Explore the vast range of titles available.

This edited collection deals with intersecting axes of power and privilege in order to advance conversation on motherhood across disciplines. Mother-scholar contributors explore theoretical and disciplinary approaches to academic motherhood, examine its critical and cultural territory, and articulate the challenges of their dual identity.

In this study, engineering undergraduate students constructed a preparedness portfolio in a portfolio studio—the pedagogy at the center of this study. To explore and understand this pedagogy, the construct of self-authorship was used. Through a constructivist grounded theory approach, this study explored the applicability and usefulness of the construct of self-authorship to engineering education. The purpose of this study was to (1) demonstrate the applicability of self-authorship to engineering education; (2) connect this perspective with an actual pedagogy (i.e., preparedness portfolios in a portfolio studio); and (3) offer implications for educational practice. The study findings indicate that students described their participation in the pedagogy in terms of self-authorship, which suggests that this pedagogy supports students' development toward self-authorship. Through connecting these findings to implications for educational practice, this study demonstrates the broad applicability and usefulness of self-authorship as a perspective to guide educational practice.

Summary Describes the activities of a university \"directed research group,\" highlighting interesting tensions that emerged thereinAsserts that actively exploring such tensions with students creates a rich learning environment

♦ Describes the activities of a university \"directed research group,\" highlighting interesting tensions that emerged therein ♦ Asserts that actively exploring such tensions with students creates a rich learning environment

“I realized that I myself am on the path to being a pioneer”: Characterizing the experiences of graduate students in an innovative interviewing opportunityTraditional engineering departments occasionally include members of the engineering educationcommunity. While many of the same research paradigms exist between traditional engineeringand engineering education research, a different set of tools and ideas are often employed in thecommunity of engineering education. Graduate students in engineering and engineeringeducation have differing experiences and prior knowledge about conducting research dependingon their background and graduate program. Therefore, graduate students in traditionaldepartments may not have access to the resources that would help them develop the researchskills and feelings of belonging to the community that would prepare them for a career with anengineering education component. This research examines if participation in an innovativeinterviewing opportunity provides a venue for traditional engineering graduate students, as wellas education and engineering education graduate students, to gain important experiences thatcontribute to their professional development as scholars in the field.The purposes of the Engineering Education Pioneers and Trajectories of Impact Project are to (1)understand the process of transformational change by interviewing early pioneers of the field ofengineering education, and (2) catalyze and study the development of new pioneers, i.e. graduatestudents who are the future generation of engineering education change agents. Thirty-ninegraduate students participated in the project from more than ten institutions across the country invarious departments. Some of these graduate students were experienced qualitative researcherswho were well integrated into the field and some were interested in engineering educationresearch who came from a traditional engineering department or education department.In this paper, we intend to characterize the individual graduate student experiences associatedwith participation in the Engineering Education Pioneers and Trajectories of Impact Project.Through a phenomenological lens, we aim to explore the following research question: How dothe individual graduate students who interviewed pioneers in the field describe theirexperiences? Preliminary findings indicate that the characterization of these experiences mightrange from positive and significant experiences to more neutral, muted ones. We will also beexploring whether some combination of background and prior knowledge position a graduatestudent for a specific characterization of their experience, whether that is positive or neutral.Preliminary analysis of the open-ended survey responses indicate that participation in thisinterviewing experience contributed to the professional development of the graduate students,including outcomes such as increased feelings of belonging in the community, gaining valuableresearch skills, and understanding new pedagogical techniques.

Engineering education meets Human-Computer Interaction (HCI):Exploring how the work on probes can guide the design of reflectionactivitiesGiven the amount of innovation in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), there is anopportunity to use ideas from HCI as inspiration in efforts to address challenges inengineering education, such as helping engineering students successfully engage inreflection. The concept of cultural probes developed by Bill Gaver to engaging users inthe design process and to stimulate designers’ imaginations. Cultural probes are smallcollections of artifacts accompanied by provocative tasks and questions. These probes aregiven to participants in order to elicit difficult-to-acquire information, such asinformation about their values or assumptions. This approach to gathering informationhas proliferated widely in the world of HCI. In addition, researchers in HCI have begunto develop variations such as technology probes, mobile probes, and empathy probes. InHCI, “probes” have come to be used as an umbrella for when a collection of artifacts andtasks is given to participants to help them reflect on certain aspects of their lives and toreport their experience to researchers/designers.Although HCI designers are interested in probes because it generates information theycan use, important proponents of the use of probes in the design process draw attention tothe value of the experience for the participants. For example, probes appear to have thepotential to prompt reflection and ideally encourage participants to evaluate their livesbased on the insights that emerge from engaging with the probe.Our proposed work is motivated by the potential connections between probes and theissue of reflection in engineering education. Reflection can be understood as the processof looking back at an experience with the goal of making meaning of that experience.Engineering educators are recognizing more the role of reflection in students’ learningand they are incorporating reflective exercises in their teaching.Given the importance of reflection in engineering education and the widespread use ofprobes in HCI, we are conducting this research to discover whether the use of probes canbe leveraged as a way for engineering educators to understand reflective activities.Therefore, we are interested in exploring how does the prior work on the probes in HCIprovide guidance for supporting reflection in engineering education? And how can thework on the probes be used to inform or support the creation of reflection opportunitiesin engineering education?In this paper, we will review literature on reflection in engineering education and probesin HCI, unpack three examples of the use of the probes in HCI, and explore how theseexamples can be understood for educators in seeking inspiration on how to supportreflection in classrooms. Contributions of this paper would be not only the suggestionsfor using probes that are offered for educators but also an example of how work in theworld of HCI can be used to inspire educational practice.

Connecting Research to Practice: A Useful FrameworkConnecting educational research to educational practice is a challenge that facesboth engineering educators and engineering education researchers. Ideally,engineering educators use research to imagine new teaching approaches and tomake various teaching decisions. Understandably, making such connections ischallenging. In a complementary fashion, engineering education researchers are,ideally, able to identify and explain possible ways that their research can beused to guide educational practice. This is challenging as well. A significant partof preparing for work in either area is improving the capacity to make suchconnections. This is particularly important for students who are emerging asscholars in their field.The work of making connections between research and practice is oftendescribed as translational work. Some disciplines approach this work head-on.For example, translational medicine is a growing subfield of medicine.However, in engineering and engineering education, the connection of researchand practice, while critical, is often not well understood.In our work, we are theoretically and empirically exploring the ways in whichresearch connects to practice in engineering education. In particular, we areinterested in how implications for practice are conceptualized by members of acommunity, articulated to members of a community, and interpreted bymembers in a community.One thread of our work has been focused answering the question: how areimplications for practice articulated in educational research publications (e.g.,conference proceedings and journal articles)? In this context, we havedeveloped a framework for characterizing the ways in which implications forpractice can be articulated. The framework builds on the general idea ofrhetorical moves—strategies that authors use to develop an argument, includingthings such as word choice and sentence structure. As we will describe in thepaper, the framework consists of five rhetorical move types, which vary in theirassertiveness. This framework, which has emerged from over two years ofactivity, represents a scholarly contribution to the field.In this paper, we will focus on the value of this framework for emergingeducators and educational researchers. We start by motivating the importance ofbeing able to connect research and practice and discussing challenges associatedwith such activity.We will then describe our framework, using examples drawn from our analysisof journal articles published in the Journal of Engineering Education betweenspring 2011 and winter 2013. Specifically, our dataset consists of the sentences(n>4700) from the discussion and conclusion sections of articles (n=59)published in that timeframe. We are analyzing journal articles because they areone place where researchers articulate ideas about how their research can beused (i.e., the implications of their work), but the framework affords broaderuse.Finally, we will focus on how the framework can be used by emergingeducators and educational researchers for activities beyond our current use. Forconsumers of research, this framework offers a tool for identifying implicationsof research for educational practice; for producers of research, this frameworkprovides guidelines for approaching how to articulate implications for practice.

Reflection in Engineering: On an Upward Trend In recent years, reflection has become an increasingly studied and valued portion of the education process for engineers. Reflection can help students to identify themselves in the broader context of engineering by understanding the implications of their work and how their college experience prepares them to make significant, thoughtful, and responsible contributions to the field of engineering. Reflection in engineering education, which can be facilitated by reflective activities, is largely defined as the process by which students recall certain experiences and evaluate them using a variety of lenses to assign significance or meaning to that experience. Given the arguable importance of reflection to engineering education, we are interested in exploring the question: how much explicit, named attention has reflection received in engineering education scholarship and how do we interpret these results?We conducted a literature search and review to better understand the role of reflection in engineering education scholarship through assessing the number of papers that involve reflection in some way. We were interested in the number of papers that use the word reflection and some of its derivatives, such as reflect and reflexivity, in the title and body of the papers. We looked at two engineering education conferences, the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE)and Frontiers in Education (FIE), and sorted through many papers published throughout theyears. Both ASEE and FIE facilitate numerous publications at conferences each year with an eye to broaden educational perspectives and to share techniques and understandings. We employed different search strategies to ensure an accurate capture of relevant papers, and also sorted through the results manually to eliminate duplicates or instances where reflection is not used as described in this paper.In this paper, we will present our results on the explicit discussion of the role of reflection and reflective activities in engineering education. For example, we have discovered that the idea of reflection in ASEE and FIE publications has seen significant growth from a combined 20 papers in the respective conferences formative year, to a total of over 350 papers in the year 2014,increasing in a linear fashion. The quantitative publication findings prompt us to investigate further. For example, why has the topic of reflection, being understood as important in the development of an engineer in an educational setting, had limited traction in engineering education publications and discussions?Furthermore, in the global discussion on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM),we recognize that reflection is considered to be a key aspect in meeting the goal of developing a well rounded and critically thinking technical force. To meet this goal, it is imperative to address reflective techniques in our research as well as to incorporate them into the classroom. Our investigation of the trend in explicit discussions of reflection, and identifying potential reasons behind this trend, will concentrate more attention on the importance of reflection, ultimately contributing to the transformation of engineering education.

GEECS Peer Mentoring: A Means for Creating an Engineering Education Research CommunityEngineering education research (EER) is in a pivotal time as a developing field. For example, theJournal of Engineering Education has grown into a premier scholarly journal that encourageshighly empirically-based research. Many institutions around the world are now offering research-based graduate degrees in engineering education, which has increased the need for facultytrained to conduct rigorous EER. These rapid changes appear to be just the beginning of majortransformations of the field, especially in regards to where graduate students are being trained.While many students are now being educated in departments of engineering education (e.g.,Purdue and Virginia Tech), most emerging engineering education researchers are or have beentrained in other engineering disciplines or in the liberal arts (e.g., education, psychology, or childdevelopment). These emerging researchers often learn in isolation from other EER graduatestudents. This isolation has become one of the major driving forces for the creation of theGraduate Engineering Education Consortium for Students (GEECS). The purpose of GEECS isto provide a community for graduate students, especially those dispersed throughout the nation.The GEECS mission is: GEECS brings together emerging researchers in engineering education to create a supportive network. Our mission is to enhance each other’s scholarly, professional and personal development through collaboration, encouragement, knowledge sharing, and critical and reflective analysis as we contribute to the engineering education discipline.To fulfill the GEECS mission, there exists an opportunity to personally and professionallysupport one another through such things as peer mentoring. Peer mentoring is small workinggroups of EER graduate students who connect monthly via conference calls. These long distancemeetings afford students the opportunity to engage in setting goals, monitoring each other’sprogress, and giving/receiving feedback. Students encourage each other to set both high andspecific goals related to a work-life balance (i.e., research, service, teaching, and personal goals).In addition to goal setting and monitoring, students provide one another with feedback on currentwork. In this paper, we discuss the progress of two peer mentoring groups through an in-depthcase study analysis. These two cases are based on the authors’ experiences in both developingand contributing to the peer mentoring groups. In this paper, we describe how GEECS peermentoring works and its purpose to grow a community of EER scholars.

Supporting Self-Authorship Development: The Contribution of Preparedness PortfoliosThe undergraduate years are pivotal to engineering students’ development. Broadly defined,student development is the ways students grow and mature. Historically, educators, includingengineering educators, have attended to intellectual development—development in ways inwhich one constructs meaning about the world and gains knowledge. While it is important toattend to intellectual development, there are merits to integrating other domains of development,such as identity and relationship development. A more holistic approach to student developmentcouples intellectual development with both identity (i.e., securing and trusting an internalcompass) as well relationship development (i.e., maintaining one’s internal compass, whileengaging in interdependence). Furthermore, self-authorship represents a particular level ofachievement along these threads of development; scholars in higher education consider self-authorship development a main mission of higher education.Student development, particularly the development of self-authorship, is an internal process,meaning that it is challenging to observe and even more complicated to support. Researchershave suggested that there are markers, often related to behavior, of self-authorship (e.g., makingreference to one’s core beliefs, displaying emotion related to the way one makes meaning of theworld). Students often begin exhibiting these markers in educational activities that are bothchallenging and supportive. One strategy that has been shown to both challenge and support self-authorship development is reflection, which can be encouraged in a variety of ways. Moreover,researchers have shown portfolio construction to be a promising mechanism for engagingstudents in reflection, thus indicating that portfolio construction is a promising means to supportstudents’ self-authorship development. In our work we have had engineering students constructpreparedness arguments in the form of an online portfolio. In these preparedness arguments,students articulate their readiness for future engineering practice based on past experiences.In our current analysis, we are answering the following research question—do students exhibittraits of self-authoring individuals in a reflective activity like portfolio development? In thispaper we examine students' development toward self-authorship along all three developmentaldimensions identified earlier. Specifically, we focus on the experiences of three students (i.e.,cases studies) using data from post surveys and interviews.In our paper, we will describe these three students’ development in terms of self-authorshipmarkers. In our data analysis, thus far, we have noted that while looking back on priorexperiences in light of future goals, these students reported experiencing a range of emotions—excitement, anxiety, fear, pride, and disappointment. Emotion is a marker of self-authorshipdevelopment because it indicates a disjuncture in how one makes meaning of self or experiences,which can be a catalyst towards self-authorship. Additionally, we noted students’ engagementwith “self assessment.” While the portfolio activity engenders this “personal reflection,” studentssincerely grappled with their internal core rather than depending on external formulas. Bothemotion and self-assessment are examples of students exhibiting self-authorship markers withinthe context of portfolio construction. Findings such as these are enticing in terms of the profoundsignificance of promoting the development of self-authorship within higher education.