benefits of such a researchcommunity, including capacity development, networking, emotional support, impact onprofessional identity, social and environmental impact, and breaking borders. Goldsmith et al. [6]used autoethnography to share their journey into engineering education research by engaging asa research community, the Centre for Research in Engineering & Information TechnologyEducation in Australia. They identified the crucial role of this community in establishing a safespace for the growth of novice engineering educators for both knowledge-building andsocialization. Furthermore, Jensen et al. [7] described an NSF grant-based mentoring program inthe United States, Research Initiation in Engineering Formation, which paired
researchprocess. The term research mindset is used in the extant literature, but no theoretical base for theusage of this term has been established. The following work-in-progress study is a first attemptto understand the attributes of the research mindset among engineering doctoral researchers.Interviews were conducted with seven early career engineering researchers. Initial findingssuggest that research mindset is comprised of six attributes: (1) open-mindedness, (2) believingin oneself and the research, (3) persistence, (4) honesty, (5) being critical, and (6) a writingmindset. The findings from this study provide a foundation for further explorations of researchmindset.IntroductionA mindset is a psychological framework that shapes an individual's
1980s, ‘convergence’ has become a familiar term in conversationson science and engineering policy. This was, of course, a result of multiple factors that includethe rise of ‘Big Science’ projects such as the Human Genome Project, the digital revolutionacross a range of scientific disciplines, and the growing awareness of the interconnected natureof scientific, environmental, and social challenges. While the idea of convergence offers a general framework for the generation andintegration of knowledge that needs to exist beyond disciplinary boundaries, the initial emphasiswas on the overlapping areas of technological research among nanotechnology, biotechnology,information technology, and cognitive science [8]. In 2016, the U.S. National
thepotential to prepare graduate students to tackle challenging problems in industry and academiaafter graduation. In the article, we first define convergence methodologies, and review theliterature related to the initiation, adoption, and barriers of convergence research. We then shareour proposed ConGrad Education Framework that uniquely combines convergence, learningby teaching, and project-based learning. We discuss the goals and requirements of thisexperiential learning program. We offer one graduate student’s experience as preliminary supportfor the proposed program.2 Literature ReviewThe concept of convergence has been gaining traction in the world of academia, since the launchof the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Convergence Accelerator
Paper ID #47927A co-curricular research communication community of practice: Developingresearch communication competencies for engineering education graduatestudentsDr. Jen (Jennifer) Herman, The Ohio State University Dr. Jennifer Herman is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Department of Engineering Education at the Ohio State University, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate level courses in technical and research communication. Her research interests include research writing pedagogy and undergraduate development of sociotechnical thinking.Leah Wahlin, The Ohio State University Leah Wahlin is a Senior
undergraduate researchers in order to support additional development of themodels. Methodology/Approach: This study follows best practices in systematic literaturereviews as described by Borrego, Foster, and Froyd in their 2014 paper: Systematic LiteratureReviews in Engineering Education and Other Developing Interdisciplinary Fields. In particular,this study will evaluate the existing literature on undergraduate research mentoring relationshipswith graduate students. Findings/Conclusions: The initial database keyword search found 1208articles. After applying various inclusion criteria, 63 articles were included in this systematicliterature review. The findings of this study show the various ways that graduate student-undergraduate research mentoring
certified as an EFL and ESL teacher as well as a School Principal. Ari’s research and language revitalization interests include Mikasuki, Salish Ql’ispe (aka Salish-Pend d’Oreille, Montana Salish, and Flathead Salish) and Safaliba. His ethnographic work documents situated practice in grassroots policy initiatives and school-based activism among the Safaliba in rural Ghana. His language documentation includes conceptual metaphors and formulaic language in Salish Ql’ispe and Safaliba. He also explores applications of task-based language teaching in the pedagogy of revitalization. His practitioner papers analyze integrated content and language instruction, academic English instruction for graduate students, and asset-based
remains one of the highest among allundergraduate students (Science and engineering indicators, 2006 ; Tinto, 1993). This leads tolow ranking in terms of the supply of STEM professionals and threatens the nation's economicdominance in the global marketplace. As a result, a considerable amount of research has beengenerated to develop intervention and preventative initiatives, including mentorship programsthat address the primary causes of student attrition from STEM fields. Less than half of students who enroll in STEM undergraduate programs as first-yearstudents graduate with a STEM degree at the national level (Hayes et al., 2009). In part as aresult of these high attrition rates, the United States has a consistently low ranking in terms
, presentations, and web materials to support numerous initiatives related to graduate student professional development, graduate assistant training, and other enrolled student services.Dawayne WhittingtonJuanda Johnson-Taylor ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 NCLSAMP Bridges to the Doctorate: Preparing future minority Ph.D. researchers (PFMPR) through a holistic graduate student development modelIntroductionWhile there are initiatives, such as the Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate(AGEP) embedded in universities across the country that focus on preparing the next generationof science, technology, engineering, and math scholars who are prepared to enter the STEM
Paper ID #37307Graduate Research Experience and Transitioning to Grad School (GREaTGradS): A New Approach to Graduate-School Onboarding for MarginalizedGroupsAlyssa V. B. Santos, Pennsylvania State University Alyssa (Bienvenu) Santos is a sixth-year graduate student in theoretical and computational chemistry. Her work includes the study of geometry optimization techniques as well as binding energy and stability of N-heterocyclic carbenes on coinage metal surfaces and nanoparticles.Sarah J. Boehm, Pennsylvania State UniversityDr. Fadi Castronovo, California State University, East Bay Hi! My name is Fadi Castronovo, I am an
courses,and a short description of these courses can be found on our university Graduate School website[9].For students’ professional development, the NRT offered a seminar series in the fall and springsemesters, which included eight sessions (twice a month) each semester. NRT Seminar is a 0-credit hour seminar that has been offered on a Credit/No Credit basis. Students completed up tofour semesters of NRT Seminar. The NRT Seminar consisted of training sessions related toinclusion, career pathways, campus resources, skill development to communicate acrossdisciplines and to diverse audiences, and exposure to FEW research initiatives. Internal orexternal guest speakers gave talks during seminar. Students completed a reflection activity aftereach
printing.” NM1 also pointed out thatmastering the skills, and learning about research fundamentals and research methodology inchemistry happened mostly through engagement in the projects: “(…) it was really just using those skill sets, learning how to use the different equipment such as the UTM, DMA, DSC, TGA, through-through that experience. And then reading papers, learning how to do the synthesis on that project. So that's where I did develop a lot of the hands-on skills, or yeah, hands-on skills.”NM1’s understanding of self-directed learning, as a process initiated by students who then decidewhat and how to learn a skill or knowledge related to their research projects corroborates ourearlier observations in MHR and
insights generated from the initial implementation of a journeymapping methodology and this methodology’s ability to inform doctoral program design andassessment. This paper explores journey mapping as a UX method for researching and assessing doctoralengineering programs and offers preliminary findings from journey mapping data collection. Asresearch participants, doctoral engineering students create journey maps to identify programexperiences that range from highly positive to highly negative in their personal identitydevelopment as engineering researchers. Among the most frequent experiences identified asdevelopmental were courses, projects and assignments, and individual research; less frequent butnevertheless key experiences were
included a unique question or set of questions related to themes actively beinguncovered in the previous interview’s analysis, including the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic(reported elsewhere) and views on role conflict between teaching and research. Interviews wereaudio recorded on Zoom and transcribed verbatim by an approved external service.ResultsWe present an overview of our qualitative results, including the top ten most frequently reportedstressors in our sample and a list of coping strategies, accompanied by the percentage ofparticipants who described these strategies in their initial interviews.RQ1: Top Stressors.Our analysis thus far has produced more than 5,000 coded interview segments applying 173 totalcodes, with 117 codes
continuity between quarters andtopics. During the first meeting in Fall 2023, the students and faculty members held abrainstorming session to determine key topics that would be beneficial to those involved with theSTEM Ed course. Some of the topic ideas included: ● Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) training ● How to create a Plan of Study ● How to prepare and give a research proposal ● Dissertation writing tips ● Accessing library resources ● Survey InstrumentsThe environment of the STEM Ed course meetings is casual with most time allotted to opendiscussion and sharing one’s experience of the topic for the day. Specific time during eachmeeting is set aside to
programwas offered formally starting in Fall 2022.5.1. Student engagementAs the P3 program was being developed and vetted by stakeholders, engagement of a few studentswas initiated by offering them co-advising by an industry researcher and courses on essential skillsas test balloons of their interest. Although the guidance from industry co-adviser at this stage wasunstructured, the response from the students was very positive. Only the students of a handful offaculty advisers, who were already promoters of the P3 model, received its above-mentionedcomponents.Development and offering of essential skills courses exactly as recommended by industryparticipants required expertise that did not fully exist. Therefore, to get started the students
Paper ID #40184Perceived Advisor Support and Thesis Self-Efficacy: An InstrumentDevelopmentAbimelec Mercado Rivera, Arizona State University Abimelec Mercado Rivera is a Puerto Rican doctoral student and graduate research assistant in the En- gineering Education Systems and Design program at Arizona State University. Abimelec received his Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez (UPRM) in 2016. After working in the aerospace industry, he returned to the UPRM for his MS in Mechanical Engineering in 2017, where he pursued ways to tailor ideation methods to interdisciplinary
faculty or their students. The aim wasto frame advising using the 3Cs.Mentorship 360, a multi-university initiative that includes members of KEEN, seeks to improvethe mentorship of engineering faculty through the creation of research, frameworks, andresources informed by the EM [24]. The initiative outlines three overarching themes about thegoals of their work, which include (1) instigating the advancement of faculty mentorship, (2)connecting faculty to share professional development opportunities, and (3) contributing to theknowledge base about faculty mentorship related to EM. Our work developing and administeringthese workshops connects to the themes outlined by Mentorship 360 by (1) instigating facultymentorship by using the 3Cs as a framing
Fluid Dynamics (LMCFD). Starting with his Ph.D. research at Texas A&M University, Dr. RDr. Mesbah Uddin, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Dr. Mesbah Uddin is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s Williams States Lee College of Engineering. He is currently leading Charlotte’s new multidisciplinary public-private research partnership initiative, Digital Design and Optimization (DDO), which is intended to strengthen Charlotte’s connections to North Carolina defense and security-related companies interested in multidisciplinary advanced manufacturing, engineering design and optimization, computer science and cybersecurity, and
collaborative autoethnographic approach [48] used tosystematically, iteratively, and critically incorporate the knowledge, expertise, experience,propositions, and practices which include an iterative process that deepens the experiences of theparticipants and researchers. This paper will focus on identifying the issues and conflicts that arose,how the team managed them, and extrapolate the topics as areas that are yet to be addressed andstudied in the context of mentoring relationships in engineering, via a pro-Black approach [14].Research Process Overview During the entire research, from conception to execution, the first three authors engaged ina series of conversations as the research process was conceived and initiated. Example talkingpoints
Ph.D. research at Texas A&M University, Dr. RDr. Mesbah Uddin, University of North Carolina, Charlotte Dr. Mesbah Uddin is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s Williams States Lee College of Engineering. He is currently leading Charlotte’s new multidisciplinary public-private research partnership initiative, Digital Design and Opti- mization (DDO), which is intended to strengthen Charlotte’s connections to North Carolina defense and security-related companies interested in multidisciplinary advanced manufacturing, engineering design and optimization, computer science and cybersecurity, and manufacturing innovation. He is currently
interviews with each participant is provided below.Participant 1 (P1): P1, a fifth-year architectural engineering graduate student, initially intendedto pursue a master's degree and enter industry but decided to stay for a Ph.D. due to his passionfor research. He learned about the seminar through his wife and enrolled to gain valuableknowledge and feedback without dedicating excessive time. P1's expectations included learningabout the interview process, preparing application materials, and exploring non-academicopportunities. The seminar broadened his understanding of career options, provided insights intocrafting application documents, and facilitated peer review. He believes the seminar surpassedhis expectations to some extent, although he
initiallyguided principally by the top-down approach that aims to initiate changes in the engineeringgraduate education systems, students’ perspectives were actively sought by engaging doctoralstudents from the department in a focus group. Broadly similar interview questions, designed tobetter focus on our research questions and adapted to fit the target group, were asked of doctoralstudents, as presented in Table 3TABLE 2 Mapping overarching research questions: faculty and administrator focus groupTargeted QuestionsRQ1: Current General Advising Support Structures and Expectations 1. Please outline the strategies or initiatives your department employs to foster effective graduate student advising. Specifically, how does your department ensure
Paper ID #42628Skill Development of Engineering and Physical Science Doctoral Students:Understanding the Role of Advisor, Faculty, and Peer InteractionsAbdulrahman Alsharif, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Abdulrahman Alsharif is a research assistant for the Engineering Education Department and a PhD candidate at Virginia Tech.Dr. Maya Denton, University of Oklahoma Maya Denton is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Pathways in the Gallogly College of Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. She received her B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Purdue University, and her M.S. in Environmental Engineering
theory and facilitating interdisciplinary graduate programs; the identity development and experiences of interdisciplinary engineering graduate students and faculty; and the decision-making processes and factors impacting implementation of interdisciplinary graduate education initiatives. She works as a graduate research assistant for the Virginia Tech Disaster Resilience and Risk Management interdisciplinary graduate program, as well as for the VT Center for Refugee, Migrant, and Displacement Studies.Dr. Marie C. Paretti, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Marie C. Paretti is a Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she directs the Virginia Tech Engineering Communications Center
leadership developmentprogram that includes both individual and small group mentoring by faculty and administrators,as well as peer-mentoring by past program participants. Each Fellow develops an individualproject that contributes to the success and well-being of our graduate student community. Recentexamples range from coordinating a series of “Lunch & Learn” seminars and assisting with theannual Graduate Research Symposium to organizing social activities and developing newslettercontent.In its first five years, the MSU Engineering Graduate Leadership Fellows program has evolvedsubstantially and adapted to challenges like the global pandemic and shifts in graduate students’priorities and needs. Initially, the program had a “top down” structure
, and walking her dogs with her partner.Miss Emily Garcia, Purdue University Emily Garcia is an Industrial Engineering PhD student at Purdue University where she served as a Grad- uate Mentoring Fellow under the Mentoring Fellows Program, a 5-year initiative by the Graduate School to improve mentoring at Purdue. As a Graduate Mentoring Fellow, Emily represented graduate students in the College of Engineering and worked with others to improve mentoring relationships between engi- neering faculty and graduate students. Emily earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Berkeley in 2020 in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research. She now focuses on optimizing decision-making support systems
/highschool (MHS) summer experience, the graduate school through University of Maryland,Baltimore County (UMBC), and UMBC’s College of Engineering and Information Technology(COEIT). Together, these three groups established an innovative fellowship opportunity focusedon advancing scholarly research, teaching, and learning as well as graduate student careerpreparation. Departing from traditional training methods, this innovative professionaldevelopment program aims to involve engineering graduate students in crafting evidence-basedlesson plans for MHS summer programming. Drawing inspiration from the most effectiveapproaches in both higher education and P12 settings, this initiative also fosters an understandingof how to effectively interact with both
clarification of her subjective perspectives on the researched phenomena withinher narratives [70]. She analyzed her collated data inductively and deductively to examine herchallenges and navigational strategies employed during her inaugural semester. All diary entrieswere initially imported into the qualitative software Dedoose for deductive and inductive analysisto identify codes and develop themes. Utilizing the six stages of thematic analysis suggested byBraun & Clarke [71], Mary began coding her autoethnography dataset by first familiarizing herselfwith it by reading through it to identify meanings and patterns. She maintained a consistent memohabit as she read, noting any observed meaning or changes in thought.For the first research question
andengineering research and education across various disciplines. Industry initiatives were funded bycompanies such as Boeing, Microsoft Corporation, Linked In, and the United States Coast Guard.It is important to note that these results aim to compare the number of workforce developmentprograms funded by academia versus industry; therefore, it is not a monetary comparison of thefunding received by these workforce development programs.In terms of targeted industries, there were 13 industries targeted during the development ofworkforce development programs (see Figure 4). The most targeted industries were STEM andSmart Manufacturing, along with civil engineering comprising 34% of the total targeted industries.STEM/Smart manufacturing and civil