More Like this

1. Lessons Learned about Building an ASSERTive Community

   Llewellyn, D.C. ; Hughes, W.L. ; Gambs, M. ( January 2019 , ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings)

   One of our observations in this lessons learned paper is that there is underwhelming faculty development related to scholarship other than on how to submit and sometimes how to write proposals. This de facto service model misses everything outside of the proposal-writing process; which is the least important, but is often the most celebrated, rewarded, and supported phase. Inspired by national Centers for Teaching & Learning, and modeled after the emerging Communities of Transformation literature, we are piloting a Center for Transformative Research at Boise State University. The vision of our Center is to build and sustain an ASSERTive community -- for Aligning Stakeholders and Structures to Enable Research Transformation (ASSERT). Faculty members from across campus were recruited to participate as fellows to explore what it means to be a scholar and how to move a bold and transformative idea forward. To minimize the energy to apply, the application process included an Instagram post, Twitter response, and/or haiku. Fifteen faculty were selected for the cohort of fellows. To ensure university-wide accountability, a memorandum of understanding was signed by each fellow, as well as their Provost, Vice President for Research & Economic Development, College or School Dean, and Department Chair. Once signed, each fellow was asked to complete a survey and participate in an individual structured interview with the PI and co-PI. These allowed us to determine the specific needs of each fellow, providing validation or perhaps challenging our a priori observations of risk inhibitors at Boise State that prevent germination of bold ideas. By studying the fellows, we were able to look at what may inhibit them from taking risks – personal attributes and beliefs, and structural and cultural issues within their academic units, the university, and in their academic fields. Based on the survey results and individual structured interviews, programming was developed and tailored to the needs of the fellows. An off-campus retreat was held. In addition to the off-campus retreat, on-campus workshops were custom-made for the fellows and included: (a) how to germinate transformative ideas by no longer seeing ideas as precious; (b) how to become an effective collaborator by adapting the Toolbox Project; (c) how to move ideas forward by drawing on the game “Chutes & Ladders” where the chutes represent common obstacles and the ladders are shortcuts; (d) how to manage time at work, and in life; and (e) how to classify, understand, and know when and how to implement intentional versus emergent research strategies. As a culminating activity, the faculty then pitched their ideas to university and community leadership. In conjunction with this pitch event, an advocate was assigned to each fellow to help connect their ideas to future resources. From our motivation to our faculty application to our custom learning community, lessons learned will be shared via a lightning talk. 

   more » « less
2. Moving Toward Transdisciplinary Learning Around Topics of Convergence: Is it really Possible in Higher Education Today?

   Strimel, G. ; Pruim, D. ; Briller, S. ; Martinez, R. ; Lucas, D. ; Kelley, T. ; Sohn, J. ( June 2023 , Review directory American Society for Engineering Education)

   There have been numerous demands for enhancements in the way undergraduate learning occurs today, especially at a time when the value of higher education continues to be called into question (The Boyer 2030 Commission, 2022). One type of demand has been for the increased integration of subjects/disciplines around relevant issues/topics—with a more recent trend of seeking transdisciplinary learning experiences for students (Sheets, 2016; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2019). Transdisciplinary learning can be viewed as the holistic way of working equally across disciplines to transcend their own disciplinary boundaries to form new conceptual understandings as well as develop new ways in which to address complex topics or challenges (Ertas, Maxwell, Rainey, & Tanik, 2003; Park & Son, 2010). This transdisciplinary approach can be important as humanity’s problems are not typically discipline specific and require the convergence of competencies to lead to innovative thinking across fields of study. However, higher education continues to be siloed which makes the authentic teaching of converging topics, such as innovation, human-technology interactions, climate concerns, or harnessing the data revolution, organizationally difficult (Birx, 2019; Serdyukov, 2017). For example, working across a university’s academic units to collaboratively teach, or co-teach, around topics of convergence are likely to be rejected by the university systems that have been built upon longstanding traditions. While disciplinary expertise is necessary and one of higher education’s strengths, the structures and academic rigidity that come along with the disciplinary silos can prevent modifications/improvements to the roles of academic units/disciplines that could better prepare students for the future of both work and learning. The balancing of disciplinary structure with transdisciplinary approaches to solving problems and learning is a challenge that must be persistently addressed. These institutional challenges will only continue to limit universities seeking toward scaling transdisciplinary programs and experimenting with novel ways to enhance the value of higher education for students and society. This then restricts innovations to teaching and also hinders the sharing of important practices across disciplines. To address these concerns, a National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEM Education project team, which is the topic of this paper, has set the goal of developing/implementing/testing an authentically transdisciplinary, and scalable educational model in an effort to help guide the transformation of traditional undergraduate learning to span academics silos. This educational model, referred to as the Mission, Meaning, Making (M3) program, is specifically focused on teaching the crosscutting practices of innovation by a) implementing co-teaching and co-learning from faculty and students across different academic units/colleges as well as b) offering learning experiences spanning multiple semesters that immerse students in a community that can nourish both their learning and innovative ideas. As a collaborative initiative, the M3 program is designed to synergize key strengths of an institution’s engineering/technology, liberal arts, and business colleges/units to create a transformative undergraduate experience focused on the pursuit of innovation—one that reaches the broader campus community, regardless of students’ backgrounds or majors. Throughout the development of this model, research was conducted to help identify institutional barriers toward creating such a cross-college program at a research-intensive public university along with uncovering ways in which to address these barriers. While data can show how students value and enjoy transdisciplinary experiences, universities are not likely to be structured in a way to support these educational initiatives and they will face challenges throughout their lifespan. These challenges can result from administration turnover whereas mutual agreements across colleges may then vanish, continued disputes over academic territory, and challenges over resource allotments. Essentially, there may be little to no incentives for academic departments to engage in transdisciplinary programming within the existing structures of higher education. However, some insights and practices have emerged from this research project that can be useful in moving toward transdisciplinary learning around topics of convergence. Accordingly, the paper will highlight features of an educational model that spans disciplines along with the workarounds to current institutional barriers. This paper will also provide lessons learned related to 1) the potential pitfalls with educational programming becoming “un-disciplinary” rather than transdisciplinary, 2) ways in which to incentivize departments/faculty to engage in transdisciplinary efforts, and 3) new structures within higher education that can be used to help faculty/students/staff to more easily converge to increase access to learning across academic boundaries. 

   more » « less
3. Eco-STEM: Transforming STEM Education using an Assetbased Ecosystem Model

   Menezes, G. ; Bowen, C. ; Dong, J. ; Thompson, L. ; Warter-Perez, N. ; Heubach, S. ; Galvan, D. ; Mijares, J. ; Schiorring, E. ; Allen, E. ( January 2022 , 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)

   A 2019 report from the National Academies on Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) concluded that MSIs need to change their culture to successfully serve students with marginalized racial and/or ethnic identities. The report recommends institutional responsiveness to meet students “where they are,” metaphorically, creating supportive campus environments and providing tailored academic and social support structures. In recent years, the faculty, staff, and administrators at California State University, Los Angeles have made significant efforts to enhance student success through multiple initiatives including a summer bridge program, first-year in engineering program, etc. However, it has become clear that more profound changes are needed to create a culture that meets students “where they are.” In 2020, we were awarded NSF support for Eco-STEM, an initiative designed to change a system that demands "college-ready" students into one that is "student-ready." Aimed at shifting the deficit mindset prevailing in engineering education, the Eco-STEM project embraces an asset-based ecosystem model that thinks of education as cultivation, and ideas as seeds we are planting, rather than a system of standards and quality checks. This significant paradigm and culture transformation is accomplished through: 1) The Eco-STEM Faculty Fellows’ Community of Practice (CoP), which employs critically reflective dialogue[ ][ ] to enhance the learning environment using asset-based learner-centered instructional approaches; 2) A Leadership CoP with department chairs and program directors that guides cultural change at the department/program level; 3) A Facilitators’ CoP that prepares facilitators to lead, sustain, update, and expand the Faculty and Leadership CoPs; 4) Reform of the teaching evaluation system to sustain the cultural changes. This paper presents the progress and preliminary findings of the Eco-STEM project. During the first project year, the project team formulated the curriculum for the Faculty CoP with a focus on inclusive pedagogy, community cultural wealth, and community building, developed a classroom peer observation tool to provide formative data for teaching reflection, and designed research inquiry tools. The latter investigates the following research questions: 1) To what extent do the Eco-STEM CoPs effectively shift the mental models of participants from a factory-like model to an ecosystem model of education? 2) To what extent does this shift support an emphasis on the assets of our students, faculty, and staff members and, in turn, allow for enhanced motivation, excellence and success? 3) To what extent do new faculty assessment tools designed to provide feedback that reflects ecosystem-centric principles and values allow for individuals within the system to thrive? In Fall 2021, the first cohort of Eco-STEM Faculty Fellows were recruited, and rich conversations and in-depth reflections in our CoP meetings indicated Fellows’ positive responses to both the CoP curriculum and facilitation practices. This paper offers a work-in-progress introduction to the Eco-STEM project, including the Faculty CoP, the classroom peer observation tool, and the proposed research instruments. We hope this work will cultivate broader conversations within the engineering education research community about cultural change in engineering education and methods towards its implementation. 

   more » « less
4. Promoting Success Through Building Community for Computer Science and Computer Engineering Undergraduates

   Harris, S. L. ; Jiang, Y. ; Clark, C. ; Jorgensen, E. ; Garza, T. ; Marrun, N. A. ; & Taylor, V. L. ( June 2023 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   Building on prior studies that show a sense of belonging and community bolster student success, we developed a pilot program for computer engineering (CpE) and computer science (CS) undergraduates and their families that focused on building a sense of belonging and community supported by co-curricular and socioeconomic scaffolding. As a dually designated Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI) – two types of federally designated Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI) – with 55% of our undergraduates being first-generation students, we aimed to demonstrate the importance of these principles for underrepresented and first-generation students. Using a student cohort model (for each incoming group of students) and also providing supports to build community across cohorts as well as including students’ families in their college experiences, our program aimed to increase student satisfaction and academic success. We recruited two cohorts of nine incoming students each across two years, 2019 and 2020; 69% of participants were from underrepresented racial or minority groups and 33% were women. Each participant was awarded an annual scholarship and given co-curricular support including peer and faculty mentoring, a dedicated cohort space for studying and gathering, monthly co-curricular activities, enhanced tutoring, and summer bridge and orientation programs. Students’ families were also included in the orientation and semi-annual meetings. The program has resulted in students exceeding the retention rates of their comparison groups, which were undergraduates majoring in CpE and CS who entered college in the same semester as the cohorts; first- and second-year retention rates for participants were 83% (compared to 72%) and 67% (compared to 57%). The GPAs of participants were 0.35 points higher on average than the comparison group and, most notably, participants completed 50% more credits than their comparison groups, on average. In addition, 9 of the 18 scholars (all of the students who wanted to participate) engaged in summer research or internships. In combination, the cohort building, inclusion of families, financial literacy education and support, and formal and informal peer and faculty mentoring have correlated with increased academic success. The cohorts are finishing their programs in Spring 2023 and Spring 2024, but data up to this point already show increases in GPA, course completion, and retention and graduation rates, with three students having already graduated early, within three and a half years. The findings from this study are now being used to expand the successful parts of the program and inform university initiatives, with the PI serving on campus-wide STEM pipeline committee aiming to recruit, retain, and support more STEM students at the institution. 

   more » « less
5. Initiating a graduate teaching fellow program to support undergraduates transferring into engineering and computing programs

   Kennedy, M. ; Kitchens, C. ; Santaniello, J. ; Davenport, S. ; Conway, K. ; Ferriell, W. ( August 2022 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   The Student Pathways in Engineering and Computing for Transfers (SPECTRA) program is anticipated to provide a streamlined academic pathway for transfer students from 2-year programs within South Carolina into Clemson University, and deliver programming to aid their academic success and social integration. To achieve this, the faculty intended to solidify cohorts of students at two community/technical colleges (Spartanburg Community College and Trident Technical College) and then support that cohort as they transitioned together into Clemson University. This paper provides an overview of the larger SPECTRA program and a deeper dive into the role of the graduate teaching assistants (‘fellows’). Specifically, we will provide an overview of: (1) changes between initial program vision and adjustments from this vision during initial implementation, (2) recruitment processes and application requirements for the graduate teaching fellowship, (3) the framework for development of undergraduate research courses taught by fellows, (4) mentorship web for fellows on the research university campus and technical/community college locations, (5) the lessons learned from semi structured programmatic exit interviews of matriculated fellows, and (6) design for additional professional programming for scholars at the community/technical college locations by the fellows. 

   more » « less