) experience is examined sharing critical aspects of content,assessment, and pedagogical differentiation. Features of the three-year experience includescaffolded and repetitive instances of engineering design practice for live performance withincremental leadership, formative “just-in-time” instruction, and the use of public critique.IntroductionPreparing high-quality and work-ready engineering graduates in support of societal needs is anessential goal for any school/college of engineering. In educational institutions where researchand the development of engineering research scholars is a priority, the “how” of engineeringeducation can become a source of great debate. The definition and debate of educationalpriorities (Duderstadt, 2007) and
the solution requires additional expertise beyond that which is availablewithin their experience or within their engineering team’s experience. By assessing thelimitations of engineering problem solving scope and emphasizing, in other PIs, the importanceof stakeholder engagement and intertwined complex systems level interactions we can focus oureducation on innovative engineering practices while providing clear sites for assessment andcontinuous improvement.De-centering traditionally conceived engineering expertise also weaves in and out of the verycore of our program. Within our integrated studio design spine, students explore design as ameans of communication, design as a means of physical creation, engineering as part of solvingproblems in
’ expectations of each other and creates ethical dilemmas where they have tochoose between pursuing collective collaborative goals versus niche innovative goals. Weconclude with a discussion on how the sociomaterial outcomes of technology infrastructure aredriven by its unpredictable complexity rather than specific functionality. In the following section,we discuss the meaning of collaboration and compare collaboration technologies (i.e.,information and communication technologies designed explicitly to support interdependent, task-based work) with technology infrastructure that motivates collaboration (i.e., technologiesnecessary for teams to conduct interdependent work). In doing so, we center the role of problem-solving practices as one of key
Past President and Wise Woman of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender. She has received career achievement awards from ICA, NCA, the Central States Communication Association, and Purdue University where she was a Distinguished University Professor in communication and engineer- ing education (by courtesy) and Endowed Chair and Director of the Susan Bulkeley Butler Center for Leadership Excellence. Her primary research areas are organizational communication, career, work-life, resilience, feminist/gender, and design. Her grants have focused on ethics, institutional transformation, and diversity-equity-inclusion-belongingness in the professional formation of engineers.Dr. Sean M
that existing engineering educationaccreditation systems predominantly rely on outcome-based evaluation for assessingstudents’ abilities. This approach is teacher-centered and certification-oriented, whereby thecontent taught and the evaluation methods used are solely determined by instructors. This hasled to a situation where many departments tend to allocate such courses to engineering or3Cultivating “global competency” in a divided worldadjunct professors in order to save on human resources. The former group often overlyemphasizes micro-ethical issues at the personal level or simply regard ethical codes ofengineering associations as the best practice and a dogmatic rule to be followed [1], [2],without providing students with broader
in academia. Tara suggested that the system has noestablished way to reward the process, which is a viewpoint consistent with Leo’s interview. Bothalso note structural topics. Tara discussed how the system is built on colonial principles and Leomentioned how junior faculty don’t receive as much support for transdisciplinary research due tothe academic structure.Leo’s interview was focused on the engineering perspective and how social justice could beincorporated into the largely technology-driven practice. Innovation was at the forefront of theconversation, specifically in regard to structures and standards that need to be changed. Thisengineering mindset was shown through frequent use of the words “problem,” “solution,” and“innovation.” Leo
howculture impacts communication and teamwork).Successful cross-disciplinary collaborations of this kind require support from college anddepartmental leaders, as well as faculty collaborators and an openness to innovation ininstruction, assignments, courses, and curricula. Attention to a broad approach to communicationpedagogy need not require additional courses per say; rather, a more nuanced approach toassignment design could accomplish multiple objectives with one deliverable. What is required,however, is commitment to educational innovation to enhance the development of engineeringstudents’ communication competence. Just as we expect our students to be lifelong learners, so,too, should we make a commitment to learning more about best practices
recommendations to enable similar programs by other educators.ResultsThis section discusses the study's results and presents recommendations on what program designers and educatorscan do regarding best practices for program design, implementation, and monitoring. It aims to provide a window 8into a model for building this kind of education for integrating engineers into more extensive society-wideconversations, where their technical knowledge needs to be translated into social policy and be mitigated in its turnby social policy towards responsible innovation. For each research question, the authors have presented commonthemes, unexpected
aimed at promoting student narratives through audio-based methods.Dr. Cassandra McCall, Utah State University Cassandra McCall, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Engineering Education Department and Co-Director of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Transition Services at Utah State University. Her research centers the intersection identity formation, engineering culture, and disability studies. Her work has received several awards including best paper awards from the Journal of Engineering Education and the Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. She holds a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Virginia Tech as well as M.S. and B.S. degrees in civil engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and
programs introducing “design across the curriculum”approaches to student engagement; our programming extends this logic to include designcoursework as a strategic location for comprehensive sociotechnical integration for engineeringstudents. Finally, the key assessment component—and the thrust of our argument—is that ABETassessment practices can and should be crafted to advance programmatic innovations anddifferentiation rather than constraining them. Since we are not yet accredited, this may be a risk,but it is a risk worth taking and one that we believe is well aligned with ABET’s stated goalssurrounding assessment best practices.Ultimately, our key achievement at this stage of program development is to have created ABETperformance indicators
). For Gee,discourse becomes a kind of tool to fashion a social identity. Like Fairclough’s account, it is bothlanguage used and social practice, but the focus is less on the interplay of discourse andindividual on a macro scale and more on individuals themselves. It shifts from a sociologicalaccount to a psychological one [10]. Thus, we see resonance with this theoretical understandingof discourse and our methodological approach, wherein we seek to understand how engineeringstudents use text (in the form of EDMAIC assignments) to position themselves as not simplyengineers but empathetic individuals as well.Empathy. Empathy is an important ability and skill, especially with the continued emphasis onhuman-centered design and social justice
Engineering, Design, and Society. She holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering and international studies from Rose- Hulman Institute of Technology, and an M.S. and PhD in STS from Virginia Tech. She conducts research on engineering practice and pedagogy around the world, exploring its origins, purposes, and potential futures. Marie’s interest in values and engagement in professional cultures also extends to innovation and its experts. With Matthew Wisnioski and Eric Hintz, Marie co-edited Does America Need More Innovators? (MIT Press, 2019).Emily York, James Madison University I am an Assistant Professor in the School of Integrated Sciences at James Madison University (JMU). Drawing on the fields of Science and
conclusions [12]. While natural processes act without political/social intent, people practice science within a social context that is immersed in cultures infused with political and social power differentials. The questions asked, priorities assigned, interpretation of data, and presentation of results are all deeply subjective. Conversely, SE respects and values varied ways of knowing and, therefore, the sharing of power over what and how engineers should research, design, and implement. ● Meritocratic: Meritocracy is the false assumption that the system as it currently exists is fair and just. The meritocratic narrative purports that equal reward is always provided by the system for equal effort within it and that the
teaches advanced undergraduate laboratory courses and manages the senior capstone program in the Micron School. He ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Building a Communication-Integrated Curriculum in Materials ScienceAbstractWith the need to meet ABET outcomes around professional skills, such as communication andteamwork, engineering programs have long explored approaches to ensure their graduates areable to participate in the workplace in ways that employers demand. While approaches vary andsuccess depends on a number of factors, research demonstrates that an integrated approach toprofessional skill development is the most impactful for student learning. How can anengineering program build an
Paper ID #42737Navigating Epistemological Borders: Considerations for Team Teaching atthe Intersection of Humanities and STEMXueni Fan, Texas Tech University Xueni Fan is currently a graduate student in the Doctor of Education program, specializing in instructional technology at Texas Tech University. Holding a Master’s degree in applied linguistics, Fan’s research focuses on qualitative research methods, interdisciplinary studies, online learner engagement, and interprofessional education in the medical field.Dr. Joshua M. Cruz, Texas Tech University Joshua Cruz is an assistant professor of education at Texas Tech
, graduating in May 2023 and a Graduate Research Assistant in the Center for Engineering Education at the University of Texas at Austin. Their research revolves around investigating how LGBTQ+ students resist the hos- tile culture of engineering and, more broadly, STEM. They mentor a group of LGBTQ+ undergraduate engineers and investigate the collective resistance by LGBTQ+ students through student driven organiza- tions with them. They are especially interested in rethinking ways in which DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) can be approached to be more inclusive and effective. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Modeled Professionalism, Identity Concealment, and Silence: The Role
the average. And really just telling myself that my goal for college is to get throughcollege”.The participants shared how they had to develop their own self-care routines and practices thatultimately improved their well-being. These practices were centered on taking breaks from being astudent, like reading a book for pleasure or a trip off campus. Creek noted her shift in understandingwhat activities make her happy and why in her journal in February and that her happiness was no longertied to her GPA. “I’m happy when I’m reading books and talking to my best friend about rekindling ourchildhood love of books”. During the orientation interview, Creek described how other students oftenfail to recognize how to take care of themselves. “We don't
asnot being uniformly accessible to all students.Furthermore, cultural and procedural deterrentspresent within the Startup Shell and Terrapin Workscreate significant barriers to inclusivity and Figure 5: Image of a public makerspace.accessibility, impacting the overall effectiveness ofthese spaces as hubs for innovation andcollaboration. These perceptions result in disparities in who gets to benefit from these advancedfacilities, potentially widening the gap between students with different backgrounds and levels ofprior experience. Yet, the accessibility of these spaces is still recognized by students aspossibilities for practical skills development and professional preparedness, making the equitabledistribution of these
no harm,” meaningthat the best course of action is one that does not hurt others, even if it means doing nothing or a minorchange. Many of the ideas mentioned in this section are ideas that students learned about in theirintroductory design courses. Another student also mentioned how the idea of empathy can also connect tothe Jesuit tradition of educating the whole person. Specifically, they talked about the practice of“examenitos,” or short contemplative reflections about their day, that allowed them to “practicemindfulness, gratitude, and reimagine our own experiences and conditions… all of which create a moreholistic brand of engineering (Mystical Mango).” Humanity. The idea of humanity is highly related to the idea of empathy
are positive outcomes of critical reflection, they do not on their own predict interventionand transformative critical action. Themes of resilience and perseverance are highlyindividualized and not necessarily correlated with liberatory action—they could even reflectstudent acceptance of and assimilation into the status quo.A stronger reflection of critical consciousness may be the way students describe the professionalwork they will do as being focused on making “impactful change,” “designing for everyone”(noting that this is distinct from historical practice), and increasing the inclusivity andaccessibility of engineering processes and products. These comments indicate that students feelinclined toward action as a result of the
and non-technical dimensions of engineering and transformingengineering education so that it more effectively prepares graduates for workplace success.Previous research suggested that interest in “Engineering and …” permeates ASEE and isconcentrated in but not limited to the division most closely associated with the topic. This paperdescribes a transferable method that combines quantitative and qualitative methods to identifyareas of convergence using papers published in the Leadership Development (LEAD) and theEngineering Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ENT) as evidence. These areas of convergenceare: (1) program design and effectiveness, (2) individual capabilities (including traits andthinking tools), (3) teams and groups, and (4
important to learn how to design for both, or how to convince or alter society to allow for the technology to be integrated into it. It is easy for engineers to be blinded by what they think is best for society that they forget to think about the rest of society and how their technology can impact it in ways they had not considered, much like Victor Frankenstein when he created the Monster. It's books like these and ideas such as these, not created by engineers or scientists, that reminds us of how society can view the technological innovations that scientists and engineers create and introduce into society, and how we can treat the technology as a member of society to increase its potential positive impact
the intrapersonal, cognitive, social, behavioral, contextual, cultural, and outcome factors that influence thriving in engineering. Prior to joining Embry-Riddle, she was a National Science Foundation/American Society for Engineering Education engineering postdoctoral fellow at the University of New Hampshire. She received her Ph.D. in Engineering Education at Purdue University, where she was an NSF Graduate Research Fellow and the winner of Purdue’s 2021 Three Minute Thesis competition for her work in developing research and courses on engineering thriving. She also received dual bachelor’s degrees in Industrial Engineering and Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign