questions: (1) When students talk about (local/global) energy systems, what do they concern themselves with? (2) What are students’ overarching narratives found orienting them to energy transitions?We situated this study in a crossdisciplinary undergraduate course on sustainable energies, co-taught bytwo faculty members, one in political science and one in mechanical engineering.BackgroundEnergy Education and Energy LiteracyEnergy is a key element of any engineering curriculum as well as a key element of society. Yet manystudents learn about the science of energy in largely technical, fragmented, and decontextualized waysthrough courses like introductory physics, thermodynamics, circuits, heat transfer, and so forth (Hoople
. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Change | Makers: What can come next in engineering design?IntroductionThere have been growing calls for engineers and engineering educators to take more completeresponsibility for their role in society as technological developers and technically literatemembers of society, the exclusivity of their practice, and the impact their work has on the worldboth socially and environmentally. These calls appear in various forms including SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs) [1], calls to action [2], and academic literature [3-5]. However,change in engineering often comes slowly. While some change has been seen, for example, insome engineering codes of ethics and graduate attributes, others have been
Landscapes in Engineering EducationAbstractIn this paper, the four authors consider our roles as engineering educators teaching courses thatemphasize engineering practice as a sociotechnical endeavor. [1] [2] Situated in differentinstitutions and schools, we reflect on commonalities and differences in our approaches tosociotechnical education, particularly incorporating scholarship that illuminates the complexrelationship between science, technology and society into engineering and humanities courses.We draw heavily from disciplines such as science and technology studies, engineering studies,and the history of science and technology, among others. [3] [4] We also reflect on how ourvaried institutional homes have influenced how we approach
. R. Jamaal Downey and Idalis Villanueva Alarcón,Introduction The hidden curriculum (HC) has been traditionally viewed as the unwritten, unofficial,and often unintended messages (e.g., assumptions, lessons, values, beliefs, attitudes, andperspectives) that are not openly acknowledged in each environment [1] [2]. More specificallyrelated to engineering/education, HC is hidden under the veil of norms, professionalism, andstandards which prioritizes the current status quo of dominant identities in engineering (e.g.,white, male, meritocratic) [1]. The presence of hidden curriculum (HC) in our educational institutions is unquestioned.Hidden curriculum can be perceived as both helpful or hurtful depending on the messages
health related help seeking in undergraduate engineering students,a qualitative study was conducted based on the integrated behavioral model (IBM). Through thisstudy, 33 students were asked about their beliefs related to seeking help for a mental healthconcern, as guided by the IBM. The current study aims to characterize the messages that studentsreceive (either explicitly or implicitly) from engineering faculty and staff that might influence theirthoughts around help seeking. After qualitative analysis, three common themes were identified: 1)Supportive explicit and implicit messages around help seeking are often tied to an individualfaculty or staff member, 2) College level change around mental health is viewed positively ifappropriately
engineering computingcourse [1]. The revised course includes weekly readings followed by small-group discussions oncurriculum-aligned real-world justice topics. For example, students read an article onenvironmental racism that discussed how, contrary to popular belief, environmental pollutioncorrelates more strongly with race than with class. Discussion prompts drew students’ attentionto the data science implications: how what data is collected and how it is analyzed directlydetermines what conclusions can be drawn.This work-in-progress paper develops a case study analysis of post-course interviews of sixinternational students of color. We use a qualitative case study approach to analyze theseinterviews, focusing on students’ expressed identity and
STEM studentsFindingsParticipants’ data and creative content illustrated their understanding and experience of the culture ofengineering, including that of extreme rigor, and its impact on their mental health, a finding consistentwith other studies on this issue (Coley & Jennings, 2019; Danowitz & Beddoes, 2020; Jensen & Cross,2021). Six major themes emerged in the data related to the mental health impacts of being anunderrepresented engineering student:1) a sense of not belonging;2) student reproduction of the culture of stress;3) additional labor that is invisible and unacknowledged;4) fear of being weeded out;5) burn out and mental exhaustion; and6) modifications toward self-care.The students’ narratives showed the mental health
. For the sake of convenience,the majority with engineering backgrounds adopted IT (information technology) vs non-ITpeople.1 At the beginning more than 30 faculty members with diverse engineeringbackgrounds joined the program, while less than 5 members were recruited from humanities,entrepreneurship, social sciences, and arts (HESA). The curricular design principle was based on the integration of subjects, termed asnon-IT subjects, into core engineering subjects. The idea was very much like appropriatingusable/applicable dimensions of humanities as if they would lend imaginative power toengineering capacity. About one third of mandatory courses were composed of non-ITsubjects, whose teaching and learning models were project-based
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
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
are more likely to leaveengineering and other STEM fields than their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts [1-3]. Thisattrition is attributed to reasons that stem from a culture and climate in STEM that is hostile toand invalidating of minoritized sexual and gender identities [4-6]. Engineering and other STEMfields have been clamoring to diversify their ranks for the past several decades on the promisethat a diverse workforce is more innovative and better positioned to solve complex, socialproblems. Removing these systematic barriers to LGBTQ people’s participation in engineering isessential for these fields to meet their goals to broaden participation.In this paper, we advance a conceptual framework to understand how heterosexism andcissexism
members, administrators, and staff hold positionsthrough which they have authority to determine policies and enact practices within academicinstitutions, students also have the ability to drive change. Student-led change is often sparkedfrom the ground up and benefits from students' perspectives and enthusiasm. These changes caninclude the building of new, inclusive, student-centered spaces to continue to move the workforward.In typical Engineering and Science educational systems, students often are not givenopportunities to build skills outside of narrowly defined, technical domains [1]. Experiences thatencourage students to engage in social justice and activist work are crowded out in manytraditional STEM programs. Oftentimes, spaces to
Participation in Computing/Engineering (BPC/BPE)initiatives almost exclusively center a binary gender model focusing on girls and women as staticcategories [1]. However, recent surveys [2] suggests that 2.1% of Gen Z adults identify astransgender (that is, have a gender identity that differs from the sex they were assigned at birth[3]). Additionally, in research presented at the 2022 RESPECT conference, we showed that thereare at least 10,850 nonbinary1 K–12 students in the United States registered across nine differentstates [4]. As the number of people who identify as transgender and nonbinary (TNB) increase,current best practices regarding approaching gender in computing and engineering need to berevised [5]. To further support future gender diverse
/or satisfyingCriterion 3 requirements [1]–[3]. In comparing responses from 2004 graduates against their 1994counterparts, the study completed in 2006 uncovered one surprising result: 2004 graduatesreported a “chillier diversity climate than that cited by their predecessors” [1, p. 6]. The studyreport speculated that several factors could be at play, including “differences in the gender andracial/ethnic mix in 1994 and 2004, graduates’ awareness of diversity issues, and/or theirwillingness to discuss and challenge prejudice or discrimination.” Nevertheless, continued thereport, “[t]he evidence provides no guidance in the way of an explanation”[1, p. 6]. Though it’snot clear what, if any, work was done to unpack these or other potential
isattuned to what is fair in treatment and outcomes, noting differences among participants, asdistinguished from equality, where all conditions and consequences are rendered as the same.Inclusion involves a sense of belongingness, with sincere considerations of how differentbackgrounds and ways of thinking, being, and valuing can affect organizational practices,interactions, procedures, and policy. In deriving insights and interventions to achieve the promiseand implementation of DEI efforts, there are some generalizable interventions like trainingsessions [1], but how such training is constructed and accomplished is less known. Moreover,what works in one location is not necessarily effective in another, nor is any single interventionsufficient for
researchers can disrupt the chilly, heteronormativeculture of STEM by modeling inclusive classroom and lab practices. Additionally, we offerinsights on how students negotiate their identity visibility in a chilly, heteronormative, and silentculture. Introduction Despite efforts to increase diversity and inclusion on college and university campuses,Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) programs continue to be largelycisgender, male, heterosexual, and white [1]–[3]This continued lack of diversity is largely due tothe heteronormative, racist, and sexist culture that serves to make STEM spaces inhospitable formarginalized students, and results in high levels of attrition for these groups [1], [4]. In order toaddress this, we
use in the world and equating knowledge of technology to knowledge of readingand writing from the past [1]. In contrasting appeals proponents have called to broaden the engineeringcurriculum to include more liberal arts, and in turn learn more engineering on the job or in graduateschool [2]. However, as we stand currently in 2023, we have not witnessed such extreme shifts in eitherdirection in a majority of programs across the United States. Instead and perhaps a more fortunatephenomenon that we have seen in undergraduate education is joint liberal arts and engineering programswhich have existed for a few decades now. For example, the Engineering Studies program at LafayetteCollege which was established in 1970 and brings together in its
U.S. are finally heading the many calls to include sociotechnicalthinking–grappling with issues of power, history, and culture–throughout the undergraduateengineering curriculum. While non-purely-technical topics have historically been relegated toseparate courses, universities are now working to integrate sociotechnical content in coursespreviously considered to be purely technical. Researchers have varying motivations for thisfocus, including to better prepare students for engineering practice, which is inherentlysociotechnical [1]; to increase the sense of belonging of historically excluded students, who aremore likely to be interested in the social aspects [2]; and to create better societal outcomes [3-5].Attempts to disrupt the social
Paper ID #39654Addressing Engineers and Stakeholders Social and Institutional Power inan Human-Centered Design Capstone CourseDr. Corey T Schimpf, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Corey Schimpf is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at the University at Buffalo, SUNY. His lab focuses on engineering design, advancing research methods, and technology innovations to support learning in complex domains. Major research strands include: (1) analyzing how expertise develops in engineering design across the continuum from novice pre-college students to prac- ticing engineers, (2
recent critical edition ofthe novel published in celebration of its bicentennial highlights its relevance for fostering ethicalformation among scientists and engineers [1]. Likewise, recent scholarship draws attention toFrankenstein’s role in engendering critical reflection among scientists about social and ethicalaspects of their work [2]. Despite, however, the novel’s potential to speak to ethical dimensionsof scientific and engineering practice, some instructors have encountered difficulties successfullyintegrating Frankenstein into an undergraduate engineering curriculum; and students havestruggled to appreciate the novel’s value to their professional development as engineers [3].Nevertheless, the novel’s capacity to address ethical aspects
challengesbrought about by the paradigm shift toward advanced manufacturing. The literature in Chineseindicates that engineering education researchers in China have noted the importance of resiliencein the training of engineers. Nonetheless, the literature in Chinese has not examined the processthrough which young engineers develop resilience at work. This study investigates the process ofresilience development.3. Method3.1 SamplingWe used homogeneous sampling method, which is a purposive sampling technique that aims torecruit research samples similar in characteristics relevant for the study. Based on Kovalchuk’(2017) study and the actual working situation of Chinese engineers, we created three inclusioncriteria for participant recruitment: (1) the
lens through which both learner and educator can engage thecomplexities of culture, society, and self in educational settings.Three Examples of Visual Methods Embedded into STEM Education AssessmentFigure 1: Illustration of case studies highlighted, plotted against increasing opportunity forstudent autonomy and creativity vs. increasing opportunity for students to highlight their identity.In this paper we introduce three examples of visual assessments that have been implemented in ascience festival and two engineering courses. We posit that increasing opportunities for studentautonomy and consequently, creativity can encourage students to integrate their sense of self intothinking, knowing, and doing STEM. With the infusion of pedagogy
aremany positive outcomes associated with the development of truly interdisciplinary(multidisciplinary) courses for students, making connections to what they referred to as“integrative studies” (p.1). Their work suggested that bringing together students from distantdisciplinary homes of practice offers the potential to create “more sensitivity to ethicalissues…ability to synthesize or integrate…enlarged perspectives or horizons,…more creative,original, or unconventional thinking,…more humility or listening skills” (p.70-71), andmore. Likewise, Hotaling, Fasse, Bost, et. al. (2012) provide favorable empirical evidence,suggesting that students that work on multidisciplinary capstone teams not only produceimproved solutions they increase their
©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Convergence and Divergence in Engineering Leadership, Entrepreneurship, Management, and PolicyAbstract A little over half (28 of 54) of the divisions of ASEE focus on the intersections betweenSTEM disciplines and different contexts of engineering education and practice. These 28divisions emphasize three broad areas: (1) humanistic content and goals; (2) particular groups ofstudents, faculty, practitioners, or other stakeholders; and (3) specific arenas of activity andorganizational contexts. Four of these “Engineering and. . .” divisions include engineeringleadership, entrepreneurship, management, and policy. The divisions share goals such asconnecting the technical
Paper ID #37415”Studies in the Strategies of Overcomers”: Literature Review of theExperiences of High-achieving Black Male Undergraduate EngineeringStudentsDr. Royce A. Francis, The George Washington University Dr. Royce Francis is an Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Management and Sys- tems Engineering. His overall research vision is to conduct research, teaching, and service that facilitates sustainable habitation of the built environment. This vision involves three thrusts: 1.) infrastructure management, including sustainability, resilience, and risk analysis; 2.) regulatory risk assessment and
. Women of color (WOC) are anunderrepresented and underserved community [1] in engineering who can offer underutilizedintellectual capital. Despite efforts in engineering education, however, WOC remain repressed inengineering as well as most university-level engineering programs in the US [2]. A possiblereason for the repression of WOC in engineering may be from the underlying epistemologies ofthe field itself.The foundational epistemologies of engineering in the US were established in the mid-19thcentury through engineering societies in various universities [3]–[7]. Not surprisingly, due to thesociopolitical climate in the US at the time, the only individuals with access to these societies(who therefore shaped their values and cultures) were
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
language and rhetorical strategies could produce a deterrent effect.Specifically, I use rhetorical theory and the concept of analogical imagination to illuminate thenature and power of implied messages and suggest conversation as a promising rhetorical modefor engaging a broader range of participants in the discourse on diversity. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 1 2024 ASEE Annual ConferenceThe discourse on diversity is organized around values that are cherished in the LiberalEducation/Engineering & Society Division of ASEE (LEES) and in the broader community ofpeople engaged in humanistic education for engineers. I want to emphasize that the
stories of engineers and programs that have had exemplarysocietal impacts. A particular emphasis is placed on individuals historically underrepresented inthe engineering profession, including people of color, women, and people with disabilities,bringing their experiences and achievements to the forefront. Slated to be released in mid-2024,the report’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations are not yet available. However, thisarticle aims to shed light on the various ways that the NSF and NAE have conceptualizedengineering’s impacts on society by 1) exploring the history of engineering at NSF, 2) analyzingfoundational material from the NSF/NAE that informed the work of the committee such asNSF’s Broader Impacts and NAE’s Grand Challenges in
that is inclusive and nurtures well-being.IntroductionThe high prevalence of mental health issues among U.S. college students continues to posesignificant challenges for higher education [1]. In the last decade, rates of depression and anxietyhave risen dramatically among students [2], which raises concerns about students’ overall well-being and persistence [3]. Notably, research has shown that engineering undergraduates facehigher rates of mental health concerns such as depression and anxiety compared to their peers[4], [5]. Furthermore, mental health disparities exist for underrepresented college students.Students with minoritized identities (e.g., students of color, gender and sexual minorities, first-generation college students) experience