Paper ID #25156Systems Thinking Concepts and Applications for Engineering LeadershipDevelopmentDr. B. Michael Aucoin, Leading Edge Management, LLC B. Michael Aucoin is President of Leading Edge Management, LLC and Electrical Expert, Inc. in Col- lege Station, Texas. He earned a B.S. in Engineering from the University of New Orleans, an M.Engr. in Electrical Engineering and a D.Engr. from Texas A&M University, and an M.A. in Organizational Leadership from Gonzaga University. Dr. Aucoin has performed research and teaching in academia and has worked in large and small organizations. He served on a Mishap Investigation Board
: Demographics of the 2017-2018 Academic Year cohort by (a) major,(b) classification, (c) gender and (d) ethnicity.The 2018-2019 Chevron Leadership Academy consists of 37 students from ISDSand all engineering majors (except biological) and all classifications (Figure 3).Of those, 21 students were retained from the previous year. This year,Construction Management was added to the distribution of majors. We were alsoable to increase the diversity of the program by adding more African American,Asian and Hispanic participants to the cohort. Between Fall 2018 and Spring2019, three students failed to meet the GPA requirements of the program andwere separated from the program. 2018-2019 by Major 2018 - 2019 by
develop team and leadership skills for students and instructors. Table 2. Learning activities and assessments generating data for continual improvementAssessment Description and Purpose Frequency Assessor /Type (Case) Data TypePre – Post Students self assess individual skills required Twice per IndividualTest Student for project teamwork as an input to team course StudentSkill Self formation and developmental goal setting. The /Assessment skills assessed are mapped to graduate attribute Quantitative(Case A, B - outcomes and the purpose is to identify areasDeveloped
meaningful relationships. 10 Community I felt encouraged and supported by others in a way that 8 helped me grow.Appendix B includes specific quotes from portfolios that we categorized in each impact theme.DiscussionMost Meaningful Activities/ExperiencesSeveral things stand out to us in the data. First, we were surprised by the number of differentactivities or experiences that the students listed as being most meaningful to them, and that noactivity or experience was listed by more than 11 students. This suggests it is unlikely that wecan plan any one activity that will be meaningful to an entire cohort of students, and thatincluding a diverse group of activities will make it
Industrial or Manufacturing 128 5.2 Mechanical 323 13 Software 70 2.8 Other (Environmental, Geological, Material/Metallurgical, Mining / Mineral) 106 4.3 Other (miscellaneous) 164 6.6 Did not identify discipline 4 0.2 Academic standing High-performing, A-, A or A+ (3.5 or above) 890 35.8 Average-performing, B or B+ (2.9 to 3.4
of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century” at NAP.edu. .[5] C. Rottmann, R. Sacks, and D. Reeve, “Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in engineers’ professional identities,” Leadership, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 351–373, Aug. 2015.[6] W. J. Schell and B. E. Hughes, “The Potential of the Leadership Identity Model to Develop Undergraduate Engineering Leadership–A Theoretical Approach,” in ASEM International Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC, 2016.[7] “ARE ENGINEERS’ LEADERSHIP ATTITUDES AND EXPERIENCES DIFFERENT THAN OTHER STUDENTS? - ProQuest.” [Online]. Available: https://search.proquest.com/openview/d772f5129fccb7b40ae014046a13f1f1/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=2037614. [Accessed: 03-Feb-2019].[8
State.Monika B Kwapisz, Montana State University Monika Kwapisz (they/them) is an undergraduate at Montana State University studying Industrial and Management Systems Engineering with a minor in Mathematics. Monika is the president of MSU’s chapter of Out in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (oSTEM), a cross-country ski coach, and an avid outdoors-person. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Exploring the Relationship Between Students’ Engineering Identity and Leadership Self-EfficacyAbstractIn order to lead the social process required to solve society’s grandest challenges and ensure thatthe capabilities of an expanded engineering workforce are
of the triple bottom line with a breakeven in theinvestment generally being less than two years.Student SurveysTwo surveys were done to quantify student outcomes. One survey was done immediatelyfollowing the “pitch” competition and the other was given as an end of the class exit survey. Theexit interview results are more qualitative, therefore the results present in Table 1 are taken afterthe competition. Three areas of performance using a scale of 1-5 (1=none at all to 5=extreme)were statistically compared to previous year’s results. None of the questions presented showed astatistically significant difference over the years. The questions asked were a. “Rate your overall satisfaction with the leadership development experience” b
, no. 3, pp. 305–331, 2006.[7] D. . Peterson and M. D. Hicks, The leader as coach: Strategies for coaching and developing others. Minneapolis, MN, 1995.[8] C. M. B. O’Flaherty and J. Everson, “Equipping Leaders To Coach – an Androgogic Learning Model,” Elev. Int. East. Acad. Manag. Conf. Manag. a Glob. Econ., pp. 372– 397, 2005.[9] J. . Hunt and J. . Weingraub, The coaching manager: Developing top talent in business. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.[10] V. . Bianco-Mathis, L. . Nabos, and C. H. Roman, Leading from the inside out: A coaching model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.[11] A. D. Ellinger, A. E. Ellinger, and S. B. Keller, “Supervisory coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and
. Also, though insightwas gained into engineering leadership styles, it is unknown to what extent these styles compareto those employed in other disciplines. In order to improve upon this study, a larger sample ofengineers as well as individuals in additional disciplines could be considered. Using aquantitative approach, established leadership assessment tools could be used to determinedifferences in leadership behaviors across disciplines. This comparative approach may serve tofurther enhance the understanding of leadership within an engineering context.References[1] Hartmann, B. & Jahren, C. (2015). Leadership: industry needs for entry-level engineering positions. Journal of STEM Education, 16(3),. Laboratory for Innovative
: Relationship to CDIO Syllabus v2. In Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference. 10.) Ahn, B., Cox, M. F., London, J., Cekic, O., & Zhu, J. (2014). Creating an instrument to measure leadership, change, and synthesis in engineering undergraduates. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 115-136. 11.) Eggleston, A. G., & Rabb, R. J. (2018, June), Technical Communication for Engineers: Improving Professional and Technical Skills Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah. 12.) Mattingly, S. P., & Pearson Weatherton, Y., & Kruzic, A. P., & Frost, H. L., & Rahman, Z. (2014, June), Critical Thinking in the Curriculum: Making
Paper ID #25598Counting Past Two: Engineers’ Leadership Learning TrajectoriesDr. Cindy Rottmann, University of Toronto Cindy Rottmann is the Associate Director of Research at the Troost Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering, University of Toronto. Her research interests include engineering leadership in university and workplace settings as well as ethics and equity in engineering education.Dr. Doug Reeve, University of Toronto Dr. Reeve is the founding Director of the Troost Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering (Troost ILead) (2010-2018) at the University of Toronto. After a lengthy career as a