Paper ID #12091The Science and Engineering Postdoc Experience through the Lens of Limi-nalityIrene B. Mena, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Irene B. Mena has a B.S. and M.S. in industrial engineering, and a Ph.D. in engineering education. Her research interests include first-year engineering and graduate student professional development. Page 26.1575.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 The Science and Engineering Postdoc Experience
Applied not 40% Did not Matriculated apply Admitted matriculate 51% 60% 87% 39% (a) (b) (c)Figure 1. (a) Application to TAMU; (b) Admissions to TAMU; and (c) Matriculation to TAMU.Factors - Graduate School SelectionParticipant responses on factors that influenced their selection of a graduate school were codedinto four categories based on previous research10. The categories included institutional factors,department factors, faculty factors and personal factors. Response percentages for
articulation and online delivery of undergraduate engineering degrees. In addition to conducting research on color image fusion and real-time implementation of algorithms, she is the immediate past chair of the Middle Atlantic Section of the American Society for Engineering Education and a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. She enjoys observing the intellectual and professional growth in students as they prepare for engineering careers.Dr. Gbekeloluwa B. Oguntimein, Morgan State University Dr. Gbekeloluwa B. Oguntimein received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Chemical Engineering from Iowa State University in 1974 and 1979 respectively. He has over 30 years teaching and research experience
nodes, and edges corresponding to the hiring of one program’s graduates by anotherprogram. In the hiring graph, a directed edge from program A to program B indicates that Ahires at least one Ph.D. from B as its faculty member. Our hypothesis is that “schools tend to hirePh.D.s from peer or better schools”. We note that a lot of resources are placed in the hiringactivity, including assessment from domain experts, academic review, salaries and so on, andtherefore the hiring decision reflects the academic quality of the faculty member in acomprehensive way.Our rationale for employing the hiring graph has several reasons. First, this is based on ourhypothesis that “universities tend to hire Ph.D.s from peer or better programs”. This is
research, statement of the problem, 2) literature review, research design, sampling,measurement, data analysis, and 3) documentation and presentation. In each unit, the relevantchapters and activities were included so once the first unit was finished, the students wouldcomplete all the activities and move to the next unit. Figure 2 shows the structure of the courseand how the activities would contribute to the proposal development (the complete courseoutline can be found in Appendix B). The only exception was the weekly article review in whichstudents were to read at least, two recent articles in the area of their interest and briefly describewhat they had found. They were also, to maintain a weekly online journal in which they wrote asummary of
that some time has elapsed between thesurveys, which may correspond to changes in some responses from two years (beginning) to oneyear (post). Despite the elapsed time, we observed an increase in the number of participantsindicating that they would apply for positions in 3 years. This shift may be a result of anincreased awareness of participant preparedness and the effort required for the applicationprocess. A delay in a faculty candidate’s job search may enable them to apply for jobs with abetter sense of confidence and preparedness. Overall, participants indicated that they wouldrecommend iFEAT to others, indicating a program rating of 4.3 ± 0.9 on a scale from 1-wouldnot recommend to 5-would recommend.Figure 2: Perceived (a) most and (b
; Teasley, S. D.) 63–82 (American Psychological Assossiation, 1991).7. Adams, R. et al. A community of practice approach to becoming an engineering education re- search professional. in 121st ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. (2014).8. Sattler, B., Carberry, A. R. & Thomas, L. D. Graduate student peer mentoring: A means for creating an engineering education reseracg community. in Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. (2012).9. Jesiek, B. K., Newswander, L. K. & Borrego, M. Engineering Education Research: Discipline, Community, Page 26.1783.14 or Field? J. Eng. Educ. (2009).10. Katehi, L. et al. Development of Graduate Programs
order to define a protocol in item 6 above, each stage in iSLR is broken down into a moredetailed list of specific tasks, e.g., for items 3. Search Strategy and 4. Selection Process we have: a) Perform snowballing search from the starting paper and deliver a. Raw list of references, (this should be exported from Zotero in some electronic format for future inclusion in written documents) b. Selection criteria for eliminating / keeping papers from that list c. List of references after selection; each eliminated paper should have a comment or code explaining why it was eliminated. d. Suggestions for possible refinement of research question b) Perform
Prestige: The Experiences of Institutional Striving from a Faculty Perspective," Journal of the Professoriate, vol. 4, pp. 39-73, 2011.[6] M. Nerad, "The PhD in the US: Criticisms, Facts, and Remedies," Higher Education Policy, vol. 17, pp. 183-199, 2004.[7] E. de Weert, "The Organized Contradictions of Teaching and Research: Reshaping the Academic Profession," in The Changing Face of Academic Life: Analytical and Comparative Perspectives, J. Enders Page 26.1608.8 and E. de Weert, Eds., ed Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, pp. 134-154.[8] B. R. Clark, The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different
prove helpful in theidentification and recruitment of returners, an important first step in supporting these studentsand better utilizing their unique backgrounds. Future work will examine how the experiences,challenges, and values of returners compare to those of direct pathway students as well as takinga more in-depth look at both groups’ process of deciding to pursue a PhD. A morecomprehensive overview of the survey development process can be found in Mosyjowski, Daly,Peters, and Skerlos28.B. Survey Distribution and ParticipantsWe distributed the GSEMS nationally to both returning and direct-pathway domestic engineeringPhD students. We opted to focus only on domestic students due to the variation in “typical”paths to graduate study in other
Science, Technology & Society, 22(1), 31-41.18. Patterson, E. A., Campbell, P. B., Busch-Vishniac, I., & Guillaume, D. W. (2011). The effect of context on student engagement in engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(3), 211-224. Page 26.1326.12
information such as lectures, reading material, etc. tooptimize and improve the quality of learning.References 1. Gilbert, J. E., Han, & Han, C. Y. (1999). Adapting Instruction in Search of a Significant Difference. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 22 (3), 149–160. 2. Bybee, B. W. (2010). Advancing STEM Education: A2020Vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35. 3. Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 125-130. 4. Atkins, D. E., Bennett, J., Brown, J. S., Chopra, A., Dede, C., & Fishman, B. (2010). Transforming
. F., & Shah, A. J. (2007). Using Learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 5(1), 1–19. 4. Atkins, D. E., Bennett, J., Brown, J. S., Chopra, A., Dede, C., & Fishman, B. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Learning, 114, p. 39. 5. National Academy of Engineers of the National Academies, http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/. 6. Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103–112. 7. Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching teaching by exploring the
Organized Relationships,” Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE National Conference, Chicago, IL, June 2006. 8. Soibelman, L., Sacks, R., Akinci, B., Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M., and Eybpoosh, M. (2011). ”Preparing Civil Engineers for International Collaboration in Construction Management.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 137(3), 141–150. 9. Soumya, Keshavamurthy, Srivastava Anurag, Minerick Adrienne, and Schulz Noel. "Challenges for International Students in a Globally Changing Environment ." ASEE2008. Web. 3 Jan. 2014. 10. Woods, Belle. "First-Time International Graduate Student Enrollment surges 8%." Council of Graduate Schools. Web. 08 Nov 2011
broadobjectives and specific goals previously outlined. Once the funding was secured, the secondaryfacilitator identified and hired the primary facilitator, coordinated advertising efforts andlogistics, and participated in the discussion sessions.Assessment Process and InstrumentsThe facilitators obtained approval for research with human subjects from the MSU’s InstitutionalReview Board. Appendix B includes copies of the pre- and post-experience surveys as well asthe open-ended feedback forms distributed at the end of each discussion session. The facilitatorsalso used observation as a tool to capture qualitative data; this included notes taken during eachsession, notes captured by both watching and participating in the online community forum
initiatives, and PhD Completion in Panama, Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia, Puerto Rico, and schools across the United States. Tull is on the board of advisors for the PNW-COSMOS Alliance to increase the number of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) students who complete STEM graduate programs, and is a speaker on ”GRADLab” tour with the National GEM Consortium, giving talks across the US each Saturday morning during the Fall. Tull researched speech technology as former member of the faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She has co-authored several publications on achievement in STEM fields, and is a mentoring consultant for Purdue, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and MIT. She co-leads the ”ADVANCE His- panic Women in
direct-pathway and returning engineering graduate students. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA.11. Mosyjowski, E. A., Daly, S.R., Peters D.L., Skerlos, S.J., & Baker, A. B. (2014). The PhD advising relationship: Needs of returning and direct-pathway students. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. Page 26.859.7
Paper ID #13515Comparative Analysis of PhD programs in Engineering EducationMr. Homero Gregorio Murzi, Virginia Tech PhD. student of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech.Mr. Prateek Shekhar, University of Texas, Austin Prateek Shekhar is a PhD student in the Department of Mechanical Education at the University of Texas at Austin. His research is focused in understanding students’ and faculty’s reaction to adoption of active learning based teaching methods in engineering classrooms. He holds a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from University of Southern California and B.S. in Electronics and Communication Engineering from