experiencein the senior year, students in this unique multidisciplinary engineering program experience thehabits of mind and practice of engineering over three years, with their final year being used inleading the design/build solution finding for a live theatrical performance.This work examines a novel instance of engineering capstone design inspired by Wiggins andMcTighe’s backward design instructional approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), informed bythe CAP- Content, Assessment, and Pedagogy framework (Streveler, Smith & Pilotte, 2012), andexecuted as an instance of practice-based education (Mann, Chang, Chandrasekaran, et. al,2021).Utilizing a qualitative case study research design this formative and integrated(engineering/performance arts
a greater degree)incorporate knowledge and skills that go beyond established disciplinary territories. Theseideals were reflected in the number of mandatory credits needed to complete for graduation,which included humanities and social sciences as core engineering subjects. Employingproject- and problem-based learning, students were encouraged to integrate design-thinkingand an entrepreneurial mindset. As noticed and emphasized (Bashir, Hahn, and Makela 2019) in the US context, Iwould like to point out that it is too important to emphasize to have like-minded communitiesof practice that support faculty-driven innovative teaching methods. At the departmental level,all departmental members including teaching and research faculty
that participantsmight take to grapple with a new concept or phenomenon [1]. To understand if the participants had gained any HCA, participants were asked to defineHC. Based on these answers, some identified HC as the actions of individual actors (active) or asa byproduct of schooling institutions (passive). As for the deeper understanding of theparticipants’ emotional states surrounding HC, they were asked: Can you think about an exampleof hidden curriculum you experienced in engineering? Briefly explain the situation and theemotions you had in that situation.Data Collection and Analysis The authors previously produced two manuscripts from this larger dataset that hasinformed this study. In one study, they coded the n984
Paper ID #38608Work in progress: Coloring Outside the Lines - Exploring the Potentialfor Integrating Creative Evaluation in Engineering EducationDr. Cherie D. Edwards, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityDr. Bryanne PetersonDr. Sreyoshi Bhaduri, ThatStatsGirl Dr. Sreyoshi Bhaduri is an Engineering Educator and People Research Scientist. Sreyoshi’s expertise lies at the intersection of workforce development, AI and emerging technology, and engineering education. As a Research Scientist in the tech industry, Sreyoshi leverages AI for mixed-methods research on and for people at work, ensuring that organizations intentionally center
researchprojects. The course already existed in the curriculum and the GCMs were introduced beforeteams started working together. The emphasis on competency focused on self-reportedintercultural communication skills development. Walter et al. [10] reported on an interestingmixture of synchronous and asynchronous resources that led undergraduate STEM studentsfrom four countries through a design based process to consider how to support healthinterventions in low resourced regions. Global engineering competency was collected froman ad hoc Likert scale survey focused on student attitudes to the collaboration experience.Alternatively, one can choose to integrate validated, but also intensive, case study tools. Forexample, Mazzurco, Jesiek & Godwin [11
,pedagogical and student experiences. Similarly, with a focus on an engineering thermodynamics course,Riley [5] motivates the use of liberative pedagogies in engineering education by relating pedagogy tostudents’ prior experiences, student responsibility and authority, including ethics and policy, decenteringwestern knowledge systems.Institutional and Data Collection ContextThe student co-authors of this paper, who are currently in their sophomore year, are enrolled in anundergraduate engineering program developed around the intellectual theme of “human-centered”engineering. The program integrates the university’s liberal arts curriculum with an experientialengineering curriculum emphasizing societal responsibility.For the liberal arts requirement of
. Changes in the engineering curriculum thus come as part of a widerrethinking of pedagogical practice across the university.Along with the imminent implementation of new ABET criterion, the combination of the latestrevision to the university’s strategic plan, the growing number of students majoring in STEM,the Engineering Department’s desire to better integrate itself within LUM’s liberal arts core, anda nationwide reckoning of systemic biases that shape our historical present—all of these togetherhave served as an important impetus for radically rethinking LUM’s engineering curriculum,starting with EG 101: Introduction to Engineering. p. 3III. EG 101: Then and NowPrior to the revision of EG 101, few
skills and collaborative and inclusive teams into the curriculum. Dr. Rivera-Jim´enez graduated from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayag¨uez with a B.S. and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. She earned an NSF RIEF award recognizing her effort in transitioning from a meaningful ten-year teaching faculty career into engineering education research. Before her current role, she taught STEM courses at diverse institutions such as HSI, community college, and R1 public university. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Social Responsibility Views in Science and Engineering: An Exploratory Study Among Engineering Undergraduate
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
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
students’ existing engineering identity may bolster the belief thatengineers can be effective agents of change [4]. To promote this within our institution’sengineering department, we have developed a pilot course offering that aims to guide students inembracing their role as active participants in shaping our world by augmenting the technical andcritical thinking mindset integral to an engineering identity with tools grounded in criticalconsciousness and compassion. Developing critical consciousness translates to an increasedawareness of inequitable systems and opportunities to further freedom and prosperity, whilecompassion elicits the self-belief and care for others that drives change.Related InitiativesThere is a wide range of ongoing
illustratedin the following sections, this perspective also makes it possible to critique administrativeapproaches in higher education that privilege classroom activities over other forms ofeducational work that are necessary for developing transdisciplinary curriculums, such as thework of external evaluators. By focusing on external evaluation as an integral component of aneducational system, this paper seeks to highlight the value of this seemingly “peripheral work”(Lederman, 2019). This in turn raises critical questions about how power dynamics and otherasymmetric relationships can be exposed early in the development of an academic plan. Suchexposure is important if the principles of transdisciplinary curriculums are to be fully realized inways that
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
intersectionality and disability issues, we feel likewe could have been more intentional with the way that we integrated these concepts. We are thefirst to admit that we could have done more in both arenas. For example, we didn’t budget forprofessional captioning or a sign language interpreter in case these were needed by ourparticipants. We did use an auto captioning service, but we know that those are flawed. Anotherarea where we could have planned to dedicate more resources was to communications. Weseverely underestimated the effort that it took to reach out to the different communities that wewanted to invite, especially since we were not insiders in those fields. Partway through theplanning we brought on one of our colleagues as a communications
defineepistemologies as “ways of knowing” [36], or individuals’ thoughts surrounding knowledge oracquiring and retaining knowledge. With this definition, we define hidden epistemologies as theunspoken, unacknowledged ways of knowing that guide engineering in educational spaces aswell as the field. Though this terminology may be less common in EER, hidden epistemologieshave been studied in this field as hidden curriculum [37]–[39].The term “hidden curriculum” was coined by Philip Jackson [40], and it has been operationalizedin EER to mean “the unwritten, unofficial, and often unintended lessons, values, andperspectives made by individuals and found in physical spaces within an academic environment”[39, pp. 2–3]. One way researchers have distinguished hidden
Tech.Jan DeWaters, Clarkson University Dr. Jan DeWaters is an Associate Professor in the Institute for STEM Education with a joint appointment in the School of Engineering at Clarkson University, and teaches classes in both areas. Her research focuses on developing and assessing effective, inclusive teaching and learning in a variety of settings. An environmental engineer by training, Dr. DeWaters’ work typically integrates environmental topics such as energy and climate into STEM settings.Lucas Adams, Clarkson University Current Senior at Clarkson University in Potsdam, NY majoring in Applied Mathematics and Statistics ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024
partnership, from one directionalpartnership to co-design [10]. However, at each level, even the most equal partnership, thefeedback and design process were initiated by the faculty member. In another study of LApartnerships, similar types of partnerships were identified: (a) students, (b) informants, (c)consultants, (d) co-instructors, and (e) co-creators [11]. The type of partnership that wasexperienced by students was found to be mediated within the discourse, meaning that these rolesthat an LA may take up were fluid and dependent on the context. Partnerships between facultyand students in spaces such as teaching and curriculum design are difficult to be completely openfor students to take the lead.In the NF team, we see something different from
alsoensuring the relevance and value of every component. Moreover, these additions must bedesigned to seamlessly blend with traditional subjects without overwhelming students ordetracting from their primary educational objectives. Incorporating mindfulness into the busyschedules of engineering students also presents a significant challenge. Often, students prioritizeactivities that directly impact their grades, leading to hesitation in participating in activities [37],like mindfulness practices that are optional and not integrated into the core curriculum. Thistendency can widen the gap in mental health support, especially for non-traditional students whojuggle work and study. Addressing this issue is crucial for creating an inclusive
[11]. This process is typically focused on understandingenough to make a productive change to a situation rather than primarily seeking to understand theroot cause.The problem-solving mindset is also prevalent in engineering education, but there are critiquesthat assert the curriculum isn’t fully representative of the profession [12]. In the UK, MacLeodsuggests that engineering education is geared toward developing an academic mindset rather thanan engineering mindset [13]. He mentions that the education that engineers receive doesn’t helptheir ability to innovate because it centers around a theoretical approach where problems arewell-defined. This approach differs greatly in comparison to the engineering practice, whereengineers must often
about gender and thegender binary (per Caroline Perez and Cordelia Fine). Assignments in Race & Technologyinclude an “infrastructure exploration” [25] in which students plan and execute a local journeyinformed by readings from Langdon Winner, Rayvon Fouché, Simone Browne, and others, thenpresent their observations to their classmates in ways that facilitate further discussion. For thecapstone project in Race & Technology, students may choose to propose a redesign of either aspecific technology or a STEM curriculum, drawing on the course readings and discussions. Thereadings lists for both classes are included as Appendices A and B.The Gender & STEM course was developed and taught by Mary Armstrong, a scholar ofliterature and gender
situations.The study highlights the critical deficiency in engineering education at preparing students forethical and professional responsibilities in the workplace. Students expressed that theirundergraduate and graduate programs overly emphasized technical skills while neglectingprofessional development, communication skills, and ethics training. We found that thesecurricular priorities affected students’ perception of the culture of academic engineeringdepartments and, subsequently, shaped their own professional values and understanding ofengineers’ duty to society.Despite a handful of students viewing ethics as an unnecessary distraction to their curriculum,the majority expressed a desire for more expansive professional and ethics training
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. However, despite recent critical editions ofthe novel that highlight its relevance for scientists and engineers, some instructors have faceddifficulties successfully integrating the novel into an undergraduate engineering curriculum, andstudents have struggled to appreciate its value to their ethical formation as engineeringprofessionals. Nevertheless, the novel’s potential to address ethical aspects of engineeringpractice calls for further attempts at integrating it into engineering education. In
in ways that reinforce existing power structures. This underscores theimportance of critically assessing educational materials for their role in upholding or challenginghegemonic narratives within the engineering discipline and broader society–an avenue that wewish to explore further.From an STS perspective, policy is considered an integral part of infrastructure, as it shapes thecontext of the specific places in which scientific and technological work unfolds. Policies dictatewhat is built, how it is used, who has access to it, and the norms of its use and conversely, theconsequences of a lack of transparent policy around how spaces are regulated. Yet, policies alsomust be translated and performed, and those performances are in part guided
. Eddington, Kansas State University Sean Eddington (Ph.D., Purdue University) is an assistant professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State University. Sean’s primary research interests exist at the intersections of organizational communi- cation, new media, gender, and organizing.Dr. Carla B. Zoltowski, Purdue University at West Lafayette (COE) Carla B. Zoltowski is an assistant professor of engineering practice in the Elmore Family School of Elec- trical and Computer Engineering (ECE) and (by courtesy) the School of Engineering Education, and Director of the Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program within the College of Engineering at Pur- due. She holds a B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in