Paper ID #28172Welcoming Student Veterans to Engineering: An Interactive Session forFaculty and AdministratorsDr. Catherine E. Brawner, Research Triangle Educational Consultants Catherine E. Brawner is President of Research Triangle Educational Consultants. She received her Ph.D.in Educational Research and Policy Analysis from NC State University in 1996. She also has an MBA from Indiana University (Bloomington) and a bachelor’s degree from Duke University. She specializes in eval- uation and research in engineering education, computer science education, and technology education. Dr. Brawner is a founding member and former
professionals, and female undergraduateengineering students.Key TermsPresented below is a list of key terms that will be used in this presentation.1. Mentee: Female lowerclassman defined as freshman and sophomore studentsmajoring in engineering2. Peer Mentor: Female upperclassman defined as junior and senior studentsmajoring in engineering acting as mentors for the mentee students3. Industry Mentor: Engineering professions and/or alumnae of Cal Poly PomonaCollege of Engineering acting as mentors for mentees and peer mentors during groupmentoring sessions4. Engineering Faculty Mentor: Female engineering faculty at Cal Poly PomonaCollege of Engineering acting as mentors for mentees and peer mentors during groupmentoring sessions
Lammey, University of Colorado, Boulder Cara Lammey is the Program Manager for Access Pathways at the College of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Colorado Boulder. She holds a B.A. in liberal arts from St. John’s College. American c Society for Engineering Education, 20211The BOLD (Broadening Opportunity through Leadership and Diversity)Center hosted the fifth cohort of the EngiNearMe program June 2 – 7,2019. EngiNearMe is made possible through the generous support ofCampos EPC and offers rising Colorado high school seniors a weeklongopportunity at The University of Colorado Boulder to gain exposure toengineering as a potential future academic and
as well as general participation in programs andevents aimed to benefit current students. Over the past three years it has become increasinglydifficult to recruit volunteers for WE@RIT’s largest event, an accepted student overnight calledWE Retreat; and the rate of no-shows at events targeting current students, called Kate’s Hours,has skyrocketed in some cases. For example, WE Retreat saw first-year student volunteerparticipation rates drop from 72% of total WE Retreat volunteers in 2010, to 36% of total WERetreat volunteers in 2019 (Fig. 1). This is a problematic trend given that up through 2019 amajor draw of the WE Retreat program was to allow prospective students to experience anovernight in dormitory housing, which first-year students
retention of underrepresentedstudents in the STEM pipeline. Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature and supports research needs in several subjects including scientific,technical, and social science. Scopus was selected due to the expansive coverage of engineering-related articles, particularly exploring engineering programs for high school students. A four-part string was used to garner the relevant search results, as seen in Table 1. Thefirst part of the search string had keywords or subjects that included “engineer,” “STEM” or anyform of “tech.” The second part of the search string included “secondary,” “high school,” and allalphanumeric variations of high school grade levels 9-12 (i.e
Sense of belonging Instrument/ SOBI), is included in Fig. 1 as an example of a broader scale to measure a sense of belonging to the general community among adults. Our previous study [1] is also included in Fig. 1 to enhance the understanding of how we conceptualized and situated the international engineering doctoral students’ belongingness in line with the sense of belonging literature.ADULT (Community) K-12 (Classroom) UNDERGRADUATE (Institution) GRADUATE (Academic unit) Students' Perceived Self-worth Authentic-self Indivisual's
challenged to consider.The second and third days are a combination of participating in general conference activities andfocused group sessions on professional development, involving the program coordinators,practicing engineers, and faculty. To facilitate the former, the students are given assignments toengage with specific types of companies, attend technical presentations, introduce themselves toconference organizers, and the like. The students are required to “connect” with graduatestudents who are currently engaged in the profession and learn about their experiences beyond anundergraduate degree. The technical aspect of the conference is reinforced by connecting at leastone focused PC session to the conference theme, e.g. biomedical applications
to ‘demystify’engineering for high school students and teachers by creating an all-inclusive high school levelengineering course. Two key components of the project include: 1) in-person and online teacherprofessional development (PD) and 2) a learning community of teacher educators, engineeringeducators, and practicing engineers. The PD specifically includes a session that aims to createawareness regarding implicit biases and negative stereotype threats concerning engineeringeducation. The overarching goal of the PD and the learning community is to help teachers makepositive changes in their classrooms to affect student pathways to higher education institutes.High school educators are critical change agents in promoting the pursuit of
225,500 graduate STEM degrees were awarded in the U.S.; 181,000 being masterdegrees and 44,500 were doctoral degrees [1], [2], [3] . According to the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) [4], URM graduate students only earned about 9% of the overall doctoraldegrees awarded in 2015 and about 13% of undergraduate degrees. This evidence suggests thatSTEM doctoral programs in the U.S. are severely deficient in representation from students ofdifferent racial and ethnic groups. This is a disturbing historical and contemporary trend thatuniversities should pay close attention because of the implications on America’s ability tocompete on a global level with nation states succeeding at preparing individuals for careers inSTEM fields.The participation of URM
from the community participating in laboratory work 24 hours perweek over the course of 1 semester with Saturday session for professional development ofall women students. Primary outcomes for the program was to increase interest in STEMcareers, confidence in lab skills and engineering design process, learned persistence,particularly in research. Additional objective were for mentors to gain mentoring skills, andthe formation of community to foster belonging. 5In the first iteration of the WRAMP program, affectionately call WRAMP 1.0, 1 graduatestudent was paired with 1 high school student. Research was designated for 2-4 hours foreach high school
this gap. Bringing together such adiverse group of STEM professionals, eliciting their input and applying direct programmaticdesign will empower participants to return to their home environments equipped with tools andresources to impact how they, as women, interface with one another while also cultivatingmeaningful, transformative change in the status quo. Kezar [1] analyzed emerging theories ofinstitutional change as being effected by networks of change makers, rather than by disconnectedindividuals, which has been the norm. Generally, researchers in STEM or STEM educationidentify a need for change, targeted at increasing diversity for example, and then work in theirindividual spheres to bring about that change. The result of fifty years of
(Figure 1), however, in general, Asian female students stick to their programs the most, followedby Asian and White male students (Figure 1). Among male students, Blacks have the lowestcomputing stickiness when compared to their peers. With that being said, all 4 disciplines almostfollow the same pattern, however, students majoring in information science and computerengineering demonstrate more stickiness to their programs in comparison to CS and computerand information sciences disciplines. Computing stickiness of students in each discipline ispresented in Table 1 (N is the number of enrollments in each program). Our results also delineate Discipline Stickiness (%) N Computer
; and teaching engineering. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 A Reflective Evaluation of a Pre-College Engineering Curriculum to Promote Inclusion in Informal Learning EnvironmentsIntroductionWithin the United States, pre-college (K-12) students spend approximately 80% of their dayoutside of school [1]. During the remaining 20% of their day, students in United States publicschools spend the least amount of time receiving science-related instruction compared to readingand math [2]. In addition, other disciplines like technology and engineering may not be availableto students during their school day. The accessibility and quality of science
(science, technology, engineering, math) career fields,by having them engage in interactive, team-based engineering projects” (NSBE, n.d.).2 SEEK team roles included: Project Manager, Safety Manager, Materials Manager, Technical Manager, and Project Ambassador3 The SEEK design process is informed by empirical research, the Next Generation Science Standards and the Engineering isElementary design process. It includes: Ask, Learn, Imagine, Model It, Create, Test and Improve as major design activities.measure differences in children’s perceptions and assessing their beliefs, misconceptions, andattitudes about the nature of science and engineering. More recently, the Draw-an-Engineer Testhas also been modified to measure elementary school teachers
personalqualities they will bring to the STARS program.Students are selected for the program based on a review of academic factors, essay responses,and interviews conducted following the initial review of applications. Several criteria areconsidered while understanding that no single element of the application can tell the whole story.The factors that tend to be most important for selecting students include essays, interviews, math 4and science grades, cumulative GPA, and UW admissions scores (academic and personal)1.While SAT grades are considered, they carry the least amount of weight. Generally, studentsselected for the program have a relatively high GPA
) 5.9 ± .9 5.9 ± .8 5.4 ± .9 6.4 ± .7 5.6 ± 1.0 2.8 ± .8 Not Low Income (109) 5.6 ± 1.2 5.8 ± .8 5.0 ± .9 6.2 ± .6 5.2 ±1.0 2.9 ± .9 First Generation (80) 6.0±1.0* 5.9 ± .8 5.4 ± .9** 6.5 ± .6** 5.6 ± .9* 2.7 ± .9+ Not First Generation (109) 5.6 ± 1.1 5.8 ± .8 4.9 ± .9 6.2 ± .7 5.2 ±1.0 2.9 ± .9 ** * +statistically significant difference Mann-Whitney U-test vs. majority comparator, p < .001, p < .05; p < .1^lower n for math confidence (all 172, male 78, female 94, URM 83, not URM 89, low income 74, FG 72)Among the elements evaluated
of President’sDay weekend. This is done intentionally so that students are able to attend theprogram without missing classes. Participation in this event include interactions withcollege students and faculty, an engineering or computing-related hands-on designcompetition, and general advice on being a strong STEM college applicant. Ourstudent planning committee, as well as our faculty, alumni, and judging panels arecomprised of women and male allies who have a connection to CWIT, and are able totalk about gender equity and the importance of female visibility in technology fields.Additionally, we also host a formal discussion session on women in computing andengineering which is led by the student committee, which allows participants
25… and it brings up her profile.On the left side is general information about Aelisa. Under Technical Expertise, you can see she specializes in floodstudies and stormwater management.On the right side is information about the projects she has worked on. For The Wharf Phase 1, you can learn aboutwhat she did on the project, her typical day on the project, and what she liked about the project.Using RePicture, a student or professional can learn about actual projects they may work on as a water resourcesengineer, an example of what their typical day would be like, and then decide if water resource engineering jobsinterest them
of the process of(research) collaboration and its importance informed by the literature. Next, we explore differentviews towards the role of theory in studying research collaboration. Finally, we briefly reviewthe research design and address potential propositions that may provide an account and explaindifferent factors that influence the sustainability of research collaboration.2. Research in the context of engineering education literatureWithin engineering education, there have been limited studies on the dynamics of researchcollaboration in general, and faculty collaboration across universities in particular; muchliterature was concerned with three major areas in connection with research collaboration:collaboration between engineers and
designed inJanuary 2018 to address the disconnect between global, diversity, inclusion, andexperiential service learning activities within the engineering curriculum at MU witha focus on intentional intercultural development pedagogy.The goal is that EDGES programs provides a robust experiential learning opportunityfor students….Reviewer Comment:Three year clarification:The first course session launched January 2018 for a Spring Break Study Abroad course thattook place Oct 2017 – March 2018 (meeting once a week for 10 sessions and a 1 week tripin early March). 7The second course session launched in October 2018 – Feb 2019 with the trip occurring
of engineering concepts were excluded from coding due totheir limited relevance to the study. Nine of the 11 interviews were coded before reachingsaturation, a point at which further coding revealed no new ideas related to the research interest[14] (no new codes had appeared in the last three transcripts coded). First cycle codes wereorganized and prefixed according to nine general categories (Table 1). Second cycle codinggrouped and connected the first cycle codes into larger themes via the construction of a visualnetwork diagram, or thematic map (see example in Figure 2). At this point, a subset of thethemes generated from second cycle coding inspired the final research question, pertaining tofaculty’s intentions towards diversity and
flexibility allowed the participantsthemselves to share stories that better reflected their unique experiences and identities.Table 1.Identities Provided to Participants as Prompts for the Identity Circle Self At home Student/worker Gender Spouse/partner Engineering student (in general) Race/ethnicity Parent Engineering student (Major __________) Socioeconomic class (SES) Child Transfer Student Sexual orientation Single First-generation student Age Employee Religion
orientation, as well as other social identities in which Black women self-identify; BFT is an appropriate theoretical framework for this qualitative investigation because it integrates, validates, centers, and gives voice to the unique experiences of Black women altogether (Collins, 2000). 4 Guiding Research Questions 1) How would you describe the “Public You” thatpresent in academic settings versus the “Private You” in personal settings? 2) What “Coping Strategies” have you used toovercome any challenges or barriers in your doctoral program? 5 Research Methodology & Data
perpetuating racism (Gilborn et al. 2018).Ideas surrounding the larger discussions of critical quantitative methodologies arealso highly pertinent to this presentation. We hope that this presentation and ourother work can begin to start these conversations in engineering education.In this presentation, we focus on similar ideas across two bodies of literature:FemQuant & QuantCrit. Each of these bodies center a revitalization of quantitativemethodology in critical feminist and race theories, respectively. We describe thesebodies very generally.1) FemQuant is a Feminist Theory-based quantitative methodology which exploresthe ways quantitative processes have/do engage in White androcentrism – that is thecentrism of White men in the production of
since 2011, first serving as a reader, and as part of the development committee for the exam since 2015, serving as higher ed co-chair since 2018. She has received more than $1M in NSF funding for her work in computing education. Active in the computing education community, she is currently the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education board chair (2019-2022), has served as SIGCSE board treasurer (2016-2019), was program co- chair in 2014 and general co-chair in 2015 for the SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, and has served on various other program and review committees.Monica McGill, Knox College Monica McGill is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at Knox College. Her
students have districtassigned Chromebooks which works well with all Google applications. One difficulty is we couldonly generate the session link each morning and email it to the students. Chat feature andcaptioning worked very well, and bandwidth usage was much less d) Jamboard – To teach and demonstrate the math and formulas it was difficult without awhiteboard feature. Jamboard enables the entire class or group to collectively add and workoutdiagrams, solutions and more as if it were paper or a smart board. • https://edu.google.com/products/jamboard/?modal_active=none Figure 1: Jamboard example from our class NOTE: For Group work, we created individual Google Meet rooms, and assigned specific
sports.Table 1 contains a list each participants access to advanced placement (AP), internationalbaccalaureate (IB), and project lead the way (PLTW) courses along with their pre-college sports. 6Table 1. Participant demographics Pseudonym Class Rank Pre-College STEM Access Pre-College Sports Dwight Sixth Year AP & honors courses; Basketball, Science, comp. science & cross country, soccer, general STEM club track Ryan Fourth Year AP & tech. courses; Robotics Basketball
Questions 4 and 5, students are asked about their confidence that theywill complete their degree program and career plans after they graduate. Open-ended questionsabout challenges the students are facing and growth experiences they have had serve to informdepartment administrators and faculty members about things the department is doing well andareas for improvement.The faculty survey (Appendix B) asks faculty members to (a) rate their level of confidence intheir advising and mentoring graduate students generally and specifically those in cultural groupsdifferent from their own (Questions 1-2); (b) indicate the frequency and kinds of experiencesthey typically provide their graduate students, such as helping them author or co-author paperson their
the role of gender in the construction of smartness. Weutilized semi-structured, one-on-one interviews to explore 22 students’ beliefs about smartnesswith the aim of addressing the following research questions: 1) What do high school science andengineering students believe about smartness? and 2) How do the beliefs about smartness ofthese students who identify as male and female differ, if at all?The major findings of this study are: 1) students’ beliefs about smartness are complex anddivergent, 2) students’ beliefs about smartness are related to their interpretations of socialindicators of smartness, their epistemic beliefs, and their mindset beliefs, and 3) students whoidentity as male and female socialized in the same academic environment
presentation 2History:Since 1970, diversity programs have existed in the college of engineering with a focus to recruit, retain and graduate underrepresented students in engineering. Two programs were created to support underrepresented student populations within engineering which are identified as women, ethnic minorities (African American/Black, Hispanic, Native American and Native Hawaiian) and students with marginalized identities (i.e. first generation, low socio‐economic status, etc.). Before their establishment, there was little attention from the engineering college given to recruitment efforts for underrepresented populations. In the years following