Search for: All records

Driven by the fact that a great majority of STEM PhD graduates will be employed in non-academic jobs, primarily in industry (defined broadly to include private corporations, national labs, defense organizations, etc.), there is growing recognition that the present format of doctoral training does not prepare them sufficiently for a career outside academia. In response to this need, recently a new student-centered model of STEM doctorate, Pasteur Partners PhD (P3), was developed based on use-inspired research. Industry-university partnership is a requirement of this model, which calls for concerted participation of industry experts in the training of students through identification of industry-relevant research problems, co-advising about how to approach their practical solutions, and training for other non-technical skills that are crucial for success in industry. An assessment of student demand and their experience with P3’s non-traditional features, support of university administration, and the challenges felt by interested faculty advisers during its implementation at Lehigh University were presented previously. This paper completes P3 program’s assessment by analyzing the feedback provided by industry scientists who have served as co-advisers to students. The specific objective of the present study is to establish not only the benefits to students but also the advantages these collaborations offer to the industry researchers themselves as well as their organizations. Accordingly, we solicited feedback about the experience of the industry co-advisers from serving as mentors of P3 fellows. Briefly, the mentors were generally positive about their engagement with students as research advisers and hosts for experiments in their labs. The mentors from national labs were especially appreciative of the opportunity to expand the scope of their own research program as a result of these interactions. They also highlighted the effectiveness of pre-program internships in fostering long-term research productivity, as well as the training provided in the corresponding courses such as project management. With regard to improving the program, the industry mentors expressed a desire for clearer expectations regarding their role in mentoring students, particularly when students return to university. A detailed analysis of the feedback provided by industry mentors and its implications for further improving the P3 model, indeed the state of STEM doctoral training, are presented. The conclusions of this study are expected to have broad impact beyond the P3 model as they provide valuable insight into the mutual benefits of industry-university partnership for doctoral education. 

Driven by the fact that a great majority of STEM PhD graduates will be employed in non-academic jobs, primarily in industry (defined broadly to include private corporations, national labs, defense organizations, etc.), there is a growing recognition that the present format of doctoral training does not prepare them sufficiently for a career outside academia. In response to this need, recently a new student-centered model of STEM doctorate, Pasteur Partners PhD (P3), was developed based on use-inspired research [3]. Industry-university partnership is a requirement of this model, which calls for concerted participation of industry experts in the training of students through identification of industry-relevant research problems, co-advising about how to approach their practical solutions, and training for other non-technical skills that are crucial for success in industry. An assessment of student demand and their experience with P3’s non-traditional features, support of university administration, and the challenges felt by interested faculty advisers during its implementation at Lehigh University were presented previously. This paper completes P3 program’s assessment by analyzing the feedback provided by industry scientists who have served as co-advisers to students. The specific objective of the present study is to establish not only the benefits to students but also the advantages these collaborations offer to the industry researchers themselves as well as their organizations. Accordingly, we solicited feedback about the experience of the industry co-advisers from serving as mentors of P3 fellows. Briefly, the mentors were generally positive about their engagement with students as research advisers and hosts for experiments in their labs. The mentors from national labs were especially appreciative of the opportunity to expand the scope of their own research program as a result of these interactions. They also highlighted the effectiveness of pre-program internships in fostering long-term research productivity, as well as the training provided in the corresponding courses such as project management. With regard to improving the program, the industry mentors expressed a desire for clearer expectations regarding their role in mentoring students, particularly when students return to university. A detailed analysis of the feedback provided by industry mentors and its implications for further improving the P3 model, indeed the state of STEM doctoral training, are presented. The conclusions of this study are expected to have broad impact beyond the P3 model as they provide valuable insight into the mutual benefits of industry-university partnership for doctoral education. 

Self-regulation is crucial for student success in scientific inquiry and engineering design. However, it remains unclear how students dynamically engage in self-regulated learning (SRL) processes to achieve high performance. In this study, we investigated the temporal nature of self-regulation during engineering design by leveraging computer trace data from 101 high school students who designed an energy-plus house in a simulated learning environment. Using sequential mining, we found that high-performing students were more engaged in the Observation, Analysis, and Evaluation phases of SRL than low-performing students. Additionally, high-performing students demonstrated consecutive sequential patterns between Observation and Analysis, Reformation and Evaluation, and Analysis and Evaluation behaviors. These findings provide insights into students’ SRL processes and the design of scaffoldings. 

Traditional PhD training in STEM fields places a strong emphasis on developing doctoral students' academic skills, encompassing research, academic writing, as well as sharing of knowledge through publications and conference presentations, etc. However, with the ever evolving expectations of graduate training, particularly in applied fields, the demand for PhD has transcended the confines of academia. For instance, nearly 90% of engineering PhDs will not enter academia, which underscores the discrepancy between the current PhD training programs and the preparation of students for future careers. To better support doctoral students especially for those who intend to pursue positions in industry including corporate R&D labs, national labs, defense organizations, healthcare institutes, etc., Lehigh University launched an innovative program called Pasteur Partners PhD (P3) specifically for the training of such doctoral students. It is a student-centered doctoral training program based on use-inspired research in partnership with industry. A preliminary evaluation of the P3 program, which was developed with support from NSF’s IGE program, revealed that students benefited significantly from gaining practical skills through industry involvement such as co-advising, resulting in a clearer understanding of how the industry operates, which, in turn, enhanced their employability in the industry [1]. The University administration also provided significant support for the program. However, a broader implementation of P3 encountered challenges and hesitancy from faculty members. Mostly the senior faculty who already had preexisting connections with industry and junior faculty from certain departments were more receptive to joining the P3 program than others. Could this be a result of the prevailing emphasis of the graduate education system on research output (publications) rather than the training of students for their subsequent careers? What other reasons could there be for the faculty’s lack of enthusiasm for the training of their PhD students following P3 track? To answer above questions and examine the challenges and obstacles that the faculty members feel for student centered doctoral training from an institutional and system perspective, we are conducting a survey specifically targeting faculty members in STEM fields. It seeks to comprehensively understand faculty members’ perspective on the primary objectives of doctoral training within different STEM fields. By exploring these objectives, the survey aims to uncover how they vary across disciplines and what faculty members perceive as the most significant goals in their areas of expertise. Moreover, the survey is designed to shed light on the challenges and hurdles faced by faculty members in their pursuit of these training objectives. Faculty participants are encouraged to identify and articulate the specific obstacles they encounter, whether they pertain to institutional constraints, resource limitations, demands of perceived professional success or other factors that impede the realization of these goals. In addition, the survey takes a close look at the resources that faculty members believe would be beneficial in addressing these challenges and improving the effectiveness of doctoral training. This insight is essential for designing support systems that can empower faculty to contribute to the training of doctoral workforce for the benefit of society at large. The survey seeks to gain valuable perspectives on the qualities and skills considered essential for the success of PhD students. These insights will inform curriculum development and help prepare students better for a wider range of career paths. The results of the survey, currently underway, are presented.