Paper ID #25696Supervising Undergraduate Cybersecurity ProjectsProf. Aaron Carpenter, Wentworth Institute of Technology Professor Carpenter is an Assistant Professor at the Wentworth Institute of Technology. In 2012, he completed his PhD at the University of Rochester, and now focuses his efforts to further the areas of computer architecture, digital systems, cybersecurity, and computer engineering education.Prof. Raymond A. Hansen, Wentworth Institute of Technology c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Supervising Undergraduate Cybersecurity Projects Aaron
2025 ASEE Northeast Section Conference, March 22, 2025, University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT, USA. Innovation, Technology, and Teacher Leadership Development through Online Professional Development Courses in Saudi Arabia Nadia Albishi, Peter Cavanaugh School of Engineering and Technology University of Bridgeport Bridgeport, CT I. INTRODUCTIONAbstract - This study investigates the relationship betweenonline professional
% 9% 9% 9% 9% 22% 10% 17% 19% 19% 21% 20% 13% 16% 15% 17% 16% 0 Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Domestic Men 1018 968 1005 1028 1160 1213 1160 1106 1002 1195 1179 International Men 1475 1702 1830 1890 2098 2116 2658 2703 2990 3043 3218 Domestic Women 331 324
, 2019, p. 12.[8] I. M. Hasbun, H. M. Matusovich, and S. G. Adams, “The dissertation Institute: Motivating doctoral engineering students toward degree completion,” in IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2016, vol. 2016-Novem, p. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), doi: 10.1109/FIE.2016.7757508.[9] R. L. Kajfez and H. M. Matusovich, “Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness as Motivators of Graduate Teaching Assistants,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 245–272, 2017, doi: 10.1002/jee.20167.[10] C. G. P. Berdanier, A. Tally, B. Ahn, and M. F. Cox, “Aligning engineering education with disciplinary expectations: A strategic blueprint for doctoral competency assessment,” Int. J
. Page - 2 For instance, the initial question we developed was “Can we use available institutional data toidentify differences in pass rates between student subgroups and can we predict time to declare successfor these different groups?”. We hypothesized there would be no detectable differences, and found wedisproved that null theory. For academic years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, 3,286frosh students came to the concerned Californian university to study engineering. Of that entire group,2,514 (77%) were able to successfully meet course requirements and declare engineering major by theend of their second year. However, of the 539 URM students and the same 5-year period, only 332 (62%)met course requirements and
, pp. 1–7, 2013.[2] S. Provasnik, A. KewalRamani, M. McLaughlin Coleman, L. Gilbertson, W. Herring, and Q. Xie, “Status of Education in Rural America,” Washington, DC, 2007.[3] J. J. Versypt and A. N. Ford Versypt, “Mapping Rural Students ’ STEM Involvement : Case Studies of Chemical En- gineering Undergraduate Enrollment in the States of Illinois and Kansas Mapping Rural Students ’ STEM Involvement : Case Studies of Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Enrollment in t,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2013.[4] L. Zahedi, M. Ross, and J. Batten, “Pathways and Outcomes of Rural Students in Engineering," no. June 2019.[5] K. M. Ganss, “The college transition for
Education Review, (2020), 8(1), 180-193.[4] M. G. Eastman, M. L. Miles, & R. Yerrick, Exploring the White and male culture: Investigating individual perspectives of equity and privilege in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 2019, 108(4), 459-480.[5] E. O. McGee, Interrogating structural racism in STEM higher education. Educational Researcher, (2020), 49(9), 633-644.[6] D. H. Nguyen & L. Ward, A colorblind discourse analysis of higher education race-conscious admissions in a post-racial society. NDL Rev., (2016), 92, 551.[7] A. E. Martin & T. R. Fisher‐Ari, “If We Don't Have Diversity, There's No Future to See”: High‐school students' perceptions of race and gender representation in STEM. Science
Elizabeth Litzler, Ph.D., is the director of the University of Washington Center for Evaluation and Re- search for STEM Equity (UW CERSE) and an affiliate assistant professor of sociology. She has been at UW working on STEM Equity issues for more than 17 years. Dr. Litzler is a member of ASEE, 2020-2021 chair of the ASEE Commission on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and a former board member of the Women in Engineering ProActive Network (WEPAN). Her research interests include the educational cli- mate for students, faculty, and staff in science and engineering, assets based approaches to STEM equity, and gender and race stratification in education and the workforce. She was awarded the 2020 WEPAN Founders Award
highlight students’ reflections on the skills and courses that are most relevant to their seniordesign experience. Data from surveys conducted in senior design courses were analyzed toexamine students’ perceived confidence and importance of various design skills while cross-analyzing these perceptions with the courses they have found to be relevant in their preparationfor their design capstone course. Overall, this study is guided by the following research question:How do the perceptions of mechanical engineering students’ design skills evolve throughout thecourse of a senior design course sequence?Site and SampleThis research is currently being conducted at a large public Minority Serving Institution (MSI) inthe southeastern United States. In 2019
, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA in 2007, and his M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering from Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, in 2013 and 2017, respectively. He is currently an Assistant Professor at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. His research interests include Engineering Education, Wireless Communications, satellite and mobile communication Systems, vehicular networks, wireless network connectivity, and interference modeling. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 gruepr: An Open Source Program for Creating Student Project TeamsAbstractThis complete, evidence-based practice paper presents a study on
://profiles.asee.org/ • Campbell University is not in ASEE. Their engineering population is found on: https://engineering.campbell.edu/our-purpose/accreditation/ Each of the panel organizers crafted several questions. Then, they deliberated carefully and jointly to modify, tweak, combine, delete, and re-write those questions. This process produced afinal set of 5 questions which are shown in Exhibit 3. This list was shared with the Panel early inDecember 2019, with instructions to respond by December 20, 2019. An extension was grantedto one individual and all responses were collected by the first week in January 2020.This paper summarizes responses from the Panelists, and interjects information and insight froma few relevant articles on the subject
Paper ID #29977Student Perspectives on Navigating Engineering PathwaysDr. Atsushi Akera, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Atsushi Akera is Associate Professor and Graduate Program Director in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY). He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in the History and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania. His current research is on the history of engineering education reform in the United States (1945-present). He is a the current Chair of the ASEE Ad Hoc Committee on Interdivisional Cooperation; Chair of the International Network for
, pp. 14–29, 2023.[4] E. O. McGee, P. K. Botchway, D. E. Naphan-Kingery, A. J. Brockman, S. Houston, and D. T. White, “Racism camouflaged as impostorism and the impact on Black STEM doctoral students,” Race Ethn. Educ., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 487–507, 2021, doi: 10.1080/13613324.2021.1924137.[5] M. L. Miles, A. J. Brockman, and D. E. Naphan-Kingery, “Invalidated identities: The disconfirming effects of racial microaggressions on Black doctoral students in STEM,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 1608–1631, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1002/TEA.21646.[6] M. Bahnson et al., “Students’ experiences of discrimination in engineering doctoral education,” in 2022 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Aug. 2022, pp. 1–13.[7] D. R. Jones
, “Female peer mentors early in college increase women’s positive academic experiences and retention in engineering,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 114, no. 23, pp. 5964–5969, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1613117114.[5] T. Boyd and D. Mitchell, “Black Male Persistence in Spite of Facing Stereotypes in College: A Phenomenological Exploration,” TQR, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3124.[6] K. C. Margot and T. Kettler, “Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review,” IJ STEM Ed, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 2, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2.[7] B. Smith et al., “Faculty Characteristics that Influence Student
. Cooney, L. Russell, and E. Schott, “Engineering Technology Undergraduate Students a Survey of Demographics and Mentoring,” in ASEE Annual Conference, Tampa, FL, 2019.[35] A. M. Lucietto, and L. A. Russell, “STEM Educators: What They Believe,” Journal of STEM Educators, no. Summer 2018, 2018.[36] J. Y. Yoon, and M. R. Riley, “Grand Challenges for Biological Engineering,” Journal of Biological Engineering, 2009.[37] L. G. Huettel, M. Gustafson, J. C. Nadeau, D. E. Schaad, M. M. Barger, and L. Linnenbrink‐Garcia, “A Grand Challenge-Based Framework for Contextual Learning in Engineering: Impact on Student Outcomes and Motivation.”[38] K. Larsen, and J. Gärdebo, “Retooling Engineering for Social Justice
variousinterests related to them” [12]. A more concise description of DT was introduced by Luka (2019) as “ asystematic approach to problem-solving that involves the human perspective” [13]. Human CenteredDesign (HCD) has been used either hand-in-hand with DT [14] or used synonymously [15]. Empathizing,the first stage of DT, is considered the core of HCD [14], this highlights the focus on the human elementin the process of designing or solving a problem. Define is the second stage in DT, it is characterized byworking towards defining the problem at hand. Ideation is the third stage in DT, which can be defined asan iterative process to achieve a final design that addresses the user’s needs [16]. While having the capacity to work in cross-functional
Paper ID #41880Focus group analysis of engineering Collaborative Online International Learning(COIL+) compared to short-term study abroad programsJoshua E. Katz, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Joshua E. Katz is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, DELTA program, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where his research centers on collaborative learning in engineering education and other STEM disciplines. He obtained his B.S. in Technology and Engineering Education in 2019 and his M.S. in STEM Education and Leadership in 2021, both from Illinois State University
. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration Copyright ©2023, American Society for Engineering Education ETD 4453. Amy Feldman, “Why the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire still burns hot today.” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2019/11/22/why-the-triangle-shirtwaist-factory-fire-still-burns-hot- today/?sh=2d4e8081704a (accessed September 29, 2022).4. “Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.” AFL-CIO. https://aflcio.org/about/history/labor-history-events/triangle-shirtwaist- fire (accessed August 30, 2022).5. Lib Tietjen, “The power of the purse.” Tenement Museum. https
classroom environments.However, while research trends indicate interest in studying faculty development, there is limitedresearch on faculty motivations specifically, as indicated by a 2019 search that identified 579publications for ‘faculty + development’ but only 87 publications for ‘faculty + motivation’ [24].Understanding faculty motivations for engaging in faculty development programs is essential fordesigning effective faculty development programs that align with faculty interests andinstitutional goals.Despite the recognized importance of CRP, there is limited research on the specific motivationsof engineering faculty to participate in faculty development programs focused on these inclusiveand equitable pedagogical approaches. This paper
they do not continue reproducing unfair neo-colonial practices andassumptions of past development practices. Here we explore how STS concepts have servedengineering students to develop critical praxis, a more robust and responsible understanding ofthe relationships between engineering faculty, students, and communities, and the materialand social worlds in which they are embedded, using community development projects relatedto artisanal gold mining, inclusive management of electronic waste, and water access forunderserved communities as examples.BackgroundAs shown in our 2022 ASEE paper [1], pedagogies of formation are explorations that implicatethe self in questioning “what engineering is for” and how answers to these questions begin toshow
] W. C. Lee, D. B.,Knight, A. Godwin, J. L. Hall, and D. Verdín, “Eager: Measuring student support in STEM: Insights from year two,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, June, 2019.[23] L. N. Fleming, S. E. Burris, K. C. Smith, L. B. Bliss, I. N. Moor, and F. Bornmann, Beyond persistence: Graduate school aspirations of Hispanic engineering students at HSIs, in 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN., June, 2014.[24] G. B. Willis, Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications., 2004.AppendixBelow are the three main blocks of the survey.BLOCK 1: Undergraduate ExperienceLikert Items (7-Point; Strongly Agree to Strongly