Paper ID #34670Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) for Promoting Reflection in EngineeringEducation: Graduate Student PerceptionsDr. Ryan C. Campbell, Texas Tech University Having completed his Ph.D. through the University of Washington’s interdisciplinary Individual Ph.D. Program (see bit.ly/uwiphd), Dr. Campbell is now a Postdoctoral Research Associate at Texas Tech Uni- versity. He currently facilitates an interdisciplinary project entitled ”Developing Reflective Engineers through Artful Methods.” His scholarly interests include both teaching and research in engineering educa- tion, art in engineering, social justice
individual’s decision-making in the face of discrete moral or ethical quandaries. Yet,prior scholarship by Joseph Herkert [2] suggests there is a multi-layered set of ethical obligationsthat range for microethics––or individual decisions––to macroethics, which reflect theprofessional society’s values and ethical obligations. Macroethical dilemmas result in the“problem of many hands”, as described by van der Poel and Royakkers [3]. This brings to lightthe notion that individuals or even large organizations are not solely responsible for engineeringprocesses and uncertain outcomes. For it is clear that no individual or discrete organization hascomplete control and authority for the complex socio-technical innovation process from designto implementation
in this article.Dr. Marie Stettler Kleine’s research on humanitarian and integrated engineering programsinspired her reflection on how different forms of contextualization and the vocabulary used todescribe them signal different ways to best teach engineers. Her graduate training in science andtechnology studies and human-centered design prepared her to see that these forms ofcontextualization are much more nuanced than using particular language, but this varyinglanguage fundamentally changes the engineering pedagogy in practice. She continues tointerrogate why and how engineering educators learn from other disciplines to explicitlyprioritize contextualization.For Dr. Kari Zacharias, this project has been an opportunity to reflect on the
during an event designed to disrupt the educational enterprise [11]. TheCOVID-19 pandemic thus provides an opportunity to investigate dimensions of engineeringculture during a crisis, which can open new avenues for conversations about equity andaccessibility in engineering by identifying which aspects of culture are most and least amenableto change. In other words, disasters can help uncover ‘what really matters’ and potentially offer anew avenue for cultural change.This paper and its larger research project aim to capture student experiences and reflections, intheir own words, in order to understand how dimensions of engineering culture interacted withpractices in engineering education during COVID-19. This research project will then allow
understanding of global and societal contexts in orderto solve some of the grand challenges facing humanity. This task is made no less difficult by thenecessity of multidisciplinary teams, diverse stakeholders, and innovative communicationmethods in an increasingly complex world. This vision for a modern engineer is reflected in the2004 and 2005 National Academies publications of “The Engineer of 2020” [1] and “Educatingthe Engineer of 2020” [2]. For historical context, Figure 1 showcases the call for action assummarized in the Grinter Report of 1955 [3] to the call of action as summarized in the Engineerof 2020 reports of 2004 and 2005. Ultimately, all of these reports (starting in 1955) urged for amore well-rounded engineer. The Engineer of 2020
historical context using a variety of instructional modes and pedagogicalinnovations.This paper presents the experience of developing and teaching MMW for the first time in 2020 inthe midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. MMW was designed and co-taught by an interdisciplinaryfaculty teaching team from the departments of history, theology, and environmental science. As adesignated “Complex Problems” course, a type of first-year interdisciplinary Core course, MMWoffered 70 students the opportunity to satisfy BC’s Core requirements in Natural Science andHistory through three linked pedagogical components: lectures, labs, and reflection sessions. Ourgoal was to integrate engineering, the history of science and technology studies, and ethical andmoral modes of
, 2016). We use themetaphor of the soul to narrate our experiences in the field, a majority of which includeexperiences we shared being in the same engineering education PhD program. The metaphor ofthe soul serves as a vehicle to communicate our experiences, conceptions, hopes, fears, andaspirations. The soul is as much an idea felt, as it is a scholarship known through inquiry. Weexperienced this essence as it moved across individuals in our department, and believe it is feltfurther in the engineering education community. The soul fuels continuous evolution by creatingtension and using it as energy to find purpose in our work.IntentionOur intention is to share our experiences and prompt reflection from the engineering educationcommunity so that
educationresearch [13]. Figure 1 leverages this model to show how the engineering and labor theory ofchange fits into this study of engineering graduate students engaging in a strike. The modelconnects Mejia et al.’s critical consciousness model [17], which engages Freire’s principles ofcritical pedagogy [18], with Hassan’s model of learning-assessment interactions [19]. “Mejia etal.’s model is represented in the center of this model, showing relationships between theory,action, reflection, and concepts of scholarship, praxis, concientização, and liberation that resultfrom their overlap. Hassan’s model of learning-assessment interactions is overlaid, with theoverlap taking the form of reflection as an assessment method and action as a learning method”[13
inequities they sought to address.Freire characterized this as “false generosity”—as charity offered that does not empower, butinstead fosters dependency. While such aid may help individuals, it also sustains inequities [10].Addressing inequality in engineering education means interrogating the origins of inequalities.Efforts to unravel those systems requires the knowledge of decolonization and engaging indecolonizing methodologies [11]. This is important to reflect on because when organizationsenter a community, they often act in colonizing ways and extend oppressive systemsmasquerading as aid. Decolonizing methodologies center community knowledge and needs andforeground the community’s own purposes.Such work is effortful and time consuming, but
Core Curriculum cultivates social justice, civic life, perspective, andcivic engagement. It involves community-based learning with a social justice emphasis. Studentsare required to (i) engage in 16 hours of community-based learning experiences and (ii) performcritical reflection and evaluation of their experiences. A primary goal of the ELSJ requirement is“to foster a disciplined sensibility toward power and privilege, an understanding of the causes ofhuman suffering, and a sense of personal and civic responsibility for cultural change.”The specific learning objectives of an ELSJ class are as follows:• Recognize the benefits of life-long responsible citizenship and civic engagement in personal and professional activities (Civic Life
. While mostcreativity frameworks involve divergent thinking (concept generation), convergent thinking(iterating a prototype), as well as openness to idea exploration, and reflection, in practice andunder constraints most engineering projects focus disproportionately on the first two of these four.Useful interventions might find ways to increase students’ “openness to idea exploration” and“reflection” about design.Studies have shown that students’ creativity increases when risk taking is supported in theclassroom (Daly [65] again, citing others). Increasing incentives for students to take risks andexplore ideas, and providing an environment in which they feel safe doing so, could disrupt the“lockstep” “death march” and enhance creativity and free
Education from 2005 to 2016. Their “working definition considers interdisciplinaryinteractions as attempts to address real-world cases and problems by integrating heterogeneousknowledge bases and knowledge-making practices, whether these are gathered under theinstitutional cover of a discipline or not” and was adapted from (Krohn 2010). In the literaturethey reviewed, “the reported success factors include taking a system approach, employingreal-world problems as exemplars and tasks, involving reflective dialogue, and aspects ofinfrastructure and collaboration. Reported challenges address institutional barriers, complexity,and acquiring adequate levels of support.” The authors go on to report that “motivation behindinterdisciplinary education … is
espouse differentvalues reflected in their respective cultures [38] [39]. For example, where academic goalsemphasize student learning and development, industry goals are often driven by profitability,productivity, and benefits to the broader organization. Many students thus graduate withuncertainty about what working in an engineering organization is like [40]. Some mightextrapolate from real-world jobs, internships, or co-ops [41] [42], but not all students have accessto these opportunities, especially if they come from minoritized groups or have less social andcultural capital [43] [44]. Further, engineering education has been criticized for perpetuating a“culture of disengagement” [24] that privileges objectivity and, in the process
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
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
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
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
which has long dominated discussions around STEMdiversity.The pipeline metaphor has been the object of critique because it focuses on restricting valves(like math requirements) and on the patching of leaks in order to maintain a “neatly linear marchthrough set academic gatekeepers” [5]. This image not only reduces the complexity of STEMexperiences but leaves the “pipeline” itself—that is, the cultures of STEM—unseen andunchallenged. Lacking sociocultural context, it is “an ill-suited frame to understand STEMidentity formation, particularly for women and underrepresented minorities” [5], and it does notacknowledge that traditional scientific culture reflects learning styles associated with white men[6],[7]. Since identity is generally understood
collected data from multiple sources, including student work,faculty reflection logs, pre-/post-surveys, and student focus groups. Our project did not originallyintend to explore connections to engineering identity formation in students or professionalpractice. However, while analyzing the student focus group data, we observed that engineeringidentity was impacting students’ responses in unexpected ways. Thus, this paper aims to answerthe following research question: How are students’ conceptions of engineering identity linked to their perceptions of sociotechnical thinking?BackgroundSociotechnical integration in engineering educationMultiple studies of engineering practice have underlined the necessity of integrating social
-related design processes and factors.Keywords: Engineering Education, Civil Engineering Design, Human-Centred Designing,Priming, Empathy, Social Consciousness, Personal Values, Engineering ValuesIntroductionMany have discussed the technocentric engineering curricula [1] – [5], that tend tomarginalise [3] and devalue [6],[7], the less technical and more ‘socially-involved’ aspects ofengineering, and have thus stood with Cech’s [2] call for the integration of public welfareconcern and social consciousness in engineering curricula.An aligning call/prompt for the integration of empathic [8] – [10], compassionate [11],‘socially-just’ [12],[13], and/or human-centred designing [14] – [18] in engineering curriculahave also risen. This is reflected in
responsibilities as anengineer, what role you have occurring there,” [6, p. 177]. This seems very reflective of the moralitiesderived from professional roles discussed in Smith et al. [7], and helps further indicate a necessity forincluding role ethics and CSR as part of engineering ethics curriculum. Teaching CSR to engineering students acknowledges that professional engineers practice ethicswithin a larger societal and corporate framework with distinct roles that can affect ethical action thatengineers can pursue [7]. CSR itself has many weaknesses, and has been accused of having little influenceon daily corporate practices [22], [23], has not been fully internalized by many corporations [24], and is notclearly linked to engineering [15]. In
evaluate departmental need for a targeted approached toward certain groups toimprove overall student wellness.AcknowledgmentsA grant from the National Science Foundation Number #1738186 supported this study. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendation expressed in this material are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Theauthors thank Jeanne Sanders for providing feedback on the paper. The authors thank thestudents for participating in the survey.References[1] E. Godfrey and L. Parker, "Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering education," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, pp. 5-22, 2010.[2] R. Stevens, D. Amos, A. Jocuns, and L. Garrison, "Engineering
characteristicsof engineers in the future. Writing in the year of 2020, when engineering education yet againfaces looming paradigm shift driven in part by a global pandemic and major powers’ adjustmentin attitudes and strategies to globalization, we attempt to reassess visions of “engineers for thefuture,” as reflected through policy discourses in the United States and China, two major playersin global engineering education. For this purpose, we present a careful reading of recent policydocuments published by the US National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the ChineseMinistry of Education (MoE).The NAE (2018) report Understanding the Educational and Career Pathways of Engineersresulted from a study commissioned by the Academy to “understand
the possibilities that surround me, and along with them…beauty.Circling a new role, now not who I am but what I do, yet more than that.A minister, literally, to be a servant, one who serves, reflecting my values unveiled and embraced.Circling fluidly between identities and roles grounded in who I am, a leader, a husband, a father, a teacher, a student, still…a servant.My eyes gazing outward, not on a goal nor an identity, external or internal, but anchored to a purpose found within myself yet beyond myself, to live for others, to serve humanity, particularly the “least of these.”Crashing into labels and stereotypes, Slowly circling, while negotiating the
, several ofour middle years major-required courses, and a new third-year course designed for students whoexpect to graduate within the next year [29]. The first-year course introduces students toprinciples of reflection as a building block of SDL, in addition to design thinking, and thebiomedical engineering (BME) field. In the middle years’ courses, students engage in signaturelearning experiences that foster their entrepreneurial mindset and encourage them to integratewhat they are learning with some of their prior extra- and co-curricular experiences. In their thirdyear, students complete a new, major-required course entitled The Art of Telling Your Story thatacts as a type of capstone experience in this vertically integrated curriculum.The