improve the field’s diversity, adaptability, and competitiveness, the Year of Impact on Racial Equity is focused on creating organizational change to address the culture, policies, and racial and ethnic representation within engineering student organizations, colleges of engineering, and pre-college outreach efforts. These 12 months will move us beyond action to focus on the impact of the actions we take. We expect that actions in these domains will result in three concrete forms of impact: (1) empowered engineering student organizations, which will make engineering education more inclusive at the level of peer-to-peer interactions; (2) actionable organizational policies and effective practices
students.BackgroundIt is well established that teaching undergraduate students, particularly engineering students, howto work in teams is important [7], [8], difficult [9], and worth doing because students canimprove [10]. Teamwork assessment tools like CATME (a web-based peer evaluation tool foundat catme.org) can help instructors identify teaming problems amongst students [11], [12].Challenges remain, however, for instructors of large courses who want to address such problemsin getting enough of the right kind of information to effectively intervene to help studentsimprove their teamwork skills, and then knowing how best to coach teams exhibiting evidence ofdysfunction.Researchers have established the outsized burden that minoritized teammates carry
exclusionary learning environments and curricula, lack of facultymentorship and role models, and lack of a supportive peer group (see [4]-[6] research findings onthese topics). For these reasons, there is a steep decline in the number of Black and Hispanicstudents graduating with a STEM degree from Baccalaureate institutions [7]. Classroom culture is shown to have a significant impact on the success of Black andHispanic students in higher education and in STEM in particular. Specifically, when Black andHispanic students feel like they have learning and supportive spaces to develop their STEMidentities, they are more likely than their peers who do not have access to such spaces toacademic persist in the STEM field [8]. However, Black and
, students are subject to widely held human psychologicalneeds: the desire for esteem and recognition in the eyes of their instructor and peers, and the evenstronger influence of their fears of negative evaluation. Grades provide a standardized andstructural means of providing this recognition or judgment. All too often, instructors use gradesas one of the sole means to give students feedback, without attention to coaching and other formsof feedback not tied to the “carrot” or the “stick” of a specific grade.As grades represent a point of continuous and structurally endorsed feedback for students, themessaging sent by the grade that students receive can overwrite their own self-concept, i.e.whether they are good at the subject matter or have the
heightened risk ofreceiving disconfirming messages regarding whether they belong in academic spaces.In response to these inequities in students’ teamwork experiences and to create a more inclusiveclassroom, in a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) approach [13], we began collectingstudent information throughout a team-based design project to better understand potentiallyfraught experiences (e.g., to what extent did you feel your ideas were heard and taken seriouslyin the team meeting?) as well as relating that information to more typical peer and self-assessments.Recognizing that power is unevenly distributed within teams, and wanting to forward a moresocially just classroom, we added critical readings highlighting ways that power and
were loaded into Dedoose qualitative software; we applied open coding,selective coding, and theoretical coding [20], [21] to analyze the data. Throughout this process,memo-writing was used to identify emergent themes and explicate findings [22], [23]. Thecoding scheme includes the following parent codes: unified voice, group agency, organizational 3character, emotional investment, interpersonal rapport, and role of the RED consortium. For thepurpose of this paper, we focus primarily on unified voice and group agency, taking intoconsideration where and when codes within these two categories intersect with codes within theother categories as well as
understanding Clean Water Access in the US.In the Analyze section, the students determined what sort of calculations, including economic, andvisuals were need to tell the story of Clean Water Access and present the data. By the end of theEngage and Analyze sections, students’ goal was to ensure that other readers could understandconflicting sides of the issue in the report.For the Reflect section, students were asked to write individual reflections on what they hadlearned in the Engage and Analyze sections. Here they answered the following questions. “Whatare your opinions about the issues?” “How did your opinions change while doing the assignmentand discussions compared to what you thought or knew about the topic before the project?” “Isthere a
take away from this module), instructional strategy (the in-class activities forEJ Week), and forms of assessment (the homework assignment and project deliverable associatedwith the module’s learning objectives). In exchange for their increased educational labor comparedto the rest of the course, students who self-select to take part in the cogen would be able to dropone homework assignment from their final grade. Ultimately, four students—Danielle Gan, Patrick Paul, Justyn Welsh, and Thomas Pauly—offered to take part in the EJ cogen, writing to Anna about their prior experience with leadingclimate discussions. Danielle, a young woman of color pursuing a minor in global environmentalchange, had taken numerous courses about environmental
? Concepts Question 2: What do you think about the examples Effectiveness of Peer Collaboration and solved in class collectively as group? Engagement Question 3: What is your opinion on the instructor Increased Understanding and Confidence using visual supplements when solving problems? Question 4: What do you think about the rigor of Embracing the Challenge and Valuing this course compared to others? Rigor Question 5: What did this class teach you about Increased Knowledge of Dynamic Nature Engineering? of EngineeringCollectively, the themes that emerged in the study provide insight into students’ experiences withthe approaches and technique implemented by the
by the National Science Foundation Award No. HRD-1911375Introduction In this study, we interviewed 33 mentors and minority protégés participating in the LouisStokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP) program in Science, Technology,Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) across four different universities within a statewideuniversity system, in the United States of America, to learn the following regarding mentoringrelationships for minority STEM students: (1) how students respond to ideas and projects, (2)how students conquer challenges and respond to setbacks, (3) how students set and pursue theiracademic goals, (4) how students describe their undergraduate research mentoring relationshipwith peers and professors, (5) how
major for her. In engineering, where the cultural perspective is that a stereotypical student is white and male, students often have the unconscious bias that gives white, male students the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are smart and experienced. Socially, Black and brown women are stereotyped as angry or loud. Jamie’s awareness of this stereotype makes her think twice about speaking up. Additionally, disciplinary power also makes her reconsider speaking up— engineering courses are built on teamwork. If she were to speak up and was not supported by her peers because they did not notice anything happening, and her professor mentioned that she should just learn to deal with team dynamics, she
relevant to the coursetopic but focus discussion on societal impact.Nevertheless, implementing social justice into courses and curriculum cannot be done in avacuum. The classroom climate can dictate whether these changes will be successful or not.There are some strategies that can help in cultivating the environment necessary for productiveengagement with social justice concepts. Inclusive teaching practices can set the tone forconversations about ARDEI in the classroom. Incorporating strategies such as Universal Designfor Learning (UDL), diverse perspectives and course materials, and peer learning activities helpmake the classroom climate accessible to all learners [24]. In addition, having instructorsreflecting on their own identities and biases
that uses systematic but flexible guidelines to collect data often through interviews or theanalysis of texts. The researcher then analyzes data through coding and memo-writing. The goalof this method is to develop theories or provide new insights into social phenomena.Constructivist grounded theory recognizes that multiple perspectives and social realities existand promotes ongoing analysis and an openness to emerging ideas. Charmaz’s method alsoacknowledges that the researcher plays an active role in the research. As she explains, the resultsmust be firmly grounded in the data, however, the researcher and the research participants arenot external to the process. For example, researchers determine which questions to ask ofrespondents or which
spacesParticipants discussed experiencing exclusionary and harmful encounters and practices in STEMhigher education and entrepreneurial spaces. Dr. Wu noted, “As a woman, as a minority, there'salways so many different challenges that's there. It's always there, it’s always there.” One ofthese challenges was not having access to supportive interpersonal relationships in theiruniversities and academic departments. Dr. J remarked, “I came to [university] recognizing that no one's going to help you, Dr. J, so you'd better write the papers, and you'd better write the proposal. That's exactly what I did, I wrote the papers. I wrote the proposals. I was the PI. I was the first author on most of my papers. People were not saying, "Oh Dr. J
) 5. Synthesize and Integrate the Best Evidence into a Joint Position: The four members of the group drop all advocacy to synthesize and integrate what they learned. Each group creates a synthesis of what is now known; our experience is that they do not have difficulty with this, possibly because of the dual perspectives they have taken. They summarize a joint position to which both sides agreed. Subsequently, they (a) prepare a cooperative report with each member of the group selecting a topic supporting the synthesis and writing a paragraph supported by the research; (b) combine their paragraphs into a single paper and refine the flow of the paper; (c) present their conclusions to the class
, participants learn about and gain access to resources that are explicitly DEI-related: they mobilize resources to advance equity at the institutional level as an outcome of theprojects and collaborate on additional projects to embed DEI into the process of change-makingitself, starting from the initial stages of writing a proposal. Secondly, the way participants engagewith each other, and approach change goals puts equity and inclusion into practice: participantsidentify and tackle structural barriers to change through DEI-aligned behaviors, from addressinghow institutional circumstances create resistance to DEI, to developing a shared vision forsystemic change that is inclusive and collaborative.IntroductionWe draw on resource mobilization theory and
universities.RedShirt programs are one example of this type of asset-based student support program aimed atbroadening participation in engineering for students from minoritized racial or ethnic backgrounds orfrom under-resourced high schools and geographic regions (Myers et al., 2018). RedShirt programsprovide an alternative admissions pathway for students who do not meet traditional admissions criteriafor highly selective engineering colleges, but still have the desire and potential to be an engineer.RedShirt programs focus on building strong peer networks and communities to support academicsuccess, communities that are initiated through required summer bridge experiences and reinforcedthrough “high-touch” advising, study sessions, and targeted coursework
. The ROLE program at the HSI supports engineeringsophomore, junior, and senior-level students in developing research skills needed in technicalfields; interpersonal skills needed to be successful employees; and academic and professionalskills that are transferable in their decisions to enter graduate studies or the professional world.ROLE students learn technical skills through hands-on activities in a laboratory setting; receivenear-peer and faculty mentorship from individuals with similar cultural and linguisticbackgrounds; attend culturally relevant workshops that support academic, interpersonal, andprofessional growth; and participate in outreach events within the local community and K-12school environments. This study will work
youth.Our project’s focus on strengthening belonging through the use of youth participatory actionresearch (YPAR) in technology-rich spaces to develop deliverables iteratively, cater to theserecommendations. As shown technology and makerspaces provide opportunities to create physical artifactsthat build personal connections with engineering and technology [10], [11], [12], [13]. Howeverthere have been unequitable uses of said spaces and resources for youth from underservedcommunities that place youth at a disadvantage compared to their more privileged peers [1],[14], [15], [16]. Therefore the use of YPAR in technology rich spaces, youth may use researchmethods to make sense of and address social problems impacting their communities [17
) feminism of their day, the Combahee River Collectivehighlighted intersectional politics and activism within a framework of solidarity. Through the1980s, writers such as Audre Lorde and Patricia Hill Collins highlighted the multitude of waysthat intersecting identities gave rise to unique, interlocking, and intersectional forms ofoppression [14], [15]. These writings brought intersectionality to the center of activist thought,challenging the previously single-issue politics of groups such as the civil rights movement, thegay/lesbian liberation movement, and second-wave feminism. Since its roots in activist politics and articulation by Crenshaw, intersectionality has madeits way into a wide array of disciplines. Packaged as a tenet in
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
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
]. Exercising her agency, Mariabella urged me (andthe group) to consider the displaced persons in the park as particular stakeholders in the design,with distinct needs and requirements. It led us to a distinctly different design space. Wedocumented this idea on the brainstorming paper in the moment. The group later took upMariabella’s idea by 1) including the displaced persons in the park amongst the differentpopulations we surveyed for the design, which led us to 2) focus our design efforts on seating inthe park. The structures of Mariabella’s and Ava’s peers could have constrained this suggestionthrough disagreement or challenge. As the people enacting the curriculum, the group leaders andI could have constrained Mariabella’s suggestion
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
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
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