their aspirations and the needs of institutions. Colleges anduniversities that employ faculty and the universities that award doctoral degrees should worktogether to bring this about.” 1In 1994 the American Associat ion of Colleges and Universities and the Council of GraduateSchools provided grants to universities and then departments to develop this vision. As its basicpremise, the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program readies participants for the teaching,research, and service roles at institutions for higher education and educates students to thecontext of these roles in the variety of university settings. The 47 institutions involved in theinstitutional wide phase of the PFF program share this framework and apply the concepts to fittheir
identify as women (Roy, 2020).These STEM actualities create a constraint in the U.S. economy as our society is deficient in thehuman capital necessary to be competitive in the 21st century. This reality will continue until thoseunderrepresented in STEM are more effectively engaged and equitable representation of diversepopulations is achieved (National Science Foundation, 2018).Thus, the focus of this study was to advance knowledge on practices that support the promotion ofSTEM identity among women undergraduates, which can be used to address challenges in expandingparticipation in STEM and to bolster faculty professional development efforts. 3
context of research involvement, positively influencedstudents’ success by fostering the development of students’ scientific identity and their beliefs intheir own abilities [8,9]. In addition, adequate socioemotional and culturally relevant mentoringseems to play an important role for the positive development of underrepresented students in thiscontext (e.g., first-generation college-going students) [10]. Unfortunately, these studies did notinvestigate the impact of faculty mentoring for transfer students in particular, leaving a gap inknowledge as to whether transfer students would benefit from these additional beneficialoutcomes as well.Apart from faculty mentoring, research also indicates that peer interaction and peer mentoringseems to
GIFTS: Building Empathy and Conflict Resolution Skills: A Role-Playing Activity for First-Year Engineering TeamsIn this GIFTS paper, the author presents a role-playing activity designed to help participantsnavigate challenging yet common team situations in first-year engineering design courses. Thisactivity has been used for faculty professional development, teaching assistant training, orin-class student engagement to improve teamwork and conflict resolution skills.This activity was developed in response to troubling feedback from some students that they hadvery negative experiences in first and second-year courses due to team projects and associatedteam conflict. The author met with multiple students in the 2023
model complements this by focusing on how racial awareness andconsciousness, shaped by these contexts, influence faculty behavior. Together, these frameworksintegrate personal beliefs with structural influences, establishing a comprehensive lens forexamining how various intersecting factors—including sociocultural, organizational,departmental, disciplinary, and personal elements—shape faculty pedagogical decision-makingin engineering education. First, The APM offers a multi-level perspective on curriculum, recognizing it as both acultural product shaped by larger sociocultural and institutional contexts, and a blueprint forfostering student learning and development, encompassing decisions about purpose, content,instructional processes
and transform the national engineering landscape. The stEm PEER Academy wasintended as a 2-year professional development and research experience to support the designand implementation of an engineering-focused “Implementation Project”. Each Fellow hasdeveloped their own Implementation Project based on their respective needs and infrastructureof their home institutions. It is our intention that Fellows will share and expand theirImplementation Projects with others across institutions and hubs in order to scale up their highimpact, evidence-based practices in significant and sustainable ways in order to achieve thetarget graduation rates by 2026 and beyond.Beginning in Fall 2021, engineering-affiliated faculty and administrator applicants from
questioning assumptions undergirding them. Lack of critical interrogations of science Limits practice of culturally liberative mentoring Limited opportunity to work with racially minoritized students Culture belonged to international students Black students were infantilized and deemed inferior – Deficit Framing Hypervigilance Hegemonic Normativity Lack criticality Narrow conceptions of science adversely impact cross-cultural mentoring Expansion of social and epistemological positions needed to liberate international faculty and recognize shared experiences of marginalizationDiscussion Intentionality Brave spaces of mentor development training Recognition of humanity - Our
equitable workplaces in colleges and universities. Her more recent research on learning analytics and pedagogy pro- motes new data-driven evidence to promote changes in pedagogy, instructional practice, and leadership decision-making. Jaime puts her research into practice as an academic administrator supporting faculty and college-level change. As an administrator, she is responsible for supporting faculty governance and developing new faculty career development and workload programs and policy. Jaime also leads all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts for the college. She is a member of the Philadelphia 2022 HER Leadership Institute. Jaime’s work is widely published in peer-reviewed journal articles
above and such a span ofexpertise was not readily available from within the full-time faculty. Thissituation resulted in the recruitment of part-time staff from industry to support thespecialist subjects. The use of industry based staff has continued for thirty years.The link between industry and the university has enhanced the program andcontributed to its longevity. This paper examines the characteristics of theindustry-based lecturing staff and their influence on the development of theprogram over the time span. It is argued that they have shaped the coursesignificantly in content and style and in the direction of the research topicsundertaken by the students.An examination is made of the source of the students and the change of thepattern
approaches such as inquiry-‐based activities have been effective, but have not been widely adopted by engineering educators. The goal of this work is three-‐fold: first, we will re-‐create our inquiry-‐based activities for heat transfer by specifically modifying them in ways that make them easier for faculty to implement in the classroom; second, we will measure the effectiveness of these modified activities as they are implemented by our partner institutions; Third, we will provide both the full menu of activities and the effectiveness data to faculty broadly and monitor the adoption “in the wild”. In previous work, we developed inquiry
institutions strongly encourage faculty to develop fundedresearch programs that produce publications and graduate degrees. The financialdifficulties faced by many schools in recent years have only acted to further increase thefocus on research or, more specifically, on the winning of research dollars.While the focus on research may be an economic and competitive necessity, it does notchange the reality that the primary job function of most faculty is education and that (bystudent numbers at least) the dominant component of that takes place in traditionalclassroom settings, and is not directly related to research. In contrast to the collaborative Page
in the2012 Program). Faculty participation in the 2014 Faculty Advisor survey is 11 out of 13 on-campus faculty (85%) (One faculty transferred out of the country prior to the administration ofthe Faculty Advisor Survey and was not able to be surveyed). The increased facultyparticipation rate in the 2014 Program compares favorably to the Faculty Advisor response ratesof 56% in the 2013 Program and 61% in the 2012 Program, respectively.Our capability to strengthen the program focuses on incorporating feedback from the students,who are government contractors, and incorporating feedback from the Faculty Advisors in orderto inform best practices in workforce development. Additional results and findings of theassessment of the 2014 Summer Research
discussed extensively during undergraduatecoursework. Practicing engineers work with manufactures and municipalities daily; therefore,have greater exposure to current practices and can help strengthen faculty instruction or fill in thegaps of knowledge instructors are not able to fill for the student’s education6.Adaptation of the WEAT student design prompt allows students the opportunity to learn theiterative aspect of design and the importance of redesign skills during a capstone design courseutilizing a real-world problem of providing design upgrades for a municipalities wastewatertreatment plant (WWTP). Development and reasoning of initial design is tested once students areasked to provide specifications for proposed upgrades. Teams learn the
commercialization of inventions, particularly onesresulting from federally-funded research. An invention disclosure that describes the idea orintellectual property (IP) is usually the way to initiate a conversation with the tech transfer office.Although this typically only applies to employees of the university (faculty, staff, and graduatestudents), not undergraduate students, the division is not always obvious. For example, a non-tenure track faculty member might be involved in IP generation while under contract with theuniversity, but develop it over a summer without federal funding or significant use of universityresources. So, while the activities (employment and IP generation) happened simultaneously, thefaculty member might not be required to file
; additive manufacturing; and mechanics education. Dr. Rhoads is a Member of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechan- ical Engineers (ASME), where he serves on the Design Engineering Division’s Technical Committees on Micro/Nanosystems and Vibration and Sound, as well as the Design, Materials, and Manufacturing (DMM) Segment Leadership Team. Dr. Rhoads is a recipient of numerous research and teaching awards, including the National Science Foundation’s Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Award; the Purdue University School of Mechanical Engineering’s Harry L. Solberg Best Teacher Award (twice), Robert W. Fox Outstanding Instructor Award, and B.F.S. Schaefer
passionate about teaching and research, and he strives to produce knowledge that informs better teaching. His research intersects assessment and evaluation, motivation, and equity. His research goal is to promote engineering as a way to advance social justice causes.Dr. Holly M Matusovich, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Dr. Holly Matusovich is the Associate Dean for Graduate and Professional Studies in the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech and a Professor in the Department of Engineering Education where she has also served in key leadership positions. Dr. Matusovich is recognized for her research and leadership related to graduate student mentoring and faculty development. She won the Hokie
effectively support an increasingly diverse student body, they will be calledupon to provide their faculty with tools to teach more inclusively. This is especially the caseacross STEM fields where recruitment and retention of students from racially minoritizedbackgrounds present long-standing challenges [9]. This is also true for Colleges of Education,where students are being prepared to teach in classrooms, work with students from diversebackgrounds, and hold administrative positions in K-12 school districts and higher educationinstitutions.An emerging body of literature highlights the need for faculty to develop strong skills indesigning and facilitating classroom dialogues that center diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice[6], [7]. Faculty are
” (slide 4, quotationcleaned up). Ultimately, higher education institutions seek to “develop and certify” student“knowledge and abilities” to develop “citizens and professionals who positively contribute tosociety” (Bertram Gallant, 2021, slide 3, quotation cleaned up). There are a variety of reasonswhy students violate academic integrity, including student perceptions of inadequate instruction,faculty emphasis on student performance over student mastery, and the individual characteristicsof students (Bertram Gallant, 2021, slide 7; see also Bertram Gallant, 2017, for a fuller review ofthe academic integrity research literature). Despite calls to change the student culture aroundacademic integrity (e.g., VanDeGrift, Dillon, & Camp, 2017), the
or program has a number of avenues available to promote themselves. These avenuesshould all be explored to achieve the goals of the degree or program. In no particular order, hereare some of the activities.Faculty Priority: There should be a concerted effort to establish relationships with thesurrounding high schools. [1] An “Adopt a High School” program could be developed, wherecertain advisors, faculty, student representatives and/or staff would be responsible for Page 11.303.5maintaining contact with specific high schools. Current students within the degree/program canbe used effectively in this area. This should include meetings with
Education Research Ph.D. student at the University of Michigan. She received her B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in May 2023. Dorian currently works with Dr. Karin Jensen at the University of Michigan on projects related to mental-health and well being. She was previously involved in Engineering Education Research under the supervision of Dr. Grace Panther and Dr. Heidi Diefes-Dux on projects related to faculty development, adaptability, and educational research methods.Jeanne Sanders, University of Michigan Jeanne Sanders (she/her/hers) is a researcher in Engineering Education. She graduated with her Ph.D from North Carolina State University in the Fall of 2020. She currently works
provides an outline of our guiding research questions (RQ),associated Community of Practice(CoP) activities, and expected CoP and project outcomes. Figure 1. Overview of ER2 ProjectAs depicted in Figure 1, we first aimed to develop a comprehensive understanding of how ethicalengineering research manifests among biomedical engineering faculty through phenomenography.Second, we sought to understand what experiences or factors contribute to the ways facultymembers in biomedical engineering experience ethical engineering research. Third, we aimed todiscern how faculty can promote ethical engineering research by generating Ethics Heuristicsbased on critical incidents. Throughout these research activities, we have engaged
faculty mentorship, the pathway into and through graduate education, and gender and race in engineering.Dr. Allison Godwin, Purdue University, West Lafayette Allison Godwin, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the Robert Frederick Smith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at Cornell University. She is also the Engineering Workforce Development Director for CISTAR, the Center for Innovative and Strategic Transformation of Alkane Resources, a Na- tional Science Foundation Engineering Research Center. Her research focuses on how identity, among other affective factors, influences diverse students to choose engineering and persist in engineering. She also studies how different experiences within the practice and
engineering at FASE.An explanatory sequential method was selected to combine the use of both qualitative and quantitativedata in a meaningful way to capture the mathematics teaching and learning environment at FASE. First asurvey was developed and administered to FASE faculty in the 2017 fall term. From the results of thesurvey a set of interview questions were developed. Following this, semi-structured interviews wereconducted amongst interested faculty in the 2018 winter term. A post-positivist, pragmatic lens was usedto evaluate the data that was collected in both the faculty surveys and the semi-structured interviews.Three research questions were developed to measure the connection of mathematics to engineering atFASE. The research questions
. She also serves as the executive director of the Association for Education Finance & Policy. She holds a PhD in Educational Policy and Evaluation from Arizona State University. Her research focuses on equity and access and in higher education, with a focus on STEM.Prof. Stephen J Krause, Arizona State University Stephen Krause is professor in the Materials Science Program in the Fulton School of Engineering at Arizona State University. He teaches in the areas of introductory materials engineering, polymers and composites, and capstone design. His research interests include faculty development and evaluating con- ceptual knowledge and strategies to promote conceptual change. He has co-developed a Materials
role in this transformation by supporting and shaping the academic journeys andeventual careers of their students. However, despite their central role in workforce development,faculty members often lack the resources and training needed to gain a deeper understanding ofthe diverse experiences and identities their students bring to the engineering classroom. This isespecially challenging for students with minoritized identities that are non-apparent or hiddenand cannot be easily observed by faculty. As part of the on-going Audio for Inclusion (A4I)Project, this paper and poster discuss the initial findings from focus groups with nine engineeringfaculty members from three universities nationwide. We delve into the intricacies and logistics
behind the national average inthe representation of women in engineering and science, the current environment is conducive topositive change with strong administrative commitment clearly demonstrated. A campus climatesurvey was conducted in 2004 that included recommendations for improvement. Animplementation committee was named (a full professor in the Materials Science and Engineeringdepartment chaired the effort) and strategies were developed. Additionally, ISU’s current 2005-2010 Strategic Plan demonstrates institutional support, as it has as central themes increasingdiversity and enhancing the prominence of science, technology and engineering.6The history of the NSF ADVANCE program at ISU:In 2006, a team of faculty and administrators from
relate to the professional development of graduate engineering students and to leadership, policy, and change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Primary research projects explore the preparation of engineering doctoral students for careers in academia and industry and the development of engineering education assessment tools. She is a National Science Foundation Faculty Early Career (CA- REER) award winner and is a recipient of a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). Page 26.1623.1 c American Society for Engineering
characteristics of facultymembers who successfully adopt―and who do not adopt―engineering education innovationsand also studies how the working environment impacts on his or her decision to adopt―or notadopt. This work promotes successful faculty characteristics and work environments byrecognizing aspects that are effective in the transition from research to practice. It alsoacknowledges faculty characteristics and work environment perceptions that may impede thesuccessful adoption of engineering education innovation into the classroom. This projectpromotes a realignment of individual and institutional priorities through the development of animplementation model aimed at increasing the number of faculty members successfully adoptingengineering education
Paper ID #35628Uncomfortable Conversations with Faculty and Students in Zoom:Experiences with diversity and inclusion spurred by police brutality andracial injustice in the U.S.Mr. Lance Leon Allen White, Texas A&M University Lance White is a Ph.D. student at Texas A&M University in Interdisciplinary Engineering with a thrust in Engineering Education. He is working as a graduate research assistant at the Institute of Engineering Education and Innovation at the Texas Engineering Experiment Station at Texas A&M University under director Dr. Tracy Hammond. Dr. Karan Watson and Dr. Pavel Tsvetkov are his co-chairs. He
Faculty in EngineeringAbstractISU is in the 4th year of a 5-year NSF funded ADVANCE grant. In accordance with the intent ofNSF’s “Institutional Transformation” grants, the focus of this work is not on the individualprofessional development of women, but instead, on changing the academic environment inwhich they work. The goal of the ISU ADVANCE research program is to investigate theeffectiveness of a multilevel collaborative effort to effect institutional transformation that resultsin the full participation of women faculty in STEM fields in the university. Our approachfocuses on transforming departmental cultures (views, attitudes, norms and shared beliefs),practices (what people say and do), and structures (physical and social arrangements), as