level is not, in and of itself novel. A simple Google Scholar search willgenerate over 24,000 citations elaborating upon such efforts. Peer-reviewed research on thistopic can be summarized into categories of innovation and specialized project development -including industry involvement (Goldberg, Cariapa, Corliss, et. al., 2014); professionalpreparation, and attribute/competency development (Hotaling, Fasse, Bost, et. al., 2012); andcapstone best-practices, pedagogy and assessment approaches (Newell, Doty, & Klein, 1990;Behdinan, Pop-Iliev, & Foster, 2014). Noticeably, however, the presence of recent innovativescholarship in this area appears scant.Looking back however to 1990, Newell, Doty, and Klein suggested that anecdotally, there
this study was obtained from a classroom fieldwork that took place fromAugust 2022 to February 2023. The study utilized a variety of methods to gather data. First,the instructors were asked to write reflective notes about their teaching experiences, whichwere used as autoethnographic accounts for analysis. Second, a research assistant attendedweekly instructor meetings and in-person classes at NYCU to observe the classroomdynamics between the instructors and the students. We are thus able to track how this courseevolved during the semester. Third, the research assistant conducted qualitative interviewswith the students after the semester ended to gain insight into their motivation for enrolling inthe course and their thoughts on the most
they encounter our choices and those of their peers; and that through thisprocess we hope to inform students how to make their own choices regarding social andtechnological change.IntroductionWe, four engineering educators trained in science and technology studies (STS) and employed atengineering and engineering-adjacent programs, offer in this paper a multi-institutional survey ofpedagogical choices that we have made in the service of sociotechnical integration. Bypedagogical choices we mean an array of decisions in the context of our institutional homes,courses we teach, and student bodies enrolled. We reflect on the commonalities and differencesof introducing sociotechnical material in our disparate contexts, ranging from humanities
this type of mentorship (Leydens 2014, Nieusma 2011). One such initiative, theAccess Network, aims to do just that. The Access Network is a collection of programs (sites) thatare situated in U.S. universities that work towards a more equitable, diverse, inclusive, andaccessible version of the STEM community (Quan 2019). Access prioritizes student leaders, bothat the network-level and in their local sites, by empowering them to take the lead on actions andby providing support for this work. Access sites engage in activities that build inclusive learningcommunities, provide guidance through peer mentorship, and support growth in students’leadership around social justice.One major function of the Access Network is to connect students across these
of a scientist. Scientists aim to observe, infer,classify, predict, and hypothesize [14], [15]. In this sense the scientific method is based uponconsidering all of the different factors and data to form a conclusion. Another important aspect ofscience is that the “Scientific method does not insure the satisfactory solution of the problem...anymore than it insures the construction of an adequate hypothesis for the research problem” (p. 238)[16]. This statement suggests that a scientist’s mindset is primarily focused on the problemdefinition stage of problem solving.The problem-solving mindset is also evidenced in an expansive range of disciplines through theiracademic writing. It is apparent in social sciences, such as psychology, through
Program, graduateresearch theses have a theoretical grounding leading to action, which we call researchtranslation [1], that then leads to reflection, through dialogue with peers, communities, andliterature, that then leads to refining the initial theoretical framework and so on. For Theory,STS scholarship has contributed with theories and concepts of sociotechnical systems, change,and transfer [18][19]. For Transformation, STS provides concepts of knowledge transfer to aidresearch translation [20], [21] and a sociotechnical framework that has allowed us to transformexisting concepts like global competencies into global sociotechnical competencies inhumanitarian engineers [22]. For Reflection, STS provides students with the understanding
a keyaspect of professionalism in STEM. However, our findings also show that dominant figures havethe ability to drastically change LGBTQ+ students’ perspective of professionalism. We alsoexplore how LGBTQ+ students face a culture of silence in STEM environments, unable orunwilling to give voice to their discomfort. LGBTQ+ students experience a lack of solidarityfrom their peers, contributing to a silent, chilly experience in STEM classrooms and labenvironments. Our third theme, identity concealment, investigates how students conceal theirLGBTQ+ identities as a mechanism for survival in STEM. A lack of LGBTQ+ dominant figuresin STEM, a culture of silence, and reinforcement that straightness is a professional requirementin STEM has
reimaginingengineering education as one informed by tensions (Cheville and Heywood, 2016) and inherentto the “wicked” or sociotechnical pursuit of engineering design (Coyne, 2005; Norman &Stapper, 2015).We are writing from our positions as founding faculty members of an engineering department ina liberal arts institution coming from scholarly traditions in science and technology studies andengineering/engineering design education. In this paper, we hope to conceptualize “engineeringas conflict” as an analytical framework for engineering liberal education and share examplesfrom our curricular and program development work.Context and positioningBelow we share our disciplinary backgrounds and current teaching contexts to help situate howwe use the analytical
conferences ASEE citations proceedings7. Co-PIs will: use Assessment Participant Exit survey Analysis andan exit survey and of the feedback and interview discussion ofinterview a sampling response to section in the summaries results (amongof participants about be included project report PIs and inprogram in the and in writing)effectiveness program resources for report (and future for future training iteration of the training)III. Results:In all, 38 new participants completed the
refine ideas through observation. Their drawings reveal a cognitive process thatmerged visual thinking with tactile engagement. Later artists, such as Vincent van Gogh andEdvard Munch, engaged in repetitive and expressive mark-making that mirrored their emotionalstates. For them, sketching became a means of reflection and emotional processing. In bothtraditions, the act of drawing or writing by hand created a bridge between physical action andmental focus. This integration of hand movement, attention, and emotion represents an embodiedform of cognition—one that supports clarity, emotional regulation, and creative insight.MethodsTo address our research questions, we identified three sets of keywords and conducted searchesusing IEEE Xplore, SCOPUS
short profiles ofeach participant to elevate their unique stories and identities; the profiles were approved by theparticipants. Each chose a pseudonym for the study and some details about them are excludedintentionally to protect their privacy.Student ProfilesEsperanzaEsperanza was a sophomore student in the winter of 2022. She identifies as Christian, cis-gendered,female, heterosexual, and as multiracial and Hispanic but does not speak Spanish. Esperanza wasdiagnosed with a physical disability that causes nerve pain that impacts her hands and feet, whichaffects her ability to walk, write, and do lab work and results in physical exhaustion that requires her torest to recuperate. She also is affected by asthma and anxiety. She chose not to
coursework, suggesting that as they become more aware of theimportance of non-technical skills (i.e. professional skills such as communication, writing,creativity) they may feel less like they belong in the engineering profession.Previous findings have indicated that coursework highlighting the broader social aspects ofengineering can help attract and retain women, who view the social aspects of engineering asmore important than do their male peers. While we found strong positive relationships amongself-confidence, understanding the broad nature of engineering, sense of belonging inengineering, and attitudes toward persisting and succeeding in engineering for all studentsregardless of their exposure to sociotechnical coursework, our findings suggest
questions and how they interacted with their peers during thediscussion. The students held steadfast to the discussion guidelines, exhibiting respect andconsideration for their fellow students, allowing for a deeper conversation. As the class consistsof senior engineering students, the expectation was that they would be able to identify theengineering failures, but may struggle with the discussion on racial inequities due to a lack ofexposure in previous engineering courses. Surprisingly, the students understood and articulatedthe impact of institutional discrimination on the events leading up to and response to HurricaneKatrina.However, not all of the students reviewed the reading material prior to class. Since a largeportion of the class had not
meeting room, with moveable chairs and tables, a projector andFigure 1. The Bioengineering, Society & Policy lab at ASU screen, a large white board, and – importantly – a coffee machine and snacks. This space servesmany purposes: project meetings with colleagues and student researchers, a classroom (when classsizes are small), a venue for hosting faculty writing groups, occasionally a space for doing yoga.Having spent 10 years “alongside” BME colleagues [18], Author 2 has had many informal andlong-running conversations about the ups and downs of running a lab. Over the years, somecommon features across PIs and career stages seem
groups showed increased curiosity in Faith & Ethics and Aesthetics & Creativity.While engineering students maintained higher overall curiosity in Science & Problem Solvingcompared to their peers, and non-engineering students showed higher curiosity in Diversity & TheCommon Good, both groups demonstrated similar growth patterns in humanities-oriented domains.This suggests that while students may enter college thinking they are primarily curious aboutspecific disciplinary interests, their intellectual curiosity can expand into new domains during theirfirst semester. 1.8 Non-EGR Students - Start of Term
computing and engineering students, wewill need to develop a research agenda that further elucidates this nascent area of study. Weparticularly expect that intentional work will be needed to uncover the as-yet poorly understoodecosystem surrounding TNB computing students, their advocates, and their allies. In particular,we see a clear need to understand intersections with race and disability, as the 2015 U.S.Transgender Survey showed that TNB people of color and people with disabilities had worseoutcomes than their already marginalized peers [3]. In order to be a force for change for thisgoal, we held a virtual workshop to develop a research agenda that includes TNB students inBPC/BPE for inclusive and intersectional policy, practices, and
departmenttransformation. While the level of engagement during this co-creation process varied across thedepartment, the majority of faculty and staff played a significant role in writing, reviewing, andmodifying it. • We envision diversity in race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, and other social identities (in all their combinations) that transcends current institutional structures. • We envision a place in which all find community, where there are support structures that connect students with their peers, that provide mentoring between faculty and students, and promote collaborative work between faculty. • We envision a place where if one encounters an unjust or arbitrary barrier, it is the system that yields. We
addition, one of our primary goals is to support and engage in the co-creation of artifacts,collaborating with participants to transform data into practical tools and resources, such asdesigning homes with diverse stakeholders. This method emphasizes producing tangibleoutcomes that reflect participants’ lived experiences and aspirations. On the other hand,immersive approaches of observing participants’ environments and social realities in real timecapture moments that cannot be reproduced, contrasting with objectivist research paradigmsfocused on replicability (Lederman 2023). The significance of these different orientationstowards research is explained by the anthropologist Rena Lederman who writes: Being with people wherever they actually
)equity is or can be shaped by current and future engineering work; (d)Obj. 4: willingness to engage others (e.g., current peers, collaborators, future work colleagues) in discussions of equity in engineering. To teach courses that meet those aims, engineering instructors also need to work towardthose same learning objectives in their own understanding, as well as learn to implement ourframework in their courses. In other words, faculty must work on the same understanding ofequity-centered engineering as students, if they are to cover such ideas in courses, and they mustalso develop equity-mindedness toward the classroom context, given their role as instructors.Ultimately, equity-centered engineering education requires a
. Onestudent stated that, “using ChatGPT to smooth over your writing is definitely a positive”especially for students for whom “English is not their first language” (P57 White man domesticstudent). Similarly, another student used AI to translate “niche technical terms” from lecturesinto more easily understood descriptions (P55 Black woman domestic student). There wasgeneral appreciation for AI technologies and a sense that “AI is not going to replace humans. AIis just going to become a tool that humans are gonna coexist with” (P42 Asian man domesticstudent). This student described unique opportunities for “collaboration” between humans andAI. When sharing about a situation in which a professional board game player watched AlphaGo,a computer programmed
: Engineering Communication: from principles to practice (with Dr. Peter Eliot Weiss) and Writing in Engineering: a brief guide, both with Oxford University Press. He teaches enginee ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Building Sociotechnical Competencies through an Integration of Engineering Ethics and Science, Technology and Society Studies: A Reflection on Instructional PracticesIntroductionWith the goal of providing engineering students with a solid grounding in sociotechnicalthinking, and an opportunity to explore the complexities of sociotechnical systems, engineeringcurriculum can draw from a combination of engineering ethics and STS (Science, Technologyand Society) studies to offer students
disciplinesSupporting LiteratureWithin colleges of engineering, a fair amount has been written over the past several decadesabout designing and incorporating interdisciplinary elements [4]. The importance and relevanceof interdisciplinary education and perspectives is gaining traction; the evidence is seen throughample studies in engineering journals and conference proceedings. New courses and programsdiscussed in the conference proceedings arena alone include Waidley and Bittner [5], Cone, et al.[6], Kurtanich, et al. [7], Backer and Bates [8], and Cho, et al. [9]. The peer-reviewed literatureand other conference proceedings offer more and innovative examples of how to includeperspectives, knowledge and skills across engineering curriculum.However, among
Your Intended Major?Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Industrialand System Engineering, Computer Engineering 10%& Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, ElecEOther Engineering Major NOT Listed Above, or 10%Other Major that is Not Engineering. The last two Bi mEoptions allowed participants to write-in responses. 10% 60% Ma eE ChemEOne participant selected Electrical Engineering 10%(labeled in Figure 3 as ElecE), 1 participant MechEselected Biomedical Engineering (labeled inFigure 3 as BiomE), 1 participant selectedMechanical
wasn’t given the opportunity.Carroll mentions a “type of expertise” that is required for communicating with the men on herteam to understand where they “click.” The type of expertise she refers to is the understanding ofthe ways in which peers with shared identities operate socially and in a cohesive manner (wherethey “click”). This is the process of examining the hidden epistemologies that drive the socialinteractions she has with her team. Because of the historically white male majority inengineering and Carroll’s positionality as the only African American female on her team, sheacknowledges silently the potential her gender and race play in her exclusion from socialinteractions with others on her team.Carroll learns of the necessity of
, based in science.”Interestingly, despite our explicit prompt to discuss engineering culture, very few participants framedtheir responses in cultural terms. Instead, they spoke about the engineering-intensive work they did thatbrought them career satisfaction. The prominence of technical affinity in the responses of racializedwomen was also noteworthy. This finding challenges the implicit, and somewhat essentialistassumptions about women in general, and racialized women in particular, underlying recruitment andretention efforts that magnify the socio-emotional features of engineers’ work in order to diversify theprofession. Racialized women, just like their peers, tended to speak about “nerd