Search for: All records

This paper examined the role of climate (e.g., interactions with others) in the skill development of engineering and physical science doctoral students. Skill development in graduate school often is connected to students’ primary funding mechanism, which enables students to interact with a research group or teaching team. Advisors also play a pivotal role in the engineering doctoral student experience; however, less is known about how positive mentoring influences specific skill development for engineering doctoral students. Analyzing data from the Graduate Student Funding Survey (n = 615), we focused analyses on three climate Factors (Advising climate; Faculty and staff climate; Peer climate) and specific skill development variables (research, teamwork and project management, peer training and mentoring, and communication). We found that advising climate was statistically significant for all four career-related skills, faculty and staff climate for peer training and mentoring skills only, and peer climate for both peer training and mentoring and communication skills. Our findings highlight the importance of climate from a variety of sources within engineering doctoral programs for the development of career-related skills. 

Abstract We summarize national-scale data for Ph.D. earners in engineering or computer science from 2015 to 2019 whose post-graduate school employment is known, highlighting outcomes for biological/biomedical/biosystems engineering students. We use NSF’s Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), which has collected information from Ph.D. recipients in the USA since 1957. The data are collected at the time of degree completion and constitute a greater than 90% response rate. Compared to all engineering and computer science disciplines, biological/biomedical/biosystems engineering has a higher proportion going to 4yr/med/research institutions (52% vs. 33%) and non-profit (3.6% vs. 2.9%) and lower proportion going to industry (33% vs. 48%), government (4.3% vs. 8.4%), and is similar for non-US positions (6.1% vs. 5.7%). Compared to 2010–2014 biological/biomedical/biosystems engineering Ph.D. recipients, more 2015–2019 recipients are going to industry (25% to 33%) and fewer to 4yr/med/research institutions (59% to 52%) and governmet (5.3% to 4.3%). Across all engineering and computer science disciplines, a smaller proportion of females entered industry (43%) compared to males (49%), while a larger proportion of females entered 4yr/med/research institutions (37%) compared to males (32%). Over half of Asian doctoral recipients entered industry, as compared to 38% of Hispanic doctoral recipients. In contrast, a higher proportion of Hispanic individuals (37%) entered 4yr/med/research institutions after their doctoral programs, as compared to 31% of Asian doctoral recipients. Black doctoral recipients had the highest proportion enter positions in government (14%) and non-profit (4%) sectors. Our results are situated in the broader literature focused on postdoctoral career, training, and employment sectors and trends in STEM. We discuss implications for graduate programs, policymakers, and researchers. 

Emerging revelations from education research have underscored strategies which effectively promote student success in undergraduate science courses. This chapter describes a pilot professional development for science educators in higher education aimed at implementing these strategies at two-year Hispanic-serving institutions (2Y-HSIs). Science faculty members from 2Y-HSIs and graduate students at a research university participated jointly in the collaborative professional development activities described herein. The design of this unique program that comingles in-service and pre-service educators was informed by prior research: Enduring change in science education necessitates more than simply informing educators about effective instructional approaches. Following a comprehensive three-day workshop focused on restructuring college science courses via backward design, 2Y-HSI faculty members and graduate student partners worked together over the next year to devise, implement, and assess the impact of interventions intended to promote active learning in classrooms at the 2Y-HSIs. In support of this effort, the graduate students received additional training on how to conduct classroom observations and provide effective feedback to the 2Y-HSI faculty. A community of practice was further cultivated via regular project meetings that enabled participants to share progress, exchange ideas, and solicit advice and guidance. A culminating session, during which the 2Y-HSI faculty member-graduate student teams presented posters of their ongoing work, offered a capstone experience. In this chapter, we invite faculty members and administrators from two-year colleges (2YCs), especially 2Y-HSIs, and research universities to consider the potential of such collaborative professional development efforts. 

Contribution: This study explores the factors contributing to the development of engineering identity in Latinx students at two institutions. A better understanding of these factors will support the development of more inclusive engineering education environments and experiences. Background: Persistence of Latinx engineering students is of particular interest due to their underrepresentation in the field. Identity is a lens for understanding student persistence, but Latinx students are underrepresented in prior engineering identity studies. This study seeks to identify the unique factors, academic and professional, that contribute to engineering identity development, and potential means for supporting the persistence of Latinx engineers. Research Questions: (1) What academic and professional affect factors predict engineering identity development of Latinx students? and (2) What role does the institution play in Latinx students’ engineering identity development? Methodology: A mixed-methods approach was used to measure engineering identity based on a framework incorporating both academic and professional affect elements. Regression analyses were conducted on 892 responses to an online survey from Latinx engineering students, with additional insight from interviews with ten Latinx engineering students. Findings: Six of the nine factors analyzed (performance/competence, interest, recognition, analysis, framing and solving problems, and tinkering) were significant predictors of Latinx students' engineering identity, as were institution, gender, and having a parent with an engineering degree. Engineering identity was higher for Latinx students at the Hispanic Serving Institution, but none of the interaction terms were significant, so the relationship between these factors and engineering identity is similar at each institution. 

Abstract BackgroundDespite many initiatives to improve graduate student and faculty diversity in engineering, there has been little or no change in the percentage of people from racially minoritized backgrounds in either of these groups. Purpose/HypothesisThe purpose of this paper is to counter the scarcity fallacy, in which institutions blame the “shortage” of qualified people from traditionally marginalized backgrounds for their own lack of representation, related to prospective PhD students and prospective faculty from traditionally marginalized groups. This study identifies the BS‐to‐PhD and PhD‐to‐tenure‐track‐faculty institutional pathways of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino engineering doctorate recipients. Design/MethodUsing the US Survey of Earned Doctorates, we tracked the BS‐to‐PhD institutional pathways of 3952 Black/African American and 5732 Hispanic/Latino engineering PhD graduates. We also used the Survey of Doctorate Recipients to track the PhD‐to‐tenure‐track faculty pathways of 104 Black/African American and 211 Hispanic/Latino faculty. ResultsThe majority of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino PhD graduates in this study did not earn their BS degrees from Top 25 institutions, but rather from Not Top 25, non‐US, and minority‐serving institutions. The results also show the relatively small proportion of PhD earners and faculty members who move into highly ranked institutions after earning a bachelor's degree from outside this set of institutions. ConclusionsThe findings of this study have important implications for graduate student and faculty recruitment by illustrating that recruitment from a narrow range of institutions (i.e., Top 25 institutions) is unlikely to result in increased diversity among racially minoritized PhDs and faculty in engineering.