is the process of exchanging information to arrive at shared meaning andconstruct social realities within a particular context. Figure 1 is a representation of thetransactional model of communication depicting communicators exchanging messages viaparticular channels (spoken, written, verbal, nonverbal, face-to-face, mediated, virtual) with thegoal of arriving at shared meaning in context. A key element related to this model ofcommunication is the communicators’ environments, which broadly encompasses factors such asphysical space and place, individual backgrounds and experiences, and the context, including thesetting and related organizational, cultural, and relational dimensions. This conceptualizationencompasses communication at various
important mechanism of cultural reproduction inengineering education is what education scholars call “the hidden curriculum”, which can bedefined as “the set of structured learning experiences or conditions that occur beyond designintent and apart from the explicit curriculum” [1]. Engineering education scholars have exploreddifferent ways the hidden curriculum manifests and impacts student experiences [2] [3], givingspecial attention to impacts on underrepresented and marginalized student groups [4] [5].This paper derives from a larger project exploring cultural reproduction in engineering with afocus on how engineering students and recent graduates think about individual and professionalethics [6]. That project has considered some of the
. R. Jamaal Downey and Idalis Villanueva Alarcón,Introduction The hidden curriculum (HC) has been traditionally viewed as the unwritten, unofficial,and often unintended messages (e.g., assumptions, lessons, values, beliefs, attitudes, andperspectives) that are not openly acknowledged in each environment [1] [2]. More specificallyrelated to engineering/education, HC is hidden under the veil of norms, professionalism, andstandards which prioritizes the current status quo of dominant identities in engineering (e.g.,white, male, meritocratic) [1]. The presence of hidden curriculum (HC) in our educational institutions is unquestioned.Hidden curriculum can be perceived as both helpful or hurtful depending on the messages
they do not continue reproducing unfair neo-colonial practices andassumptions of past development practices. Here we explore how STS concepts have servedengineering students to develop critical praxis, a more robust and responsible understanding ofthe relationships between engineering faculty, students, and communities, and the materialand social worlds in which they are embedded, using community development projects relatedto artisanal gold mining, inclusive management of electronic waste, and water access forunderserved communities as examples.BackgroundAs shown in our 2022 ASEE paper [1], pedagogies of formation are explorations that implicatethe self in questioning “what engineering is for” and how answers to these questions begin toshow
this growth comes through the introduction of STS departments and programs into liberal artsschools or divisions. However, a subset of these new STS programs is being integrated intoengineering and other STEM-focused institutions. According to David Hess, the field of STS“provides a conceptual toolkit for thinking about technical expertise in more sophisticatedways.”1 However, there are as yet no established conventions for how these skills should bedelivered. As Seabrook et al describe in Teaching STS to Engineers: A Comparative Study ofEmbedded STS Programs, “Some programs feature standalone courses from outside the © American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 2023 ASEE Annual
meet the high stakes of suchconversations. Bell and colleagues outline three assumptions embedded in the calls of urgencythat can push justice discussions to the wayside. 1. “that authoritarian-, imperial-, and/or capital-led forces exist with sufficient motivation to lead a global decarbonization; 2. that such pathways would in fact be easier and faster than more democratic and inclusive ones; 3. [...] that a decarbonization effort brought about via hegemonic political styles could ever be truly sustainable from an ecological and social perspective.” (Bell et al., 2020, p. 4).We extend Bell, Daggett, and Labuski’s argument with a particular focus on elevatingoccupational health and safety. Active, contextually aware, and
health related help seeking in undergraduate engineering students,a qualitative study was conducted based on the integrated behavioral model (IBM). Through thisstudy, 33 students were asked about their beliefs related to seeking help for a mental healthconcern, as guided by the IBM. The current study aims to characterize the messages that studentsreceive (either explicitly or implicitly) from engineering faculty and staff that might influence theirthoughts around help seeking. After qualitative analysis, three common themes were identified: 1)Supportive explicit and implicit messages around help seeking are often tied to an individualfaculty or staff member, 2) College level change around mental health is viewed positively ifappropriately
BackgroundResearch and education related to engineering ethics have grown in recent decades, in part due tointernational efforts such as the Washington Accord [1] and the globalization of the engineeringworkforce, which highlight the need for ethics to be embedded in engineering practice.Undergraduate education plays a key role in socializing students into the engineering professionand developing their requisite competencies, including those related to ethical and professionalresponsibilities. Research on engineering ethics education has focused on the integration ofethics in the curriculum such as the topics, pedagogies, and settings [2][3][4], and these reviewssynthesize the body of work on descriptions and outcomes of individual classroom
as campusesclosed and individuals were affected by stay-at-home orders. Many students on residentialcampuses were also forced to move back home during the middle of their academic year aspopulation-dense student dormitories were shut down to further minimize the risk of virustransmission. Against this chaotic backdrop, it is not surprising that data collected during theearly stages of the COVID pandemic show a surge in mental health issues among engineeringand pre-engineering students [1], [2]. By Fall 2021, however, with COVID-19 vaccines widelyavailable, many colleges reopened for in-person learning and students began adjusting to a new,post-COVID normal.As this process continues, and as universities continue to face ongoing waves of
engineering computingcourse [1]. The revised course includes weekly readings followed by small-group discussions oncurriculum-aligned real-world justice topics. For example, students read an article onenvironmental racism that discussed how, contrary to popular belief, environmental pollutioncorrelates more strongly with race than with class. Discussion prompts drew students’ attentionto the data science implications: how what data is collected and how it is analyzed directlydetermines what conclusions can be drawn.This work-in-progress paper develops a case study analysis of post-course interviews of sixinternational students of color. We use a qualitative case study approach to analyze theseinterviews, focusing on students’ expressed identity and
STEM studentsFindingsParticipants’ data and creative content illustrated their understanding and experience of the culture ofengineering, including that of extreme rigor, and its impact on their mental health, a finding consistentwith other studies on this issue (Coley & Jennings, 2019; Danowitz & Beddoes, 2020; Jensen & Cross,2021). Six major themes emerged in the data related to the mental health impacts of being anunderrepresented engineering student:1) a sense of not belonging;2) student reproduction of the culture of stress;3) additional labor that is invisible and unacknowledged;4) fear of being weeded out;5) burn out and mental exhaustion; and6) modifications toward self-care.The students’ narratives showed the mental health
. For the sake of convenience,the majority with engineering backgrounds adopted IT (information technology) vs non-ITpeople.1 At the beginning more than 30 faculty members with diverse engineeringbackgrounds joined the program, while less than 5 members were recruited from humanities,entrepreneurship, social sciences, and arts (HESA). The curricular design principle was based on the integration of subjects, termed asnon-IT subjects, into core engineering subjects. The idea was very much like appropriatingusable/applicable dimensions of humanities as if they would lend imaginative power toengineering capacity. About one third of mandatory courses were composed of non-ITsubjects, whose teaching and learning models were project-based
including untold stories throughout the history of computing andalgorithms, identity and intersectionality in engineering, designs from engineering that have highsocietal impact, the LGBTQ+ experience in engineering, engineering and mental health, andcultural diversity within engineering. Each module gives a brief overview of the topic, followedby an associated assignment. We made all of these modules available to the students in thecourse and told them to choose one to complete. Each student engaged with their selectedmodule in four specific ways: (1) watching a relevant video; (2) reading and annotating aprovided article; (3) responding in a written reflection to a set of specific prompts relevant to themodule; and (4) conducting an interview
thinking and reflection on their work's impact. This study emphasizes the needfor comprehensive education and training tailored to scientists and engineers to address complexsocietal challenges effectively and responsibly in their professional roles.Keywords: social responsibility, engineering ethics, engineering formation, undergraduateresearch, Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)1. IntroductionSociety is facing challenging problems that threaten both the present and future of justice, peace,sustainability, and the overall well-being of humanity. Given that the responsibility of scientistsand engineers implies a duty to address those challenges for society [1], how could research-intensive universities prioritize transformative
engineering education.IntroductionThis paper explores sociotechnical education as an antidote to the narrow technical specializationtypical of most contemporary engineering education. Sociotechnical frameworks forunderstanding engineering practice have been common in science and technology studies (STS)for decades [1] and are increasingly found in discussions within engineering education spaces [2,3, 4, 5]. In fact, sociotechnical approaches to engineering education are even being adopted bydisciplinary engineering faculty in traditional technical engineering courses, often throughcollaborative initiatives driven by faculty with training in or exposure to STS [6, 7]. This work iswidely reported through scholarly venues such as ASEE’s Liberal
are more likely to leaveengineering and other STEM fields than their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts [1-3]. Thisattrition is attributed to reasons that stem from a culture and climate in STEM that is hostile toand invalidating of minoritized sexual and gender identities [4-6]. Engineering and other STEMfields have been clamoring to diversify their ranks for the past several decades on the promisethat a diverse workforce is more innovative and better positioned to solve complex, socialproblems. Removing these systematic barriers to LGBTQ people’s participation in engineering isessential for these fields to meet their goals to broaden participation.In this paper, we advance a conceptual framework to understand how heterosexism andcissexism
members, administrators, and staff hold positionsthrough which they have authority to determine policies and enact practices within academicinstitutions, students also have the ability to drive change. Student-led change is often sparkedfrom the ground up and benefits from students' perspectives and enthusiasm. These changes caninclude the building of new, inclusive, student-centered spaces to continue to move the workforward.In typical Engineering and Science educational systems, students often are not givenopportunities to build skills outside of narrowly defined, technical domains [1]. Experiences thatencourage students to engage in social justice and activist work are crowded out in manytraditional STEM programs. Oftentimes, spaces to
intersection of engineering and the humanities acrossCanada, our community is limited to CEEA-ACÉG members who are interested in, and alsohave the capacity to actively engage with, our smaller community on a monthly basis. CEEA-ACÉG’s annual conference represents a valuable opportunity for us to dialogue with and learnfrom colleagues who may not be regularly engaged with our SIG.The theme of the CEEA-ACÉG 2022 conference was “Transforming Learners to Transform OurWorld.” The conference agenda focused on engineers’ responsibility to address “wicked”sociotechnical problems, and highlighted the value in bringing together “people who are notafraid to push, bend, twist, and break apart the boundaries of traditional engineering practice”[1]. To address this
Participation in Computing/Engineering (BPC/BPE)initiatives almost exclusively center a binary gender model focusing on girls and women as staticcategories [1]. However, recent surveys [2] suggests that 2.1% of Gen Z adults identify astransgender (that is, have a gender identity that differs from the sex they were assigned at birth[3]). Additionally, in research presented at the 2022 RESPECT conference, we showed that thereare at least 10,850 nonbinary1 K–12 students in the United States registered across nine differentstates [4]. As the number of people who identify as transgender and nonbinary (TNB) increase,current best practices regarding approaching gender in computing and engineering need to berevised [5]. To further support future gender diverse
/or satisfyingCriterion 3 requirements [1]–[3]. In comparing responses from 2004 graduates against their 1994counterparts, the study completed in 2006 uncovered one surprising result: 2004 graduatesreported a “chillier diversity climate than that cited by their predecessors” [1, p. 6]. The studyreport speculated that several factors could be at play, including “differences in the gender andracial/ethnic mix in 1994 and 2004, graduates’ awareness of diversity issues, and/or theirwillingness to discuss and challenge prejudice or discrimination.” Nevertheless, continued thereport, “[t]he evidence provides no guidance in the way of an explanation”[1, p. 6]. Though it’snot clear what, if any, work was done to unpack these or other potential
airtight, which furtherimproves energy efficiency. As a result, this method creates a robust building envelope becauseit forms a double wall and thermal bridging (heat transferring from inside to outside) is reducedwhen insulation is blown-in all the way around the home. This eliminates the need for a wallplate, which is required where a traditional wall leaves a gap without insulation between thebottom of the wall and floor. With an integrated truss, the insulation is unbroken, and a properlyinsulated and sealed 12”-thick wall results in a wall with an appropriate R-40 ability to resist heattransfer. Thus, the thermal performance advantages of the integrated truss design are clear.Figure 1. Image of insulation used in integrated truss systems
isattuned to what is fair in treatment and outcomes, noting differences among participants, asdistinguished from equality, where all conditions and consequences are rendered as the same.Inclusion involves a sense of belongingness, with sincere considerations of how differentbackgrounds and ways of thinking, being, and valuing can affect organizational practices,interactions, procedures, and policy. In deriving insights and interventions to achieve the promiseand implementation of DEI efforts, there are some generalizable interventions like trainingsessions [1], but how such training is constructed and accomplished is less known. Moreover,what works in one location is not necessarily effective in another, nor is any single interventionsufficient for
researchers can disrupt the chilly, heteronormativeculture of STEM by modeling inclusive classroom and lab practices. Additionally, we offerinsights on how students negotiate their identity visibility in a chilly, heteronormative, and silentculture. Introduction Despite efforts to increase diversity and inclusion on college and university campuses,Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) programs continue to be largelycisgender, male, heterosexual, and white [1]–[3]This continued lack of diversity is largely due tothe heteronormative, racist, and sexist culture that serves to make STEM spaces inhospitable formarginalized students, and results in high levels of attrition for these groups [1], [4]. In order toaddress this, we
onengineering and applied science. In fact, most educators trained in humanities, arts, and socialsciences work in a single department.We planned these activities in response to significant recent interest in pedagogies inflected bySTS for engineering students [1, 2, 3]. Such efforts are often strongly interdisciplinary, crossingboundaries between engineering and humanities fields. There are some signs that engineeringeducation, on the whole, considers interdisciplinary education to be useful for students: evidenceof these considerations include ABET criteria [4], curricular and co-curricular requirements ofengineering degrees, and pedagogical activities in which different disciplinary knowledgessupport the integration of “sociotechnical” themes [5, 6
Design (2007) from Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. More information is available at: http://mason.gmu.edu/˜johriProf. Brent K. Jesiek, Purdue University at West Lafayette (COE) Dr. Brent K. Jesiek is Professor in the Schools of Engineering Education and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Purdue University. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Mediation and Maintenance in Engineering Professional Work PracticesThere has been an ongoing call for engineering education to contribute more directly to thedevelopment of a strong STEM workforce. This assumes that a strong STEM workforce isessential to meet the future challenges of our societal, national, and global economies [1
use in the world and equating knowledge of technology to knowledge of readingand writing from the past [1]. In contrasting appeals proponents have called to broaden the engineeringcurriculum to include more liberal arts, and in turn learn more engineering on the job or in graduateschool [2]. However, as we stand currently in 2023, we have not witnessed such extreme shifts in eitherdirection in a majority of programs across the United States. Instead and perhaps a more fortunatephenomenon that we have seen in undergraduate education is joint liberal arts and engineering programswhich have existed for a few decades now. For example, the Engineering Studies program at LafayetteCollege which was established in 1970 and brings together in its
; calls forrelevancy and public engagement; the environmental movement; and rallying calls for citizenscience and activism” (Pedretti & Nazir, 2015).STSE: The currents frameworkPedretti and Nazir (2011) reinforced the idea that there is no single, widely accepted view ofSTSE, and as a response to the complexity of STSE and its diverse approaches represented by 40years of discourse, mapped the field of STSE through the identification of six “Currents”. TheseCurrents serve as a heuristic, a way of examining STSE discourse and practices amongsteducators. The six Currents are not necessarily discrete; they sometimes intermingle or change,and include 1) Application/Design; 2) Historical; 3) Logical Reasoning; 4) Value Centered; 5)Sociocultural
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
calls as the NAE Grand Challenges and UN Sustainable Development Goals,engineering problems are fundamentally sociotechnical. These problems both shape and areshaped by social, cultural, political, environmental, and other contexts in vast and complex ways.They involve significant interaction between diverse systems and stakeholders and requireengineers to engage in sociotechnical thinking during design. By engage in sociotechnical thinkingin design, I mean three things: (1) recognize the range and role of social, cultural, political,environmental, and other factors in engineering design processes and solutions, (2) analyze theways design artifacts and processes reify, enable, and constrain sociotechnical design elements,and (3) evaluate and
/10.2307/j.ctv1220kbjDougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635258Engeström, Y. (1995). Objects, contradictions and collaboration in medical cognition: An activity-theoretical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7(5), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/0933-3657(95)00012-uEngeström, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8(1), 63–93. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008648532192Engeström, Y., & Blackler, F. (2005). On the life of the object. Organization, 12(3), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508405051268