Providing a Just Education for All Students

1. Providing a Just Education for All Students We all have different models of justice. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

2. Providing a Just Education for All Students Retention doesn’t matter if we never admit the students to begin with. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

3. Providing a Just Education for All Students Use Posse Groups Program for underrepresented admissions and retention. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

4. Providing a Just Education for All Students Consider your own biases and assumptions and reflect on the way they direct the conversation. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

5. Providing a Just Education for All Students Inequality in engineering education should be addressed (e.g. structural and participatory inequality). 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

6. Preparing Innovators Collaboration is key! 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

7. Preparing Innovators We need more clarity when using the words “entrepreneurship” and “innovation.” 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

8. Preparing Innovators Engineering Education needs to focus on innovation and entrepreneurship. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

9. Preparing Innovators Weave the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship throughout the curriculum. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

10. Preparing Innovators Focus on entrepreneurial thinking for all students. Process and Skills 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

11. Building Value Propositions Encourage the engineering education tenure dialogue between deans and faculty. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

12. Building Value Propositions Promote the dissemination of engineering education research findings to support faculty adoption. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

13. Building Value Propositions Increase the number of NSF Highlights for Engineering Education research. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

14. Building Value Propositions We need NSF’s help and facilitation in articulating the value of engineering education. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

15. Building Value Propositions Explore how pedagogical innovations have impacted the value of and role of faculty and teaching assistants. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

16. Laying a Foundation for Future Graduate Student Success Expand the opportunities for graduate student experiences in teaching, grant writing, and industry. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

17. Laying a Foundation for Future Graduate Student Success Develop support networks (similar to GEECS/online communities) to promote graduate student success. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

18. Laying a Foundation for Future Graduate Student Success Graduate pedagogies should move toward a faculty development model. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

19. Laying a Foundation for Future Graduate Student Success Promote taking ideas and innovations to another site (visiting graduate student or post doc experiences). 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

20. Supporting Undergraduate Research What can NSF do here? “Just double the funding.” 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

21. Supporting Undergraduate Research We need increased coordination of data that “tracks” students. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

22. Supporting Undergraduate Research Look at the process of REU, not just the product. The process is equally important. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

23. Supporting Undergraduate Research REU program should collaborate to strengthen outcomes, share best practices, and standardize processes and award timing. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

24. Supporting Undergraduate Research REU has the capacity to prepare students, raise awareness, and provide context. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

25. Developing Pre-college Outreach Outreach should be viewed as part of the overall system. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

26. Developing Pre-college Outreach There is a need for a new language surrounding outreach and outreach activities. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

27. Developing Pre-college Outreach The NSF should be more explicit about the multi-dimensionality of outreach, specifically the breadth of outreach. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

28. Developing Pre-college Outreach Reach out by reaching into the community. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

29. Developing Pre-college Outreach Partner with other programs such as REU and RET. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

30. The Larger Context of Engineering Education There are “gatekeepers” (e.g. faculty, industry, post docs etc.) who model what it means to be an engineer. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

31. The Larger Context of Engineering Education Engineering educators should consider how the definition of engineering is expanding to include new trends and challenges. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

32. The Larger Context of Engineering Education Economic, social, and technical systems influence the implementation of pedagogy, research, and policy. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

33. The Larger Context of Engineering Education Systemic barriers are based on a mismatch of expectations. What are the expectations of the university? 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

34. The Larger Context of Engineering Education There is no consensus on what is successful engineering education. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

35. The Larger Context of Engineering Education Develop an engineering education and research innovation incentive structure and promote it. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

36. Visually Representing the Engineering Education System Authenticity, a holistic focus, parental involvement, and media involvement are keys to influencing the field engineering education. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

37. Visually Representing the Engineering Education System Foster a sense of belonging and a preparedness in STEM and engineering education to address attrition among students. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

38. Visually Representing the Engineering Education System Learning should be: Connected Relevant A combination of formal and informal Creative Open-ended Motivated by context and meaning-making. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights

39. Visually Representing the Engineering Education System Engineering education was described as: loosely coupled subsystems, longitudinal interplay between informal and formal education, and a linear timeline between K-12 and the workforce. 2012 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference Panel Highlights