) • Technical competency/technological knowledge/skills in the subject matter (up-to- 2. Faculty Teaching Techniques (FTT) date technical knowledge) 3. Faculty Commitment to Student • Computer hardware skills Success (FCSS) • Computer software skills • Knowledge of new and emerging technologies • Publications of technical papers and textbooks • Participation in
at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU)AbstractThis work-in-progress discusses the efforts of researchers focused on broadening participation inSTEM fields. The survey data discussed was collected from students, faculty, and administratorsfrom a single HBCU (Historically Black College and University) and focuses on the experiencesof students in STEM. The purpose of the survey was to identify critical areas of concern thatwarranted further investigation. Preliminary data suggest that future research studies shouldfocus on students’ confidence, study skills, and academic preparation as well as facultydevelopment. Also, future research studies will investigate data from additional HBCUs andidentify common areas of focus that
of color continue to be underrepresented among engineering faculty. Adiverse engineering faculty body is important because it increases the likelihood of equitablehiring practices and reduces the likelihood of a hostile workplace climate, among other reasons.In turn, research hypothesizes that a diverse engineering faculty body will attract, recruit, andretain diverse students to the engineering profession. While there are a bevy of research paperspublished every year to address this persistent concern, there are few new or innovative ideasinforming our theoretical groundwork for understanding these underrepresentations.Institutional ethnography (IE) is a method used in sociology to understand the experiences ofmarginalized people in
co-author on an engineering textbook, Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, which is used worldwide in over 250 institutions. Dr. Bailey has served as the Principal Investigator (PI) on several externally funded efforts, most recently for the RIT NSF ADVANCE Institu- tional Transformation grant (2012-2019). The goal of this large-scale ($3.4M), multi-year university-level organizational transformation effort is to increase the representation and advancement of women STEM faculty. The project has resulted in impactful new programs, practices, and policies as well as a new dedicated unit within the Office of the Provost.Dr. Naveen Sharma, Rochester Institute of TechnologyLana Verschage, Rochester Institute of
2006-526: STUDENT-GENERATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM A RESEARCH INSTRUMENT USED TOCAPTURE STUDENT, FACULTY, AND INDUSTRY PARTNER PERSPECTIVESAND EXPECTATIONSCraig Silvernagel, University of North Dakota Craig Silvernagel is Entrepreneurship Director at the University of North Dakota (UND) College of Business and Public Administration. Craig came to UND from the University of Minnesota-Crookston (UMC), where he helped develop a new program emphasis in entrepreneurship while serving as a marketing faculty member. For the eight years prior to his time at UMC, Craig owned a full-service advertising agency he co-founded in 1994. The agency served several regional and
Navy veterans based on system level technical expertise and leadership maturation developed during service,” in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference, 2016. New Orleans, LA.[31] V. Jovanovic, A. Dean, C. Considine, K. Arcaute, P. Katsioloudis, M. Tomovic, T. Stout, C. Schwalm, J. Michaeli, and Y. Shen, “Pilot programs for veterans transition to engineering fields,” in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference, 2016: New Orleans, LA.[32] Department of Veterans Affairs, The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, Accessed on November 22, 2019 [Online], Available: http://www.gibill.va.gov/post-911/post-911-gi-bill-summary/, 201[33] K. Bullington Sibson, W. Nuckols, and D. Gregory, “Bicker, moan, or take out a loan: How veterans navigate the financial issues of degree
classroomincluding instructor attitudes about diversity, equity, and inclusion; barriers for implementation;and other concerns. One of the goals is to identify differences between faculty who would bewilling to take action to address these equity issues through implementing the ecological belongingintervention and those who would not be willing to do so. We will also provide an update on theresults of the intervention on student outcomes. Our findings can help inform strategies forinstitutional scaling and transformation and potential barriers for others interested in the uptake ofevidence-based classroom engineering education efforts.IntroductionSupported by a NSF IUSE: EDU Program, Institutional and Community Transformation trackgrant (NSF IUSE 2111114
background outside of engineeringand teaches ethics to computer science and biomedical engineering students noted, the problem is that at least at my institution, this is an R1, most of these faculty have never been in industry so maybe the ethical issue they’ve faced is running a lab…. But by in large, most of them have no experience in industry to be able to talk about the kinds of things that most of our students are going to experience because they’re going into industry so that’s a problem from the get-go.Without experience of their own, engineering educators can have difficulty contextualizingethical and social concerns and not feel comfortable covering issues that students willencounter in practice. Furthermore, for many engineering
resilience and psychological growth. While some students report challenges such asculture shock and strained social networks upon returning home, others experience increasedconfidence, social support, and mental well-being during these programs. Research indicates thatvolunteering and community engagement are associated with reduced depression rates andincreased resilience, underscoring the therapeutic potential of such experiences [6], [9], [10]Faculty-led, short-term study abroad programs represent a growing avenue for integratingservice-learning into higher education. These programs expose students to new cultures andenvironments while providing structured opportunities to engage in meaningful communityservice. The Psychological General Well
organization that provides basic financial education to hispanic individuals and their families in New York and the tri-state area, in order to foster their financial security and improve their standard of living. Professor of the ”Teaching Competencies Workshop” at the School of Education. Radio host from the program ”Conexiones: hablemos de innovaci´on y de futuros” that explores the future of higher education. Bachelors Degree in Pedagogy form Universidad Panamericana. Graduated with honors. Research topics center on soft skills, the future of higher education, education innovation projects and faculty development.Mr. Armando Alem´an-Ju´arez, Universidad Panamericana Armando has experience in the area of
average meeting. Two ongoingincubators and three communities of practice have been hosted so far.The participantsAcross the three institute cohorts, the ProQual Institute has enjoyed the participation of 48STEM faculty, averaging 16 participants per cohort. Recruitment for the institutes focused onminority-serving institutions in the southeast United States, but we also amplified recruitment atthe national level through ASEE listservs, NSF contacts, and word-of-mouth advertising fromearly participants. Participants were overwhelmingly women (n=37, 77%), included manyfaculty of color (n=21, 44%), and spanned 19 states and two other countries (Canada and Oman.)In terms of methods experience, 19 (40%) reported being new to research, 19 (40
meetings.This example of the affinity groups was provided to illustrate how we used the guiding principlesto develop an intervention. Table 1 explicitly shows how the affinity groups aligned with theguiding principles that are theoretically framed in the literature.Next Steps and Future WorkWe have organized our efforts through an informed set of guiding principles to help scale andsustain the positive impact of these faculty affinity groups in support of our larger researchproject goals. We have started to support collective faculty action to discuss and act upon areasof shared concern for teaching issues. As part of a larger project to affect risk-taking andencourage pedagogical change within our engineering program faculty, the RED team isencouraged
the Classroom 8. Muddiest Points and Other Tech Tools; Facilitating Course InnovationDuring the second semester in the spring the implementation of innovation discussion sessionsoccurred in the disciplinary communities of practice (CoP) [7], [8]. The faculty from Cohort 1were polled to determine the topics of foremost interest and then six biweekly discussion sessionswere structured to include the most requested topics. These included the following topics, issues,and concerns. 1. Opportunities and Issues in Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Active Learning 2. Assessing Student-Centered Learning vs. Instructor-Centered Teaching 3. Implementation of Tech Tools and Impact of Summative and Formative Assessment 4
general, her relationship was not a topic of discussion with her colleagues because shetypically did not discuss non-work-related topics at work. Even when commiserating with otherfaculty members, the discussions typically focused on the lack of time each of them had to meetthe standard expectations of a faculty position. So, even though she worked to integrate heridentities as a wife and mother into her professional environment, her colleagues did not engagewith her in discussing those roles. As far as her colleagues were concerned, she was simplyanother engineering faculty member who specialized in a particular, technical topic and waswilling to take on more administrative roles than other colleagues. Even though she did notintentionally
concerned with sci- ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning and participation among historically marginalized students of color. Her research focuses on the role of racialized experiences and biases in STEM educational and career attainment, problematizing traditional notions of academic achievement and what is mean to be successful yet marginalized, and STEM identity and identity development in high-achieving students of color. She is currently the PI on two studies funded by NSF, the first of which investigates the causes behind why African Americans remain one of the most underrepresented racial groups in engineering faculty positions. The second study is working toward the design of a holistic
Page 13.96.8qualification as essential criteria to be met when hiring new faculty.2.2 Austria/Switzerland: International Society for Engineering Education – ING-PAED IGIPThe International Society for Engineering Education (IGIP)13 was founded in 1972 at theUniversity of Klagenfurt, Austria . It created ING-PAED IGEP, an international register ofqualified engineering educators who have gone through a curriculum which has been approvedby IGIP and guarantees minimum standards in technical expertise along with a well-balancedcompetence profile for engineering educators. Those registered are designated as InternationalEngineering Educators and can use the title ING-PAED IGIP. Registration is monitored throughIGIP’s national monitoring committee
teaching practice in order to see sustainable change in engineering schools. This study examines the contrast between STEM education research on the positive impact of faculty on diversity and inclusion and some engineering faculty’s lack of actual involvement with these issues. We examine the faculty of an electrical and computer engineering (ECE) department at Purdue University using Fishbein and Ajzen’s reasoned action model for behavior to determine factors in the department that influence faculty’s intention to make change for diversity and inclusion. We conducted interviews with ECE faculty about diversity, inclusion and department culture, and then an inductive thematic analysis
Paper ID #37936Scaffolding reflection across the design curriculum:Triangulating Student, Alumni, and Faculty Perspectives ofthe Role of Design within an Engineering Science ProgramRubaina Khan Rubaina Khan is a doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto, Canada. Her research interests lie at the intersection of engineering design, learning communities and reflective practice. Prior, to pursuing graduate studies, Rubaina spent 10 years in autonomous marine vehicles research and, teaching robotics and design to engineering students in Singapore.Lisa Romkey (Associate Professor, Teaching Stream
2024 ASEE Southeast Section Conferencesubmission by using Chegg [2] and the like, which in turn serve as cheating rather than learningmechanisms. Cheating as described by M. M. Lanier [3], A. Fask et al.[4] and P. Charlesworth etal.[5] can lead to grade inflation and integrity issues that may plague the education institution withan indignant reputation no one desires. To motivate the students and increase their grades andknowledge, G. Herman [6] suggests giving the students a second attempt to help them improveboth. The concern was exacerbated by COVID-19 when the students were demotivated, asdescribed by Y. Terada [7].Accordingly, Nader & DeMara [8] studied the effect of the three-attempt testing a year earlier, inSpring 2021 and
-Sustained, repeated exposure teach ESI increases ethical awareness and -Need widespread faculty recognition [16] support to integrate -Demonstrates the relevance of ethics cohesively to engineering [3] -Limited time to discuss -Contextualizes ESI [7] background of relevant -Engages and empowers engineering issues [16] faculty to be involved in teaching ESI -Lack depth and continuity [17] [3] -Supported by moral development
Paper ID #38435On Faculty Responsibility for Increasing Students’ Sense of Support inthe Classroom: Lessons from I-MATTER about Black and Brown StudentsStephanie Masta, Purdue University, West Lafayette Member of the Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and educational researcher focused on issues of equity in Black and Brown education in the United States.Ms. Janelle Grant, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Janelle Grant is a PhD Student in Curriculum Studies at Purdue University, Indiana, USA. Her research interests lie in the area of Black women’s experiences of discipline in education. Prior to attending
together in 2002 out of a shared concern about the slowadvancement of women faculty in science and engineering departments. Specifically, AdvanceFORWARD strives to improve the climate across campus, enhance faculty recruitment efforts,increase faculty retention and advancement, and open leadership opportunities. In this paper wediscuss various challenges that we have encountered while implementing our programs and offerrecommendations so that other institutions interested in developing similar programs can avoidthe same pitfalls. In order to provide a context for our recommendations, we provide backgroundon our institution, describe key initiatives that have been implemented to date, and summarizebaseline data.IntroductionSince its inception in
CU Boulder for over 10 years designing learning experiences and programs, teaching, and researching technology. Before joining Arts & Science Support of Education Through Technology (ASSETT) at the Center for Teaching & Learning, Karen was faculty at CU’s International English Center and worked at the Anderson Language and Technology Center as a Professional Research Assistant with a focus on immersive technology for language and culture learning. She is passionate about inclusive pedagogy and UDL, supporting students and faculty, exploring new technology, and getting creative!Ms. Janet Yowell, University of Colorado Boulder ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024
to include: Grant submissions, HOAD planning, forecasting, updating; Managing activities; News releases/updates @ one per semester; Product, component, process & /or material assessments ~ two per wk.Basic and Applied Research can be a lot of fun but your grade will cost you some time anddedication. Should you accept this challenge, please schedule your time accordingly. Our lab isopen from 7 am until 5:30 on Tuesdays and on Thursdays from 7 am – 7 pm.2.4 Student Participation (By Edward Land)The students and faculty were given an interest inventory chart to complete shortly after formalclass registration, in which they rank their level of interest and competence for various activitiesthat will be
learn and experience. Similar discrepancies between faculty andstudents have been seen in previous studies of engineering ethics education [6]. In this paper we ask: 1) What methods do teachers choose to use most often in teaching CSR? 2) What methods are most clearly recognized by students and in what courses? 3) Given student and faculty concerns, what are previous pedagogical methods from ethics literature that may be most effective for teaching CSR? CSR is a broad term encompassing the many ways that corporations attempt to accommodate theneed for maximizing profit and taking into account the needs and wellbeing of the community andenvironment [1]. CSR can be used as a method for teaching macroethics to engineering
, the issue of course equivalency arises. For many students it is not sufficient merely to earn credit overseas but they also wish that credit to be useable for meeting the requirements of the degree program they are pursuing at their home institution. This necessarily requires that the faculty of the home program have approved the international courses to be taken as equivalents of the home program’s requirements, selectives or electives. Furthermore it is also important that such courses not be considered as transfer courses because many programs employ restrictions to the number of transfer courses allowed. Typically, to establish such equivalencies, the faculty governance mechanisms for curricula need to be consulted and
the model framework. Some model elements in theexample include the faculty member, the students, the content, the classroom environment and itsplanning, and use of WebCT discussion forums for student collaborative activity for the project.The primary concern of the faculty member was to reduce the distance between the students andthe content (employer-driven), while at the same time, having the students become active, self-guided learners. The goal for the faculty member was to try to move away from a lecture-basedmodel of instruction to an active classroom where students did most of the talking and doing.The goal for the instructor was to merely act as a sounding board and a scaffold for the students
howto bring them to a point where they can understand…” (FG1)One participant, a faculty and engineering academic advisor, discussed the presence of empathyin a situation involving another professor and a student. The student was struggling academicallydue to medical issues that were beyond the student’s control, and according to the participant, theempathy was present here in the professor’s decision to not take the traditional path of mostengineering educators who believe that “academics and life is separate and it doesn’t matter whatthe reason is that [the student] can’t get then work done”. The participant continues, “Theimpetus was the feelings of empathy but the professor wanted to follow through with it andbringing the student to me for
body is a key and necessary component for addressing DEIB concerns withinengineering. It has been suggested that engineering leaders in academia, including faculty, sharethe responsibility of educating themselves and others about topics surrounding DEIB. Thus,exploring engineering faculty practices about DEIB can begin to shape and reshape the academiccultures that promote, ignore, or hinder DEIB efforts.Previous literature states that faculty are key to promoting participation in education and creatingsafe, equitable, and inclusive environments for student success [3]. Nonetheless, engineeringfaculty members who are novices to discussions of race and inequity or lack DEIB backgroundknowledge may inadvertently adopt viewpoints, assumptions, or
Icould engage in the new faculty orientation and other institutional welcoming events. Prior toarriving on campus, I was informed of the timeline for approval of an IRB application to supportthe research I wanted to conduct while on campus. So, the first days on campus, I worked onsubmitted my IRB application.After the initial review process, I was informed by their IRB contact that the application wouldneed to go for further review. This would delay the initial timeline. At first, this wasn’t a bigdeal, but days seemed to be rapidly ticking by. I’ve received notifications that the IRB is underreview and at this time I have made all requested modifications. Unfortunately, we are now onweek 3 of this process. I’ve asked around internally, but I