in Engineering Education from Purdue University.Chrystal S JohnsonSiddika Selcen Guzey, Purdue University ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Project DECIDE: A K12 Civics and Engineering Education Curricular Partnership (Works in Progress)IntroductionMany have expressed concern about ethics and civic-mindedness of engineers and theirreflection on their responsibility and public impact of their work[1]. Universities hope tograduate ethical engineers, but may not have intentionality about the education towards civicresponsibility. Lin and Hess[2] argued that civic responsibility requires special attention inengineering education. Hess and Zola[3] found that few youth
situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact ofengineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts" [1]. Separatefrom ABET accreditation requirements, we wish our graduates to make informed choices duringtheir professional activities, especially if they work in an environment in which they are asked bya direct supervisor to falsify data. Ideally, this ethics training is conducted within engineeringcourses.At Loyola University Chicago (LUC), four social justice case study projects are embedded in thecurriculum. In this study, we hypothesize that the U.S. Senate Hearing social justice case studiesare effective in teaching engineering professional responsibility for several reasons. First, the
transdisciplinary, undergraduate curriculum at a largeresearch university in the U.S. The research conducted for this evaluation led to several insightson how students in this program are being socialized to carry out cross-disciplinary, team-centered learning projects. As part of the non-academic partnerships, this includes participatingin learning activities that train students to employ methodological tools and schematics forconducting research on complex problems that are borrowed from business and industry. Suchpractices are viewed by the faculty and administrators of this program as curricular pathways fortraining the next generation of transdisciplinary thinkers and innovators, which, in addition tolarge funding gifts, is one of the reasons why this
Department at Georgia Tech.Ms. Isabel Anne Boyd, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Isabel recently graduated from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville earning her Bachelor’s of Science in Biomedical Engineering with Honors. She has assisted with several qualitative and mixed-methods research projects centered around diversity and inclusion in engineering. She will begin a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering with a focus on Engineering Education at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Fall 2024.Dr. Marie C. Paretti, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Marie C. Paretti is a Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she directs the Virginia Tech Engineering Communications Center (VTECC). Her
communication [14,15].The challenges of adequately preparing students for this demand in sociotechnical skillsets hasbeen studied by researchers both for general capstone design courses for engineers only and forthose that are multidisciplinary beyond engineering disciplines [9,16,17]. The “2015 Survey ofCapstone Design” [16] not only highlighted the ever-growing focus on technicalcommunications within capstone courses, but also outlined the ubiquitous challenge ofintentionally modeling capstone design courses to prepare students. In the survey however, theconcept of multidisciplinary is one that refers to the diverse kinds of engineering majors and howthey interplay with one another in capstone projects but does not include capstone design modelsthat
applications. She is passionate about creating positive change within her communities and being a compassionate scientist and leader.Meredith Hooper, California Institute of Technology Meredith Hooper is an Aeronautics PhD student studying under Professor Mory Gharib and Co-Director of the Caltech Project for Effective Teaching (CPET). Her PhD research uses a combination of machine learning and experimental techniques to investigate optimal modes of propulsion, spanning interests in both bioinspired propulsion and classical aviation. In her role as Co-Director of CPET, Meredith works closely with the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Outreach to coordinate and lead a variety of workshops, speakers, discussions, and more
described here explores these current or baseline faculty attitudes as capturedby a survey sent to both department and college of engineering faculty members.The survey includes validated instruments on culturally responsive teaching, department climateand culture, psychological safety, climate for innovation, and feelings of community as it relatesto the goals and activities of the department transformation project, and perspectives, specificallyfrom computer engineering department faculty, on their personal alignment with andcommitment to the department vision, perceived and anticipated barriers to departmentaltransformation, and current priorities within the context of the project goals. This survey is partof a larger mixed method approach to
over recent decades, theyhave rarely been taken up. Only a select set of observers has imagined that critical attention tosuch roles is a necessary part of responsibly preparing professional engineering personnel; weinclude among these observers some communities within the ASEE and the InternationalNetwork for Engineering Studies (INES) and notably, the international organization,Engineering, Social Justice and Peace (ESJP). We support the thorough incorporation ofgeopolitical understandings into engineering training and focus here on one element of thiscritical engagement: experiences of national identity among engineering students, as part of bothhegemonic state-making projects and projects of resistance or revolution.The complex historical
projects [4]. Additionally, ABET recommends in Criterion 3, whichfocuses on student outcomes, that colleges have an important role in preparing students to enterthe workforce through preparation in different areas such as teamwork, communication, andworking towards specific needs of communities through their work [5]. Practicing andrecognizing mental wellness is another skill that should be considered in the classroom as wellwhich will allow students to learn how to better self-regulate, and manage their stress to preparethem for future challenges they will face working in a professional field.We have chosen to use the term mental wellness since we are focusing on the context of studentmental well-being rather than coming from a clinical health
dimensions of engineering practice. This frameworkhelps to clarify how “sociotechnical integration” is in fact a high bar for engineering designpractice (or, for that matter, any formalized inquiry practice). The following section provides anoverview and justification of our Design Engineering program’s curricular structure, built as it isaround a “design spine”—that is, open-ended project-based design every semester—alongsidemore traditional engineering curricular requirements. After reviewing our curriculum, we turnattention to the design of our program’s ABET assessment infrastructure and how we have usedABET requirements to ensure we hold ourselves accountable to a high-bar of sociotechnicalintegration across our design spine. Before concluding
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
in Environmental Engineering. Her participatory research on environmental risks in rural Colombia was conducted under the NSF-supported ”Responsible Mining, Resilient Communities” project. Gibson earned dual B.S./B.A. degrees in Biological-Agricultural Engineering and Spanish Language from the University of Arkansas and served as a Fulbright scholar in Mexico.Dr. David A. Butler, National Academy of Engineering David A. Butler, PhD, is the J. Herbert Hollomon Scholar of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) of the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, and is the Founding Director of NAE’s Cultural, Ethical, Social, and Environmental Responsibility in Engineering program. Before joining
and project management. Her focus was on students’ professional development and support for underrepresented groups in engineering. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Initial investigations into the link between spatial and technical communication skillsAbstract:ABET requires that all engineering graduates are able to effectively communicate technicalinformation; however, industry leaders often lament the technical communication skills of ourengineering student graduates. Despite years of concerted effort, at a national level, the situationdoes not appear to be improving. In contrast, the spatial skills of engineering students aretypically well above
26 30–60–minutequalitative interviews during the 2023 Fall semester to understand the students’ institution–specific experiences of inclusion and exclusion. Additional interviews with students, faculty andadministrators will be conducted during the 2024-25 school year.During this project, five student research assistants conducted semi-structured interviews withtheir fellow students. The interview data collected was analyzed and used to help createsuggestions for practices that might lead to a diverse and inclusive culture in our newmakerspace. By discovering what individual students and stakeholder groups value and expect ofan inclusive makerspace the research team was able provide guidance to campus leaders and themakerspace director to
student, she focuses on the intersection of Responsible AI, public narratives, policy, and ethics. Her research interests revolve around public trust in AI systems, technology co-design practices with end-users and interdisciplinary approaches to AI literacy. Critical and feminist approaches to science and technology studies inspire her investigative stance. Leslie holds certifications in AI Ethics (LSE), Responsible AI and Human Rights (University of Montreal-MILA), and AI Policy (CADIP). As a consultant for a Global Partnership in AI project, Leslie contributed to research on equality and inclusion within the AI ecosystem. As an educator, she is interested in encouraging critical conversations on technology and
Department of History at the Rochester Institute of Technology and has taught at RIT for 15 years. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024WIP: Navigating Epistemological Borders: Considerations for Team Teaching at the Intersection of Humanities and STEM This paper is a part of a larger project designed to better equip engineering students withempathetic attitudes. While our larger project focuses on the student experience and measuringempathy levels, this paper focuses on the teaching of such a course. Specifically, this paperexamines what we are terming two humanities-driven STEM (HDSTEM) courses taught at twodifferent institutions (Texas Tech University and Rochester Institute of
andpractice were present in this particular educational environment. More specifically, I wanted toexamine the relations of design and explore how students ethically negotiated these relations asthey completed their design work. This project comprised my doctoral research [1].During the 2015 and 2017 Fall semesters and the 2018 Spring semester, I attended each twice-weekly class meeting either in a classroom or at the course’s community partner’s facilities.During the two-hours and twenty-minute classroom meetings, both the students and theirinstructor, who had warmly accepted my request to be a participant observer in her course,welcomed my active participation in discussions about course content and our sharedexperiences working with the community
Frankenstein myth contributes to public discourse and debateabout controversial technologies such as genetically modified foods, embryo research,technologies of de-extinction, artificial intelligence, and weapons of mass destruction.The major writing project in the course is not an essay on Frankenstein, the kind of which mightbe assigned in a course in British literature; instead, it is a research paper in which studentsanalyze polarized public responses to an emerging technology of their choosing that intereststhem. To frame their argument, students draw on an essay by Martijntje Smits that uses monstertheory to explain why some people dread, while others welcome, certain controversial newtechnologies [8]. Drawing on the work of anthropologist Mary
metacognition and self-regulation. She developed and continues to work on Engineering Moment, a co-curricular podcast project about the social role of engineering, and Vision Venture, a video series exploring students’ engineering identities, agency, and purpose after graduation.Stephanie Nicole Bartholomew, University of Southern California Stephanie Bartholomew is a student at the University of Southern California, majoring in Chemical Engineering with a focus on Biological and Pharmaceutical applications. With a keen interest in the intersection of engineering and healthcare, she aspires to make a difference in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. Beyond academics, Stephanie is deeply involved in campus leadership
public, are recognizing the critical need for the ethical production andmanagement of AI. As a result, society is placing immense trust in engineering undergraduateand graduate programs to train future developers of AI in their ethical and public welfareresponsibilities.In this paper, we investigate whether engineering master’s students believe they receive thetraining they need from their educational curricula to negotiate this complex ethical landscape.The goal of the broader project is to understand how engineering students become public welfare“watchdogs”; i.e., how they learn to recognize and respond to their public welfareresponsibilities. As part of this project, we conducted in-depth interviews with 62 electrical andcomputer engineering
wasessentially an attendance grade. Students had weekly homework assignments. Homework wascompleted by hand and submitted on paper, which the instructor graded as well as annotated withfeedback. As the semester progressed and became increasingly busy, time constraints influencedthe annotated feedback to appear less frequently. Students in the control group also completedthree exams, a final group project which included a written report, and a final exam as part of thecourse. Although the final project includes a writing aspect, the grade students receive isessentially for completion (i.e., students who meet the requirements receive full credit). BecauseHCC does not employ a +/- grading system, all grades assigned are straight letter grades where A= 90
) includingengineering drawing, CAD, descriptive statistics, physical prototyping and design research skillsgrounded in humanistic inquiry. For the 8-week design project in the course, students work withour project partners - a school that supports individuals with extensive support needs, to designassistive technologies. I also teach Innovation through Design Thinking, a first year course thatfulfills students “introduction to design” engineering requirement and an open-ended projectbased engineering analysis lab for students in their second year.Debates about sociotechnical integration in engineering educationOne way in which we are conceptualizing engineering as conflict as a generative analyticalcategory is to connect it to ongoing debates about the social
interdisciplinary backgrounds and commitmentsto critical pedagogy made space for new possibilities beyond traditional engineering approaches.Our redesigned course had a new structure. After an introductory week, Mondays were reservedfor lectures, Wednesdays for small group discussions, and Fridays for activities. Assignmentsincluded three reflections (15%), two discussion preparation assignments (10%), three debates(15%), a team project (20%), and a final examination (40%). I elaborate further on the coursestructure and assignments in the following sections of this paper. Overall, the course redesignaligned with four ideas from Teaching to Transgress: creating a community of learning,transgressing against objectivity and apoliticism in engineering
• Empathy and communication compassion activities Collaborating: social skills • Communication • Design project in skills group • Co-creation skills • Labs with partner • Inclusive mindset • Seminar activities in and intercultural groups competence • Inclusive design, • Trust bias in design
education is understood to beinherently valuable, institutions continue to inadequately center the inclusion, retention, andthriving of engineering students from historically minoritized groups. The intentionaldevelopment of critical consciousness in engineering students may be one important tool foradvancing this greater project. Holly [10] proposes that “CC presents itself as a useful concept tobetter understand why these efforts have not been successful in transforming the quality ofexperiences and statistical representation of people [from] groups that have been marginalized inengineering throughout history.” The elusive goal of “broadening participation in engineering”may in fact be strongly supported by the development of critical
literature on the topic. Abetter understanding of engineering problem-solving mindsets – and possible alternatives from adifferent field – could shed light on engineering teaching, learning, research, and practice.MethodsThe paper is based on analysis of interview data that was collected in 2021 at a public universityin Western Canada. As part of a larger project, this paper’s third author conducted semi-structuredinterviews with faculty and postdoctoral researchers from both the School of Engineering andSchool of Education. As can be seen in the Appendix, interviewees were asked about theirperceptions of macroethics and social justice, their research, and local contexts in sessions thatranged in duration from 30-90 minutes. Seventeen faculty and
society or group. To say that two people belong to the same culture is to say that they interpret the world in roughly the same ways and can express themselves, their thoughts, and feelings about the world, in ways which would be understood by each other. Thus, culture depends on its participants interpreting meaningfully what is happening around them, and “making sense” of the world, in broadly similar ways. (p.2)7For Hall, this communal sense making project is deeply contextualized, and has the “tendency to take onthe intellectual coloration of the place where it is operating.” (p.24)8 He characterizes culture asindivisible from power and underlines the “historic
single conceptin a one-time course. It is embedded in engineers' professional life and is reflected in multipleaspects of engineers' social roles. Moreover, equity and social justice engineering curricula mayfoment a culture that welcomes differences, as Rossmann et al. (2020) reported. The authorsidentified that their program, designed to develop engineering socio-technical skills, had moregender and ethnic diversity in the student population than other engineering programs in thesame institution. The third intervention category was external, which encompasses papers that describe theimplementation of workshops, external project grants, and external professional development tohelp students, faculty, or staff apply equitable design
, while my students work through the later stages of a community-based service-learning project for a local nonprofit, they have also been reading excerpts from Lewis’s GoingInfinite and evaluating effective altruism through Bankman-Fried’s story. We have confronted thequestion of whether EA would treat their design project as a suboptimal use of their time on acause of merely local significance. We have also, ironically enough, read Bankman-Fried’sexpressions of loathing for books as an object of study. Lewis quotes a blog written during hissophomore year at MIT: I could go on and on about the failings of Shakespeare…but really I shouldn’t need to: the Bayesian priors are pretty damning... When Shakespeare wrote almost all Europeans
Paper ID #42821From Mind Full to Mindful: Proposing Mindfulness as a Proactive Strategyfor Safeguarding Mental Health in Engineering Education.Vanessa Tran, Utah State University Vanessa Tran is a Ph.D. candidate in Engineering Education at Utah State University (USU). She earned a Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Architecture (UAH) and a Master’s in Global Production Engineering and Management from the Vietnamese-German University (VGU) in Vietnam. Her research interest lies in enhancing the well-being of engineering students and educators. She is currently working on an NSF-funded project