Student leadership development in engineering

With the increasing reliance on and need for technological innovations that address the most pressing needs of North American society, educating students who can one day lead these technological innovations is necessary. When engineers simply provide technical solutions to problems defined by others – politicians, business leaders and clients – we lose out on the discipline-specific ways in which engineers employ design-thinking to prioritize elements of social problems that remain invisible to others. We acknowledge a wealth of knowledge exists on leadership development in other disciplines. Prior issues of the New Directions of Student Leadership series are evidence of the extensive work in this space. However, given our experiences as engineering educators, we have opted to foreground leadership development in engineering over similar programmes in other STEM fields. Engineering is related to other STEM fields, with two key distinctions – first, it involves applying science, technology and mathematics, and second, engineering education leads to professional certification, with distinct licensure requirements and ethical codes of conduct. Additionally, although leadership development models rooted in other disciplines are helpful to many engineers and engineering students, research suggests a critical mass of engineers continue to resist the notion that engineering is a leadership profession (Rottmann et al., 2015; Schell & Kauffmann, 2016). As such, growing numbers of engineering educators and researchers have begun to search for a professionally relevant leadership development model. Engineering Leaders (a) employ the full range of engineering skills and knowledge in the design of socio-technical innovations, while (b) seeking to understand, embrace, and address the current and future impact of their work in context by (c) actively fostering engaged and productive relationships with diverse stakeholders, including themselves and their team, the users of their technologies, and those impacted by their engineering work. This sourcebook responds to the need for engineering-specific leadership development models, frameworks, programmatic structures, pedagogy and assessment strategies by exploring the current state of EL as a field of study and practice. We pay particular attention to the ongoing efforts of EL educators to translate research into practice in a diversity of engineering programmes. Our goal for this sourcebook is, therefore, twofold: (a) to synthesize foundational research in response to the question “What is EL?” and (b) to provide actionable strategies to help engineering educators introduce leadership development opportunities into their classrooms. We do this not only to lay the groundwork for an emerging field of study or to meet accreditation requirements but, more importantly, because we believe it has the potential to enhance the social impact of the engineering profession. Engineers have a greater imperative to contribute to the betterment of society than simply serving as sources of technical knowledge and corporate advancement. In examining ethical codes and accreditation requirements, and considering the critical role of technology in society, this responsibility to lead is inherent in the professional responsibilities of engineers. We divided this sourcebook into three sections of 12 chapters and a fourth section consisting of seven EL case studies. Here we provide a brief overview. We begin by tracing the development of EL education as an industry and accreditation-inspired reform movement. By better contextualizing the field's history and explaining why an engineering-specific approach to leadership development is warranted, we lay the groundwork for the proliferation of frameworks, definitions and programme designs introduced in the remainder of the book. Article 1: Motivating the need for an engineering-specific approach to student leadership development. In the first article, Kendall, Chachra, Gipson and Roach set the stage for an engineering-specific approach to leadership development by introducing case studies of two scientist–engineers. The contrasting, yet occupationally linked case studies illustrate some of the unique issues inherent to leading as engineers and how detrimental it can be when engineers struggle to lead well. The authors then draw on the literature to argue for an engineering-specific approach to student leadership development and define EL for use in this sourcebook. Article 2: The history of EL development in academia: influences, influencers and a general roadmap. In the second article, Handley, Lang, Mittan and Ragonese trace the history of EL education and describe the critical forces that contributed to shaping this emerging field. Initially, the motivation for developing EL programmes centred on meeting the needs of industry leaders who noted professional development gaps in recent graduates. Soon after, engineering programme accreditation bodies and professional societies added leadership development to the list of student learning outcomes. These external factors resulted in a proliferation of EL programmes, structures and a growing community of EL educators. Looking to the future, the authors anticipate further growth in the number of programmes and a heavier emphasis on research and evaluation that informs EL development. Article 3: In search of a definition and frameworks for EL development. As is the case in most disciplines, a single definition of EL has eluded the community. In this article, Komarek discusses the variety of definitions, how they intersect, the significance of not having a shared definition, and how the diversity of definitions has influenced EL development frameworks and programme design. She concludes by identifying a complementary set of characteristics, knowledge and skills emerging from disparate definitions and frameworks that nevertheless propel the community forward. Building on the foundational understanding of the field and its history introduced in part one, part two of the sourcebook explores the diversity of EL programme structures, pedagogical strategies and assessment techniques used by EL programme directors, faculty, and staff. Article 4: Pedagogical approaches for facilitating EL development in-person and online. In this article, Didiano, Simpson and Bayless zoom in on the pedagogical approaches commonly used by EL educators to facilitate leadership development in engineering students. They highlight a wide range of pedagogical strategies, including narrative reflection, strengths-based inventories, team-based learning, case studies and e-portfolios, illustrating each approach with an institutionally contextualized example. The authors organize these approaches into three categories: (a) learning about oneself, (b) learning with and from others and (c) developing leadership skills through online tools. They encourage EL programme developers to experiment with a diversity of programme structures, selecting activities and approaches that meet the needs of their student populations and institutional contexts. Article 5: Team leadership in engineering education. As applied scientists, engineering educators often seek to reflect engineering practice in their classrooms, typically by introducing team projects into their courses. As a result, most undergraduate EL programmes place a heavy emphasis on leadership development through teaming and project-based learning experiences. In this article, Wolfinbarger reviews the research and resources on teaming, recognizing that simply being on a team is insufficient; teamwork skills require intentional development. Beginning with teamwork and team leadership theories, she then describes applications in engineering education, assessments, promising practices and suggestions for future research. Article 6: Measuring a moving target: techniques for EL evaluation and assessment. Evaluation and assessment are integral to continuous improvement, often helping EL educators communicate the impact of our programmes to students, funders, industry partners, senior administrators and colleagues. Novoselich and Knight demystify programme evaluation and student assessment in this article, distinguishing the two often conflated processes. They begin with an overview of the two processes, providing examples and resources along the way to help educators and programme developers decide which approaches and instruments are appropriate for their students and programmatic contexts. Article 7: The unseen work of establishing EL development initiatives. Taking a step back from the details of EL development, Melvin, Bowles and Steele walk readers through the steps of establishing a new EL programme or initiative. Drawing on their experiences, the authors invite readers to reflect on six key decisions that most EL programme developers must address at the start-up stage. Beginning with an examination of institutional context, the authors encourage potential EL programme developers to consider other exemplar programmes, seek to understand and balance stakeholder needs, be strategic about content, consider various funding opportunities, define success metrics and intentionally use evaluation to inform continuous improvement. Part three of the sourcebook presents seven case studies to illustrate further the variety of programmes and their approaches to EL development. Each case was selected to illustrate how EL programmes adapt their focus to embrace their unique institutional context and the backgrounds of their students. Article 8: Diversity of Engineering Leadership programme design. In this article, Donald and Jamieson situate seven programmes in the EL literature, illustrating a wide range of programme goals, structures, definitions, frameworks, instructional strategies, research foci and programme evaluation efforts. The cases they examine, included in Part 3, feature undergraduate and graduate minors, degrees, co-curricular programmes, courses, curricular integration and certificates, each rooted in a distinct institutional context, with a formative origin story. Case Study 1: The Citadel's graduate Engineering Leadership and Programme Management Programme. The first case study illustrates EL development of graduate students at The Citadel, a military college in Charleston, South Carolina. Plumblee and Greenburg describe how their ELPM certificate and new master's programmes, taught by civil engineering faculty, heavily emphasize project management. Case Study 2: James Madison University's Madison Engineering Leadership Development Programme. The second case study highlights a series of elective courses that make up the MELD programme at James Madison University, a 4-year public university in Harrisonburg, VA. The programme emphasizes EL as the blending of social and technical aspects of engineering. Focused on the undergraduate level, Gipson and Paterson describe how their programme leverages peer mentoring as their approach to practicing leadership. Case Study 3: Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Gordon Leadership Programme. Initially focused on undergraduate engineering, this case illustrates an EL programme at MIT, a private university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, highly regarded for its engineering programmes and research. Niño describes how this programme emphasizes the technical aspects of EL in their undergraduate elective courses and new graduate certificate. Case Study 4: Penn State University's Engineering Leadership Programme. The fourth case study is of the oldest undergraduate minor in EL. Started in 1995 at Penn State, a large public research university in State College, Pennsylvania, this EL programme has expanded to include graduate master's and certificate programmes. Lang, Park and Handley describe how the programme has evolved over three decades and has a unique emphasis on global leadership competencies. Case Study 5: University of California San Diego's Gordon Engineering Leadership Center. Shifting to the west coast, the fifth case study highlights a selective EL programme at UC San Diego serving undergraduate, graduate and professional students. Williams describes how their EL programme emphasizes professional preparation for leadership in industry. The UCSD Gordon Engineering Learning Center supports students selected for the intensive programme while serving as the hub for EL across the school of engineering, hosting various EL development activities. Case Study 6: University of Texas at El Paso's (UTEP) E-Lead Programme. The sixth case is of the first accredited bachelor's degree in engineering innovation and leadership (the E-Lead programme) at the UTEP. This case is also unique in that UTEP is a large, public, research-intensive Hispanic Serving Institution. Joslyn describes in this case study the history of this degree and how the programme has sought to not only rethink how engineering is taught but what is taught, by weaving leadership and business throughout the engineering degree. Case Study 7: University of Toronto's Troost Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering. The final case study highlights a Canadian engineering leadership development programme built on three pillars: programming, research and outreach. Moore describes Troost ILead's wide range of curricular and co-curricular programming, open to all undergraduate and graduate engineering students at the University of Toronto. Two unique features of this programme are its emphasis on leadership development rooted in self-awareness and is its extensive engineering leadership research programme supported by an industry-based community of practice. In the fourth and final part of this sourcebook, we want to give readers a sense of where the field is going and how it is situated in the broader area of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) leadership development. In addition to advancements in EL pedagogy, theories and assessment, as noted throughout Parts 1 and 2, EL researchers have begun to examine how to integrate diversity, equity and inclusion into normative practice and how to help engineers see themselves as leaders and their profession as a leadership profession. Article 9: Inclusive leadership development for engineers. Despite three decades of educational initiatives to increase the representation of women and racially minoritized students in engineering, the field continues to be exclusionary. Engineering leaders play a critical role in modelling inclusive behaviour and instituting policies that erode systemic barriers to equity. In this article, Pollock, Holly and Leggett-Robinson explore the role of engineering leaders in diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, proposing a framework for inclusive leadership development for engineers. Article 10: Developing an EL identity. One challenge we continue to face as EL educators is the marginal treatment of professional skill development in engineering education and practice. For some engineers who view themselves exclusively as technical professionals, leadership development is not simply devalued, but actively avoided. In this article, Schell and Hughes name this disconnect and propose a way forward, characterizing EL development as a process of identity development. In particular, they examine the intersection of engineering and leadership identities, using their emergent model as a framework to explore EL identity formation in undergraduate students. They conclude the article with recommendations for EL educators interested in supporting students’ EL identity development. Article 11: Contextualizing EL development in STEM. To situate EL development in the broader STEM leadership development (LD) ecosystem, Richardson and McCain describe six STEM-focused LD programmes. Following a cross-case analysis, the authors paint a picture of the broader STEM LD community and point out similarities and differences between EL and STEM-focused leadership programming. While leadership development programmes in engineering and other STEM fields share many similarities – including a patchwork of foci driven primarily by institutional norms and professional preparation concerns, STEM programmes outside of engineering tend to be more loosely coupled with industry, forcing leadership educators to accommodate a larger array of career trajectories for students. Given the recent proliferation of interdisciplinary engineering majors with similarly loose ties to industry and professional licensing, it behoves us as EL educators to learn from our colleagues in STEM. Article 12: Looking to the future: four key purposes of EL education. We conclude the collection by reflecting on four key purposes of EL education. While many EL programmes owe their existence to industry concerns about the professional preparation of engineering students, leadership development is not merely a catalyst for professional socialization. Nor is it exclusively a pursuit of technical content knowledge or personal growth. It is also fundamentally about leveraging engineering knowledge, skills and tools to collaboratively support socially impactful change. In this final chapter, we stand on the shoulders of our predecessors and expand the focus of EL development from professional preparation to the pursuit of knowledge, personal growth and social transformation. EL education provides engineering students and professionals with the opportunity to leverage the products and technology we design in service of social, financial and environmental impact. It is not simply an accreditation requirement. Leadership development is inherent to engineers’ formation as socio-technical professionals. Meagan R. Kendall is an associate professor and graduate programme director in the Department of Engineering Education and Leadership at The University of Texas at El Paso. As a founding faculty member, Dr. Kendall helped design and launch the first bachelor of science in engineering innovation and leadership. Her research focuses on student and faculty engineering leadership development, particularly for those from underrepresented populations in engineering. She currently serves as the chair of the Engineering Leadership Development Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. Dr. Kendall holds bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees in mechanical engineering. Cindy Rottmann is the associate director, research at the Troost Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering at the University of Toronto. Dr. Rottmann's research examines engineering leadership in professional practice, engineering career paths and the infusion of equity and social justice into engineering ethics education. She currently serves as programme chair of the Engineering Leadership Development Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. Dr. Rottmann holds bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees in education.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.