, Engineering, and Mathematics) academia, coupled with thealarming caste discrimination statistics, underscores the urgency of understanding how casteblindness operates. This research seeks to uncover the hidden dynamics of caste in U.S. STEMeducation by critically examining the discourse patterns and talk moves through which casteprivilege, thereby caste blindness, is upheld. Through this work, we aspire to contribute to theongoing discussions of the critical caste and STEM scholarship and to be in solidarity with thecaste equity movement.Two key research questions guide this study: (1) How does one upper caste man speak about educational and career equity issues in the U.S. and South Asia? (2) How does that discourse reflect and
engineering?BackgroundPrior work has demonstrated that higher education and engineering education more narrowly arecomplex systems [13], [14] in which individual and collective actions cannot be predicted, butdrive the behavior of the system [15]. Complex systems are composed of multiple elementswhich interact dynamically with their environment, develop over time, and are characterized byuncertainty and complex causal relationships [15-19]. Elements of a complex system cannot beunderstood independently because interactions between the elements result in emergentbehaviors that need to acknowledge the interdependence of elements [20], [21]. There is a needfor systemic and transformational change in engineering higher education, reflected by
ofrepresentation in faculty leadership roles, significantly impact their sense of belonging and theirability to succeed in academia [9], [11], [15], [16]. These systemic inequities not only affectfaculty of Color but also limit the broader academic environment. Faculty of Color are crucial forfostering innovative research and creating an educational atmosphere that reflects the diverseneeds of students and society [17]. Faculty of Color play a crucial role in creating equitablechanges for students, through the implementation of new pedagogies [18], curriculum [19], andculturally affirming mentoring [20]. For students of Color, having a faculty mentor can foster thedevelopment of career aspirations, and the development of a STEM identity which canencourage
contentwhile also fostering their confidence and sense of belonging in the field.The cultural competence principle involves helping students to appreciate and celebrate theirown cultural backgrounds while also understanding and respecting others. This element of theCRP includes encouraging students to explore and affirm their cultural identities, integratingdiverse cultural perspectives into the curriculum to reflect the backgrounds of all students, andteaching students to navigate and appreciate cultural differences, fostering a more inclusive andharmonious classroom environment [1]. In engineering, this might involve integrating diverseperspectives in problem-solving scenarios and acknowledging the contributions of engineersfrom various cultural
experience from the workshop, content of theworkshop, and their experience within the team. • For team collaboration, the score was based on the synergy of the work and the team members. Each team was required to reflect on the collaboration among the team members in terms of what worked and what did not work for their interdisciplinary collaboration. • For the final presentation, we suggested a presentation structure and outlined the main components in the presentation. Each team member was required to participate in the presentation. In addition, each member was asked to present part of the materials that was outside their background (i.e., the work of other team members). As a result, participants in each team needed
detailedframework that students can engage with, practice, and ultimately use within the context of theirdesign project [16]. The five spaces of HCD are Understand, Synthesize, Ideate, Prototype, andImplement. Within these five spaces, further breakdown is achieved through subspaces thatinclude understanding the challenge, building knowledge, weighing options and makingdecisions, generating ideas, prototyping, reflecting, and revising/iterating. It is shown thatlearning about HCD and implementing them in a design project within a semester-long course iscomplex and challenging [5, 7], with certain course elements, instructional models, and specificdesign project requirements hindering or fostering students’ experience of HCD [6].The purpose of the
brainstorming acommon chemical to produce, and drawing on their knowledge of chemistry, what raw materialsthat can be used – in small groups they come up with possible steps in the process and then togetherwe create a process flow diagram – over the course of the semester, they master material andenergy balances on splitters, distillation columns, pumps, compressors, furnaces, reactors withrecycle, etc. On the last day of class, we revisit the process flow diagram that was created on thefirst day of class, to help them understand how what they have learned provides the foundation ofbecoming a successful chemical engineer. This process flow diagram is revisited with the samestudents in the capstone process design course – so that they can reflect on
(with more than 1,000 employees) have already implemented AI in their operations,while an additional 40% are actively exploring or testing AI technologies. These developmentsare driving new economic opportunities and innovation globally. For instance, the latest reportfrom the International Data Corporation (IDC), China Model as a Service (MaaS) and AI LargeModel Solution Market Tracking [2], indicates that, in the first half of 2024, China’s MaaSmarket reached 250 million RMB, while the AI large model solution market totaled 1.38 billionRMB. This growing market for large model services reflects an increasing investment byenterprises, underscoring the transformative and disruptive impact of AI across industries.The social transformation driven
influencing each other’sresponses through shared ideas and contributions, which fosters deeper exploration of thetopic. Data collection typically includes audio recordings, transcripts of discussions, and themoderator's reflective notes. This multi-layered approach aligns with Clifford Geertz'sconcept of "thick description," which emphasizes capturing not just actions but their culturaland social contexts to provide a nuanced understanding of participants' perspectives [28].The rationale for employing FGDs lies in their ability to generate rich qualitative data thatcaptures not only individual opinions but also the dynamics of group interaction. Comparedto surveys or individual interviews, FGDs provide a more nuanced understanding of howparticipants
defining problems, craftingand evaluating possible solutions, and responding to crises. On presidential teams, the expressivefunction involves providing mutual support, offering counsel, and reflecting campus perspectivesso that the president understands how others see them. Here we adapt Bensimon and Neumann’sfunctions to center on the change project itself instead of on a singular leader; thus, theexpressive function includes work to refine and articulate the project messaging, communicatewith stakeholders, find common cause with other organizational allies, and manage resistance tothe project or its goals. Providing mutual support among the change team members is stillimportant, especially in the face of resistance. In Table 1 we generalize
participating in sustained, longitudinal teaching professional development reportsignificant increases in the use of instructional objectives and active learning techniques [5]. Akey feature of successful programs is continuous and iterative learning opportunities, whichallow educators to reflect on and refine their teaching practices over time, fostering deep andenduring improvements [6]. Structured, ongoing support ensures that skills acquired in short-term workshops or seminars are effectively applied in practice [7]. The effectiveness andscalability of professional development initiatives is often reduced by systemic constraints suchas lack of time, inadequate institutional resources, and organizational cultures that prioritizeresearch over
students viewsocial and contextual skills and knowledge as central to careers in IE and their reflections on howtheir required coursework has prepared them for their future careers. Implications for futureresearch and practice are discussed.IntroductionEngineering is increasingly recognized as a discipline that requires attention not only to thetechnical work aspects but also to the social contexts in which the work occurs and the broaderimpacts of engineering on communities and society [1] - [4]. The social and contextual nature ofengineering work has been recognized by the Accreditation Board for Engineering andTechnology (ABET), which outlines student outcomes that recognize the importance ofconsidering the social, cultural, ethical, and
class. In the control group,the use of LESs was minimized, while the treatment group had increased LESs. The exams forboth groups were very similar or exactly the same. A statistical analysis of the results using theMann-Whitney U test showed a statistically significant difference between the groups. The Exam2 scores for the control (minimal LESs) group (Mdn = 72.4%) differed significantly from thetreatment (increased LESs) group (Mdn = 77.7%), where U = 2421, z = 2.875, p = 0.004, r = 0.26.This work provides evidence that using LESs or other active learning approaches has consistentlyimproved student learning outcomes, as reflected by the exam scores.Benefits of Teamwork. Teamwork is essential for student development in terms of knowledgeand
projects.Introduction:We begin by situating this paper in the current landscape of equity-focused scholarship, whichpresents particular risks to members of our research community. Due to the sensitive nature ofthe current political climate and the potential implications for ongoing and future grant funding,the first author has chosen to withhold their name from this publication. This decision reflects astrategic effort to protect current institutional partnerships and funding relationships while stillcontributing fully to the research and its dissemination. Rather than being taken only as a loss ofprofessional credit to the first author, it is hoped that this interruption to conventional systems ofcredit and authorship might also suggest a form of scholarly
intercultural space where effective management of communicationacross cultures is essential.In the context of engineering education, the concept of the "global engineer" reflects a shifttoward preparing students with both technical skills and the intercultural competencies necessaryfor global collaboration [5], [6], [7]. Intentional integration of intercultural competence intocurricula and experiential learning is essential for equipping graduates with skills that allow themto address challenges that transcend national and cultural boundaries [8]. Despite the recognizedimportance of intercultural competence, a significant gap remains in understanding how theseskills can be effectively developed within graduate engineering programs. To date, scholars
real” in practical situations such ascommunicating with one’s team, managing stakeholder relationships, and navigating projects. Senge [3] offers insight into developing one’s personal mastery through committing toface one’s current reality; this includes creating realistic appraisals of an individual’s currentsituation and leaning into creative tension which is the balance between one’s current reality andtheir vision for the future. This is achieved by reflecting on one’s own goals and aspirations andregarding oneself as an active participant in creating their reality. Personal mastery has limited representation in engineering education literature. A briefreview of available literature demonstrated it has been discussed in work
another and screenedagainst an AI-based evaluation tool that had been trained using the scoring rubric and individualstudent's video content. Student self-perception of communication, identity and belonging wereevaluated using IRB-approved pre- and post-surveys. Students were asked to reflect on thevarious forms of feedback and the overall pitch experience.BackgroundPublic Speaking Anxiety and Improving Communication: Public speaking anxiety refers to thehigh level of anxiety or distress a speaker feels while delivering or preparing to deliver apresentation in front of a group of people. (O’Hair, et. al, 2011; Bodie, 2010). Fear of publicspeaking is one of the most reported fears in the population at large (Sawyer, 2016). Studentswho have high
and facultyoutside their home departments.In the 2024 pilot program, the MRSEC funded 10 graduate students from nine differentdepartments. Participant input during a mid-program feedback session highlighted programsuccesses and suggestions for improvement that were used to shape the remainder of theprogram. Data collection also included a post-program feedback session, and a post-programsurvey designed to elicit students’ reflections on the utility of program activities related to theircurrent graduate experiences. FF participant feedback highlighted how useful students found theextra time to start research, professional development sessions, extra time to adjust to campuslife, and the opportunity to connect with their FF cohort. Student
integrate multiple disciplines, fostering a holistic understanding of complex issues [6]. 4. Collaboration: Group work enhances social skills and knowledge retention through peer interaction [7]. 5. Authentic Assessment: Evaluation focuses on tangible outcomes and reflective processes, encouraging metacognitive skills [8].Challenges in PBL Implementation: Despite its benefits, PBL presents several challenges: • Planning Complexity: Teachers need to design projects that align with learning objectives and remain feasible within available resources [4]. • Resource Constraints: Limited access to materials and technology can hinder project execution, particularly in under-resourced rural areas [8
typicallyuninformative from a curricular (re)design perspective [17]. Research AimsOur core contributions in this paper will involve (1) reviewing previous efforts using the Delphimethod to identify threshold concepts across disciplines, (2) outlining our approach to the Delphimethod for the interdisciplinary field of cyber-physical systems (CPS) in contrast to previousstudies, and (3) reflecting on how our method uncovered the challenges of identifying thresholdconcepts in an interdisciplinary context. Theoretical FrameworkThe study is grounded using the premise of threshold concepts [1]. Threshold concepts aredescribed as gateways to a deeper and transformed understanding of the
evaluate which learning activitieswithin task planning teams find more effective and which they perceive as less effective to theirlearning process. As part of continuous efforts to meaningfully reflect on and evaluate taskplanning as it relates to active learning practices in Senior Design, I have implemented a Pre-Task Planning Survey (Pre-TPS) and a Post-Task Planning Survey (Post-TPS), the Pre-TPSdesigned to be completed by students in the first few minutes of the task planning session and thePost-TPS designed to be completed in the last five minutes.The Pre-TPS questions gauge learners’ perceptions of course activities and team cohesivenessprior to task planning, while the Post-TPS is designed to evaluate learners’ approaches to taskdivision
additionalbehaviors that reflected positive mentoring qualities, going beyond the fundamental behaviorstypically associated with building positive rapport. The second part of the survey includedquestions related to the institution, year, gender identity, age, GPA, and other characteristics(e.g., being a first-generation college student, commuter, student-athlete, part-time student, orunderrepresented group). Survey components are shown in Appendix A, were administeredthrough Qualtrics, and distributed with the York University of Pennsylvania IRB approval (IRB#24FA016).The voluntary survey was administered by the study authors and faculty at their institutions. Inmost cases, the authors distributed the survey to students in classes they were teaching in the
from 14,990 in 2000 to 51,338 in 2019, a 242% increase overtwo decades. Similarly, the number of graduates with a doctorate has grown from 779 to 2790 inthe same period, an increase of 258%. While this increase in pursuits of postgraduate degrees inthe field reflects the rapid growth of the industry, universities still grapple with the task ofevaluating increasingly large volumes of applications.Several large universities adopt a holistic review approach for admissions that is time-consumingand relies heavily on skilled human reviewers. The average time taken for each full review couldvary between 10-30 minutes based on the skills of the reviewer [3]. A survey conducted byIntelligent in 2023, an education magazine [4], reported that 50% of 400
-ended questions. A large majorityof students reported feeling that the course was more engaging than other STEM courses, thatthey learned more than in other courses, that the course was equally or somewhat morechallenging than other courses, and that they had a positive experience with the interactivetextbook. Open-ended questions revealed that most students preferred active model-basedlearning compared to video lectures, because they were engaging and helped with understanding.However, some students found the computational models confusing. Students also had positiveexperiences with the interactive textbook and appreciated that the content on the platform waswell-organized, easy to navigate, and exactly reflected the requirements of the course
hinge on imagining engineering differently: perhaps if more minoritizedstudents persisted in engineering, the logic goes, engineering itself would be different – better,more responsible – because they are more motivated by improving their communities [21].In this paper, we share and reflect on an asset-based approach to facilitating belonging throughquestioning engineering itself. Approaches that treat students’ backgrounds as assets rather thanas liabilities show promise for enhancing minoritized students’ interest and belonging inengineering [22]. Key among these are funds of knowledge (FOK), which refers to the“historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge, skills, andpersonal/social identifications embedded in
were drawn from a variety of institutions across the United States,reflecting a broad geographic distribution. These institutions are located in Colorado, Nebraska,New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. This diverserepresentation spans multiple U.S. regions, including the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest,Mountain West, and West Coast, suggesting a sample that mirrors a national distribution. Typesof institutions represented include public and private, small and large, those granting graduatedegrees and predominantly undergraduate, and research-intensive and teaching-focused.It is important to highlight that, as a group conceptualization method, GCM captures a sharedmental model based on participant input
semesters,technical content covered during Lessons 7 through 10 reflected noticeably lower student studytimes. Reading quizzes took on average less than 10 minutes per student. Any remainingstudying or preparation time per lesson is anecdotally attributed to students working primarily onhomework assignments prior to the night before they were due. The Unit One exam was a high-stakes event (250 points or 12.5% of the course grade). The course-wide exam average was91.0%. One assignment, a reflection essay based upon a construction site visit, was not collecteduntil the next unit of instruction. In other words, students did not need to complete the essaybefore the exam so its impact upon student study time during Unit One is assumed to
-year CED pilot, each year’s pilot-teacher cohort participated in weeklycheck-ins. The purpose of these check-ins was to provide teachers with instructional support andrecord teacher feedback that informed revisions of the CED curriculum. An end-of-semester (oryear) meeting was also held with teachers during which we asked them reflective questions abouthow the course went overall and suggestions for improvement.The participants in professional development workshops had the opportunity to take the optionalpre- and post-workshop surveys via Google Forms, which asked them to rate their confidenceand interest in teaching engineering plus EJ- and EV-related topics. The survey administered toteachers who attended the virtual PD was more in-depth (17
demographics are shifting,and projections indicate that by 2045, no single racial or ethnic group would constitute a majority[3].These inequities pose a challenge to fostering a STEM workforce that reflect the diversity of theU.S., which is essential for bringing the unique perspectives and experiences critical forinnovation and global competitiveness [3]. Addressing these issues is not just a matter of socialjustice but a strategic imperative for sustaining the nation’s leadership in scientific andtechnological advancements. Marginalized students face systemic barriers in accessing,persisting, and succeeding in STEM fields, which necessitate the implementation of targetedprojects like S-STEM [4].This paper examines distinct implementations of S-STEM
select from, spread across the 4 main categories of skills covered in the course (General Skills, Forensics & Steganography,Web Hacking/Exploitation, and Exploratory Bonus Topics). Student teams are expected to complete 1000 points worth ofchallenges per student in the team across a two-week period.Like CTF competitions, learners are prompted to develop and showcase engineering processskills. Teams draft and later present detailed technical writeups for each challenge, a practice thatbuilds on their experience with the engineering notebook. Additionally, students are providedopportunities for metacognitive reflection through periodic collaborative work reflections. Here,they assess their own approach to teamwork and problem solving to