Professor in the Department of Bioengineering at the University of Washington.William Charles Sobolewski, University of California, Santa Cruz ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Work in Progress: Scaffolding the Revision Process with Rubrics, Peer Review, and Reflection in a Technical Communication CourseIntroduction: Promoting Effective Revision of Rough DraftsTechnical communication is an essential skill for engineers. Unfortunately, many graduates ofengineering undergraduate programs report that they do not feel prepared or confident in theirtechnical communication abilities. In addition, although effective communication skills arerequired for success in all engineering
communication skills via dialog with peers and facilitators (giving and receiving feedback, active listening, collaborative learning). • Practice compassionate behaviors towards oneself and others. • Develop and evaluate a plan for maintaining a balance of both reflection and action for future advocacy efforts.Guiding FrameworkThe course is built from a guiding framework for effective and enduring advocacy, which we havedefined as the work we do to transform our world’s systems and cultures in ways that we believewill make life, love, and liberation more possible. Inspiration for the framework comes from ourown experiences, current leaders [9], and past advocates for social change through education[10, 11]. The four steps that make up
two and how that impacts how they think ofthemselves and their learning. The narratives presented in this paper were collected as part of a weeklyone-hour reflection seminar that all students in the program are required to enroll in each semester. One ofthe goals of the course is to give students the opportunity to think about the connections between theirliberal arts courses and the general liberal arts university experiences, with what they are learning in theirengineering specific courses and experiences. In an attempt to create a student-centered body ofknowledge that initiates the dissolution of the techno-social dualism prevalent in engineering education,we present here student narratives and a discussion based on these narratives to
liberatory pedagogy in bell hooks’ Teaching to Transgress. Ibegin by summarizing some key ideas from the book and subsequent calls for more liberatorypedagogies in engineering education. Next, I provide some context for my specific course as wellas my positionality. I discuss the course redesign along four themes: creating a community oflearning, transgressing against objectivity and apoliticism in engineering, promoting legitimacyand intellectual authority, and centering critical reflection. Finally, I conclude by reflecting onmy successes and challenges, and providing some lessons learned about “teaching to transgress”in an engineering technology and society course that I hope will be useful to instructors ofsimilar courses.BackgroundTeaching to
ofdepoliticization and technological or sociological determinisms, students are left in the middlewithout effective options to better understand how technology and society interact and howthis interaction could be put into practice in ways to empower the communities they want toserve [9]2.One antidote for this dichotomy is critical praxis in engineering research for communitydevelopment informed by STS. Adopting Paolo Freire’s concept of praxis in some courses in ourHumanitarian Engineering and Science (HES) program at Colorado School of Mines, we definethis type of critical praxis as the processes by which the theories, lessons, and practices of ECDare enacted, embodied, or realized through dialogue, action, and critical reflection to transformreality [11
ofdesigning and building technologies. However, they do this within the context of unique placesand among distinct milieu that reflects its own engineering culture [8]. Thus, engineering cultureand the development of engineering identity is inextricably tied to the places that reproduce itand contains within it specific organizational patterns, embedded norms and routines, sharedbeliefs, and values that often mediate how students engage with faculty, staff, and one another.In short, culture cannot be decoupled from the place in which it is experienced and imparted.Extant research delineates visible manifestations of culture as “ways of doing things” within theclassroom and laboratory spaces—which often prioritizes the teaching and development
, gender and sexuality studies(WGSS) or ethnic studies empowers minoritized engineering students to develop criticalconsciousness relative to the culture of engineering. Our work investigates the influence of twosuch courses on student attitudes and motivation by gathering both qualitative and quantitativedata from students in two STEM-themed courses in WGSS and ethnic studies, “Gender andSTEM” and “Race and Technology.” We argue that in these courses students acquire skills thatenable them to critically reflect on both the socially constructed nature of STEM and on thehistorical patterns within engineering culture that exacerbate existing inequities and injusticedespite claims of “neutral” objectivity. In preliminary data, students report that
intersection of science and/or technology in society, and the theme for our work is “what is good engineering and science.”This is an excerpt from an email that two authors of this paper, Elizabeth Reddy and MarieStettler Kleine, sent out in the summer of 2022. We were excited for the opportunity to invite ourcolleagues to join us in the project of interdisciplinary engineering education, informed byScience and Technology Studies (or STS). This project was an opportunity to stage playfulworkshops and facilitate conversations we did not often get to have, all designed to stimulateinterdisciplinary reflections on what we do and why we do it. We were informed by theories of“trading zones” from STS and theories of the classroom drawn from
, 2024Beyond the Algorithm: Empowering AI practitioners through liberal educationAbstractAs AI technology continues to transform society, there is a growing need for engineers and technologists to developinterdisciplinary skills to address complex, society-wide problems. However, there is a gap in understanding how toeffectively design and deliver inter-disciplinary education programs for AI-related training. This paper addressesthis gap by reporting on a successful summer school program that brought together specialists from around theworld to engage in deliberations on responsible AI, as part of a Summer School in Responsible AI led by Mila -Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute. Through deep dive auto-ethnographic reflections from five
silenced and highlighted inthe process of shaping hybrid pedagogies and engineering by reflecting on and assessing thenature of “hybridity,” “innovation,” and “design” in engineering education. Introduction During the late 2000s, the South Korean government identified the need to prioritizescience and technology policy in the university sector, specifically in the area of informationand communication technologies, with the aim of developing global leaders. A concerningissue of a "crisis in science and engineering fields" was identified, whereby many youngstudents were disinclined to pursue science and technology careers. In response, thegovernment initiated an effort to attract talented young
towards real-world applications through a varietyof mechanisms. Instructors demonstrated moderate support for STSE, with a strong orientationtowards problem solving and design, but shared concerns, in particular about exploring issues ofsocial justice and fairness and the possibility of imposing bias on students. This is reflective ofwork in engineering education that highlights the apolitical nature of engineering and itsresonance in undergraduate engineering programs. Finally, a reframing of STSE is offered toacknowledge the role of problem solving rather than issue exploration in engineering, whilehighlighting the need to further consider the context of engineering activities, aligned with recentwork on sociotechnical thinking and social
does engineering? Who is engineering done for? Asengineering is increasingly associated with cutting edge technology and innovative advances incomplex and/or large scale systems, these are questions that merit reflection. These trends tend todisproportionately benefit those in wealthy sectors of society. Simultaneously, those with theleast economic wealth are often negatively impacted. But, engineering doesn’t have to continuealong this path. It is instructive to reflect on the fact that engineering encompasses technologiesand designs that have served much of the human population for ages. Engineering to meet basichuman needs, such as working with the natural world toward sustainable food gatheringpractices, building homes and infrastructure
program is actively involving business andindustry experts in the development of their curricular activities. Yet, while faculty andadministrators argue that the new curriculum has immense value for advancing undergraduateeducation, they simultaneously worry that such collaborations will circumspect thetransdisciplinary goals of their curriculum. As one academic stakeholder reflected, the degreeprogram has the potential to transform how the university thinks about individual learning plansfor undergraduates that exist outside of traditional disciplinary frameworks, but it also “shouldn’tbecome a pipeline for business and industry.”Alongside this tension—and partly in response to it—the authors of this paper were hired toconduct an external
particular, thearchetypal figure of Victor Frankenstein offers students a model of a negative “possible self” thatcautions against rogue engineering practices. The paper analyzes themes from Shelley’s novel asthey were used in courses in science, technology, and society (STS) to foster ethical reflection onthe perils of practicing irresponsible, presumptuous, unaccountable, and biased techno-science.IntroductionMary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is widely regarded as a foundational work of early sciencefiction that cautions against misguided and unethical science and engineering. As such, the novelshould be poised to help engineering undergraduates cultivate moral imagination and acommitment to socially responsible techno-science. Along this line, a
includes three clusters of competencies: intellectual openness, workethic and conscientiousness, and positive core self-evaluation. These clusters includecompetencies, such as flexibility, initiative, appreciation for diversity, and metacognition (theability to reflect on one’s own learning and adjust accordingly).• The Interpersonal Domain includes two clusters of competencies: teamwork and collaborationand leadership. These clusters include competencies, such as communication, collaboration,responsibility, and conflict resolution. While research has shown a host of positive outcomes (i.e., educational attainment, careeradvancement, and physical health) as a result of successful development in The CognitiveDomain, far less research has
determining the extent to which students’ engagement with Frankensteinwas able to facilitate ethical reflection and professional identity formation. To address thisquestion, the current study begins by situating the class discussion of the novel within thebroader aims and structure of the course; then, it analyzes a series of student written reflectionson moral aspects of the novel and its portrayal of Victor Frankenstein specifically. The analysisorganizes the data into salient themes that emerge from the written reflections illustrated byselections of student writing. The data indicate that students were able to articulate severalethical themes that emerge from the novel’s depiction of Victor Frankenstein’s practice of roguetechno-science and
masculinity and competition in engineeringculture [6]. A review of engineering identity synthesized common aspects that defineengineering as problem solving and knowledge in math and science [7] reflecting thetechnical focus. In light of these dominant narratives, there is ongoing work to disrupt thetechnicist identity and exclusionary culture of engineering to better reflect the multifacetedroles of engineers and the diverse populations they serve (see, for example, [8]). One framingto broaden the scope of what it means to be an engineer and do engineering is macroethics,the collective societal responsibility of engineers [9].MacroethicsRelative to other subjects, ethics has a shorter history in the engineering curriculum withformal inclusion
Jamboard 3:00 Policy, Research, Practice RoomsDAY 3:00 – Facilitated conversation: Building on the Breakouts, Stacey Large-group Chat/ONE 3:30 Sexton Shareout Jamboard 3:30 – Break 3:45 3:45 – Doing equity work in a politically charged environment: Facilitated Chat 4:45 Dynamics between the personal and systemic Discussion 4:45 – Closing Reflections: Applying the policy landscape to Closing
Engineering Education, 2024 Design Iterations as Material Culture Artifacts: A Qualitative Methodology for Design Education ResearchAbstractStudying design processes requires the researcher to move with the designer as they negotiate anaction-reflection cycle comprised of a multitude of relationships, including the designer’srelation to themselves, to human and more-than-human others, and to the beliefs, values, andassumptions that design us every day. This paper’s goal is to introduce a qualitative methodologyfor studying the complex relationality of design, particularly (but not exclusively) in anarchitectural design education context. This methodology has theoretical and methodologicalunderpinnings in Process Philosophy and
HurricaneKatrina and (3) the student selected research project on an engineered system that negativelyimpacted their local community. For each case, we discuss the learning goals of the givenactivity, how the activity was enacted for the class, and finally draw connections between theactivity and the theories of power it emphasized. After presenting the details of each case weshare our reflections on each of them as instructors. Our reflections explore what went well witheach activity, what challenges it had, and what we might change for future implementations.Study ContextThe three cases reported here all happened in a year-long senior capstone course for a multipledisciplinary engineering degree at a Mid Atlantic University with a large engineering
impact of technology on geopolitics and society, in order to furtheranalyze and reflect on what engineering education should teach, whom it should serve, andthe ideology and value system behind it.To achieve the goals, it is not enough to simply learn Western textbooks and knowledge.Instead, we should use non-Western experiences, research, and perspectives to re-understandthe impact of the Cold War and neoliberalism on East Asian technological development,national governance, and labor structures. A dialogue-based classroom, as this paper argues,would be a possible pedagogical approach for teaching global engineering competency,especially in a non-Western context, and only then can we prevent engineering education inEast Asia and globally from
experiences and ideas [24]), and other areas in which learning occur over time[25]. While there is a wide range of developmental models, I will highlight one here that offers auseful framework for charting changes in thinking and reasoning over time: Baxter Magolda’sEpistemological Reflection Model (ERM) [26].Baxter Magolda’s ERM describes cognitive development in terms of the ways individuals makesense of, evaluate, interact with, and understand knowledge. This model is derived from Perry’sintellectual development framework [27] and addresses salient dimensions of college learningenvironments. The categories, called “ways of knowing”, range from Absolute to Contextual.Absolute Knowing corresponds to an overarching belief system where knowledge is
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and donot necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. 1Fisher identified significant gender differences in major selection for male- and female-identifiedstudents in computing based on individuals’ attention to “computing with a purpose” [9].However, it is important that we recall Slaton’s cautions against the operation of essentialismwithin this approach to diversity and inclusion and not predicate calls for change on a “naturaldifference” in approaches to engineering, rather we call for a change in values for liberation [10].Our department is at the beginning of a multi-year journey of
casestudies are taught as situative learning experiences, and consider professional practice throughanalysis of an engineering standard/regulation. During a situative learning experience, learningoccurs through a collaborative activity, with knowledge presented within an authentic context [2,3]. Second, Keenan’s Model of Conscience Formation provides students with a framework forevaluating inequities in each case study. Finally, the social justice case studies facilitate criticalconsciousness regarding engineering practices. This provides students an opportunity to reflect onthe inequity perpetuated through engineering irresponsibility and take critical action to identifyunethical practices and articulate a socially responsible engineering approach
including untold stories throughout the history of computing andalgorithms, identity and intersectionality in engineering, designs from engineering that have highsocietal impact, the LGBTQ+ experience in engineering, engineering and mental health, andcultural diversity within engineering. Each module gives a brief overview of the topic, followedby an associated assignment. We made all of these modules available to the students in thecourse and told them to choose one to complete. Each student engaged with their selectedmodule in four specific ways: (1) watching a relevant video; (2) reading and annotating aprovided article; (3) responding in a written reflection to a set of specific prompts relevant to themodule; and (4) conducting an interview
prepare students to dedicate themselves todiversity that values the richness of human society as a divine gift and to pursue justice bymaking an action-oriented response to the needs of the world.[12]” Given the uniquely holisticaims of the LUM community, the practice of reflection laying at the core of the Jesuit traditioninvigorates all corners of the university to respond to nationwide calls for social, political, andeconomic justice.At present, LUM’s strategic plan places a strong emphasis on DEI through the recruitment ofstudents and faculty from underrepresented groups and the creation of more inclusive classroomsand curricula. The university’s stated diversity aims include “awareness of the structural sources,consequences, and
thinking and reflection on their work's impact. This study emphasizes the needfor comprehensive education and training tailored to scientists and engineers to address complexsocietal challenges effectively and responsibly in their professional roles.Keywords: social responsibility, engineering ethics, engineering formation, undergraduateresearch, Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)1. IntroductionSociety is facing challenging problems that threaten both the present and future of justice, peace,sustainability, and the overall well-being of humanity. Given that the responsibility of scientistsand engineers implies a duty to address those challenges for society [1], how could research-intensive universities prioritize transformative
annual conference. The Engineering and Humanities Special Interest Group(SIG) is one of approximately twelve SIGs operating as communities of practice within CEEA-ACÉG that bring together individuals working and researching within a particular area. TheEngineering and Humanities SIG in particular aims to create space for those who study theintersections of engineering and humanities, those who teach at these intersections, and non-engineers who bring their perspectives to engineering environments. As in most large academicorganizations, the SIG’s membership and engagement is not necessarily representative of thewider landscape of Canadian engineering education. While our SIG aims to reflect the work ofscholars, teachers and practitioners at the
organize the divisionsare not exclusive. The reflect differences in emphasis rather than the existence of separateknowledge domains.1 The number of divisions vs. constituent committees and interest groups seems to fluctuate based on the context inwhich the list is generated (ASEE website vs. PEER). By some counts, there are 55 divisions. In any case, theproportion of “Engineering and. . .” divisions remains essentially the same. 2 This paper focuses on four “Engineering and. . .”divisions that explicitly connectengineering with expertise that is relevant to engineers but not typically required in engineeringeducation
unpack tensions, historicalcontext, and practice of a liberal engineering education. Engineers have long positionedthemselves as “problem-solvers” uniquely situated to use technical knowledge to proposesolutions to complex problems. Recent work has identified the need to better integratenontechnical knowledge into engineering education as a way of reflecting the complex social andpolitical landscapes that structure engineering practice (Reddy, Kleine, Parsons, & Nieusma2023). Here we explore using a framework for “engineering as conflict” as a compelling practiceof sociotechnical integration at the undergraduate level. Here, conflict refers to the practice orprocess of disagreement, difference of opinion, or tensions.From the perspective of