several department-specific Comm Labs, 2)Brandeis’s centralized Comm Lab for their Division of Science, and 3) Rose-Hulman’sundergraduate-only centralized Comm Lab for students using a multidisciplinary, co-curricularspace. We then discuss these adaptations with a focus on how our different institutional profilesshape our Comm Lab design. Specifically, we draw connections between institutional data andthe disciplinary focus, scale, and institutional fit of each Comm Lab. We conclude by sharingdata about the Comm Labs’ success, reflecting on the importance of continued data collection,and considering the value of cross-institutional collaboration. Our conclusion reflects both thelimitations of our study and the need for ongoing research. These
grapplingof personal identity and existence in society.The acknowledgment and processing of these perspectives will be explored below using aframework of researcher racial and cultural positionality [4]. This framework will assist inpresenting the “seen, unseen, and unforeseen” [4] by beginning to (1) research the self, (2)research the self in relation to others, (3) engage in reflection and representation, and (4) shiftfrom self to system. By exploring these facets of our own personal perspective or positionality,we can begin to more adequately investigate the phenomenon of interest involving individualswith different life experiences than our own.Thoughts of Positionality from a Qualitative ResearcherA key practice that was established early in my
asupplement to more important learning. The course design outlined below reflects our bestattempts to use the lens of disability students to show STEM and the liberal arts as organic,essential, and generative partners.Course background and overviewAs an academic field, Disability Studies solidified in the 1990s alongside a social model ofdisability that rejected biological definitions of “normal” bodies and medical perspectives thatidentified disabilities as problems to be fixed. As a result, the study of disability fractured, oftenhighlighting conflicts between academic and professional interests4. At its foundation, the goal ofour Introduction to Disability Studies course is to bridge the chasm between theories andresearch in disability studies and
and texts as resulting from typified behaviors, knowledge, and actions of agiven community of practice: “[T]o write, to engage in any communication is to participate in acommunity; to write well is to understand the conditions of one’s own participation with thatcommunity and determine the success or failure of communication”11. As such, genres reflect thevalue systems of individual organizations (e.g., a stand alone business) and also large scalecommunities (e.g., engineers). Being a proficient writer means becoming intimatelyknowledgeable of the conditions of participation in a given community of practice. According toJames Dubinsky, “our work [as professors] involves more than teaching our students strategies orforms; it also
patience & endurance Earth (Below) Do no harm to the Earth and all creatures Table 1. The Four Directions and Brief Descriptions of the Characteristics associated with the Lakota Medicine WheelMorally Deep Design MethodologyAn engineering design algorithm based on a morally deep world view has been offeredpreviously by the author.7 The design algorithm is based on the following four steps: • Via Positiva. The problem is identified, fully accepted and broken down into its various components using the vast array of creative and critical thinking techniques which engineers possess. What is to be solved? For whom is it to be solved? • Via Negativa. Reflection on
, our primary research question was: is the Comm Lab succeeding inimproving clients’ work according to our own metrics of success? I.e., do sessions bring clientscloser to our standards for a given communication task, which are informed by both rhetoricalprinciples and real-world field standards? To do so, we designed a quantitative, rubric-based,pre-post evaluation of authentic writing products: drafts for graduate school and graduatefellowship applications, assessed by authentic evaluators -- a team of our own peer coaches. Inorder to build a broader picture of the client’s analytical and reflective experience, wecomplemented the quantitative core of the study by collecting qualitative reflections about thecontent of the coaching session
games and choose your own adventure books is that once youplay or read them, you can enjoy a new story by selecting different options the second time.Stories allow individuals to ‘borrow’ the experiences of others as they discover the implicationsof new ideas or move through the stages of organizational socialization [19]. This is notrestricted to formal organizations, stories in social movements are how we understand the impactof the movement on the “mainstream” [20].It is important to note that these stories are not powerful because they are new, but because theyhave been discovered by someone who can see their relevance. Stories can be discoveredthrough reflecting on one’s own experience, through encountering others who share anexperience
other times one-on-oneinterviews were possible. All interviews were recorded and transcribed, with data codingunderway through Nvivo.Analysis and Coding of Project DocumentsEWB-USA shared all project documents they have collected with our team (over 6000 documentsrepresenting approximately 500-600 projects). University of Wisconsin-Stout student researchassistants cataloged these files–noting the type of chapter (professional or student) and thechapter’s location, the type of project, the documents that existed, and the dates the documentscovered. From there, we carefully chose thirty projects to reflect a variety of project types, EWBchapters, and geographic areas. We chose a mixture of water, sanitation, and other infrastructureprojects in
critical reflection is a reasonable approximation of evaluation given the moremodest goal of this research—to serve as an example of how computer science researchers andeducators could integrate justice-centered approaches within an undergraduate curriculum.Given these methods, this research makes no claims about how students or faculty receive thecourse plan. Future evaluations would be largely qualitative, surveying students’ capacitybuilding and reception of the course through interviewing.4. Course DesignTitled “Power, Equity, and Praxis in Computing” (PEPC), the course plan is discussed throughthree facets: the course’s purpose, its content, and its (intended) learning environment. Thepurpose of the course is to make space for undergraduate
, arguing that the education system and cultural capital reflect the norms ofprivileged racial and ethnic groups [12]. Thus, students within the education system are expectedto know and operate within this set of cultural norms. However, students from different class,race, or ethnic backgrounds are less likely to know these cultures, and therefore operate at adisadvantage within education settings, such as “predominantly White universities [that]typically reflect White, male, middle-class perspectives” ([12], p. 95). As Dumais [13] explains,these students: might not be viewed as favorable by teachers, they might not understand materials or assignments that were based on the dominant culture, and they might opt out of education
inclusion (D&I) within professional formation inECE. We identified three tensions (push/pull dynamics of contradictions) that emerged from theparticipants’ experiences in the design sessions [10]. We conclude by discussing our emerginginsights into the effectiveness of design thinking toward cultural change efforts in engineering.BackgroundThe Evolution of Engineering CulturesTo enact organizational culture change, an understanding of the organization’s cultural valuesand norms is critical. Particularly within engineering contexts, Godfrey and Parker cautioned that“if the espoused values inherent in any proposed change did not reflect enacted values at an“operational level,” change would be difficult to sustain” [8, p. 19]. That is, any change
rectangles are desks on which computers are placed. (b) is a design ofa panopticon conceptualized by Jeremy Bentham [20].Liberative [1], [16] or engaged [21] pedagogies seek shifting of power in and outside theclassroom. The student is trusted as an equal partner in the process of learning and teaching. Thestudent experiences are valued. The responsibility of education is shared between the studentsand the instructor. The instructor facilitates learning of (individual) and among (peer) students.The shared goal is that of liberation in the sense of equity and social justice. Liberation is soughtthrough “praxis” [1] (reflective action that affects constructive changes in the world). In thisway, education becomes “practice of freedom” [21]. Practicing
, become inherently about social justice.Interestingly, this separation of institutional locations where engineering science and research areallowed to live (and not to live) is reflected in NSF’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates(REU) program. Of the 640 REU sites currently listed, only 4 include community colleges(nsf.gov).The processes and people involved in this definition also influenced what went in theengineering curriculum and what stayed out. For example, Rolston and Cox argue that by takingthe “mind out of the shop” and into the university, engineering educators throughout the 20thcentury recreated a class division with significant social justice dimensions: “The shift in focus of engineering training from the job
reinforced a meritocracy ideology within the profession. Cech argues that, inorder to accommodate social justice education, that a “cultural space” must be created withinengineering by addressing depoliticization and meritocracy.In a discussion on diversity in engineering, Riley notes that engineering’s lack of significantdiversity may be reflective of fundamental issues within the profession rather than theavailability and use of effective recruitment and retention tools; Lucena [8] has raised this issueas well. Concerns about diversity may at first appear to be political rather than technical innature. Downey et al. [9] has argued that in a global world, engineers need to be able to workwell with people who think differently, and diversity within
practices and the differentinfrastructures of educational technologies we tend to use in response to these various oppressive-isms.The presentations we took account of during the virtual conference offered robust contributionsof scalable scholarship that address, albeit in a different context, Michael Mascarenas’sprovocation in “White Space and Dark Matter: Prying Open the Black Box of STS.”[7] Reflectingon Sheila Jasanoff’s plenary address for “Where has STS Traveled,” the forty-yearcommemoration of the inaugural meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S) atCornell University, Mascarenas encourages us to “interrogate the society’s contribution to socialpolicy or enduring social problems... our collective need for reflection and
ofthe course, gender, and the instructor’s personal encouragement of the students to engage insocial activism. Philosophy and religion courses were the most commonly cited types of HSScourses mentioned by students, with religion courses being almost entirely from students at thefive religiously affiliated schools.Other course types that were seen in student responses included senior design (10% of seniors)and first-year introductory and engineering projects courses (10% of total, 22% of first-years).Very few students referenced math or natural science courses as having been influential to theirviews of social responsibility (2%). A small percentage of students also responded that all oftheir courses had been influential (2%).Reflecting on the
engineer’s identity(Anderson, Courter, McGlamery, Nathans-Kelly & Nicometo, 2010). Problem solving ability isheavily emphasized in engineering education. However, engineering education has beencriticized for emphasizing problems that may reflect students’ ability to work with formulatedand represented problems, but that do not resemble the types of problems students will encounteras professional engineers.However, despite engineering educators’ efforts to align the school and work contexts, scholarshave noted that there is a scarcity of systematic analyses of engineering work (Trevelyan & Till2007, Stevens, Johri & O’Connor 2013). Moreover, Trevelyan (2010) pointed out thatengineering education operates on a model of engineering as
communication skills. These conversations led to a better understanding of what studentsneeded to master in each course as they advanced through the curriculum, which then providedinsight into ways the GTAs could help their students achieve these learning goals. The team alsodeveloped a comprehensive lab report guidelines document for use in all three courses. Theguidelines provided information on formatting, composing the type of content expected in eachsection of the report, and creating figures and tables, as well as other technical writing tips. Theteam also created a rubric, mapped to the guidelines, to help bring consistency to grading. Whilejust one set of guidelines applied for all the labs, the rubric could be customized to reflect
other common experiences that link thestudents to the phenomenon being studied. Thus, we theorize that the discussions of empathypresented in this study directly reflect the phenomenon of empathy as it is developed, interpreted,and experienced in the unique context of engineering education by engineering students.From a social constructionist perspective, meaning is developed and conveyed throughlanguage27. Thus, in this study, we pay particular attention to language as a lens to explore thephenomenon of empathy in the social world of engineering students. As such, this study focuseson using qualitative interview data to provide a lens into the students’ social world. Oneimplication of this focus was that we did not provide an explicit
survey of engineering deans4 This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (grant 1539140; PI: StephanieFarrell; Co-PIs: Rocio Chavela Guerra, Erin Cech, Tom Waidzunas, and Adrienne Minerick). Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.and program directors in fall 2015 produced a list of eight deans willing to allow the survey to beadministered in their programs (see [25] for details). To protect confidentiality, I do not providethe names of the schools included in the study. Given that an institution’s participation in thestudy was determined by deans who were supportive of
documented stressors for engineering undergraduates [8, 18], theassociation of stress as part of engineering culture and how stress becomes normalized inengineering programs is understudied.The preliminary interview results suggest that engineering students are undereducated in terms ofmental health and available individual and institutional resources. Specifically, some participantscould not identify mental health and academic counseling resources readily available in theirengineering programs, suggesting a lack of accessibility. Participant responses also suggeststudents possess broad conceptualizations of stress, anxiety, and depression, as well as the effectsof each. Conceptualizations were nuanced and reflective of clinical definitions of these
stand behind morals and ethics (n=2) • You must take into consideration all who might be effected by your work (n=2)From these responses we can see that some students were less influenced by the course when itcame to changing their outlook. It is unclear whether the lack of influence reflects that somestudents came into the course already sharing the viewpoint presented and their views did notchange for that reason or whether some inherently disagreed with the notions communicated inthis course and the course did not change their minds. These results may also indicate that greaterrepetition of these messages is necessary before the ideas take hold and they begin to mold moreclosely held beliefs such as their world views. Some examples of
. Itrecommended courses based on their relevance to the practice of global engineering, but itoffered no context within which students had to reflect seriously on global engineering itself.Consequently, students did not connect their coursework to global engineering and to theiridentity as engineers.Besides suffering a lack of focus, the GEC suffered a severe identity crisis, in that students,faculty, and staff repeatedly confused it with the IEC. There was no obvious difference betweenthe terms “International” and “Global.” The contrast was further blurred with the opening of anew Global Engineering Residential Academic Program, since it highlighted the importance ofworld language acquisition by engineers, rather than professional skills for
CxCprogram for students as well as to the satisfaction of all stakeholders, that we have exploredusing focus groups, a qualitative assessment method, somewhat atypical in the engineeringcommunity. At this stage in CxC’s development we opted for focus groups because we believedthat a more in-depth and open-ended approach to assessment lends itself to expanding ourcomprehensive reflection of the program to-date. More to the point, we were curious about theunique experiences of our students and wanted to know how they compared to previousassessments we’d performed about CxC.Key Findings of Previous AssessmentsFrom the beginning of the CxC program in the College of Engineering, faculty and CxC staffhave sought feedback on how to effectively implement
pedagogical benefits as wellas assessment and research data. Further, we extend the use of the concept maps themselves byincorporating participants’ written explanations of their post-course maps. Research on writing tolearn (WTL) suggests that such reflective practice can help deepen students’ conceptualunderstanding [14-16]; these written explanations, like the concept maps themselves, thus bothsupport student learning and enrich the data set.MethodsAs noted above, to assess graduate students’ understanding of both disciplinary concepts andconnections across disciplines, we use pre- and post-concept maps, administered at the beginningand end of the semester in the 3-hour course. Ethnographic field notes from both coursescomplement and contextualize
skills they had gained from their undergraduate experiences,and how prepared they felt to enter their jobs. Second, participants responded to weekly open-ended journal prompts in which they unpacked a significant challenge, accomplishment, orrealization. Questions were designed to ask participants to describe the specific event, theinvolvement of others, and their perceived learning as a result of the event. Third, participantswere interviewed at the end of the twelve-week journaling period. The interviews were againsemi-structured and designed to bring closure to the experience. During the third phase,interview questions focused on participant reflections of their experience in the school-to-worktransition and also provided space for them to
issues, through conversation, sharing, and inquiry [10]. The participants in this study acted as coresearchers who thoughtfully reflected on their own experiences in navigating and completing at least one STEM degree and working in STEM related areas. There are many approaches to using narrative in research, but a personal narrative, can also be considered autoethnography. Narrative in research is generally focused on producing some version of text, whether spoken or written, to represent the sole data source for another party to evaluate and assess the meaning. Autoethnography, however, prompts the narrator to do the work of connecting their own story to theory, in order to explain a larger social reality. In this study, the narrative
conditions and more restrictedmobility than their white, male, Canadian educated counterparts.23, 24 Her study providesimportant evidence to support the claim that engineers’ career mobility and workingconditions reflect existing socio-political disparities in the province.Our literature review highlights three critical dimensions of engineering career pathresearch. First, administrative decisions do not reflect the full range of human experience.In more concrete terms, we cannot assume that engineers’ lived realities will conform tothe dual track model proposed by human resource managers. Second, not all career pathsare made equal. It behooves us, as critical engineering education researchers, to examinethe full range of mobility patterns, working
wherein students engaged in a group of three to four members in anill-structured design project. We address one research question in this study: (1) “In what waysdoes empathy manifest with/for team members in a junior-level biomedical engineering designcourse based on post-course interview reflections?” We hope that this investigation will facilitatefuture work that can help instructors promote empathy in teams, help researchers identify how to“see” empathy’s manifestation in teaming contexts through qualitative data, and to help theengineering education community better understand the design outcomes that empathic teamstend to produce.Literature ReviewIn this literature review section, we address the question, “What is empathy?” We approach
undergraduate engineering students perform in an ambassador role. From this point, ourprimary strategy was to conduct an online search of university websites of ABET accreditedengineering programs. This search yielded information about 102 ambassador-type outreachprograms2. The points of contact for all of the programs were then sent an invitation to completea short survey describing the focus, composition, and core features of their program (AppendixA). Thirty programs reflecting universities in the north, mid-Atlantic, south, mid-west, south-west and north-west of the United States responded to this survey. From this group,representatives of 18 programs attended either one of two in-person workshops or an online1 Please contact Dr. Joanna K