Paper ID #43142Board 115: Examining Engineering Students’ Gender and Racial Effects inCollege Course Team Peer Assessment: A Quantitative Intersectional ApproachMiss Xiaping Li, University of Michigan Xiaping Li is a Ph.D. candidate in Engineering Education Research at the University of Michigan. Her research interests include faculty development and change, neurodiverse college student learning experiences and outcomes, international students in engineering, and cognitive sciences. She holds a B.S. in Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering and an M.S. in Geological Sciences.Dr. Robin Fowler, University of Michigan
thesis significantly transformed from these reciprocities. Writinggroups such as these have been shown to create a “community of discursive social practice” thatsupports peer learning and peer review (Maher et al., 2008, p. 263). Through this process ofcollective learning via dialogue and relationships, I explored and built on greater complexitiesand theories in my final thesis than I would have been able to achieve as an individual. But itwent beyond the theories, I also gained confidence in being able to do this paradigm shiftingwork with others—in knowing that, regardless of the pushback and the number of uphill battles Ihad to fight, that I wasn’t alone in this work.And an amazing thing happened: I began to learn through writing. I never
questions to see what kinds of disabilities you want to include in your research. What populations of students do you want to investigate? What circumstances? 3. Disabled people are often asked to do work for less compensation than their able-bodied peers (e.g. there is a lower minimum wage for workers with disabilities [61]). Compensate your participants. If you don’t have funding to pay participants, what other ways can you engage in reciprocity with them? Can you help them change some institutional structures? Can you write them letters of recommendation? There are many ways to show participants you value their time and energy. 4. Many disabled students have negative experiences talking to faculty about
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
,these processes are determined by external processes, i.e. environmental and behavioralinfluences, such as the learning climate (the environmental factors), and encouragementfrom a teacher or peer and positive outcomes from previous learning (the socialconversion factors); and third these three processes are reciprocal. Reciprocality does notequal symmetrical or bidirectional influences. Rather, it stresses: (1) one can use personalprocesses to ‘strategically regulate behavior and the immediate learning environment’,where the feedback can in turn influence the person’s covert process[14]; (2) theinfluences of externally social experiences and environments are important to internallypersonal processes[15]; and (3) ‘Behavior is, therefore, a
, 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
about us without us. Havingneurodivergent and neurotypical researchers collaborating on work focusing on neurodivergencehas been an exciting and effective way to explore our biases and subjectivities.Literature ReviewThere is a shortage of thorough research on the implications of neurodiversity in highereducation; however, research is fertile on the experiences of neurodivergent students in primaryand secondary school. Neurodivergent learners are often framed in unfavorable comparison totheir neurotypical peers, e.g., they struggle to focus in class, keep their possessions organized,follow instructions, and develop proficient writing skills related to their neurotypical peers [4].Of course, not all people who identify as neurodivergent learners
disagreed nor agreed or strongly disagreed that theyhad a positive relationship with their research professor/mentor. Both ND and NT participantsresponded similarly to having laboratory peers who collaborate and support each other(Figure 3B). It is well documented that academia has an ableist problem; however, our dataindicate that ND students feel supported by their peers [4]. This is a very positive finding wheremost studies highlight the negative experiences of ND students [22].Figure 2: Research Demographics related to all participants (96 participants) separating outthe type of research conducted and whether the research was volunteer, credit-bearing, or paid.Neurodivergent participants had a larger percentage indicated strongly agree or agree
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
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
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 students maintain their focus in a professional developmentprogram such as LSAMP, (6) how students characterize and describe
? 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
Students; Engineering1 IntroductionStudents undergo various experiences during their college years that influence and shape theiridentities. Negative interactions within those experiences can affect the mental functioning andwellbeing of the students. These negative experiences result in high levels of distress that maynot be clearly visible to peers or faculty but can have significant impacts within their collegiatechoices. Available research indicates that approximately 50% of students display alarming levelsof stress, anxiety, and depression [1], [2]. This statistic is an indicator of a mental health crisisthat could be ravaging higher education institutions. Recent engineering education research(EER
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
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
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
present study, we explore the self-reportedsubjective experiences of four of the students (Table 1, one student declined to be interviewed),including how each saw their own contributions in the group discussion and the uncertainties thatthey wrestled with. Data sources include video of the in-class discussion and stimulated recallinterviews in which the students were shown clips of the video and asked questions like whatstood out to them about their group’s work on the task, to what extent they agreed with theirteammates’ ideas, and how comfortable and engaged they felt.Data analysis procedures included interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson, 1995) of therecorded discussion, with memo writing and discussion of the tentative findings in
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
underrepresentation of Black males is a persistentissue plaguing not only undergraduate programs but also the engineering profession as a whole,including those in faculty positions [10] [12].Many studies investigated the factors positively correlated with their academic persistence andsuccess to find a solution to the phenomenon of Black males’ underrepresentation in engineeringmentioned above. Research indicates that establishing an inclusive culture in the programenvironment that allows for adequate academic and social support networking is crucial to theirsuccess [11] [12] [13] [14]. Not surprisingly, various forms of mentoring, such as facultymentoring and peer mentoring, are found to generate a positive “vibe,” facilitating their sense ofbelonging and
) 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
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
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