by Recognizing the Framing Power of Implicit Messages Kathryn A. Neeley University of VirginiaI. IntroductionSince the founding of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission in 2011, interest andactivity in diversity have grown in ASEE, culminating with the establishment of the Year ofImpact on Racial Equity (2021-2022) and the formation of the Equity, Culture, and Social JusticeDivision in 2020. These initiatives were preceded by several ASEE programmatic effortsincluding the Year of Action on Diversity (2014-2015), the Best Diversity Paper Award (2015),the Deans Diversity Pledge (2017), the Diversity Recognition Program (2019), and the
questions, we walk’: How should engineering education address equity, the climate crisis, and its own moral infrastructure?,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 447–452, 2019, doi: 10.1002/jee.20295.[10] E. Godfrey, “Understanding Disciplinary Cultures: The First Step to Cultural Change,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri and B. M. Olds, Eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 437–456. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139013451.028.[11] E. A. Cech, “Culture of Disengagement in Engineering Education?,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 42–72, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1177/0162243913504305.[12] A. R. Bielefeldt and N. E. Canney, “Changes in
Proceedings of the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.[7] Gupta, A. (2017, June). A practitioner account of integrating macro-ethics discussion in an engineering design class. In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.[8] Hess, J. L., & Fore, G. (2018). A systematic literature review of US engineering ethics interventions. Science and engineering ethics, 24, 551-583.[9] Winiecki, D., & Salzman, N. (2019, January). Analyzing and Working-Out Ways of Addressing Problems of Social-Justice in an Engineering or Computer-Science Context. In 2019 NSF REDCON (Revolutionizing Engineering & Computer Science Department CONference), Arlington, VA.[10] Gupta, A., Turpen, C., Philip, T., & Elby, A
attempting toimplement such assessments in their own contexts.IntroductionSTEM education plays a critical role in maintaining the nation’s position as a global leader intechnological innovation. Such innovation is necessary for addressing increasingly complexissues such as global warming and cybersecurity and requires a national workforce that consistsof diverse perspectives. Yet, extant cultures within the institutions that educate and train the nextgenerations of STEM professionals tend to privilege long-held majority perspectives of knowing,thinking, and doing in science and engineering. Such cultures are perpetuated through courseassessments, which students use to define and make meaning of their major (Stevens et al., 2014;Yoon et al., 2019
-care.IntroductionResearch indicates that underrepresented students who participate in engineering education, likewomen, students of color, LBGTQIA+ students, and students with disabilities, may experience thecampus and classroom environments as alienating and hostile, which can cause feelings ofdisorientation and uncertainty and affect their mental well-being (Allen, 2017; Cech & Waidzunas, 2011;Godfrey, 2007; Harper, 2010; Haverkamp et al., 2019; Kimmerer, 2013; Lee, 2020; Liptow et al., 2016;Lord & Camacho, 2013; Rice & Alfred, 2014; Riley, 2008, 2013; Seron et al., 2015, 2018; Slaton, 2013;Stonyer, 2002; Tate & Linn, 2005). Further, the culture of engineering education has been identified as abarrier to increasing the participation of
Paper ID #39198Divergence and Convergence in Engineering Leadership, Entrepreneurship,Management, and PolicyDr. Kathryn A. Neeley, University of Virginia Kathryn Neeley is Associate Professor of Science, Technology, and Society in the Engineering & So- ciety Department of the School of Engineering and Applied Science. She is a past chair of the Liberal Education/Engineering & Society Division of ASEE and isDr. Rider W. Foley, California State University, Channel Islands Dr. Rider W. Foley is an assistant professor in the science, technology & society program in the De- partment of Engineering and Society at the
knowledge and skills in both. Also, this work providesa novel perspective from individuals who might not have necessarily experienced traditional conceptionsand practices of engineering, which are often artificially separated from societal contexts andresponsibility.References[1] W. K. Jenkins, “Today’s Engineering Education Is a Liberal Arts Education of the Future [Point of View],” Proc. IEEE, vol. 102, no. 9, pp. 1306–1309, 2014.[2] S. B. Sample, “Engineering education and the liberal arts tradition,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 54–57, 1988.[3] K. L. S. Bernhardt and J. S. Rossmann, “An integrative education in engineering and the liberal arts: An institutional case study,” in 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
transgender and gender nonconforming engineering undergraduate experiences through autoethnography," in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Tampa, FL, June 2019.[16] B. E. Hughes, ""Managing by not managing": How gay engineering students manage sexual orientation," J. Coll. Stud. Dev., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 385-401, 2017, doi: 10.1353/csd.2017.0029.[17] oSTEM, "About oSTEM," oSTEM, n.d. [Online]. Available: http://www.ostem.org/.[18] NOGLSTP. "NOGLSTP is Out to Innovate." National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Science and Technical Professionals. https://noglstp.org/ (accessed February 24, 2023).[19] K. Yoshino, Covering: The hidden assault on our civil rights. New York City: Random House (in English
help create a culture where students can learn, grow, socialize, andenhance their engineering identity.This paper shares the student research team’s journey through creating an interview protocol, seethe appendix for the complete protocol, conducting interviews, and performing an initialanalysis. The work-in-progress version of this paper attempts to engage with some of the workbeing done at ASEE by others interested in exploring makerspaces, retention, and the impact ofidentity formation on underrepresented student groups. For the final version after year two of thestudy, we expect to engage much more deeply with the broader literature on the subject. Whilethe recommendations are site specific to our university, we expect some of the
Grant No.2306178. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendation expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References[1] J. Trevelyan, “Transitioning to engineering practice,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 821–837, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2019.1681631.[2] Z. S. Byrne, J. W. Weston, and K. Cave, “Development of a Scale for Measuring Students’ Attitudes Towards Learning Professional (i.e., Soft) Skills,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1417–1433, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11165-018-9738-3.[3] R. P. Aleman and et al, “Mind the Gap: Exploring the Exploring the Perceived Gap Between Social and Technical Aspects
engineering workforce. Angie received an NSF CAREER award in 2021 for her work with student veterans and service members in engineering.Dr. Matthew W. Ohland, Purdue University Matthew W. Ohland is the Dale and Suzi Gallagher Professor and Associate Head of Engineering Education at Purdue University. He has degrees from Swarthmore College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the University of Florida. His research on the longitudinal study of engineering students and forming and managing teams has been supported by the National Science Foundation and the Sloan Foundation and his team received for the best paper published in the Journal of Engineering Education in 2008, 2011, and 2019 and from the IEEE Transactions on
stress, pain, and illness, 15th anniversary ed. in Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness, 15th anniversary ed. New York, NY, US: Delta Trade Paperback/Bantam Dell, 2005, pp. xxxiii, 471.[5] R. Stevens, D. Amos, A. Jocuns, and L. Garrison, “Engineering As Lifestyle And A Meritocracy Of Difficulty: Two Pervasive Beliefs Among Engineering Students And Their Possible Effects,” in 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Honolulu, Hawaii: ASEE Conferences, Jun. 2007, p. 12.618.1-12.618.17. doi: 10.18260/1-2--2791.[6] H. Dryburgh, “WORK HARD, PLAY HARD: Women and Professionalization in Engineering—Adapting to the Culture,” Gend. Soc., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 664–682
Know,” New Dir. Community Coll., vol. 2006, no. 135, pp. 21–28, 2006, doi: 10.1002/cc.[2] K. J. Cross, K. B. H. Clancy, R. Mendenhall, P. Imoukhuede, and J. Amos, “The Double Bind of Race and Gender: A Look into the Experiences of Women of Color in Engineering,” ASEE Annu. Conf. Proc., 2017.[3] A. E. Slaton, “Engineering Improvement: Social and Historical Perspectives on the NAE’s ‘Grand Challenges,’” Int. J. Eng. Soc. Justice, Peace, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 95–108, 2012.[4] A. Aparicio and A. Ruiz-Teran, “Tradition and Innovation in Teaching Structural Design in Civil Engineering,” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., vol. 133, no. 4, pp. 340–349, 2007, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2007)133.[5] L. White, “‘Liberal
Riddle Aeronautical UniversityKatrina Robertson, Embry Riddle Aeronautical UniversityTrey Talko, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Small Shifts: New Methods for Improving Communication Experiences for Women in Early Engineering Courses Abstract: This paper outlines methods and initial data from an educational intervention based on previous research published at ASEE. Students in introductory engineering courses face challenges communicating and integrating their ideas in team projects. Often these challenges with team communication fall along gendered lines, where women students experience marginalization in team settings. This paper builds from previous research in the field of engineering education which integrated
building, and macroethics in science education. She received her PhD in physics at the Uni- versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2019, where she focused on mastery-style online learning for engineers in a large preparatory physics course. In her postdoctoral work at Texas State University, she co-developed and implemented curricula to engage students in conversations about ethics, science and society, with a research interest in how to best support students and instructors in these conversations. She recently finished a AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowship at the National Science Foundation, supporting and working with the Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Program. She is also an organizer for the
Interactive Timeline, last updated April 21, 2021, https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-interactive-timeline[4] J. Hamilton, “Myth Busting: The Truth About Animals And Tools,” National Public Radio, 2011. https://www.npr.org/2011/12/23/143833929/myth-busting-the-truth-about-animals-and-to ols (accessed Feb. 24, 2023).[5] D. Fraga, “The Manifesto of Ontological Design,” Medium, 2020. https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/the-manifesto-of-ontological-design-7fdb191691 07 (accessed Feb. 24, 2023).[6] S. Fernandez, A. Kumar, and M. T. Alkattan, “Solidarity Engineering using a Pedagogy of Love,” presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2022.[7] D. Walls, “The
/0950017020902968.[2] B. A. Schuelke-Leech, T. C. Leech, B. Barry, and S. Jordan-Mattingly, “Ethical Dilemmas for engineers in the development of autonomous systems,” International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, vol. 2018-Novem, pp. 49–54, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ISTAS.2018.8638282.[3] E. A. Cech and C. J. Finelli, “Learning to prioritize the public good: Does training in classes, workplaces, and professional societies shape engineers’ understanding of their public welfare responsibilities?,” Journal of Engineering Education, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1002/jee.20590.[4] D. Oliver, “Whistle-Blowing Engineer,” vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 246–256, 2004.[5] J. Metcalf, E. Moss, and danah boyd, “Owning Ethics
Press, 2017.[2] P. Nagy, R. Wylie, J. Eschrich, and E. Finn. “Facing the Pariah of Science: TheFrankenstein Myth as a Social and Ethical Reference for Scientists,” Science and EngineeringEthics, vol. 26, pp. 737-759, 2020.[3] J. Canino and K. B. Teichert. (2019, June). A Frankenstein-inspired Engineering DesignProject. Presented at 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, Florida. [Online].Available: https://peer.asee.org/a-frankenstein-inspired-engineering-design-project[4] H. Markus and P. Nurius, “Possible Selves,” American Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 9, pp.954-969, Sep. 1986.[5] M. Shelley, Frankenstein: Or, the Modern Prometheus, M. Hindle, Notes, E. Kostova,Introduction, New York, NY, USA: Penguin Books, 2007.[6
) advancing engineering design research by integrating new theoretical or analytical frameworks (e.g., from data science or complexity science) and (3) conducting design-based research to develop scaffolding tools for supporting the learning of complex skills like design. He is the Division Chair Elect for the Design in Engineering Education Division for the 2023 ASEE conference.Dr. Jessica E S Swenson, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Jessica Swenson is an Assistant Professor at the University at Buffalo. She was awarded her doctorate and masters from Tufts University in mechanical engineering and STEM education respectively, and completed postdoctoral work at the University of Michigan. Her current
/s40594-020-00241-4.[3] W. Faulkner, “Dualisms, Hierarchies and Gender in Engineering,” Soc. Stud. Sci., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 759–792, Oct. 2000, doi: 10.1177/030631200030005005.[4] E. O. McGee, Black, brown, bruised: how racialized STEM education stifles innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press, 2020.[5] E. A. Cech and T. J. Waidzunas, “Navigating the heteronormativity of engineering: the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students,” Eng. Stud., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–24, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1080/19378629.2010.545065.[6] M. Jennings, R. Roscoe, N. Kellam, and S. Jayasuriya, “A Review of the State of LGBTQIA+ Student Research in STEM and Engineering Education,” in 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference
transformative worldviews, which "holdsthat research inquiry needs to be intertwined with politics and a political change agenda toconfront social oppression at whatever levels it occurs" [16, p. 9]. The authors acknowledge thepotential detrimental effects that oppressive forms of communication can have on the subsequentdecisions and actions of marginalized and minoritized students in disciplines like, but not limitedto, engineering.Research Question: The research question that drove this study is: What are the emotions expressed bystudents about who should and shouldn’t become and belong in engineering and how are theyconnecting these to active or passive HC experiences?Research Design and Instrument: Between 2018 and 2019, a mixed-method
(RESPECT), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2022, pp. 1–2.[5] A. Haverkamp, “The complexity of nonbinary gender inclusion in engineering culture,” presented at the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, Jun. 23–27, 2018.[6] P. H. Collins and S. Bilge, Intersectionality. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 2016.[7] P. H. Collins, “Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2015.[8] T. J. Weston, W. M. Dubow and A. Kaminsky, “Predicting women’s persistence in computer science- and technology-related majors from high school to college,” ACM Transactions on Computing Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2019.[9] A. Munson, B. Moskal, A
programming based on the surveys, with a push in 2019 for awareness of Diversity,Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), with a symposium and new DEI Task Group, eventually adding aRacial Equity Task Group. Programming in the 2021-2022 year included a long-term mentoringprogram, a racial equity book club, and a DEI training for firm leaders. SE3 published resultsfrom a study of pressure points for people of color studying structural engineering by analyzingdata from programs in California. From early 2022, SE3 increasingly focused programming onequity in design as well.Hierarchy of knowledge – ‘real’ engineeringThe consequences of perceived boundaries of ‘real’ engineering, which limit engineering totechnical work, are evidenced in the accounts of the work and