Conceptualizing Program Quality in Engineering Education Ph.D. Programs

Le Shorn Benjamin; Jerrod A. Henderson

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Baltimore , Maryland
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
Start Date: June 25, 2023
End Date: June 28, 2023
Conference Session: Graduate Studies Division (GSD) Technical Session 9: Lessons Learned from Engineering Graduate Programs
Tagged Division: Graduate Studies Division (GSD)
Page Count: 17
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--43300
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/43300
Download Count: 229

Paper Authors

biography

Le Shorn Benjamin University of Houston

visit author page

Dr. Le Shorn Benjamin has amassed over a decade of experience in the field of education. Her career spans local and international borders and have included roles in educational research, program administration, higher education accreditation and K-12 teaching. She is the recipient of the Robert Newby Award for Diversity Efforts, the Central Michigan University College of Graduate Studies 2019 Outstanding Dissertation Award, a Central Michigan University Department of Educational Leadership Faculty Endowed Award and is consistently motivated by the distinction of her University of the West Indies Most All-Round Social Policy Student award. Dr Benjamin is a previous New York City Teaching Fellow and an inaugural member of the American Society for Engineering Education Post-Doctoral E-Fellowship. Through her scholarship, she explores matters related to minoritized student experiences, doctoral education, and engineering education with an educational philosophy that equates quality with equity. Dr Benjamin is committed to transforming educational systems into more inclusive, equitable and just spaces that adequately support learners – particularly those who have been historically and intentionally positioned at the fringes of education – to succeed, excel, and thrive.

visit author page

biography

Jerrod A. Henderson University of Houston orcid.org/0000-0002-0501-5805

visit author page

Dr. Jerrod A. Henderson (“Dr. J”) is an Assistant Professor in the William A. Brookshire Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering in the Cullen College of Engineering at the University of Houston (UH).

He began his higher education pursuits at Morehouse College and North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University where he earned degrees in both Chemistry and Chemical Engineering as a part of the Atlanta University Center’s Dual Degree in Engineering Program. While in college he was a Ronald E. McNair Scholar which afforded him the opportunity to intern at NASA Langley. He also earned distinction as a Phi Beta Kappa member and an American Chemical Society Scholar. Dr. Henderson completed his Ph.D. in Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. During his time as a graduate student, he was a NASA Harriet G. Jenkins Graduate Fellow.

Dr. Henderson has dedicated his career to increasing the number of students who are on pathways to pursue STEM careers. He believes that exposing students to STEM early will have a lasting impact on their lives and academic pursuits. He is the co-founder of the St. Elmo Brady STEM Academy (SEBA). SEBA is an educational intervention aimed at exposing underrepresented fourth and fifth-grade students and their families to hands-on STEM experiences.

Henderson's research interests are in engineering identity development among Black men. He was most recently recognized by INSIGHT Into Diversity Magazine as an Inspiring STEM Leader, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences (LAS) Outstanding Young Alumni Award, and Career Communications Group with a Black Engineer of the Year Award for college-level promotion of engineering education.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree programs occupy the apex of the academic hierarchy. This is largely because graduates are required to extend the bounds of existing knowledge [1]. In the recent doctoral discipline of engineering education, students are prepared to conduct effective educational research in the areas of engineering curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and faculty development” among other topics [2]. With the recency of these programs, there is significant opportunity to learn more about what constitutes quality within this educational context. In this work in progress paper, authors explore conceptions of engineering education PhD program quality as understood from the lived experiences of program directors. Research into the quality of doctoral-level programs is at an all-time high due to increased attention by national agencies, disciplinary bodies, and higher education stakeholders [1]. These calls are the result of several factors but are most amplified by the inextricable link between research doctoral programs and the national economy [3]. In this study, researchers conducted an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) of interviews with five individuals holding leadership roles in engineering education PhD programs. Participants’ leadership tenure in these programs ranged from 0.16 to 6 years with their affiliated programs existing for between 3 to 15 years. Participants’ interview responses suggested that the role of a program leader was multifaceted. It required a combination of administrative tasks involving institutional stakeholders as well as student facing responsibilities related to admissions, recruitment, and student support across the program life cycle. Although participants provided individualized interpretations, researchers identified a telling consensus. Their responses provided the basis for the following findings. Participants illuminated unrelenting reflections about their programs and “what does it mean” to offer one that is of quality and how even answers to these questions may exists only “at that time” since they were likely to change. Finally, there were other key quotes which found participants examining how they used program goals and outcomes all “to assess the program” and change them accordingly if they were not “working so well”. After three stages of (descriptive, linguistic, and conceptual) analysis, authors developed a singular superordinate theme which likened participants’ conception of quality to the idea of continuous improvement. This theme was appropriate as participants articulated a shared interest in advancing changes that would consistently enhance the quality of the individual programs they represented. Implications of these insights are applicable to programs currently in design phase as they provide a baseline for how programs may be developed and directed. Additionally, these findings also provide guidance to postdocs and current candidates entering the faculty job market on faculty service requirements which may be expected within new/er or developing programs.

Citation
Format

Benjamin, L. S., & Henderson, J. A. (2023, June), Conceptualizing Program Quality in Engineering Education Ph.D. Programs Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--43300

TY - CPAPER
AB - Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree programs occupy the apex of the academic hierarchy. This is largely because graduates are required to extend the bounds of existing knowledge [1]. In the recent doctoral discipline of engineering education, students are prepared to conduct effective educational research in the areas of engineering curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and faculty development” among other topics [2]. With the recency of these programs, there is significant opportunity to learn more about what constitutes quality within this educational context. In this work in progress paper, authors explore conceptions of engineering education PhD program quality as understood from the lived experiences of program directors. Research into the quality of doctoral-level programs is at an all-time high due to increased attention by national agencies, disciplinary bodies, and higher education stakeholders [1]. These calls are the result of several factors but are most amplified by the inextricable link between research doctoral programs and the national economy [3]. In this study, researchers conducted an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) of interviews with five individuals holding leadership roles in engineering education PhD programs. Participants’ leadership tenure in these programs ranged from 0.16 to 6 years with their affiliated programs existing for between 3 to 15 years. Participants’ interview responses suggested that the role of a program leader was multifaceted. It required a combination of administrative tasks involving institutional stakeholders as well as student facing responsibilities related to admissions, recruitment, and student support across the program life cycle. Although participants provided individualized interpretations, researchers identified a telling consensus. Their responses provided the basis for the following findings. Participants illuminated unrelenting reflections about their programs and “what does it mean” to offer one that is of quality and how even answers to these questions may exists only “at that time” since they were likely to change. Finally, there were other key quotes which found participants examining how they used program goals and outcomes all “to assess the program” and change them accordingly if they were not “working so well”. After three stages of (descriptive, linguistic, and conceptual) analysis, authors developed a singular superordinate theme which likened participants’ conception of quality to the idea of continuous improvement. This theme was appropriate as participants articulated a shared interest in advancing changes that would consistently enhance the quality of the individual programs they represented. Implications of these insights are applicable to programs currently in design phase as they provide a baseline for how programs may be developed and directed. Additionally, these findings also provide guidance to postdocs and current candidates entering the faculty job market on faculty service requirements which may be expected within new/er or developing programs.
AU - Le Shorn Benjamin
AU - Jerrod A. Henderson
CY - Baltimore , Maryland
DA - 2023/06/25
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Conceptualizing Program Quality in Engineering Education Ph.D. Programs
UR - https://peer.asee.org/43300
DO - 10.18260/1-2--43300
ER -