger network.The structured events include: 1) a brief session introducing the literature on the benefits of mentoring; 2) a quick review of the requirements of the program, culminating with a signing of the Memorandum of
President of the Technical Editor Board for the ASEE Computers in Education Journal since 2012. She is a member of ASEE, IEEE, NSBE, and Eta Kappa Nu.Ms. Janice Fenn, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Janice Fenn is Director of the Center for Diversity at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, and founder of the Professional Resources Organization, Inc., a consulting firm that provides innovative seminars and training tools to enhance Diversity & Inclusion, Employee Development. Inclusive Leadership and Mentoring. Ms. Fenn’s corporate experience includes Senior Director of Global Diversity for Kraft Foods, and positions in human resources and diversity at Sara Lee Corporation and Quaker Oats. Ms. Fenn is co–author of
science, law, and business, Zawada has interned with the NIH Office of Technology Transfer, the Law Library of Congress, the Goldwater Insti- tute, and Quarles & Brady LLP. Graduating from UA with a bachelor’s in biochemistry as the Class of 2015’s Gold Medal Senior, Zawada was the recipient of the General Electric/LULAC Scholarship (2012- 2015) and a NASA Space Grant (2012-13). As a U.S. Senate intern, she assisted in the development of a HELP Committee memo during the landmark Supreme Court case that ruled in favor of cDNA patentabil- ity. She has promoted science-policy dialogue as editor of the ABA Biotechnology Law Newsletter, an AMSA Just Medicine Committee member, and an international representative to the
graduate and undergraduate level III. Examining Interventions a. Implicit Bias: define implicit bias and share examples of how implicit bias is present in technology spaces b. Buckeye Bias Busters Initiative: overview of this training currently being facilitated to employees in technology spaces at Ohio State IV. Conclusion a. Dialogue-Based Discussion: interactive dialogue on inequity in technology spaces b. Next Steps I. Introduction Recent allegations exposing hostile work environments in technology spaces have madeheadlines, bringing to light a culture that is generally unfavorable towards women, people ofcolor and other targeted
; Hunsinger, 2015), and (c) men on teams being more likely topresent technical content and answer audience questions (Meadows & Sekaquaptewa, 2013).Programs and specific interventions targeted to help all engineers and engineering students workin diverse teams may support efforts to retain diverse talent in engineering Because program andspecific interventions targeted to help all engineers and engineering students work in diverseteams may support efforts to retain the diverse talent in engineering, the need exists to help allengineers work on diverse teams(Atadero, Paguyo, Rambo-Hernandez, and Henderson, 2017).One such intervention was led by Finelli & Kendall-Brown (2009) and addressed some of theissues students encounter when working in
to all students across the U.S. (Calvert, 2015). Foregrounded by thesetrends, it is crucial to understand the support mechanisms that best support undergraduates incommunity colleges.1 There are different types of two-year schools, which can include vocational-technical colleges, communitycolleges, and career colleges (The College Board, n.d.). For this research, “two-year college” refers specifically tocommunity college, and as such I will use the terms “two-year college” and “community college” interchangeablythroughout this document.ON BECOMING A “TRANSFER INSTITUTION” 3 Considerably large numbers of majority and minority STEM degree recipients enroll incommunity
18% National average1 of CIP 11.01 & 11.07 11%Figure 5. For NCWIT ES-UP 32 Earliest Clients, % Women AwardedBS Exceeded National Average in 2016 (Data source: National Centerfor Education Statistics)1 This analysis presents data from degrees awarded under Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code 11 andsub-codes, as categorized by the National Center for Education Statistics. CIP 11 is an umbrella code for allprogram types. Three program types made up 87% of the degrees awarded in 2016. These include 11.01(Computer and Information Sciences, General; 42% of all CIP 11), 11.04 (Information Science; 11% of all CIP 11),and 11.07 (Computer Science; 34% of all CIP 11). 11.04, Information Science, can be either a
Session 3: for Visiting Faculty based on regularly scheduled seminars) Session 1: Dinner for Visiting Faculty DinnerWhat’s next?The next steps in leading transformational change will require an authentic partnership betweenWOC engineering faculty, academic engineering leadership and the engineering faculty at large.In the white paper entitled, “Inside the Double Bind: A Synthesis of Empirical Research onWomen of Color in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics,” a team led by MiaOng wrote that, “The particularistic norms of the scientific community can lead to the exclusionof women of color from the workplace milieu, often very important to career success. Institutionsshould be more aware of
learning practice are presented and discussed,and transformative outcomes that can be linked to seminar participation presented.IntroductionWomen have historically been underrepresented within the ranks of tenured or tenure-trackfaculty with Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines [1]. This isespecially so at higher academic ranks. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has recognizedthis issue and has been funding Institutional Transformation (IT) projects geared towardsremedying this shortcoming. In fall 2014 Oregon State University (OSU) received such anaward, created OREGON STATE ADVANCE, and established its overarching goal to serve as acatalyst for advancing the study and practice of equity, inclusion, and social
priority of achieving diversity of sexual identity came later to nationalconsciousness and has been more difficult to promote. Only four years ago, ASEE drewbitter criticism when its official magazine, Prism, published a letter expressing anti-gayopinions. The incident prompted not just criticism of the editorial staff but alsoobservations that the community of engineering educators remains timid about discussingthese most difficult topics of difference and inclusion.1 Such timidity, some engineeringeducators argued, discourages necessary change to support greater inclusivity within theengineering profession. In recent years, however, ASEE has dramatically altered itsstance on issues pertaining to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
. Thomas served as the Virginia Community College System’s director for statewide Workforce Investment Act programs. She also served as Director of Capacity Building for the Cameron Foundation, and Deputy Director at the Crater Regional Workforce Investment Board in Petersburg, Vir- ginia. Over the course of her career, Dr. Thomas’ work has generated grants and contracts totaling more than $1.5 million.She was named a Southeastern Council of Foundations Hull Fellow, keynote speaker at the Virginia Career Coach Academy and Commencement Address speaker at Fortis College, Richmond, VA. In February of 2013, she received the Living Legacy Award from the Association for the Study of African American Life and History. She
to perform (Meadows et al, 2015).Women and students of color can be stereotyped as less intelligent, less competent, or asunderperformers (Meadows et al, 2015; Wolfe et al, 2016). It is often assumed that these studentshave not been accepted to a STEM program based on merit, but based on policies that favorhistorically underrepresented students (Meadows et al, 2015). In a published writing piece, astudent at Worcester Polytechnic Institute explains: When the other girl gets accepted to RPI and WPI and Cal Tech and MIT, and the acceptance letters pile up….I watch the boys whisper in her ear: ‘They’re just meeting 1 their
-representedamongthestudentswhoreceivelowgradesinourtargetcourses.Thispresentationwilldiscusstheimpactofourcurricularchangesthusfar.Inaddition,wewillfocusonthesuccessratesoftheflippedclassroomapproachonstudentswithdifferentethnicities.Introduction SanJoséStateUniversity(SJSU),inpartnershipwithCaliforniaStateUniversity-LosAngeles(CSULA)andCaliforniaStatePolytechnicUniversity,Pomona(CPP),wasawardedaprestigiousFirstintheWorld(FITW)grant,fundedbytheDepartmentofEducation[1].GrantactivitieswereinspiredbySJSU’sFourPillarsofStudentSuccessinitiative[2]andrecognitionofthelowerratesofsuccessforunder-representedminoritygroupsamongSTEMstudentpopulations.Inparticular,thegrantfullysupportscollaborativedevelopmentacrossthecampusesofflippedclassroommaterialsforsevengatewaySTEMcoursesidentifiedtohavehighDFWrates(i.e.gradesofDorF,orwithdrawalfromthecourse
general, her relationship was not a topic of discussion with her colleagues because shetypically did not discuss non-work-related topics at work. Even when commiserating with otherfaculty members, the discussions typically focused on the lack of time each of them had to meetthe standard expectations of a faculty position. So, even though she worked to integrate heridentities as a wife and mother into her professional environment, her colleagues did not engagewith her in discussing those roles. As far as her colleagues were concerned, she was simplyanother engineering faculty member who specialized in a particular, technical topic and waswilling to take on more administrative roles than other colleagues. Even though she did notintentionally
Paper ID #21493Examining the Computing Identity of High-Achieving Underserved Comput-ing Students on the Basis of Gender, Field, and Year in SchoolMs. Atalie GarciaDr. Monique S. Ross, Florida International University Monique Ross, Assistant Professor in the School of Computing and Information Sciences at Florida In- ternational University, holds a doctoral degree in engineering education from Purdue University. Her research interests are focused on broadening participation in computing and engineering through the ex- ploration of: 1) race, gender, and identity; and 2) discipline-based education research in order to inform
Figure10.SRTISummaryStatisticsandComparisonsStudent surveys and instructor impressions both indicate that the second iteration of the course was moreeffective at integrating the LGBTQ+ and “Tech” aspects of the course. Indeed, none of the kinds of negativestudent comments from the first course instance were seen in the Fall 2016 surveys in this connection.However, the number of hours available in a 1-credit seminar was still limiting the degree to which the courseobjectives could be achieved. This is borne out both in the student comments and in the instructors’observations of project completion.4. Design of new four-credit General Education CourseThe two instances of a one-credit Queer Lights seminar both indicate there is student demand for a