she studied ”Freedom and Moral Development in Aristotle and Rousseau.” Following her Ph.D. she worked at Boston University’s Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Culture as a Research Associate at and then as an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Boston College from 2000 to 2002. Currently she works as an Educational consultant at Murray Hill Place in New York City.Moira M. Walsh, Independent scholar Ph.D., Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, 1998 Dr. Walsh worked at the Boston University Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Character between 1995 and 2000, where she helped to create The National Schools of Character Awards evaluation rubric. She has taught ethics and philosophy at Notre
ethics of academic integrityremain a live and active issue for the modern engineering student.Research Question and Broader Research Direction The primary research question driving this research study involves gaining a betterappreciation of student, faculty, and stakeholder views on modern engineering professionalethics. There is reason to believe that views may be changing, including because of changesengineering educators are seeing in their students coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic (see,e.g., Sottile et al., 2021, 2022). Ultimately, such information could be utilized to developeducational interventions such as the creation of a professional ethics micro-credential. Micro-credentials, whose value has been noted in the literature
Supervisor Spotlight Award in 2014, received the College of Engineering Graduate Student Mentor Award in 2018, and was inducted into the Virginia Tech Academy of Faculty Leadership in 2020. Dr. Matusovich has been a PI/Co-PI on 19 funded research projects including the NSF CAREER Award, with her share of funding being nearly $3 million. She has co-authored 2 book chapters, 34 journal publications, and more than 80 conference papers. She is recognized for her research and teaching, including Dean’s Awards for Outstanding New Faculty, Outstanding Teacher Award, and a Faculty Fellow. Dr. Matusovich has served the Educational Research and Methods (ERM) division of ASEE in many capacities over the past 10+ years including
that extend beyond ourprofession.We developed this paper over a series of four group conversations. In our conversations, weexplored our experiences, discussed the relevant literature, and ultimately drafted our ideasregarding women’s recruitment and retention in undergraduate ECE programs. It is not our intentto provide a comprehensive retrospective on these issues. Instead, we address some importantissues that have either been unexplored or not explained well in the literature.In this paper, we do not distinguish “our view” into a student view and a faculty view. Instead,we recognize that we have a common view as engineers, but different views as students andfaculty. We believe that our perspective is strengthened by our complementary
. Hammond is a PI for over 13 million in funded research, from NSF, DARPA, Google, Microsoft, and others. Hammond holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science and FTO (Finance Technology Option) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and four degrees from Columbia University: an M.S in Anthropology, an M.S. in Computer Science, a B.A. in Mathematics, and a B.S. in Applied Mathematics and Physics. Hammond advised 17 UG theses, 29 MS theses, and 10 Ph.D. dissertations. Hammond is the 2020 recipient of the TEES Faculty Fellows Award and the 2011 recipient of the Charles H. Barclay, Jr. ’45 Faculty Fellow Award. Hammond has been featured on the Discovery Channel and other news sources. Hammond is dedicated to diversity and
not, like, 100% ethical. But I'm not sure. (Carrie, Graduate Student, Interview #1, Line 334)Faculty participants were in total agreement that the case study contained ethical issues. Theywere most concerned with how sharing personal information affected their ability to maintainpersonal and professional boundaries. They also mentioned reporting obligations andconfidentiality as ethical issues for this case study.B. Emerging Theme 1: Expected ethical behaviors in research mentoring relationshipsParticipants revealed many ethical obligations for mentors and mentees when presented with thesix case studies. Graduate students focused almost exclusively on what the ethical behaviors theywould expect from their mentor if they were placed in a
issue wasexacerbated by the nature of the research process itself, with periods of time when the workloadwas intense contrasted with periods where scholars felt “there was nothing to do.”Tenured faculty participants expressed concern for untenured faculty involvement in the Page 9.1060.2program. Tenured faculty mentioned the lack of value given by departmental chairs for“Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Education”involvement in so called “women’s or girl’s” programs. RISE is a high quality
Paper ID #18518Accelerating Biomedical Innovation in Academia: Leveraging Academic Dis-coveries to Meet the Needs of Both Faculty and StudentsDr. Katherine E. Reuther, Columbia University Katherine E. Reuther, Ph.D., is the Director of Master’s Studies and a Lecturer in Biomedical Engineering at Columbia University and the Co-Director of the Columbia-Coulter Translational Research Partnership. She is is working on developing new instructional tools and programs to enhance graduate education in the Department of Biomedical Engineering. She has spearheaded the development of a graduate-level Biomedical Design program that
at the host institution. We believe thisspecific focus will further reduce concern about participation and may increase applications.One source of error identified in this study related to the need for graduate students to serve ashired labor for faculty to maintain funded work. The need for hired labor may be superseding thegoals and ambitions of the graduate student. We believe that the finding of a conflict betweenhired labor and program participation highlights the need to rethink this issue. As noted inBorrego and Henderson (2014), we know that faculty reward structures can both help and hinderchange in higher education. We pose the question: What faculty reward structures cansimultaneously allow graduate students to prepare for their
2006-2029: CAN ASSESSMENT BE A MARKETING TOOL FOR YOURPROGRAM? THE ROLES OF ASSESSMENT, STUDENT SUCCESS ANDFACULTY IN PROGRAM SUCCESSKim Nankivell, Purdue University-CalumetJana Whittington, Purdue University-CalumetJoy Colwell, Purdue University-Calumet Page 11.303.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006 Can Assessment be a Marketing Tool for Your Program? The Roles of Assessment, Student Success and Faculty in Program SuccessAbstractThe growth of technology in the last fifteen years has not only restructured existing degreeoptions but has also created new avenues for a quality education. Institutions have recognized theneed for marketing and promoting, but
to individual abilities or concerns but must be addressed as issues stemmed from socialorder. Therefore, complex social and cultural contexts should be placed at the center inaddressing the persistence of the women in the academy. Our research hopes to contribute toilluminating the complexity of the experiences of the women faculty and highlighting theirpersistence despite the structural constraints to them. Conclusions This work in progress has the potential to add to empirical research about WOC inengineering. Using intersectionality as a frame of analysis will allow the team to definepersistence from psychology and sociological perspectives. This national survey will becomepart of a
still a problem which needsoversight and control where possible. There is a concern that growth will plateau when the pentup demand for this degree has been met, but the growth to date shows no sign of reaching aplateau. Given the significant foreign student interest and the rate of growth without muchadvertising, it seems that the growth is still rising at least for the short term.As an aid to others who may be facing similar issues, the table below is included with somesuggestions for consideration.Table 1: Suggestions for planning for new programPending Approval of Degree Post Approval—Degree OfferedBegin initial curriculum planning with faculty: Prepare Finalize three year plan of course
faculty member secured a funded teaching fellowship to enhanceexisting and grow new group-based, project-driven modules in the Bachelor of ElectricalEngineering program. He had worked with his college’s Head of Learning Development to createhis fellowship proposal. The awarding of this fellowship was aligned with Walker and Laurence’s(2005) recommendation to support the activities of organizing, planning meetings, researching andpublicizing issues, and educating stakeholders about “appropriate actions to take” (p. 268). Itencouraged the fellow to take such a role.During the teaching fellowship a group of seven (five staff members, one Fulbright scholar, andthe Head of Learning Development) met once a month to discuss issues regarding
Bowe (2021) point out, “[c]ase studies are considered to be the mostpopular method to teach engineering ethics” (p. 47). Case studies are so ubiquitous inengineering ethics education practice that some engineering faculty cannot articulate why theyhave chosen to adopt the pedagogical approach in their own classrooms. As case studies areconceptualized for this purpose by the profession, students inductively (Merry, 1954) considersituations or scenarios intended to simulate things they may see in professional practice (Herreid,1994). Despite their popularity, utilizing case studies is not entirely without concern. While casestudies sync well with problem-based learning currently in vogue in engineering education, caseselection and design has
Page 13.161.3men (especially in the first three years).4 A 2005 report from a study by the UniversityCommittee on Women at ISU provided a more complete assessment of the status of womenfaculty in engineering, analyzing both numerical and anecdotal data from faculty interviews.Analyzing these data, the report articulated key issues of concern for women faculty and madesuggestions for improving both recruitment and retention of women.5 Many of the results fromthis study are similar to the results of the studies performed in preparation for securing this NSFADVANCE grant for ISU, including concerns about isolation, mentoring, transparencies ofpolicies regarding promotion and tenure, and balancing work and family.While the focus of this paper is
minor changes, and 14.4%made significant changes. Of the 166 faculty who had courses with a lab component, 9.1%discontinued the lab, 64.6% made minor changes and 26.2% made significant changes. Thefaculty also reported more concerns about academic integrity issues: 23.1% of the facultyobserved more integrity issues than under normal circumstances after the move online.The Computer Science faculty felt higher levels of stress in shifting online. When asked ifshifting to online teaching was difficult and stressful, 24.8% strongly agreed and 41.6% agreed.Most faculty reported challenges while teaching online. 74.6% of faculty felt it was hard toimplement their preferred teaching style and 65.6% of faculty felt that it took a lot more timeteaching
including lead authorship of an invited article in the 100th Anniversary issue of JEE and for an invited chapter on translation of research to practice for the first edition of the Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research. He serves as an Associate Editor for Advances in Engineering Education and on the Advisory Board for the Journal of Engineering Education. He was selected as a Fellow of ASEE in 2008 and of ASME in 2012. He holds a B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from Penn State, an M.Eng. in Mechanical Engineering from RPI, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Princeton. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Creating Faculty Buy-In for Ethics
.” Page 15.1101.2With variable usage of the adjective “adjunct” and the noun “professor” it is not surprising thatthe title Adjunct Professor has variations in meaning and uses at our colleges and universities.Several examplesabstracted from policies issued by educational institutions can be found inAppendix A.It is evident that policies developed for adjunct faculty within various institutionsvaryconsiderably concerning defined roles and responsibilities, credential requirements forappointment, compensation, length of appointment, involvement in department policy andcurricula planning, etc. Understandably, these variations as well as vagaries in definition, asoutlined above, cause considerable confusion and uncertainty in the engineering
methodological development. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 A Qualitative Methods Primer: A Resource to Assist Engineering Education Scholars in Mentoring Traditionally-Trained Engineering Faculty to Educational ResearchAbstract This research methods full paper presents a primer on qualitative analysis methodsintended to be a resource for experienced qualitative engineering education researchers tocommunicate the basics of qualitative research methods to traditionally-trained technicalengineering faculty embarking on educational research initiatives. The recognition and growth ofengineering education has drawn new
instrument to measure social and cognitive engagementBackgroundOver the last decade, numerous calls for change in the engineering curriculum and contentdelivery have been made. Following these recommendations, the field of engineering educationsaw research on the development and implementation of several learning innovation andinstructional practices. However, while there has been extensive research examining barriers andaffordances to the adoption of teaching practices and curriculum, much less work has been doneon assessment instruments. In addition, research highlights there is generally resistance on thepart of faculty members when it comes to adopting new practices. This resistance often stemsfrom faculty feeling as though that their input was
engineering disciplines, in particular, may suffer from challenges associated with alack of faculty engagement. While faculty interactions have been found to be correlated with asense of belonging (Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow, & Salomone, 2002) and the intention topersist in engineering (Morrow & Ackermann, 2012), in reality these interactions can be at bestinsignificant, and at worst extremely damaging. Marra, Rodgers, Shen, and Bogue (2012)described challenging issues of uncomfortable “classroom climates,” which could adverselyimpact student retention rates in engineering. Hong and Shull (2010) found undergraduates whodescribed professors as unkind, demeaning, or uninterested in aiding them in a holistic manner.Undergraduates in Hong and
changed successive offerings of the new course.Finally, students were selected for one-on-one interviews to describe their experiences withcourse evaluations or their perceptions of what a course evaluation is used for in the case offreshman that have never completed a course evaluation. These interviews specifically probedthe issue of what students think faculty do with their course evaluations, and to gather primarydata on what students think are the pros and cons of the existing online course evaluation system.SurveyMonkey.com ® was used was to electronically distribute the survey to students andfaculty. The response data was exported from SurveyMonkey and imported into Microsoft Excel®, where it was treated as ordinal data and analyzed
Grand Challenge Scholars Program and is also active in development of integrated and innovative STEM curricula, issues related to the success of women in STEM and innovative use of technology in STEM education.Dr. D. Patrick O’Neal, Louisiana Tech UniversityLori L Bakken, University of Wisconsin-Madison Dr. Bakken is an associate professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, School of Human Ecology and an affiliate faculty member in the School of Education. She has developed, implemented and evaluated research education programs in the medical field for the past 15 years. Her research focuses on the role of learning experiences in career development. Dr. Bakken most notable for her work in clinical
, Purdue University, West Lafayette Dr. Alice L. Pawley is an assistant professor in the School of Engineering Education and an affiliate faculty member in the Women’s Studies Program at Purdue University. She has a B.Eng. in Chemical Engineering from McGill University, and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in Industrial and Systems Engineering with a Ph.D. minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is Co-PI and Research Director of Purdue University’s ADVANCE program, and PI on the Assessing Sustainability Knowledge project. She runs the Research in Feminist Engineering (RIFE) group, whose projects are described at the group’s website, http://feministengineering.org/. She is interested in creating new
• Showcase new resources • Display are for student and faculty research or projects • Specific learning areas for different disciplines.Comments from the focus groups on the actual physical space: • Coffee shop/healthy food • Combination of seating options, both for study and for lounging • Place for readings or musical performances; spaces to encourage student and faculty interaction • Higher quality lighting; bringing nature in with plants and the exterior views • Use color to differentiate the areas • Deal with the acoustic issues • Artwork and displays on the walls • Place for each college to congregate and communicate Page
• Team members able to bring problem to supervisor if needed Teamwork Observations and Scoring Both an observation checklist and open-ended observation were used in monitoringteamwork. While the checklist structured the collection of essential data on engineering relatedskill performance as described above, open-ended observations provided an opportunity tocollect data on other issues that might impact student learning. Teamwork was also scored basedon observations of teamwork behavior described above. Since the 6 student teams in the Mentored group needed to meet often with their faculty
serviceorganization is Rotary International, which is a NGO service organization that has beendedicated to service of a diverse range of services and projects that meet the broad guidance of“does it promote goodwill and is it beneficial to all concerned.” Rotary International grew fromthe efforts started by Paul Harris, Gustavus Loehr, Silvester Schiele, and Hiram Shorey in 1905in Chicago, Illinois. The four professionals decided to call the new club “Rotary” after thepractice of rotating meeting locations among the members. The club was promoted as a placewhere professionals with diverse backgrounds could exchange ideas and collaborate to formlifelong friendships and serve their communities. By 1912 the Rotary Club become aninternational organization and by
arid soils, piled foundations, pavement design & materials, and concrete durability. His interests also include: contemporary issues of engineering education in general, and those of the Middle East and the Arab Gulf States in particular. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 On the Contribution of Adjunct Engineering Faculty to Learning Programs: Enhancing the Practice and Providing Guidance to Solving Real ProblemsAbstract: The paper (an Evidence-based Practice paper) examines the status quo of adjunctfaculty in engineering institutions and argues for the positive contributions adjuncts, withpractical experience, could make by bringing their experience into the classroom. Also, in
“FabLab” (short for fabricationlaboratory) and not a “makerspace,” and some of the activities that were undertaken to make thebeta version of the lab a reality. It highlights the efforts that were made to reach out to faculty,specifically faculty in the College of Engineering, to encourage them to integrate various hands-on learning activities in their courses, and get them to use the FabLab as a space to apply andreinforce classroom learning. The paper also discusses the long-term vision for the lab.IntroductionAs the University of Texas at Arlington was positioning to achieve Tier One status (recognitionas a world-class research university), the arrival of a new Dean of Libraries in 2012 signaled thebeginning of a new era. Shortly after her
their faculty, with increased communication about teachingSTEM, inquiry-based learning, and cross-curricular activities. The project received numerouscompliments from principals; some of those remarks concerned increased parental engagement. Therewas a strong consensus across remarks made by all principals that there had been a shift in schoolculture and also greatly increased collaboration between teachers. Overall, the project appeared tosupport a “useful model” 33 for helping teachers to make modifications in their teaching, as there waswide (but not uniform) adoption of new practices. Our data suggest that whole school approaches toprofessional development can have profound impact on the culture of the school and associatedcommunity.Mentors