: 10.1080/13613324.2021.1924137.[15] B. A. Burt, “Toward a Theory of Engineering Professorial Intentions: The Role of Research Group Experiences,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 289–332, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.3102/0002831218791467.[16] J. Seniuk Cicek, P. Sheridan, L. Kuley, and R. Paul, “Through ‘Collaborative Autoethnography’: Researchers Explore Their Role as Participants in Characterizing the Identities of Engineering Education Graduate Students in Canada,” in 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Columbus, Ohio, Jun. 2017, p. 29029. doi: 10.18260/1-2--29029.[17] J. B. Main, L. Tan, M. F. Cox, E. O. McGee, and A. Katz, “The correlation between undergraduate student
Paper ID #37488Student curiosity in engineering courses and research experiences: ”I’mkind of torn between being a decent student and a decent engineer.”Dr. Natalie Evans, University of Virginia Natalie Evans, Ph.D. is a postdoctoral research associate in the UVA school of Education and Human Development. Her research examines how educational experiences influence the development of curiosity and creativity in students from preschool through college.Jessica Scoville, University of VirginiaJamie J. Jirout, University of VirginiaDr. Caitlin Donahue Wylie, University of Virginia Caitlin D. Wylie is an associate professor of Science
successful individuals whocome from similar backgrounds and who have navigated their pathways previously [21]. Othershave argued that this form of identity role-modeling is critical for underrepresented students inSTEM in terms of promoting belonging and success [22]. Additionally, these faculty members understand and reciprocate the importance ofmentoring, especially when there is some form of cultural relevance between the mentor and thementee. Alejandra describes the importance of these mentoring relationships, particularly whenentering her (predominantly white) graduate institution as an international student, stating: There was nobody who was Latinx in my whole entire program. But I did know about a professor who was in
female students' willingness to engagein discussions about their academic paths [41]. If female students perceive their advisors as lesssupportive or more critical, they may be less inclined to seek their guidance, thereby contributingto the observed disparity in communication behaviors. Additionally, the identity and backgroundof the advisor can influence the comfort level of students when discussing sensitive topics [42].This dynamic can create a feedback loop in which men feel more supported and are thus morelikely to engage in discussions, while women may feel less inclined to do so due to perceivedbarriers.The moderately positive relationship between advisor relationships and changing lab experiencesreinforces these findings. Healthy
Paper ID #41428Work in Progress: Design and Preliminary Results of a Survey to ExploreRelationships Between Faculty Mentoring, Engineering Doctoral Student PsychologicalSafety, and Work OutcomesDorian Bobbett, University of Michigan Dorian is a 1st-year Engineering Education Research Ph.D. student at the University of Michigan. She received her B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in May 2023. Dorian currently works with Dr. Karin Jensen at the University of Michigan on projects related to mental-health and well being and mentoring at the graduate student level. She was previously involved in
Paper ID #46095Bridging Support Networks: The Role of Formal and Informal Mentors inUndergraduate Engineering Students’ Emotional Well-Being and AcademicSuccessMrs. Narjes Khorsandi Koujel, Rowan University Narjes is a Ph.D. student in Engineering Education at Rowan University. She earned a bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering in Iran and subsequently worked as an industrial engineer in the food industry for over 10 years. Narjes’ research and activism focuses on women in the Middle East. Particularly, she is focused on how resources, culture, and gendered norms impact their engineering identity development.Sowmya
military veteran, licensed mechanical engineer, and associate professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Utah State University. Her research examines issues of access, equity, and identity in the formation of engineers and a diverse, transdisciplinary 21st century engineering workforce. Angie received an NSF CAREER award in 2021 for her work with student veterans and service members in engineering. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Unmasking Cognitive Engagement: A Systematized Literature Review of the Relationships Between Students' Facial Expressions and Learning OutcomesAbstractCognitive engagement, a complex concept in the field of education, has a great impact on
. Kajfez and L. McNair, “Graduate student identity: A balancing act between roles,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2014.[4] D. L. Liddell, M. E. Wilson, K. Pasquesi, A. S. Hirschy, and K. M. Boyle, “Development of professional identity through socialization in graduate school,” J Stud Aff Res Pract, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 69–84, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1515/JSARP-2014-0006/MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS.[5] T. Luft and R. Roughly, “Engaging the Reflexive Self: The Role of Reflective Practice for Supporting Professional Identity Development in Graduate Students,” Supporting the Success of Adult and Online Students Proven Practices in Higher Education, pp. 53–62, 2016.[6] H. L. Perkins, M. Bahnson, M. A
McCormick Teaching Excellence Institute Research Fellow. Her research focuses on how identity, among other affective factors, influences diverse groups of students to choose engineering and persist in engineering. She also studies how different experiences within the practice and culture of engineering foster or hinder belonging, motivation, and identity development. Dr. Godwin graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in Engineering and Science Education. Her research earned her a National Science Foundation CAREER Award focused on characterizing latent diversity, which includes diverse attitudes, mindsets, and approaches to learning to understand engineering students’ identity
that guide engineering research. I, and many of my colleagues, while noting the historyof marginalization of people who look and think like us in engineering contexts, beganquestioning the value systems that undergird the engineering research enterprise in which weoperate. We noted discrepancies between the espoused values of the enterprise and those thatwere enacted by some of the agents that operate in engineering research spaces. For example, inour graduate context, we noted an espoused desire for equity and inclusion alongside aperpetuation of stress culture, a centering of White theories in our foundational classes, and alack of accommodation for non-traditional and neurodivergent students. We began to questionother value systems having
school classroom teacher, school administrator, and teacher educator. He is a three-time graduate of the University of Illinois (A.B. in History; M.Ed. in Educational Organization and Leadership; Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction).Chris Migotsky, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Chris Migotsky is the Senior Coordinator of Faculty Teaching Programs within the College of Engineering at the University of Illinois. He also has college-level academic advising duties with undergraduate students from all departments. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Navigating Challenges: Women Teaching Faculty Members’ Experience in Teaching-Focused Communities of
maintaining these relationships. In addition to their research mentoringrelationships, they also have to balance their personal and professional life, while carrying outtheir research. Because of their many responsibilities, it is not surprising that graduate studentsoften have a poor work-life balance, which has been linked to their poor mental health status [6].This decline in mental health can negatively impact their ability to carry out their work andpersist within their program [7], while simultaneously impacting their overall self-awareness.The increase in studies within the last five years shows that graduate students’ mental andphysical wellness is a growing problem [6], [8], [9], [10]. Even though graduate students are inmentoring
uniquely heighten their risk ofmental health struggles. These include an exceptionally rigorous workload, a high volume ofassignments that disrupts efforts to maintain a work-life balance, and intense pressure to excel,often stemming from themselves or their peers [4]. Research on the mental health of engineeringstudents reveals that these challenges are not merely individual struggles but are deeply rooted inthe norms and expectations of engineering culture [5].Engineering CultureEngineering culture has been defined as a “culture of stress” [6], [7], where students experiencerigorous courses and high workloads. This can lead to the normalization of stress, wherestudents, despite feeling overwhelmed, may believe their stress is not severe enough
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
necessary to develop impactful, innovative, and successfulengineering solutions [9]–[11].In addition to preparing engineering students to successfully address modern engineeringproblems, the inclusion of comprehensive engineering skills in the curriculum has implicationsfor students’ engagement and persistence in the field. Students’ engagement in their field as wellas their plans to pursue an engineering career or engineering graduate education is determined inpart by an alignment between their personal and professional interests and values in engineeringand curricular messages about what engineering practice includes. For some students, thepotential to leverage engineering for social good is a key motivation for pursuing work in thefield [12
Paper ID #42943A Systematized Literature Review on Problem-Solving in STEM EducationExploring the Impact of Task Complexity on Cognitive Factors and StudentEngagementMr. Zain ul Abideen, Utah State University Zain ul Abideen is a Graduate Research Assistant and Ph.D. student in the Department of Engineering Education at Utah State University (USU). With an undergraduate degree in Computer Engineering and a Master’s in Engineering Management, coupled with over 12 years of teaching experience with undergraduate engineering students, Zain is currently dedicated to pursuing a Ph.D. in Engineering Education at USU in Logan
purpose of this research was to examine the role of race and racialized experiences in Blackstudents’ access to learning opportunities in team-based, project-based learning in engineering.While research generally documents patterns of exclusion and marginalization for historicallyexcluded students, such as women and racial/ethnic minoritized students (e.g., Black, Latinx,Indigenous students), a growing body of literature suggests the mechanisms by which thesepatterns of exclusion and marginalization are manifested in students may differ between, forexample, Black and Latinx students, Black women and Indigenous women, and so on [4]–[7].For example, Cech and colleagues [4] described how learning activities in STEM often requireIndigenous students
thesubtle forces that aim to undermine or undervalue women.The theory takes a sociological perspective by viewing participants acting as pieces of a socialsphere with different relationships of power between each other. This social power pattern allowsfor certain knowledge to be valued over others, which is the crux of the theory of epistemicinjustice. Furthermore, social power can be broken down into a subtype of power called “identitypower” (p. 4), defined as social power that depends on a group’s shared understanding of socialidentities affected by the operation of power [9]. Identity power further delineates certainknowledge as valuable based on the identities of those who share them. For example, the contextof white supremacy and patriarchy
subjects, and effectivelycommunicating results to academic, industry, policy, and other audiences.This paper reports on a research project, supported by an NSF EAGER award, that exploresinnovative ethnographic research methods for studying engineering practice. Here we primarilyfocus on the experiences of three students who were directly involved in our data collectionefforts. One undergraduate student engaged with one field site (a utility company, “UtilityCo”)through job shadowing and informal interviewing, while two graduate students collected data asparticipant observers at a second site (a small software start-up, “SoftCo”). In this paper, ourprimary research objective is to examine how these three students experienced their roles
Paper ID #38728Work in Progress: Using Machine Learning to Map Student Narratives ofUnderstanding and Promoting Linguistic JusticeHarpreet Auby, Tufts University Harpreet is a graduate student in Chemical Engineering and STEM Education. He works with Dr. Milo Koretsky and helps study the role of learning assistants in the classroom as well as machine learning applications within educational research and evaluation. He is also involved in projects studying the uptake of the Concept Warehouse. His research interests include chemical engineering education, learning sciences, and social justice.Dr. Milo Koretsky, Tufts
, similar to the role of a tutor. Participants P2 and P4 started by focusing on creating ortrying example problems with another student, with P4 making sure to note that they try to leadthe other student towards an answer without directly telling them what to do or why. P4: How I help other people is usually with a practice problem, but I’ll try to like not just to give them the answer. I’ll try to walk them through the process and my reasoning behind it. Then, if they get stuck on a certain area between those steps, I’ll try to go more in depth as to like what’s going on in that step, like why that’s happening.Then, these participants work to help that student understand it on a deeper level by connecting itto earlier
givesevidence that there is a considerable correlation between motor skills and math learning.Another theoretical framework we found related to designing embodied cognitive tools forlearning math was proposed by Nathan and Walkington [32]. Their theory is called groundedand embodied mathematical cognition (GEMC), which utilizes action-cognition transduction(ACT) to explore how body movement facilitates mathematical reasoning. GEMC suggeststhat the actions of participants can act as inputs that can guide the cognition-action systemtoward related cognitive states. Unlike the framework of embodied design, which focuses onmovement only, GEMC emphasizes language to direct movements. Nathan and Walkingtondesigned a game called The Hidden Village as an
behaviors in question – only behaviors performed voluntarily canbe described by the theory. Coercion, force, or other forms of persuasion used to incite behaviorfall outside the RAA’s purview.Moreover, the RAA also recognizes the variability in a behavior’s specificity and generality. Forinstance, a behavior could be precisely defined, specifying an action (e.g., providing feedback toall engineering team members) within a designated timeframe (e.g., the next 6 months).Alternatively, a broader formulation might encompass providing feedback to any peer while anundergraduate student. This variability prompts researchers to navigate a balance between thespecificity of a behavior and its generalizability, acknowledging that a behavior’s level of
engineering courses, ensuring comprehensive support and an engaging learning environment. Dr. Baine has been instrumental in teaching and curriculum development at both undergraduate and graduate levels. As a coordinator of multiple first-year courses, he played a pivotal role in redesigning the first-year engineering sequence. In recognition of his efforts, he was awarded the Pew Teaching Excellence Award. Dr. Baine is a Distinguished Member of the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE). His leadership roles within the ASEE North Central Section include serving as a Director (2015-18), Vice-Chair (2018-21), Conference Chair (2019), Chair (2021-23), and Past Chair (2023-25). Additionally, Dr. Baine is a
collaborations between practitioners and researchers that are organized toinvestigate problems of practice and solutions for improving schools and districts” [4, p.48]. Ourrole in the recently formed RPP is both as a thought-partner and internal evaluator. Our goals areto measure the effectiveness of the RPP through the context of equitable collaborative work as weaddress the agreed upon problems of practice. The two problems of practice in this RPP are: 1)school leaders in Tennesse need broad buy-in to bring CS to all their students and 2) leaders inTennessee want clear definitions of what high quality CS K-12 pathways look like.As the evaluator for this RPP, we centered our work on the Five Dimensions of Effectiveness [1].Each dimension of the
which gender [19].Negative stereotypes can lower girls' aspiration to have a science or engineering career while agrowth mindset fosters their interest and achievement in math and science, which is critical forwomen to persist in STEM [1], [3]. Students’ choice of STEM disciplines and courses is heavily influenced by their teachersand parents and they are more likely to engage in STEM activities if they have had engagingexperiences of STEM activities in their classrooms [20]. As ‘the success or failure of the STEMmovement will depend on the acceptance and buy-in that schools and teachers give to theintegration of these four disciplines in an already crowded curriculum’ [21], both preservice andin-service teachers play an important role
think the interviewer wants tohear, to say what they think might be “correct” in this context because they are more used to test-like interactions. Socially desirable answers limit the collaborative sensemaking between theinterviewer and the participant because they shift the interview focus away from the beliefs andexperiences of the participant. This is a pitfall in engineering education research because manyresearch constructs (including beliefs) are abstract and theoretical, and thus the interviewer musttake care to interview students with language that is engaging, relatable, and accessible forengineering students. To elicit complex belief sets, the role of the interviewer is to facilitatecollaborative exploration and reflection of beliefs
, diversestrengths) they identified, how their assets are present in daily engineering practice, and howthey see their assets being a part of their engineering identity moving forward. This discussion ishad between the student and an interviewer who is involved in the propagation of asset-basedpractices among faculty, both stakeholders that want to change the system (Discovery). Throughfurther discussion with the interviewer, students identify themes and connect assets to theirsuccesses as engineers (Dream). Students identify ways in which their inherent, diverse strengthscould contribute to their future success as an extrapolation of how these strengths aid them ingaining engineering skills in the present (Design). Students indirectly contribute to
individuals make meaning of theirown and others’ identities but are also shaped by the participation and actions of individualswithin them. The relationship and interactions between an individual and their environment leadto the formation of identities and an understanding of what is normalized and valued within thatenvironment.Power plays a key role in the formation and maintenance of figured worlds. Inspired byBourdieu, Holland et al. maintain that “a field is ‘structure-in-practice,’ and as such, is a world ofrelationships, of social positions defined only against one another.” Individuals possess relativepositions of power within figured worlds, and some may be excluded entirely from participation.One’s position in a figured world is determined
teach concurrent required classes in the same department, and the activity system inhabited by their students. We find two distinct Object2s and study the contradictions that must be resolved to reach a shared Object3.These dialectic objects reveal another aspect of activity theory: contradictions. Engeströmdescribes contradictions as “historically accumulating structural tensions within and betweenactivity systems,” which can act as an impetus towards change [17]. In many cases, contradictionsexist between different elements of an activity system; for example, Goodnough describescontradictions between the rules imposed upon teachers by prescribed curricula and their object ofteaching students using inquiry