Extending Information on Time Effective Student Interactions to Engineering Faculty

Lisa M. Abrams; Robert J. Gustafson; Sharnnia Artis

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Vancouver, BC
Publication Date: June 26, 2011
Start Date: June 26, 2011
End Date: June 29, 2011
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: Educational Research and Methods Potpourri I
Tagged Division: Educational Research and Methods
Page Count: 22
Page Numbers: 22.693.1 - 22.693.22
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--17974
Permanent URL: https://strategy.asee.org/17974
Download Count: 424

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Lisa M. Abrams Ohio State University

visit author page

Lisa Abrams, PE, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Engineering Education Innovation Center and the Department of Mechanical Engineering at The Ohio State University. Prior to this position, she worked as the Director of Women in Engineering at Ohio State and as Assistant Dean in the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Miami University. She also has seven years of industry experience. She received her BS and MS in Mechanical Engineering at Ohio State and PhD in Industrial Engineering at Ohio State.

visit author page

biography

Robert J. Gustafson Ohio State University

visit author page

Robert J. Gustafson, P.E., Ph.D., is Honda Professor for Engineering Education and Director of the Engineering Education Innovation Center in the College of Engineering and a Professor of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering at The Ohio State University. He has previously served at Ohio State as Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Student Services (1999 - 2008) and Department Chair of Food Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department (1987 - 1999). After being awarded his Ph.D. Degree from Michigan State in 1974, he joined the faculty of the Agricultural Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota where he served until 1987. He is a Fellow and Past President of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers; member American Society for Engineering Education, North American College and Teachers of Agriculture, and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.

visit author page

biography

Sharnnia Artis Ohio State University

visit author page

Sharnnia Artis is a Post Doctoral Researcher in the College of Engineering at The Ohio State University (OSU) where she conducts research in engineering education with a focus on engaging women and under-represented populations. Prior to joining OSU, Dr. Artis worked as a Human Factors Engineer in the private sector. She received a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Industrial and Systems Engineering from Virginia Tech.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Extending Information on Time Effective Student Interactions to Engineering Faculty The College of Engineering at X is one of ten initial institutions currently collaboratingin an NSF funded Extension Services project entitled ENGAGE(Engaging Students inEngineering) (www.EngageEngineering.org). The main thrusts of the ENGAGE Project are toencourage the implementation of research-proven techniques that have been shown to improveretention of undergraduates in engineering programs. One of the three main thrusts is tointroduce faculty to time effective student interactions. ENGAGE has released a four-pagepublication entitled “Taking Action: Time Effective Student Interactions for EngineeringFaculty” and describes six suggested approaches. This paper reports on a study of the efficacy ofa novel approach introducing faculty to this material. As an alternative to conventionalapproaches such as an email distribution or seminars, the materials were introduced to faculty bycurrent students. Students for the project were thirty four students enrolled in a course entitledCollege Teaching in Engineering. The first step of the project was accomplished by studentsinterviewing faculty and students writing a summary of their interview as a class assignment.Students distributed the publication to the faculty member prior to the interview. Studentsprepared for the interview in-class by discussion and role play exercises. They were given asuggested interview format and question set. Their interview reports were summarized andresults shared with the students without any attribution to individual students, faculty ordepartments. Using a more convention approach, a second set of 30 faculty received thepublication via email and were encouraged to read the publication and implement itsrecommendations. After five months, a brief follow up survey of both sets of faculty was used tocompare results of the two distribution methods. This paper reports results of the studentinterviews, the follow up survey, and the comparison results. Of the thirty-four students doing interviews, thirty-two submitted a summary report.Consistent with IRB protocol, one faculty member asked that a report not be done and onestudent chose not to report. Student observations of the faculty and their discussion include: twenty percent had not read the publication prior to the interview ninety percent agreed with the premise of the publication faculty reported examples of all six of the suggested faculty student interaction techniques some faculty expressed concern about one or more of the suggestions; in particular, the holding of office hours in public places. When asked to reflect on what they learned from the exercise, students uniformlyreported they enjoyed the exercise and had good discussion with the faculty member. In manycases the discussion went well beyond the particular focus of the publication. Results of the follow-up and the comparison are currently being processed for inclusionin the full paper.

Citation
Format

Abrams, L. M., & Gustafson, R. J., & Artis, S. (2011, June), Extending Information on Time Effective Student Interactions to Engineering Faculty Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--17974

TY - CPAPER
AB - Extending Information on Time Effective Student Interactions to Engineering Faculty The College of Engineering at X is one of ten initial institutions currently collaboratingin an NSF funded Extension Services project entitled ENGAGE(Engaging Students inEngineering) (www.EngageEngineering.org). The main thrusts of the ENGAGE Project are toencourage the implementation of research-proven techniques that have been shown to improveretention of undergraduates in engineering programs. One of the three main thrusts is tointroduce faculty to time effective student interactions. ENGAGE has released a four-pagepublication entitled “Taking Action: Time Effective Student Interactions for EngineeringFaculty” and describes six suggested approaches. This paper reports on a study of the efficacy ofa novel approach introducing faculty to this material. As an alternative to conventionalapproaches such as an email distribution or seminars, the materials were introduced to faculty bycurrent students. Students for the project were thirty four students enrolled in a course entitledCollege Teaching in Engineering. The first step of the project was accomplished by studentsinterviewing faculty and students writing a summary of their interview as a class assignment.Students distributed the publication to the faculty member prior to the interview. Studentsprepared for the interview in-class by discussion and role play exercises. They were given asuggested interview format and question set. Their interview reports were summarized andresults shared with the students without any attribution to individual students, faculty ordepartments. Using a more convention approach, a second set of 30 faculty received thepublication via email and were encouraged to read the publication and implement itsrecommendations. After five months, a brief follow up survey of both sets of faculty was used tocompare results of the two distribution methods. This paper reports results of the studentinterviews, the follow up survey, and the comparison results. Of the thirty-four students doing interviews, thirty-two submitted a summary report.Consistent with IRB protocol, one faculty member asked that a report not be done and onestudent chose not to report. Student observations of the faculty and their discussion include: twenty percent had not read the publication prior to the interview ninety percent agreed with the premise of the publication faculty reported examples of all six of the suggested faculty student interaction techniques some faculty expressed concern about one or more of the suggestions; in particular, the holding of office hours in public places. When asked to reflect on what they learned from the exercise, students uniformlyreported they enjoyed the exercise and had good discussion with the faculty member. In manycases the discussion went well beyond the particular focus of the publication. Results of the follow-up and the comparison are currently being processed for inclusionin the full paper.
AU - Lisa M. Abrams
AU - Robert J. Gustafson
AU - Sharnnia Artis
CY - Vancouver, BC
DA - 2011/06/26
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Extending Information on Time Effective Student Interactions to Engineering Faculty
UR - https://strategy.asee.org/17974
DO - 10.18260/1-2--17974
ER -