; Urban Design, CU Boulder d. Engineering Management Department, CU Boulder INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 Action Research (AR): CONCLUSION Involves a systematic process of acting, observing, reflecting, and re- PALAR is a valuable framework for engineering
community engagement programs for understanding the value propositionfor each stakeholder group. Such investigations can help researchers and practitioners betteroptimize programs to more closely meet their full potential.IntroductionLeading institutions in engineering education have been focusing on integrating experientiallearning into the undergraduate experience in recent years [1], which is a pedagogy that involveseducators purposefully engaging learners in direct experience and focused reflection [2]. Onesubset of the experiential learning approach is community-engaged learning, which is intended toincorporate the five elements of engagement, academic connection, reciprocal partnerships, mutuallearning, and reflection [3]. In engineering
IDIsoftware. These scores correlate to produce reports detailing individual and/or group results thatprovide insight into characteristics within each phase. These results were then assessed usingMicrosoft Excel’s statistical toolset to analyze the changes across the IDC continuum of theoverall group, subgroups, and individuals. Changes (+/-) 7 on the IDI scoring are consideredstatistically significant.Qualitative Data CollectionQualitative data were collected from a modified Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG)Survey, developed using the SALG assessment tool [20] with reflection activities guided by [21],and course artifacts including student assignments, focus groups, individual interviews, classdiscussions, reflection activities, and related
reflected on why understanding redlining andother social justice issues are important to their future careers as civil engineers. This paper describeswhat was done in both classes and reflections from both students and instructors.IntroductionService-learning and community-based learning are proven pedagogical approaches used across multipledisciplines and educational levels to bridge teaching and community engagement (Billig, 2000; Kuh,2008). Over the course of decades, research demonstrates the benefits of service-learning (SL) to studentlearning (Warren, 2012), satisfaction (Drinkard & Tontodonato, 2019), engagement, and retention(Bringle, Hatcher & Muthiah, 2010). This paper describes how information on redlining wasincorporated into a
studies,methodologies, and frameworks for thinking about how to teach engineers about the nature oftheir work1. The American Society for Engineering Education has a separate Engineering EthicsDivision that has also tackled broader topics on how engineers should consider the ethical andsocietal implications of what they do. Our research paper here seeks to build bridges to some ofthat engineering education and ethics research by reflecting on recent efforts that have beenperformed from within a government agency, the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA), to reflect on the implications on the work of engineers. This event wascalled the Artemis and Ethics workshop, and it focused on bringing in social science andhumanities scholars
their needs.BackgroundThere is a long history of engagement of academics with communities [1-4]. Historically someof this work was termed service-learning (SL) where the goal was for students to reapeducational benefits from credit-bearing activities through a process of reflecting on their work,while community partners also benefited from the collaboration. SL work often faced challengeswith equitable benefits and power sharing. SL in engineering is now often being framed underthe larger umbrella of community engagement (CE). CE is a broader idea that encompassescommunity partnerships in co-curricular activities (such as Engineers Without Borders studentchapters). CE work can also be focused on scholarship and research, termed CommunityEngaged
approaches to • Student reflections community-engaged research • New programs and curricula • Disseminate community-engaged STEM • Research products graduate traineeship model. • Publications and conference presentations • Trainees publish papers with authors from • Collaborative grant proposals multiple disciplines; • Student placement statistics • New transdisciplinary collaborations. • Community of diversity recruitment • Trainees articulate and analyze the advocates
countries. his student underscores a motivation for a more equitable world due to the perceived harmTcaused by their high-income country, particularly in terms of the environmental degradation that will affect low-resource communities.I n summary, while the motivations varied among students, this study identified all students at one point expressing a motivation for social justice, often using vocabularies such as justice and equality. While this exploration was not exhaustive in capturing the entirety of students' experiences, we found that students reflected on a spectrum of emotions. These include a sense of solidarity with marginalized populations they once lived with, drawing inspiration from the resilience and
patronization, saviorism, and poverty voyeurism.The Ohio State University (OSU) has been offering engineering service-learning courses sincethe early 2000s, that have spanned mostly the international context. These early courses adopteda traditional approach to service-learning which often did not see the community as co-equalpartners and overlooked systemic inequalities. Reflecting on this period, the success of manyimplemented projects (from Honduras to Haiti) remains unclear. To rectify this and transitionengineering service learning to a critical paradigm, with the aim to deconstruct systems of powerand dismantle the inequalities they perpetuate, a collaborative effort among faculty members,also the authors of this paper, teaching local and
students that designingwithcommunitiesTis the only way to design. In other words, we did not present this approach as an "alternative" they might choose if they have time. Additional goals include the following four: 1. Equip students with the necessary skills to engage respectfully and successfully with community members 2. Reflect on and examine power, identity, and knowledge in the engineering design process. 3. Learn basic principles of nuclear reactor design and related concepts, including nuclear fission and fusion. 4. Practice designing with actual community members. e built this course on a wide range of literature, drawing from
]. Withintersectional challenges, it is essential to rethink how science, technology, engineering, andmath (STEM) education connects with the community and how the community is integrated intothe classroom. Traditional pedagogical methods for STEM education focus on developingstudents’ science knowledge and technical skills, reflecting the historical foundations of STEMand STEM education in the United States [4].Published in 2005 [5] was a U.S. congressional-requested report that raised employerconsciousness on the call to educate scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to maintain thenation’s global position as a leader in research and technological innovation. Even now, federalSTEM education initiatives state that their primary goal is to develop the STEM
helps to put the impact of the students’ projects in perspective [20].By infusing empathy for others into the students' experiential learning at the early stages of thecourse, all phases of the design process–from opportunity identification to ideation to prototypetesting–will reflect insights that are both innovative and responsive to actual user needs anddesires. To initiate this user-centered, empathetic design approach, students engage in anaccessibility simulation exercise on the first day of class designed to foster greater understandingof the everyday experiences of people with disabilities [21]. In this exercise, students break intogroups and engage in multiple simulation activities including: 1. Mobility impairment in which
engineer within society byupholding an alignment of industry over engineering reflective of a hegemonic adherence tobusiness professionalism [1, 2, 3]. The ideology of business professionalism, described in moredetail to follow, advances beliefs that engineers are, and should be, unshakably beholden tocapitalist corporate owners and the industries they extract profit through [3]. In this paper, weexamine the historically anti-union attitudes and actions of the National Society of ProfessionalEngineers (NSPE), and their adherence to the ideology of business professionalism, throughanalysis of ethics case studies published by their Board of Ethical Review (BER). As an advocateof professional engineering licensure and as leaders in engineering ethics
dynamics as a challenge when confronting discrimination or bias. Pressurefrom a group to avoid conflict or to not alienate oneself may be a strong driver of silence ininstances of prejudice.The last new code that emerged from the interviews was changed behavior. From the qualitativeanalysis of the open-ended responses in the surveys, the authors uncovered changed perspectiveas a code. There is a subtle difference between these two as defined by the researchers wherechanged behavior recognizes a new action or intended action from the participant based on anew learning or reflection whereas changed perspective might not result in an action. Thisdifferentiation is important for this study and the resulting goals as simply changing perspectivesor
the survey accurately reflects the GTAexperience and captures the dynamic educational environment they contribute to, aiming for aninclusive and comprehensive evaluation.3.2.1 Pre- & Post-Semester Assessment SurveyThe study commenced with a pre-semester survey designed to establish a baseline understandingof GTA’s' skills and perspectives before their active involvement in the service-learning program.The skillset gauged is listed in Table 1. Administered through Qualtrics, this survey played apivotal role in assessing the initial skill set and expectations of GTA’s.The survey questions were carefully crafted to gauge their proficiency and mindset, setting thefoundation for subsequent comparative analyses with post-assessment data. By
. Theultimate goal is for this initiative to serve as a model and inspiration for universities andcommunities alike, highlighting the transformative power of collaboration between highereducation institutions, industry, and community partners to drive meaningful improvements inour communities, fostering growth, innovation, and social well-being.1. IntroductionOverview of Community Engagement in Engineering EducationIn recent years, the field of community engagement in engineering education has been growing,reflecting a shift towards a more holistic approach that extends beyond theoretical knowledge.Building sustainable and resilient communities is a core purpose of civil engineering andeffectively engaging with communities is vital. Such engagement is
educational and professional opportunities should reflect and support these values. Futureresearch on this topic could include power sharing structures and opportunities within SUCCs, thequantitative impact of an intervention program like DeSIRE on student academic outcomes or teacherretention rates, or community and parent perceptions of SUCCs (especially in conjunction with theservice mission of public universities).ConclusionThe purpose of this study was to understand how a school-university-community collaboration coulduse existing community assets to support the reduction of rural flight, or “brain drain,” by influencingstudent and teacher perceptions of local workforce opportunities. Through meaningful relationshipbuilding between various
. “Engaging future engineers is a central topic in everydayconversations on engineering education... It is imperative that the community reflects onprogress and sets a more effective path for the future.” [4] A second motivation was to provide an opportunity for students to begin building self-starting skills earlier in their academic career. The owner of DCOF was highly supportive ofallowing the activities and engagements to be student-led. This gave students the independenceto set their own activity structure and to make decisions in deciding their goals and needs inaccomplishing tasks. There are clear benefits to students; “Without the presence of an organizingfaculty member, students are forced to make decisions in a real-world environment, in
, Reflective Writing in Medicine and Healthcare, Engineering Leadership and Team Building, and Engineers in the Community, among other courses. She believes that education can be a force for liberation and freedom, and through engineering, we can build a more just and equitable world.Sandra Payton Matteucci ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Engagement in Practice: Innovating a Project-Based, Community Engaged Course for Engineering Students that Fosters Ethical ThinkingAbstractThe killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri (a suburb of St. Louis) catalyzed the BlackLives Matter movement, underscoring the need for students to explore how privilege andsystemic injustice have physically
participants using an evaluation atthe conclusion of the unit, and 3) the engineering students using a reflective journal. Both theparents of the elementary school students and the engineering students failed to complete theirassessments. This indicates that reliance on intrinsic motivation is not enough.Programs #3 and #4Institutional ContextThe next two outreach programs were developed at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, a large public land-grant university with a strong research foundation andundergraduate/graduate student engagement in service learning and outreach.Curriculum/Learning GoalsThe first program combines a two-semester graduate course and outreach to high school studentsenrolled in the AVID (Advancement Via Individual
activities of the course studied?” Our datasuggest that students’ learning of the literacies of HCD is reflected through the different stages oftheir capstone project. Moreover, they used the literacies as tools for honoring the voices andexperiences of the community where they implemented their project.Our study offers implications for engineering education. Foremost, although not directly theobject of this paper, it is impossible to understand learning without considering teaching. In aphenomenographic study, Zoltowski et al.[46] argue that students’ ways of understanding andexperiencing HCD have different degrees of comprehensiveness. Our data show that focalstudents seem to present a comprehensive perspective of HCD: The main issue with the
commitment to RT transformed into effective RT for communities 5 1.5 RT is not supported nor 2.5 Academic advisors can help students required by academic institutions circumvent institutional barriers to RTRT in Academic Research Program: Student Case Studies in HES @ MinesAs reported in our ASEE 2022 paper [1], graduate students’ journey to RT begins with an in-depth process of formation which includes a self-reflection of their perspectives as historical andsocial agents, extensive critical readings of the history of engineering, development, and the roleof engineers in development. Once they