engineeringfaculty in traditional disciplines with experienced engineering education researchers to conducteducational research in engineering. Such mentoring relationships facilitated professionaldevelopment and authentic engagement for novice faculty and helped reduce the uncomfortablefeeling of “imposter syndrome” in the new field of inquiry. A key observation of the literature summarily described shows that extant studies primarilyfocus on faculty development. Worldwide, numerous graduate programs focusing on engineeringeducation have been established, which ushers in the argument that graduate students could alsobenefit from such formal or informal communities outside their programs [3]. Emerging researchon the experiences of international graduate
AC 2012-4876: ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IN SUPPORT OF SIX SIGMAAND INNOVATION: CAN IT CO-EXIST?Mr. Sai Bhanu Prasad Chennupati, Purdue University, West Lafayette Sai Chennupati is currently pursuing a M.S. in industrial technology at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. He is interested in Six Sigma, finance, supply chain management, lean manufacturing, and innova- tion. He received his B.E in mechanical engineering from PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India.Dr. Chad M. Laux, Purdue University, West Lafayette Chad Laux is an Assistant Professor in the Industrial Technology Department at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. He teaches courses in Lean manufacturing, and Six Sigma Quality. His research
path forward including (i) resubmission after modifications for external review, (ii)submitting the results for publication in a journal and reverting to the traditional track, or (iii)directly proceeding to produce a written dissertation. While there are no special designations onthe diploma, program information is available on the university’s website. Graduates who havepatent work on their vitas will draw attention to the nature of th graduate program.Figure 1: Current and proposed Ph.D. RoadmapsCurriculum Study of the PAtENT ProgramPAtENT addresses limitations in engineering doctoral programs of study. The program sought torespond to recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, andMedicine [2]. Researching
thecompletion of their thesis or dissertation is crucial, as it could most closely proxy for degreecompletion from a motivational perspective. Additionally, as engineering generally follows the“science model of advising”, where advising relationships are characterized by closecollaboration in research projects [6], [8], this relationship becomes a critical contextual to astudent’s success. Thus, the purpose of this study is to develop a survey instrument that can serveas a tool to relate engineering graduate students’ thesis self-efficacy to their perception of theiradvisor’s support. Drawing on previous work that explored the constructs of “Dissertation Self-efficacy” [13] and a student’s perceptions of “Advisor Behavior” [8], the development of
develop a community withpeers in the same field.Two faculty members, who are active STEM education researchers, have instituted a newseminar series specifically for these students that is designed to realign the course withengineering education topics, continuously improve the Ph.D. curriculum, and assist students ontheir Ph.D. paths. The group of faculty and students began meeting every other week to discusstopics specifically related to STEM education and the needs of graduate school in lieu ofattending the general engineering seminars. This new seminar series covers multiple topicsapplicable to students in STEM education, including developing a plan of study, writing andpresenting a proposal for a dissertation, and on-campus graduate
careers; and 3) the skills they feel were missingfrom their graduate experience or that they developed on the job.Analytical MethodologyThis study analyzes 178 slide decks from presentations across fourteen cohorts of the course,from winter 2020 to fall 2024. Six of these cohorts were made up of Chemical Engineeringstudents only, and seven were faculty-wide sections of the course, consisting of students fromCivil, Mechanical and Industrial, Material Science, and Electrical and Computer Engineering.Each class was made up of both PhD and Masters research stream students.These 178 slide decks cover insights from 300 alumni. This discrepancy in numbers arises fromthe partnered presentation format described above, as well as students who elected to
Paper ID #48690Developing a survey instrument to measure graduate students’ mental healthexperiences: instrument generation and initial qualitative validationDr. Sarah Jane Bork, University of Georgia Dr. Sarah Jane (SJ) Bork is an Assistant Professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering with an emphasis on engineering education research. Dr. Bork’s research has focused on examining the mental health experiences of engineering graduate students. She has studied different areas (e.g., social factors, engineering culture, etc.) using a variety of research methods (e.g., regression analysis, photovoice, factor analysis
IIT Delhi for undergraduate studies and Cornell University for graduate work. He worked for nearly 15 years as a materials scientist at the DuPont company and moved in 2004 to Lehigh University. His research interests are in interfacial mechanical properties.Zilong Pan, Lehigh University Zilong Pan is an assistant professor of teaching, learning and technology, his research focuses on emerging educational technologies and innovative methodological approaches in educational practices and studies in STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) disciplines.Nathan Urban, Lehigh University Nathan Urban is Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at Lehigh University. Urban earned his PhD
in Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where he was a recipient of the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. His dissertation studied the teaching practices of engineering instructors during game-based learning activities, and how these practices affected student motivation. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Impact of financial anxiety and financial stress on the financial well-being of engineering graduate students in the United StatesIntroductionFinancial well-being plays an important role in the mental health of graduate students. Millionsof Americans are impacted by the significant and growing financial burden of the student loandebt crisis. In 2023, the
America'seconomic development; in order to stay competitive, the country needs a steady supply ofqualified scientists and engineers [1]. However, the workforce needs scientists with researchskills and the capacity to break new theoretical ground [2]. Therefore, the purpose of graduateeducation is to help students become scholars and researchers, not just highly certified workers[3]. To accomplish this goal, many STEM graduate students in the United States receive fundingsupport during their doctoral studies through several forms of funding, such as fellowships,research assistantships, and teaching assistantships [4, 5]. However, little is known aboutgraduate students’ skill development related to their funding mechanism(s); it is anticipated thatskills
. (2012). Challenges of Becoming a Scholar: A Study of Doctoral Students′ Problems and Well‐Being. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2012(1), 934941.[11]. Crede, E., & Borrego, M. (2012). Learning in graduate engineering research groups of various sizes. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 565-589.[12]. Wilson, D. M., Summers, L., & Wright, J. (2020). Faculty support and student engagement in undergraduate engineering. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 83-101.[13]. Kim, Y. (2007). Difficulties in quality doctoral academic advising: Experiences of Korean students. Journal of Research in International Education, 6(2), 171-193.[14]. Mofatteh, M. (2020). Risk
into classrooms at R2. The tool, developed in R1, aimsto improve novice programmers’ skills by offering real-time feedback during coding. This toolserves as a vehicle for the graduate student’s work, which is broadened and deepened through thepracticum. An outcome of this collaboration at the R2 institution is the formation of a committeeto streamline the process for inviting and hosting students and visiting researchers.IntroductionMotivating ProblemThe central motivating problem behind our research is the persistent challenge of effectively teach-ing programming skills to different student populations, particularly in high school and first-yearuniversity engineering courses. Traditional methods of instruction often struggle to provide timely
paper discussion. Section 4 discusses our fake papers and tests if studentscould determine if a paper was fake. Section 5 discusses the weakness of our experimentalapproach, describes how we might test it better in the future, and briefly discusses the quality ofthe intervention. Finally, section 6 provides a conclusion to this work, and more importantly, ourfuture work to more formally evaluate this work.2 Research on Educating Graduate StudentsCase-based learning is classified as an evidence-based instructional practice (EBIP); EBIPs in thebroad STEM-based fields have been identified and proven to be an effective teaching approach asviewed using several studies. We reference the following meta-studies as guidance on EBIPs:Ruiz-Primo et al
,there were multiple formats for conducting assessments of fundamental content knowledge,including oral exams, written exams, paper critique exams, or some mixture of these formats.About half of the programs included in this study required a specific research readinessassessment, which included oral and/or written components to demonstrate a doctoral students’ability and potential to successfully conduct graduate-level research.The tremendous variation across the dataset regarding formats and topics included as part of thepreliminary examination process in mechanical engineering programs suggests that the field isanything but homogeneous. Future work examining how individual staff, faculty, and studentsfeel about the efficacy and appropriateness
Paper ID #39415Conceptualizing Program Quality in Engineering Education Ph.D. ProgramsDr. Le Shorn Benjamin, University of Houston Dr. Le Shorn Benjamin has amassed over a decade of experience in the field of education. Her career spans local and international borders and have included roles in educational research, program administra- tion, higher education accreditation and K-12 teaching. She is the recipient of the Robert Newby Award for Diversity Efforts, the Central Michigan University College of Graduate Studies 2019 Outstanding Dissertation Award, a Central Michigan University Department of Educational Leadership
Mechanical Engineering, from IIT Delhi for undergraduate studies and Cornell University for graduate work. He worked for nearly 15 years as a materials scientist at the DuPont company and moved in 2004 to Lehigh University. His research interests are in interfacial mechanical properties.Volkmar Dierolf, Lehigh University Volkmar Dierolf is a Professor of Physics a Distinguished University Professor of Physics and Materials Science & Engineering at Lehigh University, where he has been a faculty member since 2000. He received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Utah in 1992 and a Habilitation in Experimental Physics from University of Paderborn, Germany in 2000. Dr. Dierolf’s research focuses on the study of
BusinessSchool to form the partnership across colleges. University collaborations were embarked uponwith the Graduate School, the Office of Assessment, and STEM departments through meetings.The recruitment team developed sustainable recruitment strategies to build a student pipeline,especially for under-represented students in STEM. To connect with other institutions potentiallyinterested in the PAtENT model, marketing strategies were also developed. A website wasdeveloped and dissemination planning at conference venues was planned. The research teamdevised a data collection and management plan, defined the comparison student group for study,and created instruments for measurement. Baseline instrumentation including a student surveyand university and
Metaphor: The Key to Communicating with Both Specialists and the Public While metaphor is vital to the development and spread of scientific knowledge, engineersmay overlook the critical role of metaphor in communicating their research to both specialist andnon-specialist audiences. Therefore, this study investigated how graduate-level engineeringstudents employed metaphor in both academic journal articles and scientific magazine articles. Ina writing and communication course, 14 graduate-level engineering students read an article aboutmetaphor in science, received a lesson on conceptual metaphor theory, and analyzed metaphor inarticles from The Best Science and Nature Writing. Finally, the students wrote both an academicarticle for a
Paper ID #47976Perception and Adaptation of First-Year International Graduate StudentsTowards Academic Writing: A Case Study at a School of EngineeringMr. Samuel Sola Akosile, Morgan State University Samuel Akosile is a Ph.D. student in Sustainable Infrastructure and Resilience Engineering at Morgan State University, within the Department of Civil Engineering. He currently works as a Research Assistant, contributing to innovative studies in the field of civil infrastructure. His primary research area focuses on sustainable design for pavement systems, aiming to develop environmentally responsible, durable, and cost
changes.To address the research question about dimensions of variation (and the design space), wefollowed a two phase approach inspired by DiSessa and Cobb’s reference to “locus ofrefinement” as a way of working toward theory building in research on educational innovation(DiSessa and Cobb, 2004). In our case, we saw how tracing loci of refinement represented onemeans of identifying important dimensions of the learning experiences being studied. Once adimension would be identified, then it could be further interrogated to see the kinds of wisdomthat over-time refinements offer. This concept of locus of refinement was thus our point ofdeparture. Because we were not yet convinced that every variation could be claimed asrefinements, we chose to focus on
Paper ID #43098Mapping the Departmental Doctoral Advising Landscape: A Case Study ofEngineering Doctoral Advising from Faculty and Student PerspectivesBrian M. Chan, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Brian Chan is a PhD student in the Department of Engineering Education and Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech. His primary research interests in engineering education encompass graduate education, student well-being, and strategies for continuous improvement.Dr. Mark Vincent Huerta, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Mark Huerta is an Assistant Professor in the
], [16]. Despite their substantial presence, alimited study focuses on understanding and documenting their educational experiences.Recognizing the intersectional status of international students of color in engineering programs,recent studies have begun to delve into their unique experiences [13], [17], [18], [19]. Thesestudents face challenges adjusting and acculturating to a new environment, suggesting potentialmoments of marginalization throughout their academic journey. Research indicates that attritioncan occur at any stage of an engineering graduate program [4], emphasizing the need tocomprehend experiences at all program stages. This study seeks to contribute to the engineeringeducation literature by providing insights into the challenges
% 25% 50% Tenure Track - 17% 83%Note 1: Percentage of participants interested in various post-graduate academic positions. Participants may haveselected more than one option.The cohort was divided into three peer review groups to provide feedback on each document.The groups were created based on self-selection of the type of position they planned to apply for:a tenure-track research focused position; teaching focused position; or a postdoctoral position.Since these types of positions have varying expectations for each document (e.g., length, content,audience), it seemed prudent to split the cohort such that each peer group was
as well [7], [8]. Many differences and similarities between these twopopulations in various levels of education have been noted, but these studies all focus morespecifically on the experience while actually in their respective programs. This paper aims toexamine other facets of the full-time and part-time student experience by exploring the ways inwhich their decision to attend graduate school may differ from one another. It will provideinsight into which factors matter most to these two different groups before they even begin theirstudent experience.Decision Making ProcessThe decision to pursue a graduate degree has been studied by many researchers. Certain articlesfocus on providing advice or instruction on how to navigate this difficult
. Degree programs were classified as STEM programs based onthe university’s list of STEM majors and/or their inclusion on the list of National ScienceFoundation Research Areas [16].ParticipantsIn this study, 32 neurodivergent graduate students participated in 13 focus groups and oneindividual interview. Due to unexpected scheduling conflicts experienced by multipleparticipants, one scheduled focus group had only one participant in attendance. Because theattendee was not able to reschedule, the session was conducted as an interview using the sameprotocol used in the focus groups. One participant from a STEM-adjacent field was removedfrom the data set in order to maintain a tighter focus on graduate students in fields clearlydefined as STEM
and certificate programs at 2-year institutions. Prior to joining the ASEE, he was the senior researcher at the American Association of University Professor and directed their national Faculty Salary Survey. He also developed a technical curriculum to train analysts for a national survey of languages in Ecuador while he was at the University of Illinois as a linguistic data analytics manager and member of their graduate faculty. He has a B.S. in Computer Science & Mathematics, a M.S. in Statistics from the University of Texas at San Antonio and a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Ottawa. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Development of a Climate
Paper ID #43390Increasing Teaching Efficacy in Engineering Graduate Students through theDevelopment and Facilitation of Summer Middle and High School STEMExperienceDr. Jamie R. Gurganus, University of Maryland, Baltimore County Dr. Jamie Gurganus is a faculty member in the Engineering and Computing Education Program. She is the Associate Director STEMed Research in the College of Engineering and Information Technology (COEIT). She also serves as the Director for the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL) in the graduate school. Her research is focused on solving problems relating to
the graduateexperience within the academic system. However, most faculty advisors are unaware of how tomentor holistically (considering students' mental, physical, and emotional well-being in additionto their academic work) to benefit their students and themselves. At the same time, graduatestudents are often unaware of how to approach their faculty advisors in a respectable yet firmmanner. At Clemson University, the EMPOWERS (Evaluating Mentoring Practices for OptimalWork-life balance in Education and Research in STEM graduate studies) program trains facultyadvisors on how to mentor using evidence-based techniques and to promote the mental, physicaland emotional well-being of their graduate students. Within EMPOWERS, faculty and
, and/or mentorship to navigate the graduate admissions andfunding processes. Unfortunately, the research and practice communities know very little aboutthe transition of low-income students from smaller institutions to graduate study at R1 institutions.To answer these questions and to build inter-organizational partnerships with other S-STEMs, weare planning to host a virtual summit, called the Supporting S-STEM Graduate TrajectoriesSummit with S-STEM leaders and relevant stakeholders supporting undergraduate students in theirengineering formation to identify pinch points for universities and student support offices inhelping students prepare, apply, and be competitive for acceptance into graduate school, withsupport of an S-STEM Hub
Paper ID #37470The Impact of a 16-Week Preparation Course on the TechnologicalPedagogical Content Knowledge of Graduate Teaching Assistants inEngineeringDr. Saadeddine Shehab, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Saadeddine Shehab is currently the Associate Director of Assessment and Research at the Siebel Center for Design (SCD) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He works with a group of under- graduate and graduate SCD scholars at SCD’s Assessment and Research Laboratory to conduct research that informs and evaluates the practice of teaching and learning human-centered design in formal and in- formal