someone’s personhood before mentioning their disability (e.g., “person withdisabilities”). Identity-first language mentions the disability before the person (e.g., “disabledperson”) [17]. All authors identify as disabled and use both identity-first and person-first languagein their writing. However, it is also important to note that we both prefer identity-first language forourselves. We believe that using identity-first language is important to bring visibility to thedisability as an identity, build community, and seek needed resources. We ask that non-disabledpeople mirror and respect the identity labeling preferences of the disabled person or group thatthey are interacting with and/or communicating about. In this paper, we use person- and
extended to similarly innate forms of neurodivergence, thusly: bysituating similarly these forms of neurodivergence as something one can ‘have,’ person-firstlanguage perpetuates the idea that neurodivergence can always be separated from the self – andtherefore removed or ‘cured.’Steps towards the neurodiversity paradigmThe earliest instance of neurodiv* term use I found in the EER literature was in an articlepublished in 2015, three years after Walker first introduced the neurodiversity paradigm inpublished writing [2] and one year after she first posted “Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms &Definitions” online [6]. Though all analyzed articles were published after these important works,none directly referenced Walker, and none were entirely
engage the students in theideas of the articles, we provided students with three reading questions that they would respondto before coming to class. The questions are listed below: 1. What do you want to know more about regarding air pollution exposure across race and poverty level? What questions do you have? 2. How might past policies and events help you make more sense of the paper's findings? 3. As the study’s authors write: “A focus on poverty to the exclusion of race may be insufficient to meet the needs of all burdened populations.” The researchers found that even after accounting for poverty, they saw differential impacts based on race. Why do you think it is important to separate out race and poverty level and
are compared against the whole datasetto ensure that each theme works as it should.Phase 5. Refining, Defining, and Naming Themes: In Phase 5, themes are tested to ensure thatthey center meaning-making [12]. Themes must be sufficiently rich and informative to fullycapture the concepts they represent. Writing an abstract or definition for each theme can assist intheir elimination or retention [12]. After testing, themes are named using short phrases that evoketheir “meaning and analytic direction” [12].4. Results and Discussion4.1 Scoping ReviewAfter searching the two databases, 733 articles were found on Scopus and 397 articles were foundon Web of Science, for a total of 1,130 articles. After duplicate removal, 1,078 articles remained.The
teaches courses and conducts research related to Thermodynamics, engineering and public policy, engineering education, and gender in engineering and science. She is the co-author on an engineering textbook, Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, which is used worldwide in over 250 institutions and she is an author on over 95 peer- reviewed publications.Caroline SolomonDr. Elizabeth Litzler, University of Washington Elizabeth Litzler, Ph.D., is the director of the University of Washington Center for Evaluation and Re- search for STEM Equity (UW CERSE) and an affiliate assistant professor of sociology. She has been at UW working on STEM Equity issues for more than 17 years. Dr. Litzler is a member of ASEE, 2020-2021
inequity in STEM, and indenying the existence of the challenges women in STEM are forced to navigate, men reifyexisting gender disparities [40] For example, in their study of over 700 participants in which30% of respondents were faculty, Handley et al. [40] found that men were less receptive toscholarship that examines gender bias in STEM than their women peers. The failure of the majority of men to acknowledge the well-documented issue of genderinequity in STEM makes men allies all the more important [40]. Although allies may not be ableto affect the beliefs of all men, they may be able to influence some colleagues – both women andmen. In the case of supporting women, the efforts of a man ally may support a woman’sretention in a STEM
peers, to decreasingtheir mental health and making them less likely to complete their degrees. Coley et al. (2023) andMcGee, et al. (2019) similarly found that racialized experiences within STEM contributednegatively to the wellbeing of Black graduate students. Finally, Farra, et al., highlight theimportance to mental health of cultivating sense of belonging among women international studentsin STEM, and the negative impact on their well-being of not doing so.Despite the growing and rich body of literature addressing the mental health concerns of STEMgraduate students, including recent work focused specifically on the impact of systems ofoppression on both Women of Color and international students in STEM, less known about thespecific
as important as content knowledge,” we refer to a practice as an intentionalbehavior with specific meaning within a community. In addition to easing the burden oneducators trying to inspire the next generation of engineers, these strategies are based on bestknown practices to 1) retain students as populations across the United States decrease and changedemographically, and 2) to graduate engineers ready to tackle incredibly complex socialproblems.During this formative time in engineering education, the curriculum, interactions with facultyand peers, and course options give students insight into which skills are necessary and which aresupposedly optional for practicing engineers. Berdanier [11] makes it clear the “optional” skillsoften are
Paper ID #42024Inclusive Teaching Practices in Engineering: A Systematic Review of Articlesfrom 2018 to 2023Rajita Singh, University of Oklahoma Rajita Singh is a junior at the University of Oklahoma, where they are pursuing an English major with a minor in Psychology. Passionate about the improvement of education in all fields, they are involved in multiple projects centered on researching pedagogy. Their most recent involvement has been in engineering pedagogy, where they bring their writing skills and synthesis abilities.Dr. Javeed Kittur, University of Oklahoma Dr. Kittur is an Assistant Professor in the Gallogly
accounts for the differences?Literature ReviewLiterature was identified by searching various databases (Web of Science Core Collection, Webof Science Inspec, and ASEE Peer) for keywords, which included “disparities”, “academia”,“women”, “engineering”, “inequities”, and “gender”. The identified records were screened forrelevance, availability, and duplicates. In total, 110 papers were selected to be analyzed from allareas of academia in a full-text analysis. 30 papers were disqualified after review for not fittingthe scope of the study. Some of those reasons included a focus on undergraduate students and afocus on women in engineering in the industry. 18 papers focused on engineering and wereanalyzed to identify disparities for women, the causes of
interests [12]. Thissignificantly impedes the sense of belonging of non-traditional learners and those whosepreferred communication mode is other than reading and writing. The purpose of this project wasto support engineering instructors in redesigning their courses to support and engage a broaderrange of neurological and cognitive functioning within students to support and promoteparticipation of non-traditional thinkers and problem solvers in the engineering fields. Thepurpose of this study was to investigate instructors’ conceptions of neurodiversity to provideinsight on the effects of the professional development on instructors. Additionally, it follows thatinstructors' views about neurodiversity affect the ways in which they support (or do not
the thought policing.This participant seemed in conflict with the ideas that were presented during thevignette-based HC survey and expressed frustration. He thinks that women do not gointo engineering only because they choose not to, which is related to the first conceptionthat systemic discrimination (a form of HC) is not an issue, yet the experiences andstatistics of marginalized individuals in engineering argue otherwise. The participantdoes not account for gender stereotypes and influences that impact women’s choices togo into engineering, such as the influence of family, peer groups, and societal/culturalgender stereotypes on the attraction of adolescent boys to STEM-related subjects andemphasis on their performance [48]. The participant
characteristics that they believe are representative of anengineering educator. This adoption and emulation of attitudes, behaviors and practices – in allforms of linguistic and symbolic units – serve the purpose of being recognized as engineeringeducators by peers, mentors, professors, and those who are part of the world of engineering [38,39]. Thus, we posit that current discourses and practices of doctoral engineering students in theclassroom, as they engage in teaching, are a representation of the current culture of engineering.That is, doctoral engineering students enact overt and subtle behaviors learned and adopted inengineering spaces throughout their undergraduate and doctoral programs such as a sense ofsuperiority in their ability to solve
-specific needs as they worked the project (as ofthis writing, a third and fourth cohort, each consisting of 7 states, are engaging in the CMP).States vary in data capacity and in policy structure (see Tab. 1). For example, most of the cohort1 states have a decentralized model where curricular and course decisions are made at the districtor school level with little influence from the state. In cohort 2, most of the states operate within atop-down approach where curriculum and graduation requirements are set at the state level.Table 1: State data capacity at baselineState features (at baseline) Cohort 1 Cohort 2 (n=6
Education, 2023 Work In Progress: A Novel Approach to Understanding Perceptions of Race Among Computing UndergraduatesINTRODUCTIONBlack, Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Latinx undergraduates remainseverely underrepresented in computing [i.e., computer science (CS), engineering, andinformation systems] [1]. This is often attributed to student-centered, deficit-based factors suchas a lack of access to K-12 computing courses, culturally relevant role models and curricula, andsense of belonging. However, research notes how racial “othering” in university courses,departments, and cultures from peers, faculty, and staff negatively impact them [2]–[4].Shifting national conversations around race, racism, and anti
, etc.) arerelevant to a broad range of sectors and organizational forms.2.1 Reporting in CompaniesReporting to managers, who themselves report to more senior managers, takes place within aformal, bureaucratic structure of work. Summarizing social theorist Max Weber’s classicconcepts of bureaucratic organizations, Gorman and Mosseri [2] write: In the prototypical bureaucratic organization, work is divided into well‐defined, nonoverlapping jobs that remain fixed for substantial periods of time. The performance of work is governed by written rules specifying the appropriate way to handle different categories of situations, so that workers' individual discretion is limited. Each role reports to a superior one in a
organizationsas “creating value” in the same way that technological innovation is [9], [10]. These types oflower-recognition tasks also can include “office housework”—planning social events, gettingcoffee for colleagues, coordinating meetings. Some of these tasks carry more organizationalsignificance than do others, as they can sustain networks, communication, and projectmomentum, but few are rewarded in the way that strategic stretch work can be; Babcock et al.[8] write that these are tasks people generally do not want to do as part of their jobs and wishwould be completed by others.And yet some groups do them, and do them more than other groups do, even among those in thesame profession and role. Sociological and economic research shows that gender