Teaching Strategies that Incorporate Social Impacts in Technical Courses and Ease Accreditation Metric Creation

Ingrid Scheel; Rachael E Cate; Natasha Mallette; Ean H Ng; Stella Collier; Christina Bianca Southwick; Carly Hudson

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: July 12, 2024
Conference Session: Transformative Learning in STEM: Accessibility, Social Impact, and Inclusivity in Higher Education
Tagged Divisions: Equity and Culture & Social Justice in Education Division (EQUITY)
Tagged Topic: Diversity
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/48069

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Ingrid Scheel Oregon State University

visit author page

Ingrid Scheel is a Project Instructor at Oregon State University in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. She teaches Electrical and Computer Engineering fundamentals and design courses, and as a graduate student in Education is focused on curriculum design. Scheel’s industry experience includes prototype development, test article instrumentation, data acquisition, data analysis, and reporting. She contributes to the International Society for Optics and Photonics as a conference chair, editor, and author. Scheel is the past president of the Optical Society of America, Columbia Section, and works to forge strong connections between industry and academic research.

visit author page

biography

Rachael E Cate Oregon State University

visit author page

Rachael Cate:
Dr. Rachael Cate received her MA in rhetoric and composition from Oregon State University in 2011 and her Ph.D. in Higher Education Leadership and Research from Oregon State University in 2016. She joined the School of Electrical Engineerin

visit author page

biography

Natasha Mallette Oregon State University

visit author page

Dr. Natasha Mallette is a licensed professional engineer with expertise in engineering education focusing on effective curricular design, inclusive teamwork, and social justice. She is the Director of Engineering+, the College of Engineering’s first year program at Oregon State University. Engineering+ [link webpage] combines three foundational engineering courses, co-curricular opportunities, career and industry development skills to enhance the success of our first year and transfer students. In addition to her 10 years in higher education, she has over 6 years of work experience as a design, process and research engineer in nuclear energy, renewable technologies, and various manufacturing facilities. In 2020, she received the OSU Breaking Barriers in Education Award, which recognizes high impact in teaching, mentoring, and advancing gender equity in higher education. She is fluent in the fields of energy, chemical processes, and engineering design.

visit author page

biography

Ean H Ng Oregon State University orcid.org/0000-0001-9016-3097

visit author page

Ean H. Ng is an assistant professor at Oregon State University. She received her Ph.D. in Systems and Engineering Management from Texas Tech University. Her research interests include engineering economic analysis, high reliability organization, safety engineering, peer effects in workplace safety, and performance measurement.

visit author page

author page

Abstract

Abstract

Background: Research has shown that students from underserved groups are more likely to persist when they see the link between their coursework and improving society (McGee, 2020, Chang, Wang, Chen, and Liao, 2011). Simultaneously, human welfare and social impacts have become a part of accreditation protocols for engineering programs (ABET, 2022; Chang et al., 2011, Cote and Branzan Albu, 2019). These two factors result in a need for faculty to strategically create inclusive classrooms where students 1) are engaged in the field of study through application to their personal, social, and global knowledge contexts and 2) are demonstrating proficiency on subject matter sufficient to demonstrate accreditation and programmatic requirements. In prior work the authors have shown strategies exist in engineering classrooms today that may be utilized broadly to improve engineering education (Scheel, Montfort, and Cate, 2022).

Purpose: In this paper the authors use a linguistic and cultural lens based on Crick’s Model of Deep Engagement (Crick, 2012) to assess the articulation of engineering applications and coursework potential impacts on society, learning objectives, and measurable faculty commitment to equitable classroom practices. The authors believe the use of these strategies can assist in the improvement of engineering education and practice and lay a foundation for creating learning spaces that promote belonging. In this paper, the authors identify these strategies and examine how inclusive and equitable content delivery may impact student perception of technical courses and their position as learners, a known barrier to the integration of social impacts into technical training (Leydens, Johnson, and Moskal, 2021; Niles, Contreras, Roudbari, Kaminsky, and Harrison, 2020). This paper is a continuing investigation into rhetorical strategies used by faculty to communicate and integrate technical concepts and content in engineering classrooms and the impacts associated with those strategies on relevant metrics for accreditation compliance.

Method: Instructional delivery in engineering spaces is varied and deeply contextualized. The goal in this effort was to observe, document, discover, and build upon existing techniques faculty use to encourage sociotechnical thinking and foster a classroom culture of inclusivity. This work aimed to simplify documentation and dissemination of these techniques to other faculty and interested university groups and ease reporting responsibilities of faculty to Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and other accreditation bodies. The authors first performed field observations and then conducted faculty interviews. Then observed a variety of engineering courses that intentionally applied inclusive techniques to varying degrees. These were then reviewed and coded independently by the authors and triangulation was used to ensure consistency in data interpretation and analysis. Finally, interview transcripts and anonymized student survey data from prior efforts were used to compare this work with prior known indicators of inclusivity in engineering classrooms such as self-identified feelings of belonging and varied semantic approaches to engineering education (Montfort, Ideker, Parham-Mocello, Skilowitz, and Mallette, 2023).

Results: This paper is a work in progress. Prior work determined that 1) modeling the limits of expertise, 2) positioning humans over technology, and 3) application exploration/storytelling are rhetorical tools that can strategically be used to increase inclusivity in classrooms. The nature of qualitative work is that answers often result in more questions (Creswell and Poth, 2018). As such this follow-on work is aimed at understanding the impact that 4) encouraging risk-taking, 5) building positive student-centered learning relationships, and 6) prioritizing team building concurrently with technical assignments may have on increasing inclusivity, potentially through fostering student belonging while simultaneously aiding faculty reporting processes. The goal is to create a model where faculty concurrently increase their effectiveness in teaching and showcase that effectiveness to accreditation bodies. This will prepare instructional staff to meet requirements that faculty show competence in equitable teaching practices and the creation of inclusive environments.

Conclusion: In this paper the authors continued work in the identification and determination of sociotechnical teaching practices indicated by the dataset to complement the rhetorical strategies used by faculty emergent from our initial study and research report. The authors have demonstrated complementary possibilities for the following strategies: 4) encouraging risk-taking, 5) building positive student-centered learning relationships, and 6) prioritizing team building concurrently with technical assignments. While more work is needed, there are existing rhetorical practices and strategies that may be used immediately with minimal risk and great potential reward in the engineering education space.

Citation
Format

Scheel, I., & Cate, R. E., & Mallette, N., & Ng, E. H., & Collier, S., & Southwick, C. B., & Hudson, C. (2024, June), Teaching Strategies that Incorporate Social Impacts in Technical Courses and Ease Accreditation Metric Creation Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. https://peer.asee.org/48069

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Abstract

Background: Research has shown that students from underserved groups are more likely to persist when they see the link between their coursework and improving society (McGee, 2020, Chang, Wang, Chen, and Liao, 2011). Simultaneously, human welfare and social impacts have become a part of accreditation protocols for engineering programs (ABET, 2022; Chang et al., 2011, Cote and Branzan Albu, 2019). These two factors result in a need for faculty to strategically create inclusive classrooms where students 1) are engaged in the field of study through application to their personal, social, and global knowledge contexts and 2) are demonstrating proficiency on subject matter sufficient to demonstrate accreditation and programmatic requirements. In prior work the authors have shown strategies exist in engineering classrooms today that may be utilized broadly to improve engineering education (Scheel, Montfort, and Cate, 2022). 

Purpose: In this paper the authors use a linguistic and cultural lens based on Crick’s Model of Deep Engagement (Crick, 2012) to assess the articulation of engineering applications and coursework potential impacts on society, learning objectives, and measurable faculty commitment to equitable classroom practices. The authors believe the use of these strategies can assist in the improvement of engineering education and practice and lay a foundation for creating learning spaces that promote belonging. In this paper, the authors identify these strategies and examine how inclusive and equitable content delivery may impact student perception of technical courses and their position as learners, a known barrier to the integration of social impacts into technical training (Leydens, Johnson, and Moskal, 2021; Niles, Contreras, Roudbari, Kaminsky, and Harrison, 2020). This paper is a continuing investigation into rhetorical strategies used by faculty to communicate and integrate technical concepts and content in engineering classrooms and the impacts associated with those strategies on relevant metrics for accreditation compliance.

Method: Instructional delivery in engineering spaces is varied and deeply contextualized. The goal in this effort was to observe, document, discover, and build upon existing techniques faculty use to encourage sociotechnical thinking and foster a classroom culture of inclusivity. This work aimed to simplify documentation and dissemination of these techniques to other faculty and interested university groups and ease reporting responsibilities of faculty to Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and other accreditation bodies. The authors first performed field observations and then conducted faculty interviews. Then observed a variety of engineering courses that intentionally applied inclusive techniques to varying degrees. These were then reviewed and coded independently by the authors and triangulation was used to ensure consistency in data interpretation and analysis. Finally, interview transcripts and anonymized student survey data from prior efforts were used to compare this work with prior known indicators of inclusivity in engineering classrooms such as self-identified feelings of belonging and varied semantic approaches to engineering education (Montfort, Ideker, Parham-Mocello, Skilowitz, and Mallette, 2023).  

Results: This paper is a work in progress. Prior work determined that 1) modeling the limits of expertise, 2) positioning humans over technology, and 3) application exploration/storytelling are rhetorical tools that can strategically be used to increase inclusivity in classrooms. The nature of qualitative work is that answers often result in more questions (Creswell and Poth, 2018). As such this follow-on work is aimed at understanding the impact that 4) encouraging risk-taking, 5) building positive student-centered learning relationships, and 6) prioritizing team building concurrently with technical assignments may have on increasing inclusivity, potentially through fostering student belonging while simultaneously aiding faculty reporting processes. The goal is to create a model where faculty concurrently increase their effectiveness in teaching and showcase that effectiveness to accreditation bodies. This will prepare instructional staff to meet requirements that faculty show competence in equitable teaching practices and the creation of inclusive environments. 

Conclusion: In this paper the authors continued work in the identification and determination of sociotechnical teaching practices indicated by the dataset to complement the rhetorical strategies used by faculty emergent from our initial study and research report. The authors have demonstrated complementary possibilities for the following strategies: 4) encouraging risk-taking, 5) building positive student-centered learning relationships, and 6) prioritizing team building concurrently with technical assignments. While more work is needed, there are existing rhetorical practices and strategies that may be used immediately with minimal risk and great potential reward in the engineering education space. 
AU  - Ingrid Scheel
AU  - Rachael E Cate
AU  - Natasha Mallette
AU  - Ean H Ng
AU  - Stella Collier
AU  - Christina Bianca Southwick
AU  - Carly Hudson
CY  - Portland, Oregon
DA  - 2024/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Teaching Strategies that Incorporate Social Impacts in Technical Courses and Ease Accreditation Metric Creation
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/48069
ER  -