heuristics.Dr. Justin L. Hess, Indiana University-Purdue University of Indianapolis Dr. Justin L Hess is the Assistant Director of the STEM Education Innovation and Research Institute at IUPUI. His research interests include ethics, design, and sustainability. Dr. Hess received each of his degrees from Purdue University, including a PhD in Engineering Education, a Master of Science in Civil Engineering, and a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. He is currently the Vice Chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Committee on Sustainability subcommittee on Formal Engineering Education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Critical Incidents in Engineering Students
Paper ID #25598Counting Past Two: Engineers’ Leadership Learning TrajectoriesDr. Cindy Rottmann, University of Toronto Cindy Rottmann is the Associate Director of Research at the Troost Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering, University of Toronto. Her research interests include engineering leadership in university and workplace settings as well as ethics and equity in engineering education.Dr. Doug Reeve, University of Toronto Dr. Reeve is the founding Director of the Troost Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering (Troost ILead) (2010-2018) at the University of Toronto. After a lengthy career as a
international counterparts] want to validate is, can Itrust you as person… that you’re going to be honest with me, and you are ethical … until theproper level of trust and respect is validated, your international counterpart will be somewhatskeptical.”Interviewee 2 echoes this recommendation, stating, “Well, I think you always, no matter what Page 26.1068.13part of the world, you always have to build trust.” Further, as she continues, “And you knowtrust is a different definition to different people. I’ve never done business in Poland, or theUkraine, or Russia, but I’m going to guess that trust means something different there than it doesmaybe in the
activity theory perspective, we explored how the interactions -- specifically theways students used the behaviors, language, gestures and visual elements -- have helped us tobegin to answer the question: How were teams exhibiting the same behaviors creating different team environments?Combining the data from both the video recordings and the SRIs, we observed what we havelabelled ‘togethering’-- “an analytical category that accounts for the ethical manner in whichindividuals engage, respond, and tune to each other, despite their cognitive, emotional, and otherdifferences”21 -- as the differentiating factor across these teams.“Togethering is not the result of some social contract or norms evolved
campusDr. Patrick Cunningham, Rose-Hulman Institute of TechnologyDr. Douglas Karl Faust, Seattle Central College PhD in Physics, professor of Mathematics, physics, astronomy and computer science.Dr. Trevor Scott Harding, California Polytechnic State University Dr. Trevor S. Harding is Professor of Materials Engineering at California Polytechnic State University where he teaches courses in materials design, biomedical materials, and life cycle analysis. He has pre- sented his research on engineering ethics to several universities and to the American Bar Association. He Page 26.1323.1 serves as Associate Editor of
continuously interacting with thedifferent social and material aspects of their surroundings such that each mutually constitutes theother. For a community of practice to function, members need to mutually generate andappropriate a shared repertoire of ideas, commitments, values, ethics and memories. Thiscorresponds to earlier observations by Brown et. al14 that learning communities are “bound byintricate, socially constructed webs of belief, which are essential to understanding what they do”(p.33). The co-generation of these shared practices and purposes motivates members to developand use various resources such as tools, documents, routines, expectations, vocabulary or othersymbol systems. As these resources are continuously shared back and forth
members as well as from theperspective of the team, almost as if we were in the team. Togethering is described as “ananalytical category that accounts for the ethical manner in which individuals engage, respond,and tune to each other, despite their cognitive, emotional, and other differences.”9 The three keycomponents of togethering, which build upon each other, are engaging, responding, and tuning.When a team engages, each individual team member makes a commitment, manifested in action,to work with others in the joint activity. 9 When team members respond, they make efforts tocoordinate individual contributions (their engagements) through agreements and disagreements. 9When the engagement and response contributions of team members results in the
within their departments. Subsequent lecturesincluded guest speakers, both faculty and industry, from a variety of engineering disciplines thatfocused on the challenges within their disciplines.The two-credit design course “Design Practicum”, was a hands-on design course with lecturesand labs that introduced students to relevant topics in engineering that included problem solving,team design, innovation, information technology, engineering, ethics in engineering, communityengagement and social responsibility. Online videos, lectures, and tutorials provided a "flippedclassroom" style course.Application of classroom concepts in industry: Saterbak et al.17 described an elective courseavailable to all freshman students in the School of Engineering
the student-learning outcomes (ideal results) articulated byABET for engineering80: (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (g) an ability to
item either applicable (ifsignificantly below the ranking scale middle) or irrelevant (if significantly above the rankingscale middle). If just randomly ranked by a sufficiently large sample size of participants, it would6Since the course assignments and the associated use of the VLE are, obviously, obligatory tasks for students to accomplish in their studies (i.e.,exempt from Institutional Research Board (IRB) oversight IAW 45 CFR §46.10 (d) (1)), general ethical considerations were addressed by makingthe questionnaire about the VLE voluntary, incorporating an informed consent start page, and anonymous data recording (IAW 45 CFR §46.10(d) (2)).be expected that each item’s mean rank statistically approaches the middle value of the rankingscale
negotiation; she lectures on ethics, leadership, marketing and other business topics. She is a frequent presenter at conferences and has co-authored several papers on entrepreneurship education. Karen has earned Bachelor and Master of Music degrees from Florida State University, ARCM from the Royal College of Music, London, and an MBA from the University of Maryland. She taught at Jacksonville University (FL), and Towson University for a total of fifteen years before coming to the University of Maryland. Her international experience includes a Fulbright Fellowship to London where she studied and performed for nearly three years as well as an appointment as artist in
problems. These studies find that seniors list morefactors that could influence a solution, cover more problem space, and gather more informationthan first-year students2,3, suggesting that design education positively influences design learningoutcomes. Atman, Kilgore, and McKenna4 similarly compared design considerations for aplayground for first-years, seniors, and experienced practitioners at four institutions. Seniorsaligned more closely with experts than with first-years, providing further evidence that designskills are enhanced during college.Recent research on engineering education has focused on professional skills, includingmultidisciplinary skills, understanding professional and ethical responsibilities, andcommunication skills
value of hard work and good work ethics fromparents, 8 (32); parenting and raising children, 8 (32%); and supportive children, 6 (24%). Overhalf of the participants reported that having supportive and encouraging parents has had apositive impact on their career development. Having supportive family/parents in one casemeant having parents who assisted her in developing good work ethics by involving her as achild to work on projects around the house. This is what this participant had to say, My parents got me involved in doing projects around the house. For example one time I assisted them in remodeling a room and I had to learn how to tear the plaster off the wall, measure and saw the paneling, and then put the paneling up
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Educationimportant to contemplate different approaches to accommodate different learners, particularlyafter having learned about one’s own learning style. An instructor with some understanding ofdifferences in students’ learning styles is well on his/her way in making his/her teaching moreeffective.(28)A viable learning style model must be grounded in research, periodically evaluated, and adaptedto reflect the developing knowledge base.(19) Implementation of learning style practices mustconform to accepted standards of ethics, and be carried out by competent instructors, who canprovide suitable activities that appeal to each learning style. To promote effective learning,within the context of varied
student’s motivation toward being both aSTEM student and a student-athlete. Commonalities and differences across the interviews arethen discussed to highlight the time management and coping mechanisms used by this selectgroup of students. Finally, a set of best practices is proposed.This work has been approved by the Office of Research Ethics at the University of Waterloo.Literature ReviewThis paper leverages many ideas already established within the education and engineering-education literature including: expectancy-value theory14, subjective task values15,procrastination modeling9, 20, and time management strategies21, 22. The following sectionprovides a brief description of each of these topics respectively
Relationships Student-faculty relationships play a vital role in STEM retention. The scholarship in the fieldhas extensively documented the significance of student-faculty interactions as an important predictorfor success; however, we possess limited knowledge of the nature of student-faculty engagement forLatinx students in community colleges (Rodriguez et al., 2016). In fact, community colleges havebeen attributed as the most important avenue to transferring to 4-year institutions (Jackson et al.,2013). An important way to encourage the development of student-faculty relationships could bethrough mentoring. Student-faculty relationships aid students in different ways such as self-development, work ethic, and mentorship (Gandhi-Lee et al., 2015
sociolingual, epistemic, moral-ethical, psychological,aesthetic and other such philosophical questions. In other words it is a system of ourassumptions that are our answers to such questions as what do I believe about myself, what aresocial norms, what are my values, why are my values important, and how do I know thatsomething is true63. The theory is grounded in the constructivist paradigm which focuses on howhumans construct the meaning of their experiences. Unlike the paradigm of diffusion ofinnovations, which seeks predictability and reduction of uncertainty, in transformative learningtheory emergence and uncertainty are embraced as characteristic of the transformation process.The theory also focuses on communicative learning as distinguished from
Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech, focuses on advancing written, visual, and verbal communication skills. Her research centers on affect theory and its application to technical communication, specifically information design. Jill studies how to enhance the effectiveness of pedagogical documents by incorporating principles from affect theory. Through her work, she aims to empower students, fostering an environment where they actively shape their communication interactions, including teamwork and ethical discussions. By integrating these principles, she goes beyond traditional methods, ensuring that students not only learn but also take an active role in shaping their communication experiences.Christian Sims, Georgia
needs to be combated at primary levels of prevention by nurses,” Nurs. Open, vol. 7, pp. 678-679, 2020. 3. S. Oerther and D.B. Oerther, “The ethical challenges of antimicrobial resistance for nurse practitioners,” Nurs. Open, vol. 7, pp. 904-906, 2020. 4. H. Kosiyaporn, S. Chanvatik, T. Issaramalai, W. Kaewkhankhaeng, A. Kulthanmanusom, N. Saengruang, W. Witthayapipopsakul, S. Viriyathorn, S. Kirivan, W. Kunpeuk, R. Suphanchaimat, A. Lekagul, and V. Tangcharoensathien, “Surveys of knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance in general population: A systematic review,” PLoS One, vol. 15, no. e0227973, 2020. [Online] Available: https://doi.org/10.1371
them keep up with the technological changes. Overallmore African American teachers participated over four years. The teachers who participated inthe surveys reported that the program had increased their confidence in research andincorporated STEM in their classrooms. In addition, the program has provided flexibility to theteachers as they start their research two weeks after the students (REUs), which required theteachers to work more at developing their teams.ConfidenceMost of the effects were seen in the teachers' confidence in producing research articles forpublication, understanding research literature, and understanding the ethical issues surroundingresearch. Teachers' confidence levels barely changed between 2019 and 2020 but increased
-based ethical barriers for American Indian/Alaska Native students and professionals in engineering,” in 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings, Virtual Conference: ASEE Conferences, Jul. 2021, p. 36888. doi: 10.18260/1-2--36888.[11] M. A. Beasley and M. J. Fischer, “Why they leave: The impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors,” Soc. Psychol. Educ., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 427–448, Dec. 2012, doi: 10.1007/s11218-012-9185-3.[12] G. Lichtenstein, H. L. Chen, K. A. Smith, and T. A. Maldonado, “Retention and persistence of women and minorities along the engineering pathway in the United States,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering