into a mechanicalsystems design course, continued incorporation in a thermal systems design course, and performqualitative analysis on the course artifacts and student feedback.IntroductionThis work-in-progress paper describes a curricular intervention designed to incorporate varioustopics and assignments related to social justice into a thermal systems design course and amechanical systems design course, both taught in the mechanical engineering department at alarge, public institution on the west coast. Specifically, the two instructors (and paper authors)have adapted material from Dr. Donna Riley’s “Engineering Thermodynamics and 21st CenturyEnergy Problems: A Textbook Companion for Student Engagement” [1].There are myriad definitions of
effective college teacher. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Institutional Data as Motivation for Course-Level Change in EngineeringIntroduction and BackgroundFor decades, studies have called for attention to recruiting and retaining a diverse studentpopulation in STEM fields and increasing the numbers of STEM graduates [1, 2]. Multiplestudies have documented an “achievement gap” in terms of success for under-representedminorities (URM) [3] and first-generation college students [4], and also provide a multitude ofsuggestions for better supporting these students at the institutional and classroom levels [3, 5].In 2019, ASEE
ofchange. In doing so, potentials for scholarship, concientização, and praxis via labor organizing inengineering are elucidated in order to provide direction toward liberation.Introduction and BackgroundEngineering is a field that both shapes and is itself shaped by oppression and inequitable powerdynamics. Engineering education researchers have sought to study facets and intersections ofracism [1-8], heteropatriarchy [4-10], capitalism [5, 6, 10], and militarism and colonization [8,11] within engineering. In many ways, engineering education researchers have shown how thesefacets are fundamental to what is currently considered engineering epistemology. Owing to thathistory, peoples marginalized along many and varied axes of interlocking systems of
studentswho are seeking a degree in higher education. Student success can be directly linked topreparation for classes including the reading of assigned chapters in a textbook, taking lecturenotes, reviewing classroom materials and frequent attendance. A common problem at manyhigher education institutions is that students from impoverished backgrounds have limitedfunding and frequently do not purchase textbooks or other supplemental material due to the needfor the allocation of limited finances to more pressing things. Indiana State University has a highpercentage of students from impoverished backgrounds with 50 percent of the currently enrolledstudents receiving Federal Pell Grants [1]. Additionally 55 percent of the current students at
engineeringcurriculum. To add to this gap in literature, this paper analyzes quantitative responses of genderand sexual minority students’ perceptions of the engineering curricula from the survey conductedin 2018.Relevant LiteratureThe predominant normative marker of science and scientists in the U.S. has historically andcontinues to be based on White cisgender male perspectives [1]–[7]. Not surprisingly, thishomogenous and heterogenous perspective leads to pedagogical practices in which minoritizedstudents underperform compared to when innovative pedagogical models are used, such asflipped classrooms [8], [9]. This long-standing conceptualization of science and scientists alsoresults in an engineering curriculum that deems “issues of communication, justice
maneuverability. Rather than report onstudy findings, as proposed, this paper uses the opportunity of injustice within the review processto directly apply the 4Rs.IntroductionAcross the fields of engineering, higher education, and STEM education, the relative lack ofdiversity in STEM fields, particularly engineering, has been long lamented[1]. Colleges anduniversities across the United States have made efforts to diversify representation of faculty andstudents, but these efforts have not solved the issue of equitable inclusion of people frommultiply marginalized and underrepresented (MMU) groups in higher education generally and inengineering specifically. A number of scholars have shown that the perceived norm of anengineer is white and male and that
, relatively less research has specifically addressed the retentionof Latinx students in STEM disciplines. There is limited research regarding howmicroaggressions targeting Latinx students in engineering education settings impact theirretention in those programs. Guided by Sue’s definitions and taxonomy of microaggressions, andCritical Race Theory, the purpose of the current study was to answer the following researchquestions: 1) What microaggressions do Latinx students experience in an engineering educationenvironment? And 2) How do these microaggressions impact their academic wellbeing? Aphenomenological design was used to determine the microaggression experiences of Latinxstudents in higher education engineering programs. Qualitative data was
, assets based approaches to STEM equity,and gender and race stratification in education and the workforce. She was awarded the 2020 WEPANFounders Award. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021Unified Voice and Group Agency: Developing Teams to Transform Engineering EducationThis research paper investigates how individual change agents come together to form effectiveand efficient teams. Improving equity and social justice within academic engineering requireschanges that are often too complex and too high-risk for a faculty member to pursue on their own[1], [2]. These changes include the broad diffusion of culturally responsive pedagogies thatemphasize the value of diverse
paper, using dataand narratives from the United States and Iran as examples, I identify roadblocks to theengagement of women in STEM careers. Using the two countries with which I am mostfamiliar as examples is instructive, because this side-by-side comparison shows thatundesirable outcomes in the domain of women in STEM fields can and do occur forvastly different reasons, which I discuss.Keywords: education; equal opportunity; gender equity; labor laws; misogyny; sexism;women’s rights; workforce diversity1. IntroductionIt is generally recognized that the economic benefits of scientific and technologicaladvancement cannot be achieved unless the available workforce is efficiently and fullyutilized [1], [2]. So, far from being an issue that
education programming to innovate their fields.IntroductionIn the United States, national calls have emerged for expanding the science, technology,engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce [1]. Government officials suggest that anincrease in the number of STEM professionals and innovations is important for meeting risingsocial, economic, and environmental concerns across the country [2], [3]. One approach forSTEM workforce development is the launch of STEM entrepreneurship education programming.STEM entrepreneurial education programs (EEPs) promote and support university faculty,students and administrators in their transformation of STEM research into marketable products[4]–[8]. Since their emergence in the late 20th century, STEM EEPs have
Association[1], the U.S. society has made a series of economic, sociopolitical, and moral decisions that havehad a cumulative impact on communities of color, particularly Black, Indigenous, andHispanic/Latinx communities. When we see differences in academic outcomes between Whitestudents and students of color, it is not an indication of an “achievement gap,” but rather anindication of the debt owed to groups that have been racially subjugated since the early days ofpublic education. By shifting focus away from discussions of why students of color are failingwithin the dominant paradigm and toward ways that the dominant paradigm fails students ofcolor, Ladson-Billings and other Critical Race scholars challenge us to expand our thinkingabout the
-progress) The conversation around youth engineering work has increased in volume over the pastdecade. As college engineering programs struggle to attract and retain individuals who identifyas BIPOC, women, LGBTQ+, and/or from disenfranchised socioeconomic groups [1], outreachefforts to attract youth from diverse backgrounds to the field have increased. Further, the adventof the Next Generation Science Standards [2] has positioned engineering experience as a meansto broaden participation in STEM writ large and has brought pre-college engineering moreexplicitly to the national consciousness [3]. Prior research has sought to explain why youth fromhistorically marginalized backgrounds might veer away from engineering before college
in shifting student bias towards inclusion in the three interventions. The mostpromising approach is student-led, where senior students worked to change the student culturedirectly.Introduction and BackgroundImproving diversity in STEM fields is an important goal and has been widely studied. It is well-known that students and professionals in STEM careers in the USA do not reflect the generalpopulation of the country [1]. For example, white men make up 31.6% of the general populationwhile they make up 51% of scientists and engineers. Black men make up 6% of the populationand 3% of the STEM workforce. The percentage of non-white and non-Asian people in the USAis 31.3% while the percentage of this sub-population working in STEM is just 12%. In
down by gender: while Black women comprise 6.3% of the generalpopulation, they made up only 1% of engineering degrees awarded in 2016 (7% and 2.3% forHispanic/Latina women).These numbers are a result of both lower initial recruitment into engineering and lower retentiononce in engineering programs. While on average nearly 59% of students who enterundergraduate engineering programs graduate with an engineering degree within 6 years, only45% of Hispanic/Latinx students and 36% of Black/African American students do so (ASEE,2017). Thus, while these students were interested in engineering when they entered college, thesocial/technical dualism may play a role in retention issues by engendering a feeling of split1 Our use of the word minoritized is
shouldbe the most important or the highest priority. While it seems true that the health, safety, andwelfare of the public should be high priorities for engineers, there are certain situations where itmay not be possible to hold both safety and welfare paramount at the same time. As it is worded,the code of ethics provides no guidance as to which should be given final priority in such cases.The concepts of health, safety, and welfare have been central to engineering ethics since 1935when a Society Code of Ethics was first suggested for consideration in the May issue of TheAmerican Engineer [14]. The suggested language, in this document, included health, safety, andwelfare as the second of a series of engineering ethical principles, stating, “B. (1
study of EDI-relatedstudent experiences and perspectives from both the dominant and minority groups in MechanicalEngineering.Purpose/Hypothesis – This paper aims to help enhance institutional EDI efforts by identifyingthe role of adults and peers in the engineering students’ experiences of exclusion and inclusion.Three questions are posed: (1) What pre-university experiences create barriers to pursuingengineering? (2) What helped youth pursue and enter engineering programs? (3) In what ways dothe current engineering students experience inclusion or exclusion in their program?Design/Method – Thematic analysis and rhetorical analysis were applied to the studentinterview data collected in 2018, as part of a larger study on engineering design
, and the creationof an environment committed to inclusive excellence, will result in very strong student outcomes. 1INTRODUCTIONThe importance of community colleges to STEM education, and in particular to the education ofengineers, is a critical and increasingly studied strand within the higher education researchlandscape. More than twenty percent (20%) of all engineering baccalaureate students complete atleast 10 credits at a community college [1]. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of engineering graduatesattend community college at some point [2, 3]. Currently, more than 41% of all students in highereducation in the US are enrolled at a community
revisions to that institution through the radical lens oftheir queerness. Two participants left the STEM institution due to discrimination based on theirGRSM experiences, whereas the other two are still embedded in engineering environments. Eachparticipant describes their experiences with power and privilege with regard to theirsubjectivities and those of their superiors, as well as reimagine the STEM institution through thebeginnings of a revolutionary Queer praxis (or, theory into practice).IntroductionHistorically, the STEM institution gained traction during World War II when the United Stateswas in need of engineering and weapons research in order to establish itself as a global power[1]–[4]. This capitalistic history of STEM is still present
in collaborative research between engineering education scholars and social scientists that focuses on the processes through which inequalities are enacted, reproduced, and/or challenged in various educational contexts. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021An Analysis of Gendered Outreach Messages on the Engineer Girl Website:How Female Engineers Promote Engineering to Young WomenIntroductionWomen’s underrepresentation in engineering in the United States has been an ongoing area ofconcern to engineering educators and administrators [1], [2]. Despite the fact that women nowearn more undergraduate degrees than men, and girls now perform as well as boys in
increasing the creativity and effectiveness of engineeringteams [1], yet can have an adverse effect when these viewpoints result in negatively imposedbiases. Unconscious bias (or implicit bias) can be defined as “a prejudice in favor of or againstone thing, person, or group compared with another usually in a way that’s considered to beunfair. Biases may be held by an individual, group, or institution and can have negative orpositive consequences” [2]. Unconscious bias is pervasive and affects our decisions, even whenwe think we are operating objectively. Yet because of identity-protective cognition, engineerswho are immersed in a culture of objectivity often pride themselves on only looking at facts, andcan have strong emotional reactions and
by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET),which, in its most recent manifestation, cunningly integrates societal context and professionalskills throughout its technical objectives. The new ABET Student Outcomes 1-7 renderengineering programs unable to decouple technical skills from what are commonly (and oftendisdainfully) referred to as “soft skills.” Our program, and specifically the course discussed inthis study, embrace the integration of the liberal arts into engineering and purposefully frametechnical engineering content by its broader social context, as well as take a humanisticapproach to engineering by orienting the core of our program around social justice [1, 2].Much of the literature tying engineering
all.However, faculty can and do influence the climate of the department and achievement ofstudents through choosing to implement evidence-based teaching practices like active learningand inclusive teaching [1], and having a growth mindset in relation to the abilities of students [2].It is also possible, for example, that the local climate in our department could cause students ofcolor to be driven from STEM [3], or that a chilly climate could have a disproportionate impacton female students [4].Over the course of the last several months, our department, college, and university have begun tocreate institutional structures to support these efforts. There is a new Associate Dean forDiversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) at the college level, and at the
more likely to endorse the NEP.Introduction Broadening participation and making higher education more inclusive is a nationalimperative, especially within engineering education. Many attempts have been made in recentdecades to make engineering education more inclusive [1]. However, even with these efforts thefull participation of traditionally marginalized students in engineering has yet to be achieved [2].A necessary step towards this goal is changing prevailing beliefs and practices about whobelongs in engineering. To create this change, though, we need a better understanding of how thestructures and practices of engineering are often grounded in the worldview of the dominant,White culture, which marginalizes non-dominant communities
enactment of liberatory pedagogy is discussed through the perspectives of JEDIalumni.2. Literature ReviewThis section includes a review of literature focused efforts that seek to improve the experiencesof marginalized undergraduate engineering students or support them in creating change in theirlocal university or community context.2.1. Student Support ProgramsPrevious scholarship indicates that interventions offered by diversity engineering programs(DEPs) and minority engineering programs (MEPs) can improve marginalized students’undergraduate experience [1]. In particular, both faculty and peer mentorship programs forhistorically oppressed students have been identified as powerful support mechanisms inundergraduate engineering education [2
scaffolded learning experiences related to anti-racism, inclusion, andequity (ARIE) for undergraduate students in an information technology program. This redesignis essential for equipping students with ARIE skills in engineering disciplines, as highlighted bythe Joint Statement issued by the American Society for Engineering Education and the EuropeanSociety for Engineering Education [1]. These skills are vital for fostering a more diverse andinclusive environment within the field of technology, enhancing students' ability to navigate andcontribute to diverse workplaces, and promoting social responsibility and ethical leadership. Wepropose a synergistic redesign that integrates ARIE topics with the influence of role modelswithin the course framework
culturally relevant approaches could make adifference in the academic performance and future of the minoritized student college population.IntroductionEducational experiences in rigorous engineering programs are deeply influential on a student’slived experience and future in terms of identity, sense of purpose, and professional opportunities.Students experience engineering programs in several ways; one is to reward those who can scoregood enough grades in prescribed coursework thus proceeding in the program and the other wayreflects those who experience programs that support creative and innovative problem-solving.The author in [1] described the issues engineering programs face concerning the retention andgraduation of at-risk engineering students
, we would update thiswith our fuller list of audio narratives to date and make the focus of the paper more on the audionarratives, engaging faculty, and offering guidance and food for thought to researchers. We willalso explore iPad and other digital ways of presenting the interactivity so that those withoutsmart phones at the session can engage as well. Figure 1: Example poster from 2022 NSFExample audio narrative:This is an example audio narrative created for the project. A video like this would be pulled upwhen participants scan the QR code.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuzMpJ30zg4&list=PLGtUPyPaSQBb1oiZzdtYybIlP-DNi8E0F&ab_channel=AudioforInclusion Figure 2: Example YouTube Clip
engineering faculty members’ values as it relates tograduate education. By exploring faculty readiness we will uncover barriers that must beconsidered before addressing equity work in a local context. 1. Introduction There is a growing awareness of the inequities that are embedded within graduateeducation in engineering. For instance, it is well documented that women are less likely to earnengineering graduate degrees than men, along with being slightly less likely to receive federalsupport to fund their education [1]. In 2022, at the doctoral level, 26.2% of engineering doctoralstudents were women, despite making up 50.4% of the United States population [2], [3].Additionally, Black and Hispanic Americans made up 3.9% and 7.5% of
-generation category. Weanalyzed survey responses assessing sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and institutionalsupport. The survey explores three dimensions: 1) general belonging, 2) belonging ineducational interactions, and 3) self-efficacy, each with eight items. The survey coversvarious aspects of the institution's student services, including psychological support,academic planning, tutoring, health and well-being services, sports, and supplementary areaslike leadership, diversity, gender, and participatory meetings. It totals 29 items. Respondentsexpressed their views using a 5-point Likert scale, from "strongly agree" to "stronglydisagree." Our findings reveal that all surveyed students exhibit a strong sense of belonging(both in general and
institutions andstakeholders by providing them with strategies that could help motivate students and contributeto their academic success.Keywords: Academic Performance, Academic Success, Higher Education, Lack of Motivation,Retention, STEM Education, Students’ MotivationBackground and MotivationLow enrollment, inadequate academic performance, slow graduation rates, prolonged time-to-degree, poor retention rates, and high attrition among Science, Technology, Engineering, andMathematics (STEM) students are critical concerns for higher education institutions [1], [2], [3],[4], [5]. Furthermore, the need for STEM graduates is consistently rising at a relatively fast rate[6]. Consequently, promoting greater interest and engagement, fostering diversity