Search

This Special Session will engage engineering and computing education professionals in an interactive discussion of how to find and use the expertise of an advisory board when writing and executing funded projects. Our recent research of effective practices for supporting early career faculty in engineering education has shown that grant administration is an area that many faculty feel unprepared to manage. Beyond writing an excellent grant proposal, the skills required to carry out the planned grant activities are different from those addressed in existing professional development opportunities and are essential the success of a grant. This session will provide an interactive discussion and development of tools on one specific aspect of grant proposal writing and management—advisory boards. Advisory boards are an essential part of leveraging the expertise in the wider engineering education community, but there are various ways of strategically building and engaging advisory boards in grant work. The outcomes of this session will be a set of tools for faculty to use in building and leveraging the expertise of an advisory board in grant submissions.

Work in Progress: When we talk about inclusion, we often neglect geographic constraints. Akin to a food desert, education deserts exist in the United States and affect the participation of students in higher education. Accessing an engineering education program is not always possible for placebound students if they are far from engineering programs, even if nearby community colleges support lower division training. This paper presents information about where the engineering education deserts are in the United States and seeks to broaden the conversation about access to engineering degrees. There are both lower-division and upper-division deserts, but community colleges expand the availability of engineering education in ways that are not always studied and are sometimes dismissed. This work-in-progress paper highlights an initial investigation of this issue and presents the early stages of an innovative curriculum that addresses the challenge of providing access to upper-division engineering learning for all prepared students.

Telling our lived stories and listening to others’ stories are part of how we make sense of our lives and build our communities. It is no wonder that stories hold us in such thrall and have power in our relationships and organizations. Both listening to and telling stories are important skills for engineering educators and change agents at any career stage. We also have to learn how to nudge the stories towards the improved future we know can occur. Before we can redirect the stories in our organizations as part of making change happen, we have to learn how to identify, and build meaning from, the stories we hear. This special session builds on data from our active research study of systemic curricular change origins as well as the work of others to demonstrate techniques to nudge stories. Every member of the FIE community, regardless of their institution or job title, is a potential change agent for improving CSET education and needs opportunities to continue building their skill sets. In this special session, we offer a portion of this training in an interactive, hands-on manner within the safe environment of FIE.

This interactive workshop uses the metaphor of a baseball team to illustrate the variety of people-roles involved in making educational improvements happen, as well as the academic ecosystem in which these changes occur. When making smaller-scale changes, the members may be more loosely structured like an informal sandlot team, though core roles still need to be fulfilled. Larger-scale changes may require visible change champions with different specialities, such as managing and coaching staff, and a team maintaining the stadium. This workshop looks at the broad scope of individuals necessary to field a team of change champions and helps participants build their own “roster” and “scouting” processes, whether their current (or envisioned) change is big, small, or somewhere in between. Everyone interested in changing engineering education is welcome. You do not need to have a “big idea” or a team to be part of this workshop.1

Background While several articles on MD-PhD trainees in the basic sciences have been published in the past several years, very little research exists on physician-investigators in the social sciences and humanities. However, the numbers of MD-PhDs training in these fields and the number of programs offering training in these fields are increasing, particularly within the US. In addition, accountability for the public funding for MD-PhD programs requires knowledge about this growing population of trainees and their career trajectories. The aim of this paper is to describe the first cohorts of MD-PhDs in the social sciences and humanities, to characterize their training and career paths, and to better understand their experiences of training and subsequent research and practice. Methods This paper utilizes a multi-pronged recruitment method and novel survey instrument to examine an understudied population of MD-PhD trainees in the social sciences and humanities, many of whom completed both degrees without formal programmatic support. The survey instrument was designed to collect demographic, training and career trajectory data, as well as experiences of and perspectives on training and career. It describes their routes to professional development, characterizes obstacles to and predictors of success, and explores career trends. Results The average length of time to complete both degrees was 9 years. The vast majority (90%) completed a clinical residency, almost all (98%) were engaged in research, the vast majority (88%) were employed in academic institutions, and several others (9%) held leadership positions in national and international health organizations. Very few (4%) went into private practice. The survey responses supply recommendations for supporting current trainees as well as areas for future research. Conclusions In general, MD-PhDs in the social sciences and humanities have careers that fit the goals of agencies providing public funding for training physician-investigators: they are involved in mutually-informative medical research, clinical practice, and teaching – working to improve our responses to the social, cultural, and political determinants of health and health care. These findings provide strong evidence for continued and improved funding and programmatic support for MD-PhD trainees in the social sciences and humanities. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0896-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Engineering student team projects are frequently used to meet professional learning outcomes. Industrial and organizational psychologists study teams in the industry settings for which we prepare students, yet this research does not effectively inform engineering education. Purpose This research review sought to demonstrate the relevance of literature on teams literature from industrial and organizational psychology to engineering education and to identify implications for practice and future directions for research. Scope/Method Phase 1 systematically reviewed 104 articles published from 2007 to 2012 describing engineering and computer science student team projects and sought to answer the following questions: What professional learning outcomes have been met by team projects? What negative student team behaviors have faculty sought to minimize? What literature has been used to inform development of teamwork outcomes? Phase 2 reviewed five team effectiveness constructs selected according to the results of Phase 1: social loafing, interdependence, conflict, trust, and shared mental models. Examples from Phase 1 articles and our own work explain how this research informs facilitation and assessment of engineering student teams. Conclusions Engineering faculty sought to achieve a variety of outcomes through team projects, including teamwork, communication, sustainability, and consideration of global/societal design context. They sought to avoid social loafing and conflict while building trust to ensure equal team effort. That few Phase 1 articles engaged the literature about team effectiveness indicates there is great opportunity to apply industrial and organizational psychology research to engineering education.

Background: Psychosocial data about living kidney donors have been collected for almost 5 decades now. To date, however, no study has provided any psychosocial follow-up of donors who developed a serious health problem such as end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Methods: Donors who developed ESRD were invited to participate in a qualitative interview if they met one or both of the inclusion criteria: (1) developed ESRD within 10 years of donating and/or (2) lacked health insurance at the time of donation. We contacted 38 individuals who met these criteria, and 22 participated (58%). Two were subsequently excluded from analysis. Results: Twenty qualitative interviews were analyzed. Five findings are described: (1) donors describe the decision-making process as spontaneous and fast; (2) donors describe lack of appreciation for the need for post-donation self-care; (3) donors do not regret donating despite the adverse outcome; (4) donors advise future donors to have in place emotional and physical support post donation; and (5) donors appreciate the opportunity to tell their story from being a living donor to living with ESRD, which virtually all perceive as 2 separate unrelated events. Conclusions: Most donors are positive about their donation decision and experience and would donate again, despite developing ESRD themselves. They propose some important changes to the decision-making and informed-consent processes. Our data are reassuring regarding lack of donor regret, but highlight the need for living donor transplant programs to ensure that living donors understand their long-term risks and receive appropriate life-long follow-up care to minimize these risks.

Engineering and Computer Science (E&CS) Education is an emerging discipline and is a subset of the larger field of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education. E&CS Education has a relatively brief history, and many individuals who are not directly involved in the discipline are often confused about its purpose. In this special session, we will use up to two background stories to frame the larger questions around E&CS Education goals and help draw the conversation from practice to philosophy while creating a safe space for open conversation addressing issues of change in our discipline.

SEED (System of Entrepreneurialism and Economic Development) is an evidence-based co-curricular learning environment. This paper provides an overview of the SEED process, three of the core areas of learning theory on which it is based (holistic learner development, mentoring, and authentic learning contexts), and how the learning theories are applied in the implementation of SEED.

Engineering and Computer Science (E&CS) Education is an emerging discipline with a brief history and the unfortunate particularity that many folks outside our discipline are confused as to our purpose. In this special session, we will use two case studies to frame the larger questions around E&CS Education goals and help draw the conversation from practice to philosophy while creating a safe space for open conversation.

▪ Abstract This chapter summarizes and synthesizes some major perspectives on the relationship between technology and the nature of work. Given the complexity of technology and its impacts, the chapter elucidates different perspectives on this topic rather than summaries of detailed findings in a particular area of technology. The central thesis of the chapter is a follows: Technology's impact on work is contingent on a broad set of factors, including the reasons for its introduction, management philosophy, the labor-management contract, the degree of a shared agreement about technology and work organization, and the process of technology development and implementation. How this is viewed varies with different theoretical paradigms. Looking through a variety of paradigms provides a richer view of the phenomenon, though integrating these perspectives remains problematic. Historically, technology was treated as a deterministic causal force with predictable impacts. More recently there is a recognition of the complexity of technology and its relationship to work which is both bi-directional and dependent on a number of contingent factors. One set of factors integral to the “impact” of technology is the dynamics of the change process and in fact the change process and “outcomes” are inextricably linked. We conclude that the social reality of technology implementation is highly complex. Very different technologies are brought into very different social settings for very different reasons, often with completely opposite effects and thus complex theories that recognize the emergent and socially constructed nature of technology are needed.

Steps for Better Thinking, provides a useful conceptual framework for developmental learning as well as providing appropriate curricular strategies for helping students' transition from one stage to the next. Conceptually, students require the foundational skills or knowledge base necessary in order to successfully transition from one developmental level to the next. Further, this foundational knowledge or “scaffolding” is required for all levels. Although conceptually simple enough to understand, intellectual development requires a systematic and purposeful approach to achieve the greatest developmental gains. In this workshop, participants will (1) clarify desired critical thinking outcomes, (2) discover how cognitive development affects critical thinking performance, (3) use cognitive patterns to assess critical thinking skills demonstrated in student essays, (4) use assessment results to identify student learning opportunities, and (5) take home tools for their own implementation.

Injecting a sense of play into the classroom carries many positive benefits. While game show formats in the classroom are neither new nor restricted to engineering and computer science, they are a powerful tool for bringing in that sense of play into the learning environment. Game show formats can be used to deliver new content, more deeply explore concepts in a problem-based course, discover on which points the students need more help, and review content already learned. This immersive special session will demonstrate and discuss using the game show format in three different situations: knowledge-based content with either individuals or teams; problem solving content with teams; and decision making with teams. The goal of this special session is to demonstrate the versatility of the game show format for injecting play into the classroom while supporting a wide variety of learning goals. Additionally, participants will leave the session with tools to reduce the implementation cost of using the game show format in their own classes and labs.

Design projects that require engineering students to travel to other countries and semesters abroad have the potential to be very powerful learning experiences for those students. Unfortunately, cost and other constraints keep many students from taking advantage of such experiences and not all of those students who do travel reap the hoped-for gains. The goal of this special session is to discuss the importance of domestic preparation for global citizenry and consider options that are available to engineering departments to not only satisfy the ABET global and societal impact requirement but truly prepare students to be global citizens. This issue is particularly vital for those students who will not have a travel abroad opportunity as part of their curriculum. Aimed at faculty, department chairs, and student support personnel, this special session will address pedagogical options that can be embedded into the curriculum for human dignity, expanding mental models, and achieving complex thinking.

With the advent of a global economy there is a need for students to have knowledge of international organizational behavior and management. Even more importantly, today's rapidly changing business climate requires students to possess the more complex and creative thinking skills needed to operate in that environment. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to address these requirements. Curricular components center around experiential learning opportunities which include business plans, service learning, international case studies, and team based projects. Improved thinking skills are measured through systematic evaluation of student cognitive development. Diverse and more creative thinking skills are measured through longitudinal assessment of learning preference curves

Sub-cultures within the organisation or the enterprise (a chain of organisations) rarely receive sufficient attention considering the role they play in sustaining or changing the dominant culture of an organisation. This paper specifically considers the role of sub-cultures as it addresses one step of a project to create, validate and use experimentally an indicator that captures the level of organisational learning for multiple levels of the organisational culture without the members of the organisation repeatedly completing the instrument. This is done through revisiting two case studies and comparing the results of the previous analysis of these cases to the rating scale created for the new instrument.