States.Communication in engineering continues to be an important element of engineering education,especially in terms of future employability. Universities are continually measured, ranked, andevaluated for performance-based funding based on their students’ employment numbersfollowing graduation. However, a divide exists between the level of communication competencyemployers expect from recent graduates versus their actual competency. Despite over twodecades of Communication (and English) faculty efforts, extensive research, and grantinvestment by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in engineering communication educationsince EC2000, the calls for universities to teach communication competence to engineeringundergraduates has only grown louder.At its core
Does Hidden Curriculum in Engineering Look Like and How Can It Be Explored?” Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.[5] Tarnai-Lokhorst, K.V. (2015). “Where Are the Women? Perceived Barriers to Engineering Education: Exploring the Feminist Influences on Curriculum in British Columbia and on the Career Choices of Women with High School Physics Credit.” Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.[6] Nieusma, D., & Cieminski, M. (2018). “Ethics Education as Enculturation: Student Learning of Personal, Social, and Professional Responsibility.” Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--30443.[7] Shean, M. & Mander
skills and collaborative and inclusive teams into the curriculum. Dr. Rivera-Jim´enez graduated from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayag¨uez with a B.S. and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. She earned an NSF RIEF award recognizing her effort in transitioning from a meaningful ten-year teaching faculty career into engineering education research. Before her current role, she taught STEM courses at diverse institutions such as HSI, community college, and R1 public university. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Social Responsibility Views in Science and Engineering: An Exploratory Study Among Engineering Undergraduate
human-centered and context informed approach. As examples: studentsin a narrow frame may come up with the solution of installing self-checkout machines (solutiontype), use Target as an example (store context), voice concerns about security in a low incomeneighborhood (construction of people), and prioritize the store’s financial bottom line (values).Alternatively, students in an expansive frame may design a way to order groceries with digitaland analog options (solution type), refer to personal experiences working in retail or living indifferent communities (store context), attend to the needs of a variety of stakeholders(construction of people), and foreground public health or employee rights in the design (values).The four themes that define
that “this course isirrelevant to my future! I’m only taking it to fulfill the course requirements.” The USTstudent’s dissatisfaction may also be attributed to the fact that many of them are graduate orPh.D. students, and some are with familial responsibilities, which makes it difficult for themto devote additional time to the course and its assignments. A few students from UST endshad also told us that such a course offered them an opportunity to “have a slight deviationfrom my main capacity or major”. However, some students from UST also expressed theirinterest in this course content, stating that “I chose this class specifically to challenge myselfto a topic more socially oriented” or to seek for “a diverse class environment”.PEDAGOGYAs
having sites connected to each other.” Additionally, the backboneconceptualization is strengthened due to the NF role being built into his local site structure. AtGreg’s site, local site leadership expects the NF to attend leadership meetings and conveyinformation between the NF team and the site. However, this can also play out in the oppositeway, where the backbone conceptualization is weakened by the local site contexts.Arpita is a graduate student located at a site that is currently going through a period of transitionafter a faculty lead left their position and a new faculty lead has stepped into the role. Thisexcerpt comes after an exchange between CT and Arpita in which she strategized about how thenew faculty member lead could be brought
’ institution as it has with manyother institutions across the US.As a Jesuit Catholic university committed to “the ideals of liberal education and the developmentof the whole person,”[11] LUM operates primarily as an undergraduate institution withconsiderable liberal arts requirements. Students who pursue LUM’s ABET-accredited bachelor’sof science in engineering must select one of four concentrations in electrical, computer,mechanical, or materials engineering. At the same time, all students are required to completecourses in the natural sciences and mathematics, as well as in the humanities and social scienceswherein reading, writing, and critical thinking skills are heavily emphasized [12]. The LUMCore Values Statement “calls upon the curriculum to
to consider what dispositions I brought to this research as both a graduatestudent and an instructor. My experience as a graduate student increased my ability to noticewhen language was affected by the desire to express competence and reflect a certain identity,two important elements in our study of empathetic disposition. Through my teacher lens, I wasable to discern shifts in speech that indicated a change of attitude or perspective at both historicaland personal levels. As someone who values human-centered research and empathetic pedagogy,I worked to maintain impartiality in my analysis through reflexivity and collaboration with theother analysts on our team to help ensure my interpretations of the data remained close to thestudents
sociotechnical integration,including service courses for the core curriculum, service courses serving other engineeringprograms, an interdepartmental graduate program, and departmental minors and anundergraduate major. In this paper, we focus attention on program development considerationssurrounding our undergraduate BS in Design Engineering program. This program is built upon a“general engineering” framework with two significant exceptions. First, the programsystematically situates “design” expertise at the program’s core, both in terms of students’ expertidentity and in terms of the curricular structure. Second, the program offers wide-ranging “focusareas” as an alternative to disciplinary depth. The curricular logic is that students developdomain
intervention is to focus on foundational engineering design “tools,”defined broadly as sites for mutual understanding and collaboration. These “boundary objects”[22] can serve as an opportunity for learning by both STS- and engineering-trained educatorswith the goal of achieving robust sociotechnical integration. This integration is to be achievedvia a sequence of three activities: First, an engineering-trained faculty member will demonstrateto our mixed faculty how they teach the tool to their students, including its conceptualfoundations (if relevant), application, and possible limitations or constraints to application.Second, an STS-trained faculty member will demonstrate to the group how that sameengineering design tool might be deconstructed and
Engineering, English,Communication, Rhetoric, Theatre, Visual Art and Design, Science and Technology Studies, andEngineering Education. Our teaching responsibilities run the gamut of transdisciplinaryinstruction, including communication, science and society, professionalism, team skills,leadership and ethics, and responsibilities as an artist-in-residence, with instruction andsupervision at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Our research interests reflect theseactivities and our career stages span from graduate school to near retirement. We are united by acommon interest in how engineering students develop mindsets that enable effective humanisticpractice, and we share common values in supporting our students’ development of
key words in both topics relate to the structure andrelationships built into “Engineering and. . .” programs. Topics 2 and 4 fall under the theme ofidentity and culture, as the key words focus on an engineer’s sense of self and career. Topic 3falls best under the teams and groups theme, as the key words relate to the features of individualsand groups that contribute to teamwork. 14 Topic 1: Program Topic 2: Topic 3: Team Topic 4: Topic 5: Design Learning Skills Identity MentorshipKeyword 1 student engineers kgi identity mentorsKeyword 2
students who are underprepared”),then invited different topics, “Let’s move onto the second one (pause) then” into which anotherparticipant animatedly (eye contact around the room and to the Facilitator, gestures) jumped in: You have diverse faculty, this is the case where there are lady professors… the impact is going to be for the students to see an example, a person, a guide, and see that, not as a given, but if that situation exists it’s going to bring down a lot of the comments that people say. Um (pause)The Facilitator immediately filled the pause such that any other potential comments by thespeaker or other participants would be discouraged. The Facilitator’s action enabled him tointerject a reorienting remark to
Paper ID #39294Someone Like You: Theorizing LGBTQ Participation in Engineering throughNetwork Homophily and State AuthenticityDr. Bryce E. Hughes, Montana State University, Bozeman Bryce E. Hughes is an Associate Professor in Adult and Higher Education at Montana State University. His research interests encompass diversity and equity in engineering education, with a focus on LGBTQ students. He was recently awarded an NSF CAREER grant to study the experiences of LGBTQ under- graduates in STEM fields. He holds a Ph.D. in education from the University of California, Los Angeles, an M.A. in student development administration