teaches advanced undergraduate laboratory courses and manages the senior capstone program in the Micron School. He ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Building a Communication-Integrated Curriculum in Materials ScienceAbstractWith the need to meet ABET outcomes around professional skills, such as communication andteamwork, engineering programs have long explored approaches to ensure their graduates areable to participate in the workplace in ways that employers demand. While approaches vary andsuccess depends on a number of factors, research demonstrates that an integrated approach toprofessional skill development is the most impactful for student learning. How can anengineering program build an
, veneration of engineering’s “hardness” persists, including as symbolically yetpotently represented through the endurance of weed-out culture. At our institution, discoursearound engineering’s inherent difficulty, a celebration of our students’ “grit” in the face ofacademic adversity, and a hazing-like narrative around student “suffering” all endure despiteextensive, systematic attention to student mental health and the importance of “work-lifebalance” across the university community. Research indicates that emotionally unsafeenvironments lead to stress, lower attendance at school, and less engagement in learning,whereas emotionally safe environments are related to more positive identity development, betterlearning experiences, and greater feelings
critical thinking, creativity, communication, empathy, and problem-solving abilities, which are allessential for engineers to address complex, real-world challenges [19],[20]. Through exposure to diverseperspectives and ways of thinking, engineers develop a nuanced understanding of the world, including stakeholderand social-contextual factors [21],[22]. This can lead to more creative and effective solutions [23],[24] [25], andfoster a deeper understanding of the social, cultural, and ethical implications of technological design choices. Withsuch training, engineers can also be empowered to have a more significant impact on society [26],[27] [28]. Borregoand Newswander remind us of the role for educators in this process: “engineering faculty can
research. In our classes,they learn how to apply the socially responsible engineering (SRE) framework, whichemphasizes “contextual listening” [63] and identification of opportunities to create value withstakeholders so they can empathically engage communities before, during and after their fieldresearch [64]. Through specific coursework assignments, they explore and reflect with otherson the reasons for being in HES and for wanting to do sustainable community development, toexplore the constraints, opportunities, and pathways placed in front of them by the histories oftheir families, of engineering, of development, and by the multiple dimensions of their identity(gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.). Then
Paper ID #39174Applying STS to Engineering Education: A Comparative Study of STS Mi-norsProf. MC Forelle, University of Virginia MC Forelle is an assistant professor, teaching track, in Engineering & Society at the University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science. Their work examines the intersection of law, technology, and culture, with particular interests in materiality, sustainability, and practices of resistance and change. Currently, they are developing a a book project that studies the technological challenges faced by users, tinkerers, and repair communities working to repair, maintain, and
-world engineering problems rarely have such tidyformulations, so to conflate this type of solution generation with a core identity as expert“problem solver” is analytically clumsy if not presumptuous. It also radically collapsesengineers’ imagination for the breadth and complexity of most problems worth solving and thecontextual sophistication needed to effectively navigate most real-world problems.To explore how engineering education can engage more holistic and complex problems byelevating problem framing as a precursor skillset to problem solving, we review a variety ofprovocations based on our experience in program and curriculum building throughsociotechnical integration in multiple academic initiatives within the Engineering, Design
,presents a terrifying cautionary tale that warns against unethical practices in science andengineering. Elaborating on these emphases, recent critical editions of the novel published duringits bicentennial have underscored its value as an ethical text to STEM students, educators, andprofessionals alike [1]. Inspired by the novel’s capacity to foster moral imagination amongengineers, I developed an undergraduate engineering course in science, technology, and society(STS) taught in the University of Virginia’s Department of Engineering and Society called“Technology and the Frankenstein Myth.” In the course, students read Frankenstein and reflecttogether on its ethical implications for their work as designers and stewards of the
aimed at promoting student narratives through audio-based methods.Dr. Cassandra McCall, Utah State University Cassandra McCall, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Engineering Education Department and Co-Director of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Transition Services at Utah State University. Her research centers the intersection identity formation, engineering culture, and disability studies. Her work has received several awards including best paper awards from the Journal of Engineering Education and the Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. She holds a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Virginia Tech as well as M.S. and B.S. degrees in civil engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and
the perspective of work asactivity systems and framed this study based on Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT),which has been recognized as a robust and holistic theory for the study of work and technology[8], [9], [10]. It is through activities that we create, innovate, and accomplish our goals in work.Also, through activities we develop and maintain our organizations, systems, communities, andsocieties [8].Many studies of technology and work have focused on novel contexts of work, such asinnovation and disruption [6], [11]. Against this trend in work studies, Russell and Vinsel [12]advocated for more attention to the workers and work in routine maintenance jobs that are farmore prevalent in societies around the world. They claimed
students from underrepresentedpopulations face in engineering learning spaces. Having these discussions during lecture or in thecontext of the course can also address the issue of stereotype threat [4] faced by certain culturalstudent groups, which is known to impact student success. Further, intentionally incorporatingthese exercises into the course design communicates to students a strong desire to create aninclusive learning environment. Walden et al. recommended based on research that for creatingan inclusive atmosphere for diversity and equity within engineering education, it is important tohave a positive academic culture for people from excluded identity groups [5]. Additionally,diversity, equity and inclusion within engineering education
Paper ID #37665’It Gives Me a Bit of Anxiety’: Civil and Architectural EngineeringStudents’ Emotions Related to Their Future Responsibility as EngineersDr. Madeline Polmear, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Madeline Polmear is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie, EUTOPIA Science & Innovation Cofund Fellow at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. Her research interests relate to engineering ethics education and the development of societal responsibility and professional competence through formal and informal learning. Madeline received her Bachelors in environmental engineering, Masters in civil engineering, and PhD in civil
structure previously determined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysisrevealed five latent variables that align with a framework proposed by Fila et al. [1] for teachingengineering within a humanistic lens to help students develop a sense of belonging and theirengineering identity. Our SEM analysis showed that for all students, academic self-confidenceand self-efficacy and a broad understanding of engineering both have a significant positiveinfluence on their sense of belonging, which in turn has a significant influence on their attitudestoward persisting and succeeding in engineering. Appreciating the importance of non-technicalskills in engineering had no significant influence on most students’ sense of belonging with theexception
development of “trading zones” between Faculty Fellowsin different disciplines. Even by analyzing just pre-activity interviews with Faculty Fellows andfinal interviews with Student Fellows, we can build insights related to this engineering-focusedcontext which frames conditions for both the interdisciplinarity pedagogy and the studentengagement that we are working to foster. Our findings illustrate that both interdisciplinarity andengagement are limited by the institutional context of engineering education, while alsorevealing how this kind of work can help students reflect on the limits of a traditionalengineering education and consider their own ability to advocate for change.Interdisciplinary Trading Zones In and Through PedagogyOur CREATE/STS
still perhaps not a “hottopic” in engineering education, its developing prominence in the conversation [8].We feel the most useful way to think about discourse is through the way Gee [9] describes small-d discourse and big-D Discourse. Small-d discourse is simply the features of a language,including the way it is spoken or written, whereas big-D Discourse is “the ways in which peopleenact and recognize socially and historically significant identities or ‘kinds of people’ throughwell-integrated combinations of language, actions, interactions, objects, tools, technologies,beliefs, and values” (p. 418). By examining how people use language (little discourse), we candetermine how they align themselves with different social groups (big Discourse
, 27 (1), 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9341-0Armstrong, F. H. (1980). Faculty development through interdisciplinarity. The Journal of General Education, 52-63.Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers, The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40-47.Belbase, S., Mainali, B. R., Kasemsukpipat, W., Tairab, H., Gochoo, M., & Jarrah, A. (2022). At the dawn of science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education: Prospects, priorities, processes, and problems. International