Paper ID #33391

A Virtual Internship Experience

Mr. Rodney Boehm, Texas A&M University College of Engineering

Rodney Boehm is the Director of Engineering Entrepreneurship and an Associate Professor of Practicein the Texas A&M University College of Engineering. He has broad industry experiences, including over35 years in all aspects of the telecommunications industry (sales, marketing, manufacturing, business de-velopment, and technical design), the creation of a telecommunications standard (SONET - SynchronousOptical Network) for the fiber optics industry that is still in use internationally over 30 years later, a widevariety of business experiences in international companies, and startup experiences. This has helped himlead a very successful industry career.

Currently he is using his technical business experiences to develop and run innovation and entrepreneurialprograms for the Engineering Innovation Center, a 20,000 sq ft rapid prototyping facility. These in-clude Aggies Invent, TAMU iSITE, Inventeer, and Pop Up Classes. In addition, he mentors multipleentrepreneurial teams.

Formerly he was a Senior Vice President of Fujitsu Network Communications, headquartered in Richard-son, Texas. With over 30 years of experience in telecommunications, Rodney was responsible for de-veloping partnerships with leading network technology providers and driving marketing efforts for op-tical, access and data products developed by Fujitsu. Rodney was Chairman of the T1X1 TechnicalSub-Committee (the organization responsible for SONET standardization) from 1990 through 1994. Hehas been active in SONET’s National and International Standardization since 1985. In addition, Rodneyhas published numerous papers and presentations on SONET.

Rodney began his career with Fujitsu Network Communications in 1989 as the Director of Strategic Plan-ning. He also held the positions of Director of Transport Product Planning, Vice President of BusinessManagement, Senior Vice President of Sales Management, Senior Vice President of Manufacturing, andSenior Vice President of Business Development. Before joining Fujitsu, Rodney worked for Bell Labora-tories, Bellcore (now Telcordia), and Rockwell International. He earned both his bachelor’s and master’sdegrees in electrical engineering at Texas A&M University.

Prof. Michael Beyerlein, Texas A&M University

Michael Beyerlein is a Professor in the Human Resource Development Graduate Program at Texas A&MUniversity. Formerly, he was professor and department head of Organizational Leadership & Supervisionat Purdue and prior to that Founding Director of the Center for Collaborative Organizations and Professorof Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of North Texas. His books, book chapters,and articles usually address the topics of teams and collaboration, creativity and innovation, knowledgemanagement, and intangible capital. His research interests include: team creativity, emergence of virtualorganizations, and innovation science. His most recent edited book is The handbook for high performancevirtual teams with Jill Nemiro and others.

Kiersten Potter, Student Engineers’ Council

Kiersten is a first-generation Aggie from Katy, Texas. She is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in chemicalengineering and is earning a certificate in Holistic Leadership. As a student, she is President of theStudent Engineers’ Council and has participated in the Business Fellows XXXVIII Program, the ZachryLeadership Program, Fish Aides, Horizons Consulting Guild, and Engineering Honors. Upon graduation,Kiersten hopes to use her internship, study abroad, and organization experience to pursue a career in theenergy sector. Having grown up abroad, she hopes to live internationally again sometime in the future.

Jiacheng LuLori L. Moore, Texas A&M University

Dr. Lori Moore is an Associate Professor in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, andCommunications at Texas A&M University. Dr. Moore teaches introductory leadership, leadership the-ory, adult education, and methods of teaching courses and supervises students completing their supervised

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

Paper ID #33391

clinical student teaching experience in local high school agriculture programs. She has provided instruc-tional support to two learning communities, one, the Leadership Living Learning Community (L3C), forfreshmen students interested in leadership, and one for veteran students. Through her work with the L3Cbetween 2008 and 2020, Dr. Moore has provided leadership to a community of almost 1000 former partic-ipants. Dr. Moore has strong research interests in teaching and learning in higher education, specificallyat the intersection of academic and student affairs.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

A Virtual Internship Experience Rodney Boehm, Michael Beyerlein, Kiersten Potter, Lori Moore, Jiacheng Lu

Texas A&M University

Abstract

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted life on campuses and around the world.

During April 2020, the Student Engineers’ Council (SEC) at Texas A&M University recognized

that many students in the College of Engineering were notified their summer internships with

companies had been cancelled. It was devastating to students who wondered how they were

going to replace the professional development experience outside of the classroom. Reacting to

this emergency, within three weeks, the President of SEC and Professors of the Practice from the

engineering entrepreneurship program developed a summer instruction program which focused

on professional skill development through a virtual implementation. All faculty involved had

implemented internship programs in their companies and were convinced that a program could

be offered, not to completely replace an internship at a company, but to build the professional

skills students would need in their jobs. Ultimately, the virtual internship program involved over

350 students, almost 60 mentors, and seven faculty. It was divided into two 6-week phases – 1)

professional skill training and 2) teamwork project implementation. Surveys were conducted pre-

and post-training to assess the effectiveness of individual skill development and determine what

elements of the program should be continued. A final survey was conducted of students and

mentors to assess the effectiveness of teamwork development. Participants reported increases in

development of individual skill areas over the course of the program. When rating their team

performance, participants ratings were between somewhat agree and agree on the majority of the

aspects of team performance assessed. Overall, participants had a positive view of their

experience in the program.

Introduction

Each generation of new engineering graduates has entered a workplace with roles prior

generations could not imagine. The current generation of students will do the same as disruptive

technologies change the problems they tackle and the technologies they use. To avoid

obsolescence, new graduates need to become lifelong learners and continuously learn such

competencies as design thinking, systems thinking, strategic thinking, and teamwork.

Kuh (2008) identified “helping America’s extraordinarily diverse students reap the full

benefits— economic, civic, and personal—of their studies in college” as “what is arguably the

most important challenge in higher education today” (p. 1). Preparation of students to enter the

professional workforce has traditionally emphasized the development of technical skills.

However, studies have shown that when some engineering projects fail (Ibrahim, Costello, &

Wilkinson, 2013; Lawrence & Scanlan, 2007), the failures have been attributed to technical,

communication, and/or contextual issues. Leading schools have begun emphasizing the other

two categories of skills development. Texas A&M has been among the leaders with a variety of

co-curricular activities that provide intense design experience in interdisciplinary teams (Aggies

Invent) and focus on building skills and experience with developing a technical and business

project proposal (through an online summer internship).

Researchers have for decades attempted to identify and describe effective educational practices

(Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kuh, 2008). In 2008, Kuh coined the term high-impact

educational practices, also, and perhaps more commonly, known as high-impact practices or

high-impact experiences, to refer to active learning experiences that increase student retention

and student engagement in higher education. Kuh (2008), noting that “these practices take many

different forms, depending on learner characteristics and on institutional priorities and contexts”

(p. 9), identified and described six common characteristics of high-impact experiences:

1. Demand that students devote considerable time and effort to purposeful tasks; most

require daily decisions that deepen students’ investment in the activities as well as

commitment to their academic program and the college.

2. Put students in circumstances that essentially demand they interact with faculty and peers

about substantive matters; typically over extended periods of time.

3. Increase the likelihood that students will experience diversity through contact with people

who are different than themselves.

4. Allow students to get frequent feedback about their performance.

5. Provide opportunities for students to see how what they are learning works in different

settings.

6. Help students gain a better understanding of self in relation to others. pp. 14-17.

One of the teaching and learning practices Kuh (2008) identified as a high-impact experience is

internships.

Internships place students in work experiences in which they have little or no control over the

sequences or difficulty of problems they encounter. Internships provide students with an

opportunity to put theory into practice by participating in problem solving experiences centered

around activities related to future careers. Various aspects related to the impact of internships as

high-impact experiences have been explored and documented in the literature (Miller, Rycek, &

Friston, 2011; O’Neill, 2010).

Once students from Texas A&M University were sent home in March of 2020 due to the

pandemic, educational delivery had to change dramatically. Further, companies were struggling

with remote workforces, staff reduction, and the ability to continue projects. One result of

companies dealing with the effects of COVID-19 was that members of the Student Engineers’

Council (SEC) found their summer internships being revoked due to budget cuts brought on by

the economic downturn. The Council also realized that revoked internships were common

throughout the entire engineering student body. Students were left struggling with the pandemic

and how to navigate the upcoming summer jobless. They determined that there was a need for

students to have access to a professional development program for them to not lose progress

through the summer.

After it was clear many students within the College of Engineering were feeling impacts of the

economic downturn, SEC leadership began conversations with the Dean of Student Affairs. The

SEC had the idea and the resources to create an impactful professional summer experience that

was provided to the student body at no cost. With approval from administration, SEC leadership

began to engage with Engineering Entrepreneurship. Within 20 days of conception, an

application process, a timeline of events, and a panel of professors of practice came together.

Over 500 students attended the initial online informational to learn about program details. Over

400 students applied to the program, and over 350 students successfully completed the program.

The 2020 Summer Intern Program was an innovation of the Student Engineers Council and

Professors of Practice (PPs) at the College of Engineering at Texas A&M University. It was

driven by their empathy for undergraduate engineering students whose internships in companies

had been cancelled in response to the pandemic. Six PPs under the direction of Rodney Boehm,

Director of Entrepreneurship at the College, designed the program, all 130 training modules

(listed in Appendix A), and launched it on May 28, 2020.

To guide development of the training, faculty looked at data from surveys collected by the

TAMU Career Center which identified the top items sought by recruiters, These include:

• Relevant Work Experience

• Teamwork/Interpersonal Skills

• Major and GPA

• Oral & Written Communication

• Creativity & Problem Solving

Major and GPA were being addressed in the normal pursuit of a student’s degree, therefore, the

virtual internship program focused on professional skill development in the other four areas. In

addition, it was recognized that this virtual program, provided by a university, could not and

should not, replace an actual internship in a company, because a virtual experience run by a

university could not replicate experiences in corporate culture, company workflows, team

interaction, interaction with individuals with vast experience differences, and working with

customers. However, since the PPs involved had implemented internship programs in previous

careers and experiences, it was decided to get as close to an actual internship as possible. All

material developed to implement the skill development was identified to fit develop skills in four

areas 1) Relevant Work Experience (RWE), 2) Teamwork/Interpersonal Skills (TIS), 3) Oral &

Written Communication (OWC), and Creativity & Problem Solving (CPS). Each training

module, listed in Appendix A, was coded with these three letter designations to identify skills

developed.

The summer online internship program began with six weeks of individual intern skill

development through training modules, instruction, assignments, and coaching. After six weeks,

interns were formed into project teams and gained professionals as mentors for additional

support. The online format for the internship provided several advantages for designing a unique

learning environment including an opportunity for multi-locational knowledge work (Sjöblom,

Lammassaari, Hietajärvi, Mälkki, & Lonka, 2019). As with other extra-curricular activities in the

College of Engineering, the intent was to simulate the engineer’s professional environment and

provide instruction and feedback to enhance the related learning.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of the of the online intern program. Specific

objectives of the study included:

1. Describe participants of the Summer Intern Program in terms of selected demographics;

2. Explore the individual skill development of program participants;

3. Explore the team development of program participants; and

4. Explore the impact of the Summer Intern Program on program mentors.

This paper will outline the program to aid other’s implementation and provide assessment

information to highlight areas which successfully accomplished the goals and which should be

changed.

Methods

We employed a multiple methods design to accomplish our objectives (Morse, 2010). “Multiple

methods design consists of two or more studies using different methods, which address the same

research question or different parts of the same research question or programmatic goal” (Morse,

2010, p. 340). The first study in our multiple methods design included the collection and analysis

of both quantitative and qualitative survey data from program participants. The second study

included the analysis of responses collected from focus groups of mentors.

To address assessment of individual skill development, Survey A was used which consisted of

scales focused to assess learning after the six weeks of modules in comparison to the May

baseline and again after the six weeks of team project work. To understand coaching

effectiveness, Survey B was used to assessed intern response to coaching and the coaches’

perception of the intern experience as well as the importance of matching growth mindset levels

of coach and coachee. Survey C was used to assess team dynamics and the relationship to

learning and project performance.

Table 1. Calendar for data collection Summer 2020 internship program

Time Period Survey Level Group Survey

May 28 Pre-test Individual All summer intern participants A1

Early July Posttest 1 “ “ A2

Mid-August Posttest 2 “ “ A3

Early July Coaches 1 “ All coachees rate coaches B1

Mid-August Coaches 2 Team “ B2

Early July Coaches 3 Individual Coaches – growth mindset

Mid-August Teams 1 “ All team members C1

Participants. In the first of our two studies, all 350 participants were invited to complete a

survey instrument focused on individual skill development at the beginning, mid-point, and end

of the Summer Intern Program. At the beginning of the Summer Intern Program, 326 of the 350

program participants completed the online survey instrument for a response rate of 93%.

Response rates for the survey instruments distributed at the mid-point and at the end of the

program diminished to about 40% and 35%, respectively. Typical response rates for online

surveys are between 30 and 35% (Lozar, M., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, Jl., Hass, I., & Vehovar, V.,

2008; Sheehan, 2001; Shih & Fan, 2008). All 350 program participants were also invited to

complete a survey instrument focused on team development at the end of the Summer Intern

Program. Usable data were obtained from 118 of the 350 participants yielding a response rate of

33%.

In the second study, our population of interest was comprised of the 63 professionals who

volunteered as mentors for the intern teams during the second half of the program. The virtual

nature of the internship enabled them to meet with students from long distance, so they were

scattered across the USA from coast to coast.

Data Collection. We collected data from program participants using multiple surveys at multiple

points during the program and from program mentors during the second half of the program.

Data Analysis. Data from the individual skill development surveys administered before, during,

and at the end of the Summer Intern Program and from the team development survey

administered at the end of the Summer Intern Program were analyzed using the IMB SPSS®

statistical software for social sciences. Responses from students to the open-ended survey

questions and responses from the focus groups conducted with mentors were analyzed using

content analysis (Patton, 2002; Weber, 1990).

Some of the skills relate directly to project solution, some to developing team capabilities for

learning and creativity, and some to both. For example, our pilot studies suggest growth mindset

(e.g., Han, Xie, Walichowski, Beyerlein, & Boehm, 2020), creative mindset, and shared

leadership (e.g., Leight, Lei, Han, Beyerlein, & Zarestky, 2018) are among those variables

essential for team learning, as well as individual learning.

Mastery of a competency involves developing a deep understanding of the component skills that

emerges over time through practice. Some scholars suggest expertise is on a continuum (e.g.,

Fadde, 2009; Ifenthaler, 2010; Petcovic & Libarkin, 2007). However, others suggest it represents

a complex system of knowledge where new levels of sophistication and interdependence

continually emerge through learning (e.g., Crick, 2012; Hurford, 2010). Levels of expertise and

therefore of learning to prepare for work on a professional design team are even more complex

(e.g., Decuyper, Docy, & Van den Bossche, 2010; Mennin, 2007) than suggested by variety of

our survey scales.

Findings

Survey of Individual Skill Development. Each individual student in the Summer Intern

program received an invitation email from the Qualtrics survey system at three time points

during the semester: late May, early July, mid-August. The survey items were chosen from

published instruments to assess changes in level of skill after six weeks of online synchronous

and asynchronous training sessions (see Appendix A for list of sessions) and six weeks of

working on a team project with PPs and mentor guidance (see Appendix B for project

requirements and judges’ rubric). Graduate student coaches from a summer seminar worked with

21 interns who volunteered for the extra sessions. Survey results in July and August were

compared to the baseline measure at the beginning of summer to show gains in self-reported skill

levels.

The Skill Development scales were taken from an instrument used with 39 universities’

engineering colleges as part of the study of Vision 2020 by Lattuca and her colleagues (Lattuca,

Trautvetter, Codd, Knight, & Cortes, 2011). Likert-type scales were used for all survey items.

Demographics of Participants. Of the 350 students enrolled in the intern program, 326

participated in the first survey during Week 1 of the summer semester, 283 responded to the

question about race/ethnic identification (see Table 1), while 251 responded to the questions

about gender (see Table 2) and major (see Table 3), Only 186 of the 326 responded to the

question about classification (see Table 4).

Table 2. Race/Ethnic Identification of Participants Completing Assessment at the Beginning of

the Internship (N = 283)

Race/Ethnicity n %

African American/Black 6 2.1

Asian 58 20.5

Latina/o or Hispanic 58 20.5

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 0.4

White 149 52.6

Choice not Listed 5 1.8

Prefer not to answer 6 2.1

Total 283 100.0

Table 3. Gender of Participants Completing Assessment at the Beginning of the Internship (N =

251)

Gender n %

Male 178 70.9

Female 72 28.7

Prefer not to Answer 1 0.4

Total 251 100.0

Table 4. Major of Participants Completing Assessment at the Beginning of the Internship (N =

251)

Major n %

Aerospace Engineering 23 9.2

Biological and Agricultural Engineering 1 0.4

Biomedical Engineering 11 4.4

Chemical Engineering 40 15.8

Civil Engineering 8 3.2

Computer Engineering – CS Track 2 0.8

Computer Engineering – ECEN Track 12 4.8

Computer Science 7 2.8

Electrical Engineering 27 10.7

Electronics Systems Engineering Technology 8 3.2

Industrial Distribution 18 7.2

Industrial & Systems Engineering 24 9.6

Mechanical Engineering 33 13.1

Nuclear Engineering 1 0.4

Petroleum Engineering 12 4.8

General Engineering 1 0.4

Materials Science and Engineering 2 0.8

Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering

Technology

9 3.6

Multidisciplinary Engineering Technology 11 4.4

Architectural Engineering 1 0.4

Total 251 100

Table 5. Classification of Participants Completing Assessment at the Beginning of the Internship

(N = 186)

Classification n %

U1 1 0.5

U2 5 2.7

U3 46 24.7

U4 130 69.9

Graduate Student - Masters 4 2.2

Total 186 100.0

Individual Skill Development. Table 6 reports mean scores and their standard deviations for

each of the skills/scales assessed at the beginning (Week 1), middle (Week 6), and end (Week

10) of the internship. These results reflect self-assessment by the students at the beginning,

middle, and end of the summer program. Mean scores for the group increased for every skill

area. Scores for growth mindset and creative mindset remained stable. They were not explicitly

targeted by the curriculum for the program.

Table 6. Individual Skills Assessments at the Beginning, Middle, and End of Internship

Survey of Intern Team Effectiveness

Week 1 Week 6 Week 10

Skills/Scales N M SD N M SD N M SD

Student Outcomes

Design Skillsa 264 3.88 0.49 141 4.23 0.42 121 4.42 0.41

Communication Skillsa 261 3.93 0.62 140 4.18 0.52 118 4.41 0.47

Teamwork Skillsa 261 4.33 0.57 140 4.44 0.44 118 4.62 0.42

Leadership Skillsa 261 3.96 0.55 139 4.18 0.49 117 4.38 0.46

Instructional Practice

Scales

Student-Centered

Teachingb

254 3.63 0.64 138 4.08 0.62 117 4.09 0.63

Active/Collaborative

Learningb

254 3.27 0.84 138 3.64 0.78 117 3.67 0.92

Interdisciplinary

Skillsa

253 3.98 0.48 133 4.26 0.50 117 4.39 0.45

Reflective Behaviora 253 4.03 0.70 133 4.09 0.60 117 4.39 0.51

Recognizing

Disciplinary

Perspectivesa

253 3.40 0.65 133 3.74 0.64 116 3.87 0.62

Growth Mindsetc,d 251 4.31 0.89 125 4.42 0.95 113 4.37 0.95

Creative Mindsetc 251 3.28 0.34 125 3.41 0.42 113 3.36 0.39 aScale of 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 =

Strongly Agree. bScale of 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Very Often. cScale of 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 =

Somewhat Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree. dThree items reverse coded.

Team Development. An effective team emerges over time as the efforts of the members co-

creates a social-intellectual environment that enables collaboration for generating solutions to

challenging problems. When that team environment enables both shared learning and joint

creativity, it provides the main tool of the professional for solving complex problems. For

student development, the most critical process within the team is learning. Developing the team

into an effective learning environment can be the most crucial role of the members. In the team,

knowledge from multiple perspectives can be combined to generate a multifaceted lens that

grasps the holistic nature of the problem and provides multiple intervention points through deep

insight emerging from rich conversation. The team leverages the resources of members to

generate intellectual capital for the organization. Learning is the key process in the team that

provides the foundation for creativity as well as member competency development.

The team represents a unique learning environment. Learning by members occurs at all levels

from simple gains in information to redefinition of the problem or goal to profound shifts in

perspective. Accumulated learning by members results in patterns of behavior that coalesce into

a sociocultural system – a dynamic structure that preserves the lessons learned in action so that

consistent high-performance levels can be sustained.

Design problems in professional work often require teamwork competencies because of the need

to coordinate expertise of a collection of interdisciplinary employees to address challenges

characterized as ill-defined or wicked (Avdiji, Elikan, Missonier, & Pigneur, 2018) with no

“right” answers.

In a survey of 400 employers, 83% of companies chose “the ability to work effectively with

others in teams” as one of the most important learning outcomes for graduates, behind only “the

ability to effectively communicate orally” (Hart Research Associates, 2015, p. 4). As a result, an

increasing number of universities engage their engineering majors in group projects to prepare

them for workplace demands. Yet, interdisciplinary experience during college years seems to be

rare.

Our survey assessed the level of self-perceived team effectiveness interns reported. The 350

students were divided into 73 teams. Each team worked with a PP and a mentor. Several teams

also had coaches.

Mean scores and standard deviations for each of the team assessments completed at the end of

the internship are presented in Table 7. Standard deviations are narrow for all including self-

rated team performance implying some convergence of perspectives. The mean for

Psychological Safety was the highest team score with Team Mindset the lowest – a somewhat

surprising pattern, since the literature suggests a stronger connection. The Team Mindset scale

emerged from analysis of focus group results in another study (Han, Garr, Kogut, et al., 2019) to

emulate Dweck’s (2000) scale for assessing individual growth and fixed mindset. Example items

for the two team mindsets include: “Our team actively learned from obstacles” in contrast to

“Our team held on to the same solution idea throughout the whole process.”

Table 7. Team Assessment at the End of Internship (Week 10)

Emergent Processes N M SD

Shared Leadership – Task-Orienteda 116 4.41 0.67

Shared Leadership – Relationship-Orienteda 116 4.40 0.67

Shared Leadership – Creativity-Orienteda 116 4.50 0.56

Team Mindseta 118 3.59 0.65

Project Qualitya 116 4.59 0.43

Team Performancea 118 4.38 0.66

Psychological Safetyb,c 118 5.36 0.59

Team Trusta 118 4.51 0.75

Team Learning Behaviora 118 4.47 0.69

Emotional Intelligencea 118 4.05 0.75 aScale of 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 =

Somewhat Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree. bScale of 1 = Very Inaccurate, 2 = Inaccurate, 3 = Moderately Inaccurate, 4 = Neither Accurate

nor Inaccurate, 5 = Moderately Accurate, 6 = Accurate, 7 = Very Accurate. cFour items reverse coded.

Note: Since the survey participants change over time through learning, their scores on a survey

may change over time for three reasons. Alpha change happens when there is simple shift in the

scale rating due to a positive or negative change. Beta change happens when responses to survey

items are “recalibrated, and the intervals between the response options are changed” (Nye,

Brummel, & Drasgow, 2010, p. 1560), Gamma changes occur when an idea is reconceptualized

or when respondents shift their reference frames after experiencing an intervention (p. 1560).

Differentiating the types of change requires a large sample size and sophisticated statistical

analysis. Here we will assume alpha change has occurred.

Clearly, intern students improved noticeably in fundamental skills across the summer. There is

also some value in comparing the group to other sets of students. Two studies used the same

scales for assessing engineering student skills several years ago. Those samples did not have the

advantage of an online internship experience. Table 8 shows the TAMU students skill scores at

Week 1, Week 6, and Week 10 followed by mean scores and standard deviations for five of the

skills assessed Summer 2020. Note that TAMU students started at a higher level and then

improved every six weeks.

Statistics for comparison groups 1 and 2 came from Ro, Lattuca, & Alcott, 2016 study with a

sample of 1,201 and from Knight’s dissertation using a sample of 2,166 upper division

engineering students from 31 colleges in the USA.

Table 8. Comparison of TAMU Intern Results with Other Data Sets

Week 1 Week 6 Week 10

Skills/Scales M SD M SD M SD Ma SDa Mb

Student Outcomes

Design Skillsa 3.88 0.49 4.23 0.42 4.42 0.41 3.2 0.70 3.73

Communication Skillsa 3.93 0.62 4.18 0.52 4.41 0.47 3.6 0.70 3.86

Teamwork Skillsa 4.33 0.57 4.44 0.44 4.62 0.42 3.5 0.80 3.98

Leadership Skillsa 3.96 0.55 4.18 0.49 4.38 0.46 3.2 0.80 3.80

Instructional Practice

Scales

Student-Centered

Teachingb

3.63 0.64 4.08 0.62 4.09 0.63 3.84

Active/Collaborative

Learningb

3.27 0.84 3.64 0.78 3.67 0.92 3.26

Interdisciplinary

Skillsa

3.98 0.48 4.26 0.50 4.39 0.45 3.5 0.7 3.65

Reflective Behaviorc 4.03 0.70 4.09 0.60 4.39 0.51 4.05

Recognizing

Disciplinary

Perspectivesc

3.40 0.65 3.74 0.64 3.87 0.62 4.01

Fixed Mindset and

Growth Mindsetd, e

4.31 0.89 4.42 0.95 4.37 0.95

Creative Mindsetd 3.28 0.34 3.41 0.42 3.36 0.39

NOTE: a = Ro, Lattuca, & Alcott, 2017.

b = Knight 2012 – no Standard Deviations reported.

Week 10 Student Comment Analysis. Comments were solicited from students during the

surveys and analyzed to gain understanding of the impact of the experience, Two questions in the

Week 10 survey provided the most substantial evidence of this, These were:

Question 1: What is the most valuable way the instructors provided support to you and

your team?

Question 2: How did your experience in the internship program this summer affect your

career planning?

Student Write-In Comments. Out of the 118 surveys returned from the 350 students solicited,

110 (93%) had written comments to these two questions, Selected responses can be found in

Appendix C; however, Table 9 provides summary results, It is interesting to note that students

felt that feedback was the most valuable way instructors supported them (mentioned 29 times)

and that, more specifically, feedback on their presentations was the most valuable (mentioned 20

times), Additionally, out of the 108 students responding to Q2, 106 (98%) mentioned that the

experience affected their career planning positively with experience working on a small team

being the most valuable (mentioned 23 times).

Table 9. Student Comment Analysis

Q1 What is the most valuable way the instructors

provided support to you and your team?

Total Comments 110

Feedback 29

Mentioned Feedback Characteristic Gave Directions 11

Encouraging 11

Constructive 5

Available 4

Direct and Instant 3

Mentioned Shared Knowledge

Presentation 20

Industry Experience 10

Technical 4

Q2 How did your experience in the internship program

this summer affect your career planning?

Total Comments 108

Affected Positively 106

How

Feels to work on small teams 23

Better understanding of job areas 13

Understanding of skills needed 13

Understanding of how projects work in industry 9

Developed more confidence 6

Identified new path/possibilities 2

Motivated to work in industry 2

Mentor Focus Group Analysis.

To gain a more full understanding of the impact of the program, mentors were engaged in focus

groups to assess their impression of the development of students in teams. Questions contained

in the focus group can be found in Appendix D. Basic themes from the focus group transcript are

captured below and illustrated with quotations from the mentors as they described their

experience with the intern teams. Full comments can be found in Appendix E, but significant

comments are provided in each section below.

i. Motivation – Why they participated

Mentors were motivated to take time from their busy weeks to participate in meetings with

student teams during the last six weeks of the summer semester by some combination of the

following:

• “Prior experience with the entrepreneurship program and with TAMU intern students in

their organizations, with other colleges programs, and at work with employees”

• “Had good mentors and so wanted to take that forward”

• “Empathy for students missing the chance for an internship inside a company”

• “Online form of participation made participation easy from anywhere in the country.”

ii. Effective Mentor Practices

Mentors discussed the way they worked with the student teams and the way they adjusted their

methods as the students rapidly grew during the six weeks:

• “Helping them think about the questions to answer”

• “Prioritization of the many tasks that needed to be done on the project”

• “Helping them manage their time – helping them work backward from the deliverable to

how much time to spend where”

• “Probing their thought process – making sure they understood what they were trying to

present”

• “Asking thought-provoking questions”

iii. Alignment With Expectations

• “Their level of commitment was right on par. No slackers. Great communication and

ownership from the team members. Incredibly aggressive schedule and may have

exceeded some expectations.”

• “They gave 100 percent effort and that made my contributions feel warranted and excited

to sit in on meetings and watch the continued progress.”

• “They don’t even know what questions to ask. Here are some: question requirements,

question assumptions, write it down so you can communicate it with others and check if

all covered.”

• “pretty was looking at me as, ‘OK, tell us how to go about this.’ I could tell by the

questions. It was, ‘tell us how to go about it.’ Settled that, and they really began to say,

‘hey, we can come up with ideas and we can do this’ -- just to see that maturation.”

iv. Orientation And Training

• “We were told … we're not doing the project for these for these students. We're just there

to sort of mentor them.”

• “I did not take the training. I don't think I could work it in my schedule, so I don't have

any comments on that.”

• “I did take the training. I thought it was very, very helpful.” “What's the main thing you

walked away with”?

v. Team Leaders

• “I think the team leaders set the path, keep the focus, keep the objective and keep

everyone focused on that, but not necessarily doing any more work.”

• “One student identified himself as the leader, but team did not agree in contrast to one

who took notes and scheduled next meeting which was identified as leading.”

• “…one fantastic leader … He was more from an organizational allocation of making sure

that the tasks were fully allocated, and the owners were more aware. But he had his own

list of things that he had to accomplish as well, in addition to the schedule and the

minutes and stuff like that.”

• “Virtual format worked quite well – not a barrier to a lively process.”

• “Dead silence – that’s a clue the team needed help. ‘I don’t even know what to ask.’ Was

a common statement. I sat back in silence and waited 30 to 45 seconds. They were

uncomfortable.”

• “Pregnant pause … where you just sit and let the silence really affect people. Somebody

will eventually same something and you can carry on the conversation … allow that

awkwardness to sink in.”

vi. Suggestions

• “… just like any other successful program execution, you really need to have a good

structure on how it's going to be executed. So, my interaction was helping them build the

framework in order to facilitate that success. So, it wasn't about did you meet the

milestone is as much as how was the milestone defined? Are you comfortable with the

milestone and how does that match the overall program objective? So, it was more from a

high-level perspective to build a structure for success than the individual tasks that

completed it.”

• “… I believe the students would have benefitted from more context upfront … like when

you do a case competition, there’s always a lot of background information,” e.g., 2 pages

of profile such as description of a company context

vii. Outcomes

• “The content was unique … the first six weeks they spent in training modules from the

instructors, all of who had 20 or 30 years of practice in the field first. So, these were

engineers with extensive resumes … so, all the content was distinct from any of the

courses they took, and it was all ‘this is what it's like in the workplace. This is how you

get prepared. This is these are the skills you need. This is how you need to be thinking

about it.’”

• “The things that really sticks out for me is actually the progression week over week, how

well they listened to the recommendations and then incorporated them. So, every week, it

was a new suggestion. It wasn't rehashing old problems. And I think that was one of the

most encouraging things for me is to see -- the noticeable improvement week over week.

And things that I made comments on that obviously somebody was writing down,

because next week it was better. Why can't my team do that? I've been fighting the

problems on my delivery team for months. And it's like, ‘guys. I got interns that are that

are like actually doing the work that I tell them, are you just ignoring me’?

As can be seen from the comments highlighted here and the complete comments in Appendix E,

mentors were impressed with the student commitment, leadership, and progress the teams made

during the 6-week session. Suggestions included providing additional mentor training and

additional context up front.

Implications

To be successful in their careers, engineering students require both technical and professional

skills. As can be seen in the survey of recruiting managers from the Texas A&M University

career center, listed in Section I, professional skills are some of the most important in making the

determination of which student to hire post-graduation. Further, the comments from the mentors

provide insight into not only the skills needed, but the overall program development of

professional skills in students. Data in Table 6 demonstrates how students progressed in Design,

Communication, Teamwork, and Leadership skills over the training sessions. Of particular

importance is the increase in each of these area throughout the summer. Table 9 illustrates

students comments on feedback and impact on their career. It is very interesting to note that 98%

of the comments indicated a positive impact with the most comments on the positive nature of

feedback and presentation skills. Further, students indicated that experience working in small

teams was of particular importance to their future career development,

Mentor comments were particularly important because this provided insight into the outcomes of

the program to those in industry. Significant comments included effort, development of leaders,

outcomes, and potential suggestions. Combining these comments with the student responses to

surveys provides a multi-perspective view of the significant development students achieved

through the summer.

Summary

The SEC Directed Summer Internship program was developed as a reaction to cancellation of

many engineering student industry internships over the summer of 2020 due to the concern over

the COVID-19 pandemic. It was not designed, or should be considered as, a substitute for an

actual industry internship. The internship program focused on developing professional skills in

engineering students that would empower them to be productive members of a company as soon

as they walked through the door. It could not simulate a corporate environment, culture

development, or working within company personnel, resource, or physical constraints, however,

as evidenced by the data provided, it did, in a virtual setting, provide professional skills and

simulate a project team working to recommend funding of an engineering project to management

of a company. Students and mentors provided the evidence and feedback of how the program

impacted them positively. Therefore, Texas A&M University has decided, based on this

evidence, to offer this program again with increased industry participation.

Recommendations

As can be seen from the assessment data gathered through surveys, student comments, and

mentor discussion, the virtual internship filled a gap during the summer for professional skill

development which is valuable to students and industry. During the Summer of 2020, priority in

participation was given to students who had their internships cancelled and was therefore heavily

focused on Juniors and Seniors. This is because most company internships are offered to higher

level students. Texas A&M University has decided to offer this program again in the Summer of

2021 but will focus on including rising sophomore and junior students because they are less

likely to be involved in company internships. The focus will be on professional skill

development to help them prepare for future company internships and careers.

Appendix A

Training Sessions for SEC Directed Summer Internship

Topic Hours Instructor Week # Classification

(Per, Pro, Int)

RWE 101 - Feedback, Customer Segments, and

Value Propositions

● Set up Relentlessly Direct Feedback

● Creating value – Value propositions – Who

cares?

● Customer segmentation and why

1 Rodney

Boehm

1 Pro

RWE 102 - Mentor Interaction Training for

Students

● Mentor expectations from students

● Student expectations from mentors

● Dos and don’ts

1 Jim Donnell 1 Int

TIS 102 - Mental Toughness/Resilience

● Understanding Resilience

● Using Crisis and Uncertainty to become a

better leader

1 Shayla

Rivera

Dan Ball

1 Per

TIS 101 - Journal Development/Getting to know

You

● Understanding your Personality assessment

● The Importance of Journaling in Lifelong

Development

● Identifying your strengths and weaknesses

2 Shayla

Rivera

Dan Ball

1 Per

RWE 103 - Sales Vs Marketing

● Everyone sells

● Sales and marketing are not the same

● Working with product sales

1,1 Rodney

Boehm

Shayla

Rivera

2,6 Pro/Int

TIS 103 - Team Leadership

● How to lead

● Traits of a good leader

● Why would someone choose to follow you?

1,1,1 Jim Donnell

Mark

Johnson

2,4,6 Int

RWE 104 - Basic Company Financials

● Income statement

● Balance sheet

● Cash flow statement

● Why important and to whom?

1,1,1,

1

Jim Donnell 2,3,4,6 Pro

RWE 105 - Introduction Project Management

● Understand the project management process

● Know the “triple constraints” triangle

● Value of PM in communicating with project

stakeholders

● Basic PM tool familiarization

2 Dan Ball 3 Pro / Per / Int

TIS 104 - Team Meetings

● What is a team meeting?

● Developing ground-rules and norms

● Business formats and agenda development

● Conduct team meetings

1 Bob Borsh/

Dan Ball/

Mark

Johnson

3 Pro / Per / Int

TIS 105 - Team Effectiveness

● Characteristics of best/worst teams

● Five dysfunctions of a team

● Dealing with difficult team members

● Characteristics of effective team leaders

1 Dan Ball

Mark

Johnson

5 Pro/Int

RWE 106 - Market Size

● Who cares how big it is?

● How to size a market

● Resources available

1,1 Rodney

Boehm

5,6 Pro

RWE 601 - Mentor Training for Mentors

● Goals we expect you to accomplish

● Expectations in working with student teams

● Techniques and tips

1,1 Rodney

Boehm

5,6 None

OWC 101 - Presentation Skills/Telling a Story

● No more boring presentations

● The power of story telling

● Techniques and tips

1 Rodney

Boehm

Jim Donnell

Mark

Johnson

6 Pro/Int

RWE 107 - Final Project Expectations

● Review deliverables

● Detailed discussion

2 Jim Donnell 6 Pro/Int

OWC 201 - Effective Communication

● Basic communication model and how to use it

● Barriers to communication

● Giving and receiving feedback

● Effective listening

1.5 Dan Ball

Mark

Johnson

Shayla

Rivera

3 Pro/Per

RWE 201 - Customer Discovery

● Value of getting out of the building

● Interview skills

● What you learn

1,1 Rodney

Boehm

1,2 Pro

RWE 202 - Building a Culture of Accountability

● Introduce After Action Review (AAR)

● Understand rules of engagement

● Culture of learning through AARs

1 Dan Ball

Mark

Johnson

3 Pro

RWE 203 - Business Formation

● Types of business

● Key differences and advantages/disadvantages

● Splitting the pie, Who owns what?

2 Rodney

Boehm

Jim Donnell

3 Pro

RWE 204 - Manufacturing

● Options and how to choose

● Risks

● Best practices

1 Jim Donnell 3 Pro

RWE 205 - Corporate Culture

● What is it?

● Why important?

● How to assess current?

● Effective culture change?

● Risks of a bad culture

1,1,1,

1,1,1

Jim Donnell

Shayla

Rivera

1,2,3,4,

5,6

Pro

RWE 206 - Risk Management

● Understand risk management

● How to assess risk

● Apply a risk worksheet to your project

1 Dan

Ball/Mark

Johnson

2 Pro/Per

TIS 201 - Time Management

● Time management tools and techniques

● Habits of effective people

● Prioritization (80/20) rule

● Avoiding crisis management

2 Dan Ball 2 Pro/Per

CPS 201 – 7 Ways to Increase Your Curiosity

● How the Brain Generates Ideas

● How you can increase your curiosity and new

idea generation

1 Cynthia

Hipwell

3 Per

TIS 202 - Conflict Resolution

● Perspective on role conflict determines in

achieving peak performance

● Best leader’s conflict management strategy

● Learn the five conflict resolution strategies and

when to apply

2 Dan Ball

Shayla

Rivera

4 Pro/Per

TIS 203 - Giving and Receiving Feedback

● Learn how to receive constructive criticism

from supervisor and make it a positive growth

experience peak performance

● Learn how to use feedback as part of your

coaching and mentoring of your subordinates

1 Mark

Johnson

1,2 Per

RWE 207 - Cybersecurity

● Introduction to the threat, impact on industry,

and basic precautions

1 Mark

Johnson

5 Pro

TIS 204 - Setting, Aligning and Accomplishing

Goals (open with self-test)

● Why are goals important

● Define SMART goals

● Track your goals, Why?

● Formulating team action plans to achieve goals

1 Dan Ball

Bob Borsh

4 Pro / Per / Int

RWE 208 - Operations and Supply Chain

Management

● What is it?

● How is it done?

● Best practices

1,1 Jim Donnell

Mark

Johnson

3,4 Pro/Int

RWE 209 - Environmental Consciousness

● Why important?

● Review examples

● Best practices, by industry

1,1,1 Jim Donnell 2,4,5 Pro/Int

RWE 210 - Securing Project Support and/or

Approval

● Understanding the process

● Roadblocks

● Advocates vs. adversaries

2 Jim Donnell 6 Pro/Int

TIS 205 - Coaching to Success

● Intro to business coaching

● Coaching roadmap

● Role playing workshop

1,1,1 Bob Borsh 1,3,4 Per

CPS 202 - Design Thinking and The Innovation

Cycle

● Introduction to Design Thinking and The

Innovation Cycle

● How to increase your innovativeness through

applications of these processes

1 Cynthia

Hipwell

5 Per

CPS 203 - Creativity in Engineering

● Why?

● How?

1 Werner

Creixell

Shala Rivera

5 Per

CPS 204 - Artificial Intelligence/Machine

Learning+ Hands On

● Overview of Machine Learning

● Data representation

● Neural Networks

● Deep Learning for Vision

● Deep Learning for Text

● Current research and open problems

2,2,2,

2,2

Werner

Creixell

1,2,3,4,

5

Per

OWC 202 - Resume Building

● Make a great first impression with employers

by learning resume fundamentals

● Techniques provided to help participants

enhance their resumes

● Bring your resume to start making your

improvements!

1 Roland

Block

5 Per

OWC 203 - Using LinkedIn

● Learn why LinkedIn is considered an essential

tool for finding opportunities

● Discover how to leverage LinkedIn as a

powerful research and networking tool

● Enhance your profile with expert tips

1 Roland

Block

5 Per

TIS 206 - Mental Toughness/Resilience

● Understanding Resilience

● Using Crisis and Uncertainty to become a

better leader

● Finding evidence of success in your story

1 Shayla

Rivera

Dan Ball

3 Per

TIS 207 - Journal Development/Getting to know

You

● Understanding your Personality assessment

● The Importance of Journaling in Lifelong

Development

● Identifying your strengths and weaknesses

● Identifying and removing the obstacles in your

way

1 Shayla

Rivera

Dan Ball

5 Per

TIS 208 - Watercooler Panels

● One hour a week to come together for an open

and safe discussion of progress

1,1,1 Mark

Johnson

Shayla

Rivera

Others

1,3,5 Int

RWE 211 - Product Commercialization

● Viable Market?

● Can we manufacture?

● Profitability?

2 Jim Donnell 3 Pro/Int

RWE 212 - Basics of Building a Business Case

● Understanding drivers of business decisions

● Developing a strong, convincing case for your

idea

● Ideal for those hoping to manage large

engineering projects or become a

business/technology consultant

1 Kaci Dove

Deloitte

5 Pro/Int

RWE 213 - Oil & Gas Asset Acquisitions and

Divestitures

● What motivates companies to buy/sell

● Funding sources

● Determining bid value

● How does seller maximize asset value?

● Winners and losers

1 Joe Small

CIBC

Griffiths &

Small

5 Pro/Int

RWE 214 - Social Styles and Versatility

● Possibly most important skill for business

success

● Why are some people more effective?

● Common traits of effective leaders

● What are the four social styles?

● Versatility – your ability to work with any

social style effectively and with minimal

conflict

1 Joe Small

CIBC

Griffiths &

Small

6 Pro/Int

RWE 215 - Social Styles and Versatility

● Succeed in an internship.... just show-up! In

every way.

● Be a life-long learner

● Regardless of the degree, develop a strong

business/financial acumen

1 Tim Taylor -

President

Phillips 66

(retired)

6

Pro/Int

RWE 216 - It's Really a 90-day Interview

● There are no time clocks, show up early-stay

late.

● There are no time clocks, show up early-stay

late

● Check for understanding especially prior to

project presentations

1 Greg Evrard,

VP South

Texas

Division

Consolidated

Electrical

Distributors

(CED)

5 Pro/Int

RWE 217 - Flexibility during a Crisis

● Utilizing value-added services to differentiate

and improve ROI.

● Young engineering professionals discussing

fabrication and packaging

● Young engineering professionals discussing

fabrication and packaging

1 Bob Dill -

President of

HISCO

4 Pro/Int

RWE 218 – HEB Presentation - Response to

COVID-19

● HEB efforts in the initial stages of the COVID-

19 crisis to keep your stores open,

customers/employees safe, and products on the

shelves

1 Troy Retzloff 2 Pro/Int

RWE 219 – Data Analytics

● How to create information from data

● The difference between solving a math

problem and doing analytics

● What does it mean to enable a Data Driven

organization

1,1 John Boehm,

AT&T

3,4 Pro/Int

RWE 220 – Cybersecurity

● Introduction to cybersecurity

● The risk-based approach to cybersecurity

● Embedding security in digital and analytics

transformations

1,1,1 Jim Boehm,

McKinsey

4,5 Pro/Int

RWE 222 – PepsiCo – Frito-Lay eCommerce

Engineering: Interactive Case Study

● Today’s eCommerce Landscape/Challenges

● Potential Solutions

● Evaluation/Implementation of Solutions

1 Frito-Lay 5 Pro/Int

RWE 223 – ExxonMobil 1 ExxonMobil 5 Pro/Int

Session Numbering Cross Reference

RWE – Relevant Work Experience

TIS – Teamwork and Interpersonal Skills

OWC – Oral and Written Communications

CPS – Creativity and Problem Solving

Appendix B

Rubric for use by judges in evaluation summer intern team projects

(same as the one used for Aggies Invent for five years)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Total

5 4 3 2 1

Technical

Performance

and

Standards –

Weight –

25%

Is the NEED

statement / project

objective clearly

defined?

0

Were the design

requirements

clearly stated?

0

Did the team

consider adequate

number of design

alternatives?

0

Is the conceptual

design clearly

defined?

0

Did the team

provide a

prototype

demonstrating the

solution?

0

Was evidence

provided that the

prototype met the

technical

performance

requirements?

0

Technical Performance and Standards Total (Total from above divided

by 6)

0

Project

Feasibility

Weight 25%

Can the proposed

solution be

implemented?

0

Is the proposed

solution a

technically sound

solution?

0

Is the proposed

solution usable?

0

Project Feasibility Total (Total from above divided by 3) 0

Project

Innovation

Weight 25%

Is the proposed

solution unique or

a unique

adaptation?

0

Project Innovation Total (Total from above) 0

Presentation

Weight –

25%

Was the

presentation clear

and concise?

0

Was the

presentation well

organized and

flowed smoothly?

0

Was the

presentation

inclusive and

supportive of all

team members?

0

Did the

prototype(s)

adequately

represent the

solution?

0

Presentation Total (Total from above divided by 4) 0

Grand Total (Performance*0.25 + Feasibility*0.25 + Innovation*0.25 +

Presentation*0.25)

0

Appendix C

Write-in Comments from Students in End of Semester Survey.

Question 1: What is the most valuable way the instructors provided support to you and your

team?

• Feedback was mentioned by 29 out of 110 students from their mentors. The most

important characteristics described by students about helpful feedback are:

• give directions 11

“Our POP helped us get a better sense of what direction to go and focus on what was really

important.”

• encouraging 11

“They were very encouraging and were always willing to answer questions.”

• constructive 5

“The instructors were always willing to answer any questions we had, and they gave us lots of

great advice and constructive criticism that helped us to improve our project.”

• always available 4

“Available almost 24/7 which was great for asking questions and getting help.”

• direct and instant 3

“providing direct feedback, even when it was harsh”

• checkup progress in weekly deliverables meetings 3

“They met with us weekly to check up on our progress, which forced us to have something new

to present every week and we got iterative feedback on what we were doing.”

• The instructors and mentors shared knowledge with students in the following different

aspects:

• presentation skills 20

“They provided feedback to our presentation and helped steer us towards ideas that we pursued

throughout the internship.”

• industry experience 10

“They told us to research more before we presented our ideas. I also felt that they gave us

valuable information regarding our product plan and other various plans with their industry

knowledge.”

• technical knowledge 4

“They helped us to understand the technical knowledge behind our project that we as a team

were unfamiliar with.”

Question 2: How did your experience in the internship program this summer affect your career

planning?

A. 106 out of 108 students stated that the internship program experience affects their career

planning positively. The following bullet points summarized the positive effects on

students’ career planning.

• understand how it feels to work on a small team 23

“It gave me a better idea on how teamwork operates in a work setting and some other knowledge

going into the workspace.”

• Have a better understanding of the fields 13

“I'm more open to working in the medical field than I have been in the past.”

• Help students understand what skills they need to build 13

“Well although I didn't have my internship I had so much fun with my team. As far as my career

planning, it helped me develop teambuilding skills along with Microsoft Access skills.”

• better understanding of how projects work in industry 9

“I found that I might want to get into project management, as it felt like a good fit for my

skillset.”

• Have more confidence working in industry 6

“It gave me more confidence in my communication skills and I now consider consulting as a

promising career field.”

• Help students to think of new path/possibilities in their career planning 2

“It allowed me to open up possibilities of working in new fields I hadn’t known about prior”.

• Motivate students to work in industry 2

“The internship made me want to hold off on doing a masters and go directly into the industry. I

felt very motivated to start working.”

B. 2 students showed a natural effect from the internship program experience to their career

planning.

• “My original internship in my field was cancelled. I had a previous one in my field

last summer. This did not really affect my career planning, I actually felt as if I lost

the ability to participate in a role that would have been closer to a career I would be

going to, as I am graduating in the coming December.”

• “This internship did not have a drastic effect on my career planning, but it did

remotivate me to continue to find an internship for this upcoming summer and it gave

me the confidence to present myself as a problem solver to recruiters and feel

comfortable seeking out internships that may be a little unfamiliar.”

Appendix D

Focus Group Questions for Mentors for Summer Internship Program – for Qualtrics site

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the focus group interview for mentors. We will be

talking about your experience with the student intern teams this summer. We will start with some

general questions and then focus more on specific events that were important for the success of

your work with the team you mentored. We will want each of you to have a chance to share your

thoughts on each question, so we will allow time for all members of the team to have input. We

will capture the data by saving the transcript on Zoom. If you are interested in learning about the

analysis of the data, send us an email after the interviewing is done. The question set is listed

below. Beyond that list is a calendar where you can indicate a day and time that will be

convenient for your participation in the Zoom call.

1. Please briefly introduce yourself to our team and the other focus group members.

2. What motivated you to volunteer as a mentor for the online summer internship program?

3. Please tell us about what you did during the summer internship as a mentor?

4. What did you expect before you began working with the students? How did interaction with

the students change your expectations?

5. Could you describe some specific experiences that stand out for you when you mentored the

intern teams?

6. How did you identify when those teams needed help? Please provide us an example.

7. How do you help them? What approach did you use? Please provide us an example.

8. Were you focused on any specific development goals such as building confidence, increasing

skill with particular pieces of equipment, or

9. How do you see the online internship in a long run? If possible, please provide us an example.

10. What can a student learn from the event? If possible, please provide us an example.

11. How was the orientation and training by Rodney and Miranda helpful? What else do you

wish you had known at the beginning of the summer session for effectively working with the

student teams?

12. What did you learn from your experience as a mentor this summer?

13. Would you recommend the mentoring experience with the interns to other professionals?

Why?

14. Is there anything else about your mentor experience that you would like to share with us to

round out our picture?

Thank you

Appendix E

Comments from Mentors in Focus Group Interviews Held at the End of the Program.

MOTIVATION

Mentors were motivated to take time from their busy weeks to participate in meetings with

student teams during the last six weeks of the summer semester by some combination of the

following:

• Prior experience with the entrepreneurship program and with TAMU intern students in

their organizations, with other colleges programs, and at work with employees

• Desire to gain experience as a mentor which could aid career trajectory

• Had good mentors and so wanted to take that forward

• Empathy for students missing the chance for an internship inside a company

• Online form of participation made participation easy from anywhere in the country.

EFFECTIVE MENTOR PRACTICES

Mentors discussed the way they worked with the student teams and the way they adjusted their

methods as the students rapidly grew during the six weeks:

• Helping them think about the questions to answer

• Prioritization of the many tasks that needed to be done on the project

• Helping them manage their time – helping them work backward from the deliverable to

how much time to spend where

• Helping them build a framework to facilitate success

• Asking if they were comfortable with how the milestone was defined

• “When you say, do you have any questions? They don't even know what question to ask

right at this point. I think that helps a lot when you give them that guide.”

• Probing their thought process – making sure they understood what they were trying to

present

• Helping them troubleshoot the problem

• Asking thought-provoking questions

• Helping them communicate their idea effectively by playing different roles like IT, a

manager, or an executive and asking them to explain it

• Working with 3 of the teams, one mentor played 3 different roles with 3 different teams

doing 3 different kinds of projects: co-worker giving advice, direct manager, and

executive – different perspectives to fit the teams and their projects

• One mentor views the role as more about understanding their goals for the future and

how to help them build skill sets

• Noticing that one team member acted as a self-appointed leader – the team did not agree,

said, “it's not my place to reassign who is the team leader or have a part of that

conversation.”

ALIGNMENT WITH EXPECTATIONS

• Their level of commitment was right on par. No slackers. Great communication and

ownership from the team members. Incredibly aggressive schedule and may have

exceeded some expectations.

• They gave 100 percent effort and that made my contributions feel warranted and excited

to sit in on meetings and watch the continued progress.

• Facilitated networking

• “tell us how” because “we can do this” – 2 mentors warned, “Don’t tell them what to do.”

• “They don’t even know what questions to ask. Here are some: question requirements,

question assumptions, write it down so you can communicate it with others and check if

all covered.”

• “I expected to be bringing subject matter expertise, and I was surprised to find that the

majority of my value was really just the oversight and structure.”

• “When we initially started … there was sort of a deer in the headlights kind of doing and

pretty was looking at me as, “OK, tell us how to go about this.” I could tell by the

questions. It was, “tell us how to go about it.” Settled that, and they really began to say,

“hey, we can come up with ideas and we can do this” -- just to see that maturation.

• “I thought I was going to be much more execution related and helping them to get the job

done. But it was more understanding their goals, what do they individually as students

want from their future, how can I set them up to be doing things over the summer that

allowed them to build skill sets that are relevant to that now working with industry to get

insight on whatever they had.”

• “I think they had the goal of what they wanted to get out of it and that helped them push

through and come up to speed quickly in a very short time. “

ORIENTATION AND TRAINING

• “We were told … we're not doing the project for these for these students. We're just there

to sort of mentor them.”

• “I did not take the training. I don't think I could work it in my schedule, so I don't have

any comments on that.”

• “I did take the training. I thought it was very, very helpful.” “What's the main thing you

walked away with”? Just preparing in the beginning was the idea of being a mentor. I'm

thinking I'm going in and I'm going to have all these fancy ideas. I'm going to have a

team incorporate what I think. But the training said,” No, no, no. You're there to listen

and provide guidance, not to interject yourself into the equation.” And I thought that was

very helpful. Do I think it's valuable? I mean, yes, especially for someone who's never

mentored before. You know, for someone … trying to grow his career as well.”

• Mentor training said guide process versus give answers (default role) automatic thinking,

cruise control.

TEAM LEADERS

• “I think the team leaders set the path, keep the focus, keep the objective and keep

everyone focused on that, but not necessarily doing any more work.”

• “There was a team leader, …that role, at least for this team, was just you take the meeting

minutes, and you schedule the next call, right?”

• One student identified himself as the leader, but team did not agree in contrast to one who

took notes and scheduled next meeting which was identified as leading.

• “Maybe up front explicitly says, ‘Person X is the team coordinator,’” to make

communication easier with the mentors and the faculty and whoever else. It might just

help to cut through some of the chaos of getting the first couple of weeks meeting set up.

But to call them the team leader, I think is a misnomer”

• The team [I worked with] jelled quickly.

• “…one fantastic leader … He was more from an organizational allocation of making sure

that the tasks were fully allocated, and the owners were more aware. But he had his own

list of things that he had to accomplish as well, in addition to the schedule and the

minutes and stuff like that. So, he did a lot more. I think in a situation where someone

comes in as a leader but is not functioning as a leader, if you can identify that in the first

week or to call him out on it is to say, ‘OK, so I understand that you're the team leader.

How is that determined if you feel that's an equitable situation? How does the group feel?

If you're going to be the leader, then it means that you're going to do more than

everybody else in the group, not just manage the work that's being done.’ And that is a

hard conversation to have. But I think as a mentor, if you saw it negatively impacting the

group. I would encourage you to say something on it.”

• One explained to his mentee team that “team leader” does not mean doing more but

setting focus and keeping things clear in everyone’s mind: “keep focus, mission front and

center.” Others agreed: (a) “That is how I define ‘move work,’” and (b) “I agree.”

• The question arose “Is the mentor leader”? The others responded, “No, a “point of

contact.”

• Differentiate administrator, leader, supervisor and mentor, so students see the

organizational structure. “Maybe propose a debrief in with each team at the end of the

summer – who was the team manager, leader, what was the role of the mentor to get them

to see the idea of a team leader or a manager is different than a leader, someone providing

leadership guidance, mentoring, whatever. At lot of students don’t get that. They think

that the person running things has all those roles.”

• Virtual format worked quite well – not a barrier to a lively process.

• Members decided as team all had to be on video (visible) during meetings in Teams 360.

One team had a member without video capability. Video seemed to help achieve higher

performance.

• “Dead silence – that’s a clue the team needed help. ‘I don’t even know what to ask.’ Was

a common statement. I sat back in silence and waited 30 to 45 seconds. They were

uncomfortable.”

• “Pregnant pause … where you just sit and let the silence really affect people. Somebody

will eventually same something and you can carry on the conversation … allow that

awkwardness to sink in.”

• “Engineers will almost without fail jump to design a product versus define clearly what

the problems are they are trying to solve … for whom … what problem are you trying to

solve for whom is the biggest learning opportunity ... take this opportunity to learn about

the customer.” “Exactly. Exactly.” “… then ask ‘What’s another way to ask that question

… is there a different way of looking at it”

• Should the description of the customer be in the project profile? “No, because I think that

is part of the allure and the learning journey, which is having to ask, I mean, that's that I

believe that's a key role of the mentor and that is to guide them toward. Asking for

themselves, who's going to buy this thing”?

• Mentor T&D – guide process versus give answers (default role) automatic thinking,

cruise control

• Company mentors write description of intern experience for student on how to use the

results so recruiter will see experience in this internship was real and substantial

• Rodney should send a letter of appreciation for each mentor’s performance evaluation at

home company

SUGGESTIONS

• “… just like any other successful program execution, you really need to have a good

structure on how it's going to be executed. So, my interaction was helping them build the

framework in order to facilitate that success. So, it wasn't about did you meet the

milestone is as much as how was the milestone defined? Are you comfortable with the

milestone and how does that match the overall program objective? So, it was more from a

high-level perspective to build a structure for success than the individual tasks that

completed it.”

• “… I believe the students would have benefitted from more context upfront … like when

you do a case competition, there’s always a lot of background information,” e.g., 2 pages

of profile such as description of a company context

• Forming of the teams – “A diverse team is a better team” so, increase diversity of

expertise and other things like background, work experience, gender, etc.

• In lab-based Aggies Invent, a laptop on the team’s desk could enable mentors from

around the country to contribute.

• Maturity of teams varied, so mentoring varied.

OUTCOMES

• “The content was unique … the first six weeks they spent in training modules from the

instructors, all of whom had 20 or 30 years of practice in the field first. So, these were

engineers with extensive resumes … so, all the content was distinct from any of the

courses they took and it was all ‘this is what it's like in the workplace. This is how you

get prepared. This is these are the skills you need. This is how you need to be thinking

about it.’”

• “The things that really sticks out for me is actually the progression week over week, how

well they listened to the recommendations and then incorporated them. So, every week, it

was a new suggestion. It wasn't rehashing old problems. And I think that was one of the

most encouraging things for me is to see -- the noticeable improvement week over week.

And things that I made comments on that obviously somebody was writing down,

because next week it was better. Why can't my team do that? I've been fighting the

problems on my delivery team for months. And it's like, ‘guys. I got interns that are that

are like actually doing the work that I tell them, are you just ignoring me’?

References

Avdiji, H., Elikan, D., Missonier, S., & Pigneur, Y. (2018, January). Designing tools for

collectively solving ill-structured problems. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate

education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7.

Crick, R. D. (2012). Deep engagement as a complex system: Identity, learning power and

authentic enquiry. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 675-694). Springer,

Boston, MA.

Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of

team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organizations. Educational

Research Review, 5(2), 111-133.

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. East

Sussex, England: Psychology Press.

Fadde, P. J. (2009). Expertise-based training: Getting more learners over the bar in less

time. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 7(4), 171-197.

Han, S. J., Garr, A., Kogut, A., Norton, M., Beyerlein, M., Xie, L., & Boehm, R. (2019).

Exploring the Emergence of a Team Growth Mindset in Winning Design Teams: A Pilot

Study. Proceedings of the 2019 Academy of Human Resource Development International

Research Conference in the Americas. Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

Han, S. J., Xie, L., Lu, J., Walichowski, M., Beyerlein, M., & Boehm, R. (2020). Examining the

Mediating Role of Team Growth Mindset on the Relationship of Individual Mindsets and Shared

Leadership. Proceedings of the 2020 Academy of Human Resource Development International

Research Conference in the Americas. Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Hart Research Associates (2015). Falling short? College learning and

career success: Selected findings from online surveys of employers and

college students

https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015employerstudentsurv

ey.pdf

Hurford, A. (2010). Complexity theories and theories of learning: Literature reviews and

syntheses. In Theories of Mathematics Education (pp. 567-589). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Ibrahim, K. I., Costello, S. B., & Wilkinson, S. (2013). Key practice indicators of team

integration in construction projects: a review. Team Performance Management: An International

Journal.

Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Bridging the gap between expert-novice differences: The model-based

feedback approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 103-117.

Knight, D. B. (2012). Educating the engineers of 2020: An outcomes-based typology of

engineering undergraduates. Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them,

and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Lattuca, L. R., Trautvetter, L. C., Codd, S. L., Knight, D. B., & Cortes, C. M. (2011, June).

Working as a Team: Enhancing Interdisciplinarity for the Engineer of 2020. In 2011 ASEE

Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 22-1711).

Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D., & Bergom, I. (2013). Developing a measure of interdisciplinary

competence. The International journal of engineering education, 29(3), 726-739.

Lawrence, P., & Scanlan, J. (2007). Planning in the dark: why major engineering projects fail to

achieve key goals. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(4), 509-525.

Leight, C., Xie, L., Han, S. J., Beyerlein, M., & Zarestky, J. (2018). Emergence of

Complementary Shared Leadership Roles: A Video Analysis of Project Teams. Proceedings of

the 2018 Academy of Human Resource Development International Research Conference in the

Americas. Richmond, Virginia, USA.

Lozar, M., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, Jl., Hass, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web surveys versus other

survey modes—A meta-analysis comparing response rates: International Journal of Market

Research, v. 50, no. 1, p. 79–104.

Mennin, S. (2007). Small-group problem-based learning as a complex adaptive system. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 23(3), 303-313.

Miller, R. L., Rycek, R. F., & Friston, K. (2011). The effects of high impact learning experiences

on student engagement. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 53-59.

Morse, J. (2010). Procedures and practice of mixed method design: Maintaining control, rigor,

and complexity. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in

social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 339-352). Sage.

Nye, C. D., Brummel, B. J., & Drasgow, F. (2010). Too good to be true? Understanding change

in organizational outcomes. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1555-1577.

O’Neill, N. (2010). Internships as a high-impact practice: Some reflections on quality. Peer

Review, 12(4), 4-8.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

Petcovic, H. L., & Libarkin, J. C. (2007). Research in science education: The expert-novice

continuum. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55(4), 333-339.

Ro, H., Lattuca, L. R., & Alcott, B. (2016). Who goes to graduate school? Engineers’ math

proficiency, college experience, and self‐assessment of skills. Journal of Engineering

Education, 106(1), 98-122.

Sheehan, K.B (2001). E-mail survey response rates—A review: Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, v. 6, no. 2. (Also available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/

sheehan.html.)

Shih, T. H., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys—A meta-

analysis: Field Methods, v. 20, no. 3, p. 249–271.

Sjöblom, K., Lammassaari, H., Hietajärvi, L., Mälkki, K., & Lonka, K. (2019). Training in 21st

century working life skills: How to support productivity and well-being in multi-locational

knowledge work. Creative Education, 10, 2283-2310

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.