De-Risking Transdisciplinary Research by Creating Shared Values

This Lessons Learned Paper describes a yearlong faculty development pilot program that was designed to help a team of faculty de-risk their pursuit of wicked research problems. Wicked problems are extraordinarily difficult to solve due to their incomplete, contradictory, and at times changing requirements. They often include multiple stakeholders with competing interests and worldviews. As a result, they are risky by definition because they are difficult to fund, publish, and collaborate on. Presented here, a team of eleven faculty, from six different academic units, explored their personal and professional values during an initial off-site two and a half day retreat. These values were repeatedly revisited when discussing the implications of the team working together on their curriculum, tenure and promotion guidelines, hiring criteria, and pursuit of wicked problems. Faculty representation included all ranks from a brand new assistant professor to several full professors. This paper will discuss the background and implementation of our program, along with key lessons learned and how we are building on those lessons

Redshirt in Engineering: A Model for Improving Equity and Inclusion

The NSF-funded Redshirt in Engineering Consortium was formed in 2016 with the goal of enhancing the ability of academically talented but underprepared students coming from low-income backgrounds to successfully graduate with engineering degrees. The Consortium takes its name from the practice of redshirting in college athletics, with the idea of providing an extra year and support to help promising engineering students complete a bachelor’s degree. The Consortium builds on the success of three existing “academic redshirt” programs and expands the model to three new schools. The Existing Redshirt Institutions (ERIs) help mentor and train the new Student Success Partners (SSP), and SSPs contribute their unique expertise to help ERIs improve existing redshirt programs. This Work in Progress paper describes the history of the Redshirt in Engineering Consortium; the Redshirt model as a framework for addressing issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in engineering; and initial lessons learned from the implementation of the model across unique institutional contexts

Work in Progress: Institutional Context and the Implementation of the Redshirt in Engineering Model at Six Universities

Low-income students are underrepresented in engineering and are more likely to struggle in engineering programs. Such students may be academically talented and perform well in high school, but may have relatively weak academic preparation for college compared to students who attended better-resourced schools. Four-year engineering and computer science curricula are designed for students who are calculus-ready, but many students who are eager to become engineers or computer scientists need additional time and support to succeed. The NSF-funded Redshirt in Engineering Consortium was formed in 2016 as a collaborative effort to build on the success of three existing “academic Redshirt” programs and expand the model to three new schools. The Consortium takes its name from the practice of Redshirting in college athletics, with the idea of providing an extra year and support to promising engineering students from low-income backgrounds. The goal is to enhance the students’ ability to successfully graduate with engineering or computer science degrees. This Work in Progress paper describes the Redshirt programs at each of the six Consortium institutions, providing a variety of models for how an extra preparatory year or other intensive academic preparatory programs can be accommodated. This paper will pay particular attention to the ways that institutional context shapes the implementation of the Redshirt model. For instance, what do the Redshirt admissions and selection processes look like at schools where students are admitted directly to engineering from high school versus schools where students are admitted after one or two years taking engineering prerequisites at the university? What substantive elements of the first-year curriculum are consistent across the consortium? Where variation in curriculum occurs, what are the institutional factors that produce this variation? How does the Redshirt program fit with other pre-existing academic support services on campus, and what impact does this have on the Redshirt program’s areas of focus? Program elements covered include first-year curricula, pre-matriculation summer programs, academic advising and support services, admissions and selection processes, and financial aid. Ongoing assessment efforts and research designed to investigate how the various Redshirt models influence faculty and student experiences will be described

The Redshirt in Engineering Consortium: Progress and Early Insights

The NSF-funded Redshirt in Engineering Consortium was formed in 2016 with the goal of enhancing the ability of academically talented but underprepared students coming from lowincome backgrounds to successfully graduate with engineering degrees. The Consortium takes its name from the practice of redshirting in college athletics, with the idea of providing an extra year and support to help promising engineering students complete a bachelor’s degree. The Consortium builds on the success of three existing “academic redshirt” programs and expands the model to three new schools. The Existing Redshirt Institutions (ERIs) help mentor and train the new Student Success Partners (SSPs), and SSPs contribute their unique expertise to help ERIs improve existing Redshirt programs. The Redshirt model consists of seven main programmatic components aimed at improving the engagement, retention, and graduation of students underrepresented in engineering. These components include: “intrusive” academic advising and support services, an intensive first-year academic curriculum, community-building (including pre-matriculation summer programs), career awareness and vision, faculty mentorship, NSF S-STEM scholarships, and second-year support. Successful implementation of these activities is intended to produce two main long-term outcomes: a six-year graduation rate of 60%-75% for Redshirt students, and increased rates of enrollment and graduation of Pelleligible, URM, and women students in engineering at participating universities. In the first year of the grant (AY 16-17), SSPs developed their own Redshirt programs, hired and trained staff, and got their programs off the ground. ERIs implemented faculty mentorship programs and expanded support to Redshirt students into their sophomore year. In the second year (AY 17-18), Redshirt programs were expanded at the ERIs while SSPs welcomed their first cohorts of Redshirt students. This Work in Progress paper describes the Redshirt programs at each of the six Consortium institutions, identifying distinctions between them in addition to highlighting common elements. First-year assessment results are presented for the ERIs based on student surveys, performance, and retention outcomes. Ongoing research into faculty experiences is investigating how participation as mentors for Redshirt students changes faculty mindsets and instructional practices. Ongoing research into student experiences is investigating how the varied curricula, advising, and cohort models used across the six institutions influence student retention and sense of identity as engineering students

What Makes an Undergraduate Course Impactful? An Examination of Students’ Perceptions of Instructional Environments

To provide significant learning experiences for undergraduate engineering students, educators have resources in the literature, colleagues, and personal experiences to supplement their course design process. This study aims to capture the stories of graduate students who are looking back at their undergraduate experiences and describing the features that made a specific course particularly impactful. Specifically, the goal of this study was to explore the educational philosophies enacted in the most impactful undergraduate classrooms, according to graduate students’ perceptions, for the purpose of designing effective instructional environments. To capture the characteristics of the impactful courses, graduate engineering students from the Georgia Institute of Technology participated in an online survey. Participants reflected on the instructional environment that best described their most impactful undergraduate learning experience. Open-ended questions provided students with the opportunity to further justify or clarify their responses. The analysis indicated that students’ most impactful classes were required, in-major, non-design courses. Furthermore, these courses were characteristic of instructor-centered philosophies, including essentialism and perennialism. However, when students did reflect on out-of-major courses, they tended to recount a wider variety of enacted philosophies, including more learner-centered ones (progressivism, social reconstructionism, and existentialism). Qualitative analysis of students’ descriptions of their most impactful classes revealed five major factors that contribute to the success of a course: course components, the instructor, the student experience, the subject matter, and other stakeholders (e.g., peers and teaching assistants). Exploring these impactful classroom experiences highlights connections between the literature and student experiences as well as supports new faculty who are considering the type of instructional environments they will strive to create in their own courses

Lessons Learned About Building an ASSERTive Community

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

Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Programs: Multidisciplinary Projects with Homes in Any Discipline

A survey of papers in the ASEE Multidisciplinary Engineering Division over the last three years shows three main areas of emphasis: individual courses; profiles of specific projects; and capstone design courses. However, propagating multidisciplinary education across the vast majority of disciplines offered at educational institutions with varying missions requires models that are independent of the disciplines, programs, and institutions in which they were originally conceived. Further, models that can propagate must be cost effective, scalable, and engage and benefit participating faculty. Since 2015, a consortium of twenty-four institutions has come together around one such model, the Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program. VIP unites undergraduate education and faculty research in a team-based context, with students earning academic credits toward their degrees, and faculty and graduate students benefitting from the design/discovery efforts of their multidisciplinary teams. VIP integrates rich student learning experiences with faculty research, transforming both contexts for undergraduate learning and concepts of faculty research as isolated from undergraduate teaching. It provides a rich, cost-effective, scalable, and sustainable model for multidisciplinary project-based learning. (1) It is rich because students participate multiple years as they progress through their curriculum; (2) It is cost-effective since students earn academic credit instead of stipends; (3) It is scalable because faculty can work with teams of students instead of individual undergraduate research fellows, and typical teams consist of fifteen or more students from different disciplines; (4) It is sustainable because faculty benefit from the research and design efforts of their teams, with teams becoming integral parts of their research. While VIP programs share key elements, approaches and implementations vary by institution. This paper shows how the VIP model works across sixteen different institutions with different missions, sizes, and student profiles. The sixteen institutions represent new and long-established VIP programs, varying levels of research activity, two Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), and two international universities1. Theses sixteen profiles illustrate adaptability of the VIP model across different academic settings

Ten Years Later: Where are They Now?

This paper explores the educational and career trajectories of the alumnae of an outreach activity for girls. The outreach activity was originally developed using an integrated marketing approach to attract girls into engineering programs.1 The program, a two day, overnight experience for rising 9th, 10th and 11th grade girls, focuses on showcasing engineering as an exciting, creative activity, including activities developed from that perspective. Started in 2005 and held annually since then, a total of over 500 girls have participated, with approximately 85% of them coming from Boise State University’s immediate metropolitan area. Facilitated by the College of Engineering, and largely staffed by volunteering women engineers from the region, the outreach event takes place in Boise, Idaho - small metropolitan city in the United States. When it originated, e-Girls was the only science and engineering outreach or camp activity focused on girls and young women in this area. The college-going rate in Idaho is very low, so there is interest in any programming that increases that rate – especially for girls in engineering. The specific topic of this paper is an investigation into what has transpired in the girls’ lives relative to their educational and career plans since participating in the program. We are interested capturing and analyzing narratives about their pathways so that we may better understand and enhance the impact of this and similar programs. These narratives will enable us to tell the story about how one program can influence such plans. Our participants are drawn from a population of 418 alumni of the program who are currently at least 18 years of age and for whom we have a verified email address. Surveys were sent to 175 past participants focusing on what other STEM related extracurricular programs they participated in, their post-secondary activities (education and career), and what impacted those choices. Additional data was gathered from two focus groups of alumnae drawn from current students at Boise State University (n = 5). The qualitative methods used contribute to an evaluative analysis of paths taken and not taken by the program’s alumni. Implications for program design and follow up activities are discussed

Easing Students’ Transitions to University via a Summer Bridge and Outdoor Experience Program

In this Complete Evidence-based Practice paper, we describe the development and evolution of a combined academic summer bridge program and outdoors experience program designed to support the academic success and development of incoming STEM majors at Boise State University. First-time, first-year students’ transitions to university can be challenging for a wide variety of reasons, including increased independence, leaving behind parents and friends while simultaneously struggling to form new peer groups, and adapting to more rigorous coursework with less externally imposed structure than prior learning experiences. These challenges, especially those related to students’ sense of belonging and connection to other students, can be particularly pronounced for women, non-traditional students, first generation students, students with high levels of financial need (such as those who are pell-eligible), and members of underrepresented minority groups

The Impact of Volunteering at a Girls Outreach Activity on Community Formation

This paper is focused on exploring the motivation for volunteering at an engineering outreach activity. The outreach activity itself involved a two day, overnight experience for 9th and 10th grade girls that started in 2005, and which has been held annually since that time. The outreach event takes place in Boise, Idaho, and at the time of its onset was the only outreach or camp activity in the state focused on girls or young women. Across ten years, 510 total girls have participated, with approximately 85% of them coming from the immediate metropolitan area. The program was developed with a mind toward marketing engineering as an exciting, creative activity; including activities developed specifically from that perspective.1 The specific topic of this paper is an investigation into the motivation for volunteers and students to support this program. Our hypothesis is that, in particular, the women found this an experience that helped to create community among like-minded STEM focused professionals and students. An anonymous survey was used to collect information from the 188 individuals who helped support the program across the past ten years. This includes people from local industry, and faculty, students and staff from the university (some of the student staff were paid and some of the university staff participated as part of their work duties; all others were volunteers). Survey participants were asked to identify themselves as primarily being a student, faculty or staff at the associated university, professional employed in the region, or other. In total, 67 people responded to the survey. Across all respondents, 55% were students, 12% were faculty and 5% were staff at the university; and 25% were from outside the university. The results from the survey include their motivation for participation, and reasons for participating during more than one year if applicable. Survey results also include information reported concerning formal and informal interactions between volunteers, and information concerning opportunities for interactions with other professional women that are available. Finally, respondents’ reported on how they may have benefited from their participation in the engineering outreach activity together with advice they have to help improve the volunteer experience are presented. This paper will report on the results of this survey and will discuss the implications of these results