high-GPA, honors track, or other special categories. It has beendesigned with the goal of transforming typical engineering transfer students into graduatescapable of rapidly assimilating into high performing professional environments. The programdesign was informed by an industry/community needs assessment as well as the AccreditationBoard for Engineering and Technology (ABET) standards. Program design addressesleadership, professionalism, and communication skill with equal importance to the engineeringskills. The sets of tools applied include leadership development tools such a personalityassessment, a proprietary strength finder tool, and curriculum tools such as active learningstrategies, learning communities and technical presentation
Paper ID #25932Connecting Theory with Practice: Four Change Projects in Faculty Develop-ment for EngineeringDr. Amy B. Chan Hilton, University of Southern Indiana Amy B. Chan Hilton, Ph.D., P.E., F.EWRI is the Director of the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning and a Professor of Engineering at the University of Southern Indiana (USI). Her interests include faculty and organizational development, teaching and learning innovations, and environmental systems analysis. Prior to joining USI, Dr. Chan Hilton served as a Program Director at the National Science Foundation with experience in the Engineering Education
educationacademics and engineering curriculum developers.IntroductionLeadership definition varies to a significant extent, where each definition has different area offocus 1. One of the best ways to describe leadership is the “skills approach”, that emphasizes onthe skills or abilities that can be learned or developed. For instance, enhancing personalcapability to inspire confidence and support among the people who are needed to achieveorganizational goals 2 is a competency development definition of leadership. One of the mainattributes associated with leadership is determination of a direction and influencing people inregards with values, vision, mission, and strategy 3. As the dynamics of societal development isat highest ever pace in the 21st century
additional sources of critical consciousness developmentinto the curriculum, enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of students' change over time.Although Castaneda’s (2019) results were counter-intuitive, it does not negate the fact thatengineers can benefit from the development of critical consciousness. Like Castaneda’s (2019) work Trbušić (2014) proposed that reforming engineeringeducation involves examining and critically questioning engineering curricula and practices. Thegoal of the work was to introduce a critical pedagogical approach to foster conscientizationamong engineers, enhancing their ethical acumen by raising awareness about a wide range ofpressing issues such as sustainability, environmental protection, poverty eradication
opportunities that have emerged from the pandemic years? And how can we build enoughbelief in positive assumptions to inspire engineering leaders to try something new?The leadership director and external consultant set forth four key objectives. The MichiganEngineering Positive Leadership Program would enable participants to 1) learn about keyprinciples of positive leadership; 2) develop shared language and practices around positiveleadership; 3) conduct, share, and reflect on experiments with positive leadership principles inday-to-day life; and 4) expand and deepen connections with colleagues. The director andconsultant then curated content from the consultant’s broader positive leadership curriculum togenerate five major units of study that aligned
recognized as a critical professional skill in support ofengineering design work. As such, there are a growing number of curricular initiatives to supportthe development of engineering students' empathy as a design skill [14]. These initiatives span avariety of approaches, including stakeholder engagement in human-centered design, service-learning projects, and curriculum on ethical impacts of our engineering work [18]. However,within engineering, students identified empathy as a critical interpersonal skill for buildingrelationships in their everyday lives, yet struggled to see how empathy is involved in theirengineering work [19]. This disconnect highlights the importance of emphasizing empathy as notonly an engineering design skill, but also as a
increasein student apprehension of course learning outcomes. Adoption rates for these innovativemethods have remained stagnant despite their known effectiveness [1], [2], [3]. Understandingthe contextual barriers and affordances provides a framework for developing detailed instancesof EBIP implementation. Instructors often cite factors such as time, lack of motivation, studentresistance, and insufficient resources as reasons for their hesitation and or abandonment ofalternative teaching methods. However, these barriers are often discussed at a surface level,making it a challenge to ascertain which departmental, institutional, and cultural changes must bemade to form an effective catalyst towards EBIP adoption rates.Due to the inherently complex
, theteam conducted interviews with ten groupings of key external stakeholders. The outcome of thesix-month study was a twenty-page summary of interview findings with recommendations foractions categorized in four categories using the change typology presented by Henderson [2]. Animplementation team of engineering faculty partnered with education faculty during thesubsequent years (2015-2018) to offer short professional development workshops guided by theinternal study and its recommendations. Example outcomes of the prior implementation isdeveloping a new model for long-term collaborative faculty development and adopting theCOPUS instrument[3] as an observation protocol to help faculty become aware of theirinstructional strategies for engaging
engineering education focusing on recruitment and retention of underrepresented and under resourced students and engineering pedagogy. Her work spans the areas of curriculum instruction and design, program design and evaluation, and the first-year college experience. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Work in Progress (WIP): Engineering Faculty’s Academic Influence on Student Persistence: Faculty Use, Knowledge, and Comfort in Providing Encouragement to StudentsAbstract: This work-in-progress paper focuses on how engineering faculty’s perception ofproviding encouragement can influence student persistence. Previous literature has shown thatfaculty influence has a
worked as the Education Project Manager for the NSF-funded JTFD Engineering faculty development program, as a high school math and science teacher, and as an Assistant Principal and Instructional & Curriculum Coach.Dr. Ann F. McKenna, Arizona State University Ann F. McKenna is the Vice Dean of Strategic Advancement for the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University, and is a professor of engineering in the Polytechnic School, one of the seven Fulton Schools. Prior to joining ASU, she served as a program director at the National Science Founda- tion in the Division of Undergraduate Education, and was the director of education improvement in the McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern
interests are community-based learning, open-ended laboratory experi- ments, teamwork, collaborative and active learning, and Transport Phenomena computational modeling.Dr. Megan Morin, ASHLIN Management Group Megan Morin (she/her) graduated from the University of Dayton with a bachelor’s degree in Middle Childhood Education and completed her Master’s and Ph.D. at NC State in Engineering and Technology Education. Megan’s research interests in faculty development, pedagogies, assessment, and teaching developed because of her previous work with NC State Education and Workforce Programs and as a North Carolina middle school teacher. Dr. Morin will start as the Associate Director for Engineering Faculty Advancement in June
evaluation of the candidate’s teaching.A committee was appointed with representation from colleges across the university. Thiscommittee studied the literature to glean relevant research-based principles and to learn aboutbest practices. They sought input from standing university committees with responsibilities forfaculty development and curriculum. And then over several years developed and refined aproposal for the process documented herein.The Three PillarsTo be successful, the proposed process needed to be built on sound principles of effectiveteaching. [6, 7] Concepts from the literature were combined with unique aspects of ourinstitution to develop the foundational model of the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching.Although there are other viable
of the effort to a certificate program was needed.The results to be discussed include formal assessment by students of experiential learning,compilation of data from six years of class exit interviews, ‘360 degree’ assessments of studentleadership efforts, and alumni surveys. In addition to the results and methodology, preliminaryconclusions will be discussed related to the curriculum and structure of the current leadershipdevelopment program.IntroductionLeadership education for engineers is a rapidly expanding and developing field, as evidenced bythe formation of a constituent committee within ASEE in 2012 and over 200 affiliated membersby 2013. With many programs and approaches, specific outcomes for each of these efforts vary.However
of Alabama, and a Ph.D. in Leadership and Policy Studies from Peabody College of Vanderbilt Univer- sity. Her teaching interests relate to the professional development of graduate engineering students and to leadership, policy, and change in STEM education. Primary research projects explore the preparation of graduate students for diverse careers and the development of reliable and valid engineering education assessment tools. She is a NSF Faculty Early Career (CAREER) and Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) recipient.Mr. Amadin Osagiede, Purdue University, West Lafayette Amadin Osagiede is an MBA candidate in the Krannert School of Management at Purdue University. He obtained a
experiential learning. Kristen is a first-generation student and received her Doctor of Education degree in Leadership and Innovation from ASU. Her research interests include engineering faculty professional development, faculty-student interactions, first-generation college students, and retaining students in STEM fields.Mrs. Jennifer Hadley Perkins, Arizona State University Hadley Perkins is a third-year Ph.D. Student in the Engineering Education Systems & Design Program at Arizona State University. Her research interests include Graduate Students’ Teaching Formation, Faculty Development & Mentorship, Curriculum Design, and Virtual instruction. She earned a BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
Institutes of Health, and the Paso del Norte Health Foundation have funded his research on older adults. The US Army Research Laboratory has funded Dr. Pennathur’s research on workload assessment. Dr. Pennathur has also been recently awarded two grants from the National Science Foundation in Engineering Education. In one of the grants, he is modeling how engineering faculty plan for their instruction. In a second grant, he is developing a model for institutional transformation in engineering which balances access and excellence. Dr. Pennathur is the author/co-author of over 100 publications in industrial engineering and human factors engineering. He is on the editorial board of the International Journal of Industrial
prominent example forother educational systems in improving their approach to instructional development.In piloting this assessment approach in the School of ECAM, the grant project team had toconstruct a peer evaluation process composed of seven faculty members who were handpickedbased on their backgrounds and how comfortable they were with the ECAM curriculum. Thegroup was split among two teaching modalities; lecture-based and flipped classroom [1]. Thiscreated an observation team for each focus area. The observed faculty were not a part of thegrant team and were picked to be observed based on convenience and willingness for the pilot.Although there are many benefits to the College adopting this faculty development process, thereare lessons to be
’ pedagogical design thinking for the wiseintegration of technology," Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 217-234,2021. [Online.] Available:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1475939X.2021.1906312[20] J.B. Harris, P. Mishra, and M. Koehler, "Teachers’ technological pedagogical contentknowledge: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed," Journal of Research on 7Technology in Education, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 393–416, 2009. [Online.] Available:https://doi.org/10. 1080/15391523.2009.10782536[21] C. Figg and K. Jaipal-Jamani, "Investigating the Development of TPACK Knowledgethrough Gamification,"in D. Rutledge & D
Paper ID #6035Using Leadership Education Practices to Enhance Freshmen EngineeringStudent Interviewing SkillsDr. David Bayless, Ohio University Dr. Bayless is the Loehr professor of Mechanical Engineering and the director of Ohio University’s Center of Excellence in Energy and the Environment. He is also the director of the Robe Leadership Institute, director of the Center for Algal Engineering Research and Commercialization (an Ohio Third Frontier Wright Project), and director of the Ohio Coal Research Center at Ohio University, where he is engaged in the development of energy and environmental technology, such as
byshow of experience in their curriculum vitae or through a teaching demonstration during theirinterview. It is very common for new and experienced faculty and instructional staff to have littleto no formal training in teaching, and those who do have typically sought it out on their own.The UW College of Engineering has offered dedicated TA training for over 25 years through theCollaboratory of Engineering Education and Teaching Excellence (CEETE) and the organizationfrom which it grew, Teaching and Learning Services. This training was the first complete TATeaching and Learning training program of its kind at the University and addressed teaching andlearning skills, onboarding information, and professional and instructor identity development[10
teaching assistants (UTAs) andgraduate teaching assistants (GTAs), a desire for assistance in managing administrative tasksrelated to teaching, and a call for more coordinated efforts in curriculum development anddelivery. Instructors also expressed a perception that teaching is undervalued and not well-recognized in promotion and tenure/salary processes. Additional concerns involve theinadequacy of current teaching evaluation methods, a push for better recognition of inclusiveteaching practices and quality online instruction, and a plea for increased attention to the specificneeds of non-tenure instructional faculty groups. As a project team, we learned the importance ofongoing dialogue, collaboration, and adaptation in faculty development
Reform,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 76, no. 8, pp. 597–604, 1995.[22] M. A. George, “Professional Development for a Literature-Based Middle School Curriculum,” The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 327–331, Jul. 2002, doi: 10.1080/00098650209603966.[23] J. Flood and D. Lapp, “Issues and Trends: Teacher Book Clubs: Establishing Literature Discussion Groups for Teachers,” vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 574–576, 1994.[24] L. A. Liang, “Scaffolding Middle School Students’ Comprehension and Response to Short Stories,” RMLE Online, vol. 34, no. 8, 2011.[25] S. Dory, S. Cutler, S. Zappe, “Lessons Learned: Mental Health Initiatives for Engineering Faculty Phase I- Impacts on
overseen by a global nonprofit organization with a long historyof implementing projects in Iraq. This organization initiated a collaboration between a US-basedinstitution with highly ranked and respected engineering programs and one of Iraq’s topuniversities. The engineering colleges of both Universities set out to collaborate on meetinginternational quality standards, through faculty exchange and professional development,curriculum development, and joint projects. In this evidence-based research paper, we present both the details of the design of theprofessional development workshop as well as the findings of the ensuing research conducted bymembers of the partnering institutions and organizations. The sections are presented as follows
comprehensive study of CTLs across the Unitedstated conducted by Wright and Rhodenhiser found that CTLs increased offerings in 75% of theirinstructional development resources. The topics which showed most significant increase werethose related to student engagement and active learning; DEI; course and curriculum design;assessment, grading and feedback; and online-remote and hybrid transition [7]. While one mayhave expected that teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic would demonstrate that educatorsrequired more access to and technological literacy in infrastructure for online learning [5], themajority of offerings from CTLs were not inherently technological in nature. Indeed, commonchallenges faced by faculty were maintaining student engagement, DEI
Paper ID #38873Inclusive Course Design Checklist: A Living Document for Faculty toCreate Inclusive ClassroomsDr. Swetha Nittala, Uber Technologies Swetha is currently a People Science Researcher at Uber. Prior to this she worked as a Lecturer and a Science and Engineering Education Fellow at the Mechanical Engineering Department, Stanford Univer- sity. She completed her PhD from the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University where she focused on identifying and developing leadership and other socio-technical capabilities among engineer- ing students and professionals. She is passionate about improving engineering
from minoritized and marginalized identities. A Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), her work has led to changes in policies and practices to advance equity and inclusion in ASEE, ASCE, ABET and other global organizations. As past chair of ASCE’s Formal Engineering Education Committee, Dr. Pearson and her team led the organization’s charge of educating programs on strategies for the inclusion of principles of sustainability in engineering curricula, in large part by promoting a transdisciplinary, convergent approach to attaining the UN Sustainable Development Goals. For the past few years, she has served on the Civil Engineering Program Criteria Task Committee, where she helped develop
apprenticeship technology, a bachelor’s in technol- ogy and engineering education with a minor in CAD, and a master’s degree in education technology. I am currently working toward my Doctorate in curriculum and instruction. My dissertation research focuses on motivational theories and inspirational instruction. My wife Kathy also works at Rose-Hulman in Academic Affairs, while my son Curtiss attends Rose- Hulman majoring in computer science and software engineering and my daughter Kirsten lives in Hawaii and is working toward her Master’s in English and writing. I am very honored to be a part of this great organization. Thank youDaniel Tetteh-RichterDr. Kay C. Dee, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Kay C Dee
the University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Her role in the College of Engineering at UNL is to lead the disciplinary-based education research ini- tiative, establishing a cadre of engineering education research faculty in the engineering departments and creating a graduate program. Her research focuses on the development, implementation, and assessment of modeling and design activities with authentic engineering contexts; the design and implementation of learning objective-based grading for transparent and fair assessment; and the integration of reflection to develop self-directed learners.Mrs. Katie Mowat, University of Nebraska, Lincoln I am an engineer who loves to work with people, learn about new ideas and
.,2022).Teaming is currently experimental. The group that developed it internally is still using it aftereighteen months. However, while there has been sustained use and experimentation, there hasbeen little formal research (such as research to clearly demonstrate outcomes). To do formalresearch requires additional uses of teaming, and thus we are interested in efforts that lower thethreshold for doing teaming in order to enable more use and thus more understanding of teaming.It is time to (1) consider its wider applicability - the implications section of this paper, and to (2)examine the principles at work in teaming - the research focus of this paper.While teaming, as we have described it, was conceptualized in a local context by a specific
of a body of leadershipliterature that relates leadership performance to an ability to be accurately self-aware ofleadership capabilities25-26. Engineering leadership programs are also noting the importance ofincorporating self-awareness into program curriculum or training programs27-28. In a study todetermine behavioral frameworks for highly effective technical executives in NASA, self-awareness emerged as an integral part of the relational competency category29. The importanceof self-awareness demonstrated in these studies is evidence of the need to ensure leadershipdevelopment interventions intended to build self-awareness are incorporated into engineeringleadership development programs26. Further, effective interventions should include