Paper ID #32716Lessons Learned: Making the ”New Reality” More Real: Adjusting aHands-on Curriculum for Remote LearningDr. Yen-Lin Han, Seattle University Yen-Lin Han is an Associate Professor in the department of Mechanical Engineering at Seattle University. Dr. Han received her BS degree in Material Science and Engineering from National Tsing-Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan, her PhD degree in Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering and MS degree in Elec- trical Engineering from the University of Southern California. Her research interests include micro-scale molecular gas dynamics, micro fluidics, and heat transfer
as well. New and complementary solutions are expected to be developed from thecomparison across international cultures.1.2 Novelty of the projectThe challenges engineering educators face in teaching engineering are real, complex, varied, andmay not be amenable to simple solutions. As such, it requires new perspectives, new tools, andnew approaches, such as Design Thinking. In particular, the Human-Centered Design (HCD)approach is of interest to us because it focuses on deeply understanding the needs and valueperspectives of the people being served and on creating innovative solutions directed towardthose actual needs of people [12]. Thus, HCD approach involves designing with communitiesrather than for communities. It is extremely important
Engineering Education, 2021Quality Mentorship Matters: An Innovative Approach to Supporting Student Success in Engineering Undergraduate ResearchIn this research study, the authors developed a new model of mentorship for faculty members toengage and support their group of students conducting undergraduate engineering research.Research efforts attest that mentoring undergraduate students is a critical role that can dramaticallyenhance student academic and personal outcomes. This finding is magnified in the context ofSTEM related disciplines, such as engineering, where efforts to pro-actively diversify theworkforce are taking shape. Yet, not every form of faculty-student mentorship is proven to beeffective, particularly when faculty conceal
Paper ID #30709Year-Long Faculty Development Program for New Engineering Instructors:Description and EvaluationChris Migotsky, University of Illinois Chris Migotsky is the Coordinator of Faculty Teaching Programs within the College of Engineering at the University of Illinois. He also has college-level academic advising duties with undergraduate stu- dents from all departments. He focuses on faculty development, curriculum change, and assessment and evaluation related to teaching and learning. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Year-Long
mentioned, the study described in this paper explores how engineeringfaculty approach student motivation in their course designs at HSIs. Therefore, we sought toanswer the following research question: What educational supports do engineering faculty at HSIs propose to embed in their curricula to increase their students’ intrinsic motivation?Two Multi-Day Faculty Development WorkshopsThirty-six engineering educators from 13 two- and four-year HSIs participated in one of twoworkshops in the spring of 2018 [25]–[27]. During these workshops, participants wereintroduced to curriculum design through various lenses, such as design thinking, students asempowered agents, and intrinsic motivation.The facilitators approached the workshop design
Paper ID #31599Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Faculty Mindset AmidstProfessional Development ActivitiesKristen Ferris, University of New Mexico Kristen Ferris is a student in the Organization, Information, and Learning Sciences program at the Uni- versity of New Mexico. Her research interests include faculty mindset change, change management, and organizational citizenship behavior. Much of her research is part of a National Science Foundation grant at UNM where the chemical and biological engineering department is redesigning curriculum to support diverse student retention and graduation. She intends to further
Evidence-based Teaching and Learning Practices into the Core Engineering Curriculum," Proceedings of the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2019.[17] A. P. Samaras, M. Hjalmarson, L. C. Bland, J. K. Nelson, and E. K. Christopher, "Self- Study as a Method for Engaging STEM Faculty in Transformative Change to Improve Teaching," International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 195-213, 2019.[18] L. A. Baker et al., "Cottrell scholars collaborative new faculty workshop: Professional development for new chemistry faculty and initial assessment of its efficacy," Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 91, no. 11, pp. 1874-1881, 2014.[19] A. F. McKenna, B. Yalvac, and
, KEEN has focused on the development of entrepreneurial mindset (EM) in students,centered on curiosity, connections, and creating value. To accomplish this change in engineering education,KEEN has embraced a multifaceted approach to faculty development. These elements include holding an annualconference to foster community networking and exchange of ideas, funding to support curricular changes, andrunning structured faculty development workshops.In the last ten years, several faculty leaders have developed and deployed faculty development workshops entitled“Innovating Curriculum with Entrepreneurial Mindset (ICE)”. These intensive in-person three-day workshopsintroduce faculty participants from KEEN member institutions to the EML framework and
traditional systems. In 2019 the EU program launched a series of faculty developmentworkshops framed with both a systems approach and design thinking. A summary of the program changesover time is shown in Figure 1.The primary goal of the faculty development program is to foster EM in engineering education byengaging faculty in EM activities and perspectives that they can implement with their students [1].Faculty needs were mapped to a suite of faculty development offerings that included workshopsaddressing EM activities and perspectives targeting curriculum, teaching, research, industry, andleadership. Figure 1. Timeline of EU faculty development; iterative elements are shown for feedback processes.Design thinking is a systematic problem-solving
faculty development efforts; focusing the last 6 years on the integration of entrepreneurial mindset into the curriculum. Her engineering education research focuses on the nontraditional engineering student – understanding their motivations, identity development, and impact of prior engineering-related experi- ences. Her work dwells into learning in informal settings such as summer camps, military experiences, and extra-curricular activities. Other research interests involve validation of CFD models for aerospace and industrial applications, as well as optimizing efficiency of thermal-fluid systems.Dr. Jean Nocito-Gobel, University of New Haven Jean Nocito-Gobel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering at the
power shape reform efforts.Dr. Yan Chen, University of New Mexico Yan Chen is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of New Mexico. Her research interests focus on computer supported collaborative learning, learning sciences, online learning and teaching, and educational equity for multicultural/multiethnic edu- cation.Dr. Vanessa Svihla, University of New Mexico Dr. Vanessa Svihla is a learning scientist and associate professor at the University of New Mexico in the Organization, Information and Learning Sciences program and in the Chemical and Biological En- gineering Department. She served as Co-PI on an NSF RET Grant and a USDA NIFA grant, and is
different institutions with interest in applying EM approaches to career development haveteamed for this initiative. The three private institutions vary in size from 1,200 to 10,000. One isreligiously affiliated, and one is PhD granting. All three are members of the KEEN network andall have spent considerable time and resources weaving EM learning into their curriculums. Thenext step is to encourage their faculty to apply an EM approach to their own careers. All threeprovide mentors to new faculty and teaching load reductions for tenure-track faculty. The careerplanning support at these three institutions varies as does the position and rank of the faculty(Table 2). It is understood that titles for nontenure track faculty vary widely across the
market (Pyke, 2013). Stephan and Ma(2005) found 80% of higher education institutions do not hire a new tenure-track faculty memberwho has not served as a postdoctoral scholar, signaling it as a de-facto requirement for anacademic position. Engineering postdoctoral positions primarily include research duties in alaboratory to further their supervisor’s and their own research agenda, which can involvecollaborating with and mentoring students. Postdoctoral positions also can include formalteaching responsibilities, particularly introductory-level engineering coursework.Obtaining a postdoctoral appointment in engineering is a substantial influencer and determinanton whether one ascends to a faculty position (Andalib et al., 2018; Burt, 2014; Enders
Paper ID #29649Faculty Development Mini-Modules on Evidence-Based Inclusive Teachingand Mentoring Practices in EngineeringDr. Sarah Ilkhanipour Rooney, University of Delaware Sarah I. Rooney is an Assistant Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Delaware. She seeks to bring evidence-based teaching prac- tices to the undergraduate curriculum. She received her B.S.E. and M.S.E. in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) and her Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).Prof. Joshua A Enszer
then show thesignificance of identifying stakeholder needs in our discussion of how we initiated planning anddevelopment of the program and how we addressed institutional culture and constraints onstakeholders. We then describe detail how we used this information to plan a timeline, develop apolicy, and coordinate within our department to implement and assess the new program. Weconclude by discussing our next steps and providing recommendations for faculty andadministrators interested in creating a development-focused peer review of teaching program intheir units.Situating Evaluation of Teaching in a Department of Engineering EducationOur Department of Engineering Education (“department”) was officially established in 2015,having previously
engineering classroom [6].While active learning is not a new strategy, it has not been as thoroughly adopted at the highereducation level compared to its permeation into K12. Despite this slow adoption, emergingstudies are starting to support the idea that infusing curriculum with active learning strategies canhave a positive impact on student outcomes at the university level. In response, this grant wasdeveloped to create a robust faculty development program aimed at teaching engineering facultyhow to utilize active learning in their classes. This was done through a series of workshops,coupled with classroom observations and instructional coaching, ultimately resulting in aCommunity of Practice (CoP) to help sustain the overall program.Classroom
. Norman is a 2018-2019 Fulbright Scholar who actively volunteers as a NASA Solar System Am- bassador. She is also a US Army Veteran who has enjoyed contributing to and learning from a variety of organizations. Dr. Norman is active in helping faculty establish successful research portfolios. Her research interests include fundamental aeronautics; Hypersonics; Theoretical Physics; Planetary Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL) system design and analysis; Dewar and Cryostat design and cryogenic mate- rial testing; Advances in STEM Education and Curriculum development;Dr. Yuetong Lin, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Worldwide Yuetong Lin received the Ph.D. degree in Systems and Industrial Engineering from the University of
employment. In both countries, describing thesituation as being at crisis levels is not too strong a phrase.Questions about the added value of higher education, lead also to questions being asked aboutthe extent to which the teaching offered contributes to that value. Paradoxically there exists alarge body of knowledge about how people learn and the conditions for effective learning, whythe curriculum persists, how it may be changed, and how a new curriculum may be designed thatrelates to engineering.Unlike schoolteachers, the majority of university-level engineering educators in many countriesreceive little or no training in pedagogy or the philosophies that underpin them before they beginteaching, or for that matter during their teaching. With the
include recruitment and retention of under-represented students in STEM, integrative training for graduate teaching assistants, and curriculum innovation for introductory programming courses.Dr. Jena Shafai Asgarpoor, University of Nebraska - Lincoln Jena Asgarpoor has been on the faculty at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln since August 2017, as an Associate Professor of Practice and Director for the Master of Engineering Management Program in the College of Engineering. Dr. Asgarpoor received her Ph. D. and M.S. in Industrial Engineering, specializ- ing in Engineering Management, from Texas A&M University, College Station, where she had previously earned a B.A. in Political Science, Summa Cum Laude. Her interests
Paper ID #34316Faculty Motivations and Barriers for Engineering Education ResearchMs. Mia Ko, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Mia is a 4th year undergraduate student studying Bioengineering with a minor in Material Science and Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. On campus, she actively participates as an Engineering Ambassador: encouraging younger students’ interest in STEM related fields while changing the definition and conversation of what it means to be an engineer. Her research interests include motivation and STEM curriculum development and evaluation. She is very excited to
diversity in the engineering workforce. Research suggests that diverse teams withcognitively diverse approaches to solving problems will outperform a team of the cognitivelybest (but homogeneous) problem solvers [4]. This greater creativity and better problem-solvingability leads to better products and therefore increased profitability [5].In engineering, many factors contribute to the achievement gap, most of which are systemic.Systemic barriers include the climate that students face in the classroom, classroom and facultydiversity, support systems in place for at-risk students, course size, and access to major.[2][6][7]. Of these, the role that faculty can play in fostering a healthy learning environment andthereby reducing the achievement gap is
the extent to which these transformations impact a department’s cultureas a whole around teaching and teaching strategies. Recent findings showed that these coursetransformation projects did help in improving student achievement and faculty active teachingpractices [9]. We have also found that it has helped faculty, particularly new faculty members,develop their teaching as they transition from graduate school or industry jobs to academia.Students also found that the active learning approaches that the instructors integrated in theseredesigned courses were useful to their learning [9, 10]. Our team can share lessons learned fromour embedded experts model in undergraduate engineering education: • Collaboration between the embedded experts
members [11-13]. We surveyed all the facultymembers that taught a class in the College of Engineering at SJSU in Spring 2020 (more than ahundred of responses) [11], and interviewed 23 of them. We surveyed all the students enrolled inthe College of Engineering at SJSU in Spring 2020, and interviewed about 40 students [12-13].This paper describes the results of a set of interviews with engineering faculty members at SJSUUniversity after the end of Spring 2020 semester, and explores faculty members’ experiences aswell as the novel teaching approaches they used in the remote environment.MethodologyThe interviews described in this paper followed an initial survey distributed to all engineeringfaculty members at the end of Spring 2020. The survey’s
Paper ID #29450Analysis of Panel Summaries of Proposals Submitted to the S-STEM Pro-gramMs. Samara R. Boyle, Rice UniversityDr. Yvette E. Pearson P.E., Rice University Dr. Yvette E. Pearson holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering and M.S. in Chemistry from Southern University and a Ph.D. in Engineering and Applied Science from the University of New Orleans. She is Associate Dean for Accreditation, Assessment, and Strategic Initiatives in the George R. Brown School of Engi- neering at Rice University, a Program Evaluator for the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET, a registered Professional Engineer in Louisiana, a
. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Lessons Learned: Designing for Complexity and Ambiguity in Total Course Development from Conception to Delivery Faculty may experience varying degrees of curriculum and instructional design includingthe development of completely new courses and programs, existing course redesign, and thedesign of targeted instructional units or modifications. In these different curriculum designcontexts, faculty developers may also be challenged with providing varying degrees of support totheir faculty clients. The goal of this paper is to offer insight into ways of translating andexpanding common course design considerations to inform design and
. Teresa Lee Tinnell, University of Louisville Terri Tinnell is a STEM Education Curriculum and Instruction PhD Candidate and Graduate Research As- sistant at the University of Louisville. Research interests include: interdisciplinary faculty development, first-year engineering student retention, STEM teacher education, and collaborative, team-based learning experiences.Dr. Thomas Tretter, Thomas Tretter is professor of science education and director of the Gheens Science Hall & Rauch Plan- etarium at the University of Louisville. His scholarship includes collaborative efforts with science and engineering faculty targeting retention of STEM majors in entry-level STEM courses.Dr. Marie Brown
faculty approach teaching and learning in higher education. The intention inusing this framework is to realign instruction with 1) current research-based approaches toteaching and learning, 2) changing student needs, 3) student passions and interests, and 4) thepractices and understandings desired by industry and needed for the future of engineering. SeeFigure 1 for an illustration of the EL framework.Figure 1. Engineering Learning FrameworkPurpose of the StudyThe purpose of our study is to explore the lasting impact of the SICR on faculty participants. Inparticular, this study focused on three research questions: 1) What elements from the SICR dofaculty describe as practices that they continue to use in the design and implementation of
Technical College, where he also serves as the director of the Center for Renewable Energy Advanced Technological Education (CREATE). Dr. Walz is also an adjunct professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Wiscon- sin. He has served as teacher for the UW Delta Center for Integrating Research, Teaching and Learning, and has mentored several graduate students who completed teaching internships while creating new in- structional materials for renewable energy and chemical education. Dr. Walz is also an instructor with the Wisconsin K-12 Energy Education Program (KEEP), delivering professional development courses in energy science for public school teachers. Dr. Walz is an alumnus of the
&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
. She received her Ph.D. in Engineering Education at Utah State University with a research focus on the ethical and career aspects of mentoring of science and engineering graduate students and hidden curriculum in engineering. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Lessons learned about fostering curricular changeIntroductionDespite the numerous calls for institutional change to engineering curriculum, the wayengineering has been taught has not changed significantly over the last century [1], [2]. Tocounter this, the National Science Foundation put out a call for proposals to design and enactnew approaches to engineering education focused on organizational and cultural change