Paper ID #26697Tensions in Applying a Design-Thinking Approach to Address Barriers to In-creasing Diversity and Inclusion in a Large, Legacy Engineering ProgramSean Eddington, Purdue University, West Lafayette Sean Eddington (Ph.D., Purdue University) will be an assistant professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State University beginning Fall 2019. Sean’s primary research interests exist at the intersec- tions of organizational communication, new media, gender, and organizing. Within engineering contexts, Sean has examined career issues within the engineering discipline regarding (1) new faculty experiences
Mindstorms shouldnot be surprising, given its popularity among engineering educators and teachers. As Eguchi [1]explains, the kit has been around in one iteration or another for two decades, allowing it time tobecome one of the most marketed and accessible tools for educational robotics. Despite itspopularity, there has been little empirical work on Mindstorms as a cultural artifact. Given itspopularity, what is the cultural significance of Mindstorms in education? And, how does thisshape its meanings and uses in the classroom?To give partial answers to these questions, this paper uses ethnographic data from three NewYork State public elementary schools to analyze the technocultural forms and uses ofMindstorms. The concept of technoculture is meant
% of students reported that there are importantconcepts in Frankenstein for today’s engineers, and 63% said it was moderately to highlyimportant to incorporate humanities into science and engineering. These findings suggest anacknowledgment of the importance of the humanities in STEM from the students, and providevaluable insight for future implementation.Introduction The first mechanical engineering class freshman take at Trine University incorporates adesign project as part of the class. Cornerstone design projects have been used as part offreshman or sophomore engineering curriculum for decades[1] and faculty continue to publishpapers on the development of their freshman design experiences today[2]. The current iterationsof freshman
activities. This narrative along with the lack of early STEM education leads to a widearray of misconceptions and rumors regarding STEM disciplines. According to an AmericanSociety for Engineering Education (ASEE) report from 2018, between 2013 and 2016, the totalnumber of students who received bachelor’s degrees in civil engineering declined by 8% in theU.S. [1]. This decrease creates some concerns because the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)projects employment with nearly 140,000 new jobs expected for engineers over the 2016–26decade, meaning in perspective, there will be a high demand for engineering graduates [2]. Thisstaggering figure displays that the level of interest in the STEM field has declined substantiallyin recent years
, Pacific Islanders) in STEM fields and the STEM workforce [1]. STEM ispredominantly white, with more than 50% enrollment in post-secondary institutions conferringundergraduate and graduate degrees as of 2014 compared other an ethnic and racial groupcombined [1][2][3]. Lower representation can be contributed to numerous factors, including alack of institutional commitment, a lack of representation throughout students’ upbringing,inappropriate cultural recruitment/outreach efforts, educational discrepancies throughout PK-12,and social expectations among others [4]. In addition, it is observed that females pursue STEM ata lower rate than males, especially females of color, and it is disproportionate in engineeringfields [1]. For the United States to
from diverse disciplinary backgrounds and life experiences. Situatedlearning refers to how students learn under different a) configurations of social relations (e.g.,graduate/undergraduate; expert/non-expert; US/non-US students, etc.); b) pedagogical strategiesfor engineering problem definition and solution (e.g., remote vs. in-person; in-class vs. in-field);and c) different geographical contexts (e.g., in the US vs. in Colombia) affect faculty and studentlearning [1], [2]. We will explore situativity – the central role that physical and social context ofan educational environment plays in learning – in different institutional, national, and classroomcontexts. As discussed below, we understand global sociotechnical competency as having
addition to thestudents in the program, family members were invited to participate in the activities so that itbecame more of a family affair than simply a student-only program. Twelve students participatedin the program that was remotely delivered over a period of two months. A pre-program survey ofthe participants was performed before the start of the program and a post-program survey wasconducted after the program. Additional details of the program, the surveys, and the measuredlearning outcomes will be presented in this paper along with plans for program expansion.IntroductionPhiladelphia has the highest poverty rate among the largest 10 cities in the country[1]. Reflectiveof the high poverty rate, Philadelphia residents are more likely than
community, (iii) to promote STEM to under-served communities close to SCU. In additionto the ELSJ learning objectives, this course was designed with the hope that students would also:• Develop educational materials and hands-on STEM activities as a service to the community• Develop project/time management, organizational, and leadership skills.• Develop effective listening/collaboration skills while working with community partners.• Recognize and understand ethical responsibilities of engineers.In the lecture component of the class, students are introduced to concepts that can help themwhen performing their outreach. Specifically, there is a nine-lecture sequence where thefollowing material is discussed:Lecture 1: Introductions, Course
engineering communication and integration of process safety into a unit operations course.Melanie E. Miller, University of Kentucky Melanie Miller, M.S., (She/her/hers) is a Counseling Psychology Ph.D. student at the University of Ken- tucky. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 1 Understanding the Relationship Between Mental Health Concerns and Help-Seeking Attitudes and Behaviors Among Engineering StudentsBackgroundCollege can be a stressful time in a person’s life. For many students, their college years
a communication skills course specificallyfor engineering students, the course helps satisfy the frequent calls for engineers to obtain morerobust training in communication, a call that is frequently cited in engineering research andrequired by accreditation standards. Many studies have pointed to the importance of communication skill for engineers [1-9],but at the same time, many other studies have pointed to a gap in the preparation of engineers topresent their work. For instance, at Ohio State University, a survey of 2,100 engineering alumni[1] ranked the importance of communicating orally as 4.30 (out of 5) but rated their preparationin the skills as only 3.26. Likewise, respondents in a survey of 243 electrical engineers [3
degree in environmental or civilengineering. The course introduces the three pillars of “science diplomacy” as describedin the New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy report published in 2010 by the Royal Societyand the American Association for the Advancement of Science, including: 1) science-in-diplomacy; 2) diplomacy-for-science; and 3) science-for-diplomacy. During the semester,students conduct policy analyses of case studies including: 1) the Lower Mekong RiverInitiative of the United States; 2) the Antarctic Treaty as described by the RoyalGeographical Society; 3) the Make the Planet Great Again campaign of France; and 4)HIV/AIDS treatment in South Africa as described by Harvard Law School. Each policyanalysis follows Bardach’s eightfold path
Downy calls “scalable scholarship”—projects in support of marginalized epistemologiesthat can be scaled up from ideation to practice in ways that unsettle and displace the dominantepistemological paradigm of engineering education.[1]This paper is a work in progress. It marks the beginning of a much lengthier project thatdocuments the key positionality of engineering educators for change, and how they are sociallysituated in places where they can connect social movements with industrial transitions, andparticipate in the production of “undone sciences” that address “a structured absence thatemerges from relations of inequality.”[2] In this paper, we offer a brief glimpse into ethnographicdata we collected virtually through interviews
, andenvironmental activity has productive implications. Here, we outline two main areas of pertinenttheory. We group these areas into systems theories and material vibrancy and enchantmenttheories. For each of these, we 1) offer a synopsis of the insights, key texts, and implications and2) show the utility of the approach to advance important pedagogical goals specifically related tosocially responsible engineering practices in engineering education.IntroductionEngineering educators often seek to train students to see engineering as sociotechnical. By this,we mean that we want them to be sensitive to how technologies and social factors intertwine;considering how engineering has effects on society as well as how engineering activities aresocial themselves
they need to communicate theirmeaning-making and its value to others? The purpose of this paper is to describe a newlyrequired course, The Art of Telling Your Story, for undergraduates in biomedical engineering atone highly selective STEM-focused university. In this course, students develop and sharepowerful stories of events that transformed them in some meaningful way. The course instructorand students engage in joint dialogues around these stories that build self-concept and that helpthem to see themselves as being entrepreneurially minded. Preliminary findings suggest thatstudents: 1) thoroughly enjoy the course, but more importantly, 2) explore their unique identities,and 3) improve their self-concept clarity. In this paper, we describe
education.IntroductionTechnologies are the means by which the ends of domination are achieved. Engineers have beenmajor players in the enactment of violence in the name of imperialist, nationalist, and capitalistcauses by designing technologies that have enabled, for instance, mass incarceration in the UnitedStates and ethnic cleansing by genocide in Nazi Germany. The importance of technologicaladvances to systems of oppression and domination make engineers uniquely vulnerable to – evenunwittingly – supporting such systems.Technologies are often developed or deployed with political ends – are artifacts of and withpolitics, as Langdon Winner [1] established – and context matters. Scientists and engineers inSpain’s Francoist regime might rather be seen as pawns, forced by
. The end-of-semester research paper and presentation also differ from the first approach inthat assigned teams collaborate on a theme—for example, engineering disasters that led toairplane failures—with each team member responsible for incorporating a unique case study tosupport the overall theme and analyzing the case from a technical and ethical perspective.This paper discusses both approaches in detail and evaluates differences in students’ applicationsof ethical frameworks to their case studies based on the approach followed.The development and evolution of engineering codes of ethicsThe history of ethical codes in engineering reveals an evolving definition of engineering as aprofession and its role in society. Mitcham [1] defines three
. IntroductionMono-disciplinary solutions are falling short as we face complex issues (e.g. climate change,housing shortages, medical crises) in a globalized world where individuals with diverseexperiences and training work beyond disciplinary categories, often leading to expandedperspectives on daunting problems with socio-technical concerns [1]. As undergraduate studentsprepare for careers that will involve solving complex problems requiring input fromheterogeneous domains, they need practice working in interdisciplinary teams. However,students and instructors face challenges in these settings. Within undergraduate curricula, suchlearning objectives are often measured as individual outcomes in courses but accomplishedthrough teamwork. In these scenarios
focusedextensively on “backward” course and curriculum design, an analog to the traditionalengineering design approach [1]. Such an approach to designing courses and curriculaencourages engineering educators to start by articulating and formulating desired studentlearning outcomes, and then to “engineer” (identify, specify, validate) the appropriate pedagogiesand learning activities to achieve student learning outcomes as well as the appropriateassessment strategies to evaluate the efficacy of those activities for meeting stated outcomes.Such an outcome-driven, backward design approach arguably serves as the dominant paradigmfor designing both courses and curricula in engineering education.In parallel with the formalized, explicit educational programming
, and culturallandscapes which shape and direct the problems and solutions generated by engineers. It is welldocumented that the practice of engineering requires heterogeneous interactions involving bothpeople and things - humans and technologies - yet often the focus of schooling remains on theinanimate equipment rather than the messy people [1]–[3]. Moreover, engineering courses whichinclude a focus on human interactions like communication and teamwork are undercut by theinaccurate and demeaning labeling of these as “soft” rather than “hard” skills to learn.This false divide between hard and soft, between the technical and social, is increasinglyoutdated and ineffective in preparing engineers to understand and address the
students. Secondarily, the empirical results suggest subtle shifts in thediscourse about what engineering is and, thus recognition of values that might underpin culturesof responsible innovation.Keywords: Content Analysis, Engineering Education, Engineering EthicsIntroduction Engineers are often taught that ethics means the adherence to codes of conduct, whichoffer guidance for handling difficult situations as professionals. On the other hand, someengineers learn about the principles of Responsible Conduct of Research and the rules thatdetermine good behavior [1]. Both of these approaches ask for engineers to learn, accept andconform to the values instantiated by external organizations. Those approaches are intended tosupport an
University in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Her current engineering education research interests include engineering students’ understanding of ethics and social responsibility, sociotechnical education, and assessment of engineering pedagogies. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Faculty Interpretations of Sociotechnical Thinking in their Classrooms: Techniques for IntegrationIntroductionEngineers consider both social and technical elements within the problem spaces in which theywork [1] - [3]. Yet, engineering education often better prepares students to address technicalissues within well-defined technical problem spaces, with
strong liberal artstradition. In this first year WFU Engineering course, students are introduced to the study andpractice of engineering with an emphasis on the human-centered design process. Within thiscourse, a semester-long module called “What is Engineering?” showcases (1) the intersection ofhistory and engineering to emphasize global and societal contexts, (2) foundational knowledge tosupport the development of one’s engineer identity (with historical contexts and engineerexemplars), and (3) the importance of courage as a virtue that is foundational to the practice ofengineering. Within this module, which has been under development the past four years,engineering, history, philosophy, and professional identity come to life. Engaging
literature in Engineering and other disciplines on team teaching to betterunderstand this andragogical approach. We determined that Davis’ [1] interdisciplinary teamteaching frame and criteria for teaching evaluation provided a collective lens for examining howwe were working together and how that affects our students’ learning outcomes for all of thematerial we include as part of the course. With this lens in mind, we share the story of ourcourse’s evolution as we reflect on our personal experiences.Stories of teaching experiences provide an important resource for other faculty; simultaneously,stories provide a format for examining ongoing teaching practices for the authors. This paperoverlays stories of our current practices onto Davis’ degrees of
Can a Body Do? How We Meet the Built World, the artist, design researcher, and OlinCollege professor Sara Hendren writes, “Engineering is not the science of the laboratory alone…It is fundamentally applied, which means its results live in the world. It belongs to people, notjust as ‘users’ but as protagonists of their dimensional lives” [1, p. 23]. Hendren’s invocation of avision of engineering as radically human-centered provided the philosophical and humanisticcore to our interdisciplinary teaching team as we embarked on designing a new course forfirst-year students at Boston College (BC). Our course, Making the Modern World: Design,Ethics, and Engineering (MMW), situated engineering practice and knowledge within its social,political, and
engineering cultureduring a time of crisis to examine possibilities for cultural change from a new lens. To that end,this study investigates three U.S. mechanical engineering student’s perspective on theirdepartment’s response to COVID-19 in order to understand the extent to which variousdimensions of engineering culture [1] impacted the response. This study aims to understand howstudents’ reported experiences map onto the dimensions of engineering culture as well as toassess the fit of the theoretical framework and inform codebook development for a largerresearch study.IntroductionIncreasing diversity in engineering has been a major focus in the U.S. for decades. Significantresources have been invested in improving diversity in engineering, but the
diverse promotion patterns as the product of individuals’ idiosyncratic interests,values, goals and competencies, leaving ourselves open to meritocratic explanations of career mobility. Incontrast, when we account for systemic inequities in organizations and society by critically examiningengineers’ careers in the aggregate, it is possible to gain insights into the “hidden curriculum”1 ofprofessional advancement. In this paper, we take the latter approach, adopting a critical secondaryanalysis of data originally collected for a project on situated workplace learning. The key contribution ofour analysis is to reframe the personal choice narrative of career advancement with a structuralexplanation of career stratification based on Jeannie Oakes
-related design processes and factors.Keywords: Engineering Education, Civil Engineering Design, Human-Centred Designing,Priming, Empathy, Social Consciousness, Personal Values, Engineering ValuesIntroductionMany have discussed the technocentric engineering curricula [1] – [5], that tend tomarginalise [3] and devalue [6],[7], the less technical and more ‘socially-involved’ aspects ofengineering, and have thus stood with Cech’s [2] call for the integration of public welfareconcern and social consciousness in engineering curricula.An aligning call/prompt for the integration of empathic [8] – [10], compassionate [11],‘socially-just’ [12],[13], and/or human-centred designing [14] – [18] in engineering curriculahave also risen. This is reflected in
, particularlyrelated to how they conceptualize engineers’ responsibilities to stakeholders [1]-[5] however, there has beenlimited (if any) discussion of engineering faculty’ experience of teaching CSR to students. Although CSRhas been identified as an important part of the undergraduate and graduate curriculums for the Mining,Petroleum and Geological Engineering Departments by both industry and professors, there seems to be adifference between student identification of CSR content and importance between the departments thatcould indicate a difference in teaching styles and possible effectiveness. Examining student and facultyperceptions of CSR is crucial, because discrepancies can exist between what faculty believe they areteaching and what students actually
as askill, one that is not necessarily connected to morally good ends or supported by other virtues.This paper suggests that teamwork is better approached as a virtue and provides evidence forhow the virtue of teamwork might be intentionally cultivated through the use of seven research-based strategies of character development. Approaching teamwork as a virtue that can helpstudents develop into engineers that support the flourishing of their team and collectively worktoward good ends, we developed a module deployed in a project-based, first-year engineeringcourse to cultivate such virtuous teamwork. The course comprised two six-week projects, and themodule intervention began between the end of Project 1 and the beginning of Project 2
assimilationist implications. Theauthor is particularly concerned by how such initiatives position themselves to universalize howcomputing should be taught and performed, echoing the legacies of educational institutions thatenforced cultural and epistemic hegemony upon marginalized students [1]. These nationalcomputing education initiatives are primed to magnify problematic notions of equity withinefforts to broaden participation, if not computing more generally. Because a thorough review ofwell-intentioned yet inequitable computer science equity initiatives is outside the scope of thispaper, this review will highlight three salient critiques.First, discourse in broadening participation tends to frame underrepresented studentsexploitatively. A common