. Rebecca A. Zulli, Cynosure Consulting c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 AN ASSET APPROACH TO BROADENING P A R T I C I P AT I O N TIP S A ND T OOLS FOR STRATEGIC P L A NNINGA D R I E N N E S M I T H & R E B E C C A Z U L L I L OW EINTRODUCTION• All too often when thinking about recruiting, supporting, and retaining diverse students in our STEM majors and programs, the situation is approached from a deficit mindset; that is, one that focuses on what students or environments lack that must be remedied.• In our work supporting STEM departments with their broadening participation efforts, we focus on fostering an asset-minded approach to strategic planning.• This approach is grounded
sanitation, as well as sustainability solutions, through interdisciplinary approaches. Since joining the Olin College faculty she has also dived into the field of engineering education with an emphasis on integration of arts, humanities, and STEM. Her love of learning was first fostered by an unusual elementary school education that was deeply inter- disciplinary with a substantial arts curriculum. After graduating from Harvard University with a B.A. in Dramatic Literature, she worked professionally in theater and wrote and recorded two musical albums. She then returned to school to study engineering, earning a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Rutgers Uni- versity in 2011. While completing her degree at Rutgers, she wrote
, vol. 42, no. 1 pp. 48-60, 2014.[3] B.L. Yoder, “Engineering by the Numbers.” American Society for Engineering Education, 2017.[4] S. Secules, “Beyond Diversity as Usual: Expanding Critical Cultural Approaches to Marginalization in Engineering Education.” PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 2017.[5] M. Morgan, (2013). Supporting Student Diversity in Higher Education: A Practical Guide, New York, NY: Routledge, 2013.[6] P. Gándara and J. Maxwell-Jolly, “Priming the pump: Strategies for increasing the achievement of underrepresented minority undergraduates,” The College Board, New York, NY, 1999.[7] BEST (Building Engineering and Science Talent), A Bridge for All: Higher
in this very hegemonic process of not directly identifying power.My own biases as I was entering into this course are based on the premise that engineeringeducation is only now, in the past 5 years or so, beginning to turn a critical eye on the field forhow dominant ideologies structure much of the curriculum and pedagogy within highereducation spaces. Because these critical discourses are new to engineering education, myassumption was, they would not be as theoretically informed as they are in humanities-based oreducation-based fields. Not only is the pedagogy used within the course theoretically informed,but the ways in which the instructor selected reading materials, listened to how students weretaking up the materials, and facilitated
drop out of engineering programs, simply because they are not given the opportunity developthese skills.Research indicates that spatial skills are malleable, not innate and can be learned by practicing [9].Sorby’s “Developing Spatial Thinking” curriculum has been implemented in over 41 engineering schoolswith the help of the NSF-funded ENGAGE Engineering initiative [10]. Data collected over the past twodecades at Michigan Technological University clearly show significant improvement in spatial skill testscores after participation in the new curriculum, from an average pre-workshop score of approximately50% to an average post-workshop score of approximately 75%. Students typically complete Sorby’sstandard ten-module curriculum over 10 weeks
," Psychological Review, vol. 84, pp. 191-215, 1977.[15] President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, Washington DC: Executive Office of the President, 2012.[16] A.-B. Hunter, S. L. Laursen and E. Seymour, "Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research in students' cognitive, personal and professional development," Science Education, vol. 96, pp. 36-74, 2007.[17] S. Tobias, They're not dumb, they're different: Stalking the second tier (occasional paper on neglected problems in Science Education), New York: Research Corporation, 1994.[18] S. V. Franklin, E. Hane, M. Kustusch
than teams that lack inclusive climates. This change is also important because itpresents new challenges for engineering faculty who must demonstrate they have achieved thisoutcome in their class.Engineering CultureGiven the history of engineering as a discipline of exclusion, meeting the new ABET outcome islikely to be difficult for some engineering faculty. Researchers have explored engineering cultureand dominant paradigms through a range of methodologies and empirical approaches (e.g.,(Bucciarelli, 2001; Faulkner, 2000; Tonso, 2006; Trevelyan, 2013). Some studies describeengineering culture as girded by problematic ideologies that reinforce science and engineeringwork as objective, using objectivity to justify technical work’s
composition. Our ruminations onthe implications of our results are not to imply that diversity initiatives focused on increasingknowledge or comfort with interacting with diverse others have been rendered unnecessary.Rather, we believe that our students’ views on diversity may be a factor of the diversedepartmental environment and their pre-college experiences in an increasingly global world. Ourresults, then, support the idea that initiatives that increase the diversity of people entering thefield of engineering are vital to the ability to continually replicate these results both in ourdepartment and in others.Conclusion: Our data is evidence that may support a new starting point for diversity educationwithin engineering classes of diverse
structures, and the analysis of dynamic systems. More recently, He has mentored numerous midshipmen through independent research projects and has directed two Tri- dent Scholars, the Naval Academy’s flagship research program. He has published over 50 journal and conference articles on these topics. Dr. Barton is actively involved in curriculum development and program assessment. He chairs ASME Committee on Engineering Accreditation. He serves a Commissioner for Engineering Accreditation Com- mission of ABET, Inc. and was a program evaluator for 6 six years prior to joining the commission. Dr. Barton holds a professional engineering license in the State Maryland. He is a member of the Board of Education, ASME.Dr
. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 High Risk, (with Hope for) High Reward: Lessons Learned from Planning and Hosting an Unconference Abstract Often in diversity and inclusion research, the goal is to represent the perspectives of those whoare ‘not at the table,’ but seldom do research methods provide the participants an actual seat ‘at the table.’Informed by a participatory action research approach, we partnered with study participants, positioningthem as our co-researchers. Together, we employed an unconference (also known as an Open SpaceTechnology workshop) as a research method in order to elevate the voices of
, “Engineering by the Numbers,” American Society for Engineering Education, 2017. Available: https://www.asee.org/documents/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/2017- Engineering-by-Numbers-Engineering-Statistics.pdf. [Accessed 29 November, 2018].[8] M. Paxton, C. Figdor, and V. Tiberius, “Quantifying the Gender Gap: An Empirical Study of the Underrepresentation of Women in Philosophy,” Hypatia, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2012, pp. 949-957.[9] A. Martin and K. O’Meara, “Conditions Enabling Women’s Leadership in Community Colleges,” in P.L. Eddy et al. (eds.), Critical Approaches to Women and Gender in Higher Education, P.L. Eddy et al. (eds.), Palgrave Macmillan US, 2017.[10] R. Ely, H. Ibarra, and D. Kolb, “Taking Gender Into