Paper ID #30316The Benefits of Discipline-based Communities for Faculty TeachingDevelopmentDr. Margret Hjalmarson, George Mason University Margret Hjalmarson is a Professor in the School of Education at George Mason University. Her research interests include engineering education, mathematics education, faculty development and mathematics teacher leadership.Prof. Jill K Nelson, George Mason University Jill Nelson is an associate professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at George Mason University. She earned a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BA in Economics from Rice Uni- versity in 1998
Society for Engineering EducationSt. Louis, MO, June 18-21, 2000.[10] K. Sanders, C. Carlson-Dakes, K. Dettinger, C. Hajnal, M. Laedtke, and L. Squire, "A NewStarting Point for Faculty Development in Higher Education: Creating a Collaborative LearningEnvironment," in D. DeZure (Ed.), To Improve the Academy, v. 16, Stillwater, OK, NewForums Press, 1997, pp. 117-150.[11] J.F. Fines, T. M. Regan, and K. K. Johnson, "Building Community Through a FreshmanIntroduction to Engineering Design Course: The ECSEL Teaching Fellows Program." 1995ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 2358-2362, ASEE, June 1995.[12] NSF DUE #1323258[13] C. Pfund et al., Professional development. Summer institute to improve university scienceteaching. Science (New York, N.Y.) 324
in the state of Delaware.Dr. Kathryn K Pegues,Capt. Thomas Bazemore c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Examination of faculty development in the Departments of Civil & Mechanical Engineering and Geography & Environmental Engineering at the United States Military AcademyAbstractThis study is submitted as part of a special joint panel session between the EnvironmentalEngineering Division and the Faculty Development Division on innovative development fortenured/tenure-track faculty and professional faculty. This study presents findings from aninstitutional-level evaluation of professional faculty development practices. The United StatesMilitary Academy (i.e., West
, an Outstanding Teacher Award and a Faculty Fellow Award. She holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University, an M.S. in Materials Science from the University of Connecticut and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Purdue University.Dr. Cheryl Carrico P.E., E4S, LLC Cheryl Carrico is owner of E4S, LLC. Her current research focus relates to STEM career pathways (K- 12 through early career) and conceptual understanding of core engineering principles. She is currently a Member-at-Large for the Pre-college Division of ASEE. Dr. Carrico’s consulting company specializes in research, research evaluations, and industry consulting. Dr. Carrico received her B.S. in chemical engineering from Virginia Tech
. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References 1. K. Haghighi, “Quiet no longer: Birth of a new discipline,” Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), pp. 351-353, 2005.2. National Research Council Board on Engineering Education; Engineering education: Designing an adaptive system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1995.3. D. F. Radcliffe, “Shaping the discipline of engineering education,” Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), pp. 263-264, 2006.4. J. Bordogna, E. Fromm, and E. W. Ernst, “Engineering education: Innovation through
&M University. He has been a faculty member at Texas A&M since 2002, where his technical specialty is water resources engineering, planning, and management. Prior to this position, he completed his undergraduate and graduate studies at Georgia Tech, where he taught undergraduate courses for 7 years. His professional activities have included projects in East Africa, Central America, the Middle East, Alaska’s North Slope, and throughout the ”lower 48 states.” His current activities at Texas A&M cover a wide spectrum from K-12 outreach and recruiting to undergraduate curriculum design to retention, monitoring, and post-graduation engagement.Dr. Sherecce Fields, Texas A&M University Sherecce Fields, PhD
graduate students and early career scholars to broaden their expertise andskills to conduct rigorous research on STEM [4], and 3) a research institute with year-longtraining of two cohorts of 20 Quantitative Research Methods (QRM) Scholars [5]; these scholarswere PhD students with research foci on issues of access and equity of underrepresentedpopulations in STEM within either K-12 or postsecondary settings.In response to faculty interest expressed on our campus for how to best conduct STEM-Heducation research, we developed a brief, focused introductory workshop series designed forSTEM-H faculty and professionals. These disciplinary STEM-H researchers sought not only tobetter understand and evaluate their teaching practices to benefit students
study were: 1. What are the ways in which the learning experiences gained during engineering postdoctoral appointments influence postdoctoral scholars’ view of the professoriate? 2. How does the view of the professoriate influence postdoctoral scholars’ career decision-making process?Participants. A total sample of 50 STEM postdoctoral scholars was recruited from the NationalPostdoctoral Association utilizing a dedicated e-alert sent via email in July 2019. Participationwas incentivized through the provision of a $25 Amazon gift card. Over 300 individualsresponded to indicate their willingness to participate; the final sample was determined by theirfield of study and the race/ethnicity and gender with which
Academy in a Turbulent Era.Katie Johanson, University of Colorado at Colorado SpringsRichard Carroll Sinclair, www.leadingschoolsforward.org Rich is a Ph.D. student in Educational Leadership, Research, and Policy at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs. He has over 25 years of experience teaching, leading, and consulting in rural, suburban, international, and urban K-12 communities. Changing cultural perspectives as well as beliefs about the importance of purpose, values, and posi- tive working relations through strategic and compassionate leadership defines the essence of the Leading Schools Forward philosophy; one designed for unique and sustainable organizational change that turns long-term mediocracy into
. In addition, full-time faculty provided inputabout their experiences related to adjunct faculty during a college meeting. The results of thesequeries were a 22-question instrument to obtain adjunct faculty perspectives in key areas ofinterest (See Appendix for full instrument). Each survey item was mapped to the administratorquestions asked below: Dimension 1- Faculty Onboarding Survey Items (#) Alignment Who hires individuals for the adjunct faculty pool? Does adjunct faculty go through College-level hiring processes or does a central 17 entity such as Human
society through investigating community-based leMr. William Cohen, Ohio State University William Cohen is a Lecturer for the Fundamentals of Engineering program at The Ohio State University: a 2 semester course sequence for first-year engineering students focusing on programming in MATLAB, computer aided drawing in SolidWorks, and a semester long design-build-test project. William has also received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering and M.S. in Nuclear Engineering from Ohio State.Dr. James Edward Toney, Ohio State University James Toney earned the Ph.D. in physics from Carnegie Mellon University in 1998 and the B.S. in electri- cal engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1984. He is a Senior Lecturer in the
the college’s dual career and relocation program. Dr. Sandekian earned degrees in Aerospace Engineering Sciences at University of Colorado Boulder (B.S. 1992/M.S. 1994), a Specialist in Education (Ed.S.) degree in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (2011) and a Ph.D. in Higher Education and Student Affairs Leadership (2017), both from the University of Northern Colorado. She is a Founding Leader of the American Society of Engineering Education Virtual Community of Prac- tice for LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Engineering and a facilitator of Safe Zone trainings.Prof. Jill K Nelson, George Mason University Jill Nelson is an associate professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at George
for Engineering Education (ASEE).Dr. Ann Saterbak, Duke University Ann Saterbak is Professor of the Practice in the Biomedical Department and Director of First-Year En- gineering at Duke University. Saterbak is the lead author of the textbook, Bioengineering Fundamen- tals. Saterbak’s outstanding teaching was recognized through university-wide and departmental teaching awards. In 2013, Saterbak received the ASEE Biomedical Engineering Division Theo C. Pilkington Out- standing Educator Award. For her contribution to education within biomedical engineering, she was elected Fellow in the Biomedical Engineering Society and the American Society of Engineering Educa- tion.Anila K. Shethia, Rice University Anila K
satisfaction above and beyond teaching support and chair support. In thisway, SDT provides a useful framework for conceptualizing relationships between variables ofinterest to the present study.Teaching Self-efficacy Teaching self-efficacy is defined as “a judgement about capabilities to influence students’engagement and learning” [15]. Due to the self-evaluation component of the construct along withits clear relevance for the professional academic environment, teaching self-efficacy represents acontextually grounded representation of perceived competence. Prior work has found teachingself-efficacy to be positively associated with important student outcomes such as academicachievement, intrinsic motivation, and learning self-efficacy [16
extensive background in science education includes experiences as both a middle school and high school science teacher, teaching science at elementary through graduate level, developing formative as- sessment instruments, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in science and science education, working with high-risk youth in alternative education centers, working in science museums, designing and facilitating online courses, multimedia curriculum development, and leading and researching profes- sional learning for educators. The Association for the Education of Teachers of Science (AETS) honored Dr. Spiegel for his efforts in teacher education with the Innovation in Teaching Science Teachers award (1997). Dr
[institution]. I know we don’t have answers to these questions, but as we had started to talk about in our faculty meeting, it's really time to make contingency plans for our fall classes and beyond. Let's see if we can make a continued education possible for all of our students.In another email, a faculty leader informed other department faculty about the “tremendouschallenges that our students face, from job, food and housing insecurities, to academicconcerns,” offering two vignettes from department students gathered through a university-basedstudent services group that they served as a liaison for. The students spoke about howengineering classes were “going way more hardcore,” with lengthier and more difficulthomework assignments
institutional NSF grant in 2006; the work oftransforming department cultures that began as part of the grant has now been institutionalized.The present document outlines how one component of the ADVANCE initiative was leveragedin collaboration with a Revolutionizing Engineering and Computer Science Departments (RED)NSF grant awarded to a large ECE department at this University. The RED program supportsrevolutionizing ECE departments through the cultivation of an inclusive, collaborative, andinnovative department culture by facilitating structural, policy, and procedural changes.Currently, 21 departments nationally are funded by RED grants [5]. This paper will describe thatADVANCE initiative before detailing its impact on the ECE department. The
development workshops?” In conducting the workshops, we learned thatco-design, as a two-month engagement with educators teaching in different contexts, resulted inan overall positive learning experience for everyone involved. In providing lessons learned fromco-designing for professional development, we hope to inspire the engineering educationcommunity to continue to explore co-design and other design based methods for PD, not just inthe K-12 space [1], but specifically in the Faculty Development space to create opportunities thatinclude what Kelly et. al. concludes after using co-design for PD: high quality professionaldevelopment that is “contextual, sustained, respectful yet collaborative, and functions throughhigh active learning [2].”Co-design
was used to create a conceptual model of feedback’s role and impact in anengineering classroom and will inform future research exploring the relationships betweenfeedback, how students perceive and act on feedback, and how these perceptions and actionsrelated to given feedback can be explored using motivational theories. This literature review andmodel relating feedback to its impact on student motivation will be presented through atraditional lecture with the hope of informing practicing engineering educators of positive andeffective methods of feedback that can be utilized in an engineering classroom to improvestudent learning.IntroductionFeedback is built into every engineering course. It can be as straightforward as receiving gradeson
/coache_perspectives.pdf?m=1447624837.[19] J. A. Jacobs and K. Gerson, The Time Divide: Work, Family, and Gender Inequality. Harvard University Press, 2004.[20] National Academy of Sciences, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 2007.[21] K. O’Meara, A. Kuvaeva, G. Nyunt, C. Waugaman, and R. Jackson, “Asked More Often: Gender Differences in Faculty Workload in Research Universities and the Work Interactions That Shape Them , Asked More Often: Gender Differences in Faculty Workload in Research Universities and the Work Interactions That Shape Them,” American Educational Research
, 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
-selected groups mayalso lead to isolation and lack of participation from students who do not have close friends in the class. Instructor selected groups are clearly a better method for producing positive group outcomes. However, ∗ Funding for initial development of the Group Assignment Tool from September 2017 through March 2018 was providedby the Kaminsky Undergraduate Research Award.manual group formation can be difficult and time consuming. Group formation is a high dimensionalityconstrained optimization problem. Instructors typically aim to maximize heterogeneity of groups withrespect to certain attributes while minimizing heterogeneity with respect to others and fulfilling variousconstraints—for example, avoiding pairing certain
challenged by what they learned, and in turn thiswill lead to students being committed to the learning process [7-8]. When students are responsiblefor their own learning through written exercises, problem sets, class discussion, etc. they canachieve higher-order objectives on Bloom’s taxonomy (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) [9].Therefore, including active exercises for students is essential is to the learning process.Active Video FrameworkIn a flipped class environment, assigning videos to watch at home has not proven to increaselearning gains. Rather implementation of active learning exercises in class following videos is thesuggested underlying reason for deeper learning [10]. Therefore, the basis for this research is thetheory that
commitment; 3) genuine desire for the mentee tosucceed, and 4) willingness from faculty members to disseminate appropriate technical andpersonal wisdom. This emerging model, termed RCDD (e.g., acronym for Relationship,Commitment, Desire, Disseminate), gives faculty members a template to advance undergraduateengineering student success through a genuine mentorship role. Results indicate that graduatingstudents are better prepared when applying for employment or graduate school. It was also notedthat the confidence level increased going into internship opportunities or full-time employmentdue to their undergraduate involvement in research and the guidance from the faculty advisor. I. BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATIONAccording to the literature, 53% of all
maintaining productivity and fulfillment over the duration of a career. A primary purpose of theFDC is therefore to challenge faculty to consider how they balance what is intrinsically interesting versuswhat is extrinsically rewarded or required.Development Over TimeThe boundaries and entries into the FDC can change over at least three timescales: days, months andyears. As such, faculty may fill out the canvas with any of these three timescales in mind, with the goal ofbecoming more intentional about how, when, and how often they engage in particular tasks. On a dailybasis, this could be discovering how one works best - some faculty work best through intensely focusedsprints in one area (serial task completion), whereas others may work best by
faculty is associated with faculty productivity, salary, and job satisfaction. In contrast to previous literature, results indicate that women and men have similar likelihood of reporting having a formal/informal mentor, and that Black/African American faculty are more likely to report having a formal/informal mentor compared to White faculty. Furthermore, receiving mentorship does not appear to be associated with increased productivity or job satisfaction, but is associated with a 10% higher salary among faculty who reported having a mentor. These results, however, are limited to observable outcomes in the ECDS, and the benefits to mentoring may extend beyond those, including well-being, sense of
satisfactionwere altruism and compliance [4]. In current models based in business settings, five OCBs havebeen characterized and studied [5]: • “Altruism: Discretionary behaviors that have the effect of helping a specific other with an organizationally relevant task or problem. • Conscientiousness: Discretionary behaviors on the part of the employee that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization, in the areas of attendance obeying rules and regulations, taking breaks and so forth. • Sportsmanship: Willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining- to “avoid complaining, pretty grievances, railing against real or imagined slights, and making federal
-practice effort in engineering education through multiple theoretical lenses of systems and change. Paper presented at the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.Singleton, R., & Straits, B. C. (2010). Approaches to social research: Oxford University Press.Streveler, R. A., Borrego, M., & Smith, K. A. (2007). 9: Moving from the scholarship of teaching and learning to educational research: An example from engineering. 25(1), 139-149. doi:10.1002/j.2334-4822.2007.tb00479.xWankat, P. C., Felder, R. M., Smith, K. A., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning in engineering. In M. T. Huber & S. P. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the
, andfurther in shared governance practices, are to (1) improve university governance, (2) gainexperience, and (3) serve other students [38]. These have been shown to translate into formerstudent leaders’ careers in fields outside academia, however they can also have lasting effects forfaculty via their service activities [39], [40]. Author Gingrich fully embodies this idea. Afterserving as Vice President of External Affairs and President of the Graduate Student Assembly,he found a consistent interest in serving his peers through diversity and inclusion efforts. Heworked closely with other student leaders and university administrators (including Deans and theProvost) to create change in this area. As a junior faculty member at Ohio State, he received
degree in Physics from Indiana University in Bloomington and a BS in Engineering Physics at UIUC.Dr. Allyson Jo Barlow, University of Nevada, Reno Ally Barlow graduated with her Doctoral Degree in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University, where she fused her technical background with her passion for education; her doctoral research focused on the exploration of student engagement from multiple methodological standpoints. Now she works as a Postdoctoral Scholar at University of Nevada Reno, expanding her knowledge of the field through work on faculty-faculty mentorship modes. Her research interests include student cognitive engagement and teacher best practices for in-class and out-of-class learning.Dr. Karin