Browsing by Author "Artiles, Mayra S."
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Choice in the Advisor Selection Processes of Doctoral Engineering ProgramsArtiles, Mayra S. (Virginia Tech, 2019-09-18)Research on doctoral student attrition has shown that one of the main reasons for which students do not persist in the Ph.D. is because of a poor relationship with their doctoral advisor. The importance of the advising relationship is especially true in science, math, and engineering degrees because of the science model of advising as the student is the advisor's employee, close collaborator, and apprentice. While much attention has been given to understanding the dynamics of the advising relationship, little attention has been given to on how these relationships commence or the context in which they begin. This study ultimately contributes to understanding the context of the inception of advisor- advisee relationships and how it ultimately relates to both faculty and doctoral student satisfaction. The following overarching research questions guide this dissertation: What are the processes for doctoral students to find advisors in engineering, science, and math? How is this process experienced by faculty and students? To address these questions, I conducted three studies. Through these studies, this dissertation: 1) Identified and described the types of advisor-advisee selection processes that exist in engineering, science, and math and examined trends and patterns across disciplines; 2) compared how two Chemical Engineering programs practice the advisor selection process and examined how faculty and graduate program directors negotiate agency in the process and 3) explored how students experience satisfaction of their basic needs in the advisor selection process of one Chemical Engineering program and examined which student attributes influence this satisfaction of needs. The results showed that there are multiple ways through which a student can find an advisor in science, math, and engineering doctoral program, but these vary widely by both discipline and field of study. The results also showed both students and faculty value the ability to select whom they will work with. However, both groups may also need support in making this decision regarding with whom they will work. Overall, the results of this dissertation highlight the importance of developing practices that balance an individual's need for support and autonomy to improve their satisfaction.
- Connecting the Opens: Open Access, Open Education, Open DataPotter, Peter J.; Walz, Anita R.; DePauw, Karen P.; Jhangiani, Rajiv; Artiles, Mayra S.; Abbas, Montasir M.; Petters, Jonathan L.; Young, Philip (Virginia Tech. University Libraries, 2018-03-19)Open practices represent opportunities to align scholarly and instructional processes with scholarly ideals, ethical stances, real work impacts, and aspirations for a more just and equitable world. There are many types of “open.” The three we will discuss, open access, open education, and open data practices may appear distinct and siloed from each other; This is only a surface-level view. In reality, these open practices areas have tremendous areas of overlap. Their underlying values reflect similar aspirations for the common good, and aims of overcoming some shared problems found in research and instruction in higher education and in society in general. This panel features students, faculty, and administrators with wide range of expertise in the three areas of open access, open education, and open data. Join us for a stimulating conversation in which we come to understand the differences and similarities between the opens, their purposes, and their potential. Presenters: Peter Potter, Anita Walz Panelists: Karen DePauw, Rajiv Jhangiani, Philip Young, Jon Petters, Mayra Artiles, Monty Abbas This event was part of Virginia Tech’s Open Education 2018 Symposium and was attended by many graduate students from Preparing the Future Professoriate. Video credit: Abram Diaz-Strandberg
- Doctoral Advisor Selection in Chemical Engineering: Evaluating Two Programs through Principal-Agent TheoryArtiles, Mayra S.; Matusovich, Holly M. (VT Publishing, 2022-02-02)Background: Little is known about how doctoral advising relationships form, but understanding the inception of these relationships can be helpful to address doctoral attrition. Chemical Engineering programs highly structure this advisor-advisee selection when compared to other engineering programs. Purpose: This study examines how two programs in Chemical Engineering practice the advisor-advisee selection process from the perspective of their faculty. In particular, our study uses principal-agent theory to address the following research question: How do two Chemical Engineering doctoral programs manage the advisor-advisee matching process? Methods: Through multi-case study methods, we examine faculty perceptions in two large doctoral programs in the U.S. Our coding was informed using Principal-Agent Theory as a framework to help characterize faculty perceptions and develop insight into their interactions with students and the graduate program director. Results: Our findings showed that faculty perceived control could strongly impact whether they adhere to departmental processes and adapt to the existing practices or if they circumvent the process. Our findings also showed the role of transparency and how such impacted faculty engagement. Conclusion: We recommend departments consider how they practice shared governance in their departments regarding the advisor-advisee matching process. We also recommend they continuously engage in conversations about processes and practices to surface implicit and explicit practices and perpetuate good community in their academic units. We also present recommendations for using economics frameworks in studying academic processes.
- Doctoral advisor selection processes in science, math, and engineering programs in the United StatesArtiles, Mayra S.; Knight, David B.; Matusovich, Holly M. (2023-01-24)Although advising relationships are key for doctoral student success, little research has addressed how they form. Understanding the formation of advising relationships can help contextualize their later development and ultimately support a student’s decision to persist in the doctorate. To understand relationship formation, the purpose of this qualitative study is to identify and describe the types of advisor–advisee selection processes that exist in engineering, science, and math doctoral programs and examine patterns across disciplines within those fields. We conducted interviews with doctoral program directors and engaged in document analysis of graduate student handbooks from 55 doctoral programs in the aforementioned fields in high research institutions across the United States. Using principal–agent theory as a theoretical lens, our findings showed that engineering programs tend to decentralize the advisor selection process by funding students across different funding sources upon enrollment. Contrariwise, science and math programs tended to fund all students in a cohort from a common funding source, which allowed students to have more time to gather information, meet, and select an advisor. These findings also show important nuances when comparing graduate education in these programs that directly impact the doctoral student experience and reiterates the necessity to study these fields separately.
- Open Education Week 2017 Panel Discussion: The Potential of Open Educational ResourcesSkripak, Stephen J.; Cortez, Anastasia; de Pena, Jonathan; Lipscombe, Mary; Artiles, Mayra S.; Roberson-Evia, Jane; Potter, Peter J.; Walz, Anita R. (Virginia Tech. University Libraries, 2017-03-28)Virginia Tech faculty members discuss their experiences as adopters, adapters, and authors of open educational resources. The panel explores use and creation of open textbooks and online course materials and systems, including OpenStax Concepts of Biology, Fundamentals of Business, and Carnegie Online Learning Initiative. Student perspectives are also included. Panelists include: Stephen Skripak, Anastasia Cortez, Jonathan de Pena, Mary Lipscombe, Mayra Artiles, Jane Roberson-Evia, Peter Potter. Moderator: Anita Walz