). Thus, our results and conclusions about participant experience and gainfrom the workshop will be representative of the workshop and independent of specific casestudies. Further, the case studies were designed to be held in parallel, and we assume they are ofcomparable quality in terms of content and provided the same benefits to participants.Figure 1. Workshop participant demographics across all years. A) Number of workshopsurvey participants in each department role (graduate student, post-doctoral researcher, faculty,or staff) in each year and summed across all years. B) Number of workshop survey participantsin each case study offered in each year and summed across all years.Workshop components generally proved effective and useful in
, likely, already in progress, or completed. Table 4 shows theresults of a subset of responses to the statements and the changes in the in-progress or completedstatus for each milestone from Y1 to Y2 and from Y1 to Y3. The full set of responses is shownin Appendix B, Table 3. Note that Y1 is a pre-pandemic baseline year in which studentscompleted the entire year in-person. Thus, comparing results from Y1 to Y2 (∆Y2) showdifferences in the first year of the pandemic when the first half of the academic year was in-person and the second half was remote, and comparing results from Y1 to Y3 (∆Y3) showsdifferences between the fully in-person vs. fully remote versions of the course. ∆Y2 values showa pattern of decline in most project outcomes except for
faculty in engineering who were adjacent to this work and acknowledged atthe end of the paper. From the analysis, four themes were identified: (a) Counter-storytelling, (b)Structural Determinism (c) Language Origins, and (d) Community Cultural- Navigational,Aspirational, Social, and Familial Capital. Two emerging themes identified were Arrebatos andNepantla; and Hidden Curriculum. From the findings, a collective narrative was generated byweaving the stories and experiences of the authors. From the narrative, we conclude withrecommendations for future faculty development programs as they consider faculties’ non-Monolithic backgrounds, cultures, languages, and experiences in engineering education. It is thehope of this paper that more consciousness