Opportunities to participate in international engagement experiences broaden students’ perspectives and perceptions of real world problems. A strong sense of “global engineering identity” can emerge when students are part of international teams that consider solutions to humanitarian challenges. To encourage retention in engineering among undergraduate and graduate students from underrepresented groups, a multi-campus team of faculty and administrators developed a plan expose students to humanitarian engineering perspectives within global contexts. Through a federally-funded program, the leaders took students to international conferences that fostered global team-based approaches to the National Academy of Engineering’s (NAE) 14 Grand Challenges, and the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Students attended international conferences on three continents in 2016 and 2017. The conferences introduced students to the NAE’s Grand Challenges in plenary sessions, and the SDGs in smaller group sessions, with a charge to transform the world. Students from across the globe developed action plans to potentially address problems within their communities. Students were encouraged to consider real-life scenarios of their choice that could be further refined and potentially implemented upon return to their home countries. The structure of the small group sessions allowed students to be members of an international team, agree upon a problem to tackle, conduct early research, and propose a concrete path toward addressing one of the SDGs. Data for this project was collected through crowd-sourcing, using online student reflections. Students blogged throughout a one-week period for each of three conferences. There were 28 respondents, across the three events. Content analysis was used to disaggregate data and group similarities. Data showed that the students from the federally-funded delegation demonstrated a clear need to assist the global community. They were particularly interested in working on problems related to industry innovation, infrastructure, gender equality, sustainable cities, and communities. Students realized that approaches to solutions could not be centralized to their own country, and that their proposals had to be feasible and logical for other parts of the world. As an example, challenges with bringing clean water to remote regions and approaches to sanitation required a need to take time to learn from peers from other countries. Students were asked to provide ubiquitous solutions to the problems. They were asked to consider themselves as part of the respective communities as a means of assessing the practicality of potential approaches. Students’ perspectives changed throughout the course of the conference, as they reflected on their ability to bring global contexts to their research. After participating in these conferences, students experienced a greater awareness of sustainability. They were also inspired to experience different cultures, cultivating greater appreciation for the need to engage with the international community when sharing research. The exposure to humanitarian engineering perspectives influenced global STEM identity, while appreciating disciplines outside of engineering, e.g, psychology, social behaviors. Further, students learned that strides can be made toward solving global problems when collaborations and relationships are formed and fostered.
more »
« less
International Perspectives on Intersecting Engineering's Grand Challenges and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals
Growing complexity and magnitude of the challenges facing humanity require new ways of understanding and operationalizing solutions for more healthy, sustainable, secure, and joyful living. Developed almost contemporaneously but separately, the National Academy of Engineering's 14 Grand Challenges (GCs) and United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (GCs) describe and call for solutions to these challenges. During the 2017 meetings for the UNESCO Kick-off for Engineering Report II in Beijing, the Global Grand Challenges Summit in Washington, DC, and the World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF) in Malaysia, we expanded our work to include international perspectives on ways that the GCs and SDGs could be more strongly connected. Within this context we ask, "How can educators integrate best practices to nurture and support development of globally competent students who will reach the goals as the Engineers of 2020?" and "How can connectivity and alignment of curricula to the GCs and SDGs foster students’ development?" Conclusions from the UNESCO’s meeting were that educators and stakeholders still have much to do with respect to sharing the 17 SDGs with engineering audiences around the world. This conclusion was reiterated at WEEF when an informal poll among participants from around the world revealed that knowledge of both the GCs and the SDGs was not as wide-spread as we had initially assumed. There were several engineering educators who were learning about both of these constructs for the very first time. This led to concerns posed by students participating in the Malaysia conference as part of the Student Platform for Engineering Education Development (World SPEED). The student teams from India, Colombia, Brazil, and Korea acknowledged potential disadvantages associated with learning in the environments created by educators unequipped with knowledge of topics covered by the GCs, and the SDGs. The students were further concerned that their faculty and mentors would not be able to create educational environments that allow for development of intentional learning and conscientious projects associated the GCs and SDGs. The report here will discuss ways that the GCs and SDGs are driving international conversations about engineering curricula, diversity and inclusion, and partnerships for the goals.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10074046
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ASEE Annual Conference proceedings
- ISSN:
- 1524-4644
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires innovations in education to build key competencies in all learners. Learning objectives for SDGs identified by UNESCO like the “Integrated problem-solving competency,” if integrated properly with high school curriculum, can contribute sustainable development solutions for Belize. Additionally, the 3rd international conference of SIDS http://www.sids2014.org) under the theme, “The sustainable development of small island developing states through genuine and durable partnerships,” stressed investment in education and training, including through partnerships with migrants and diaspora communities, with “concrete, focused, forward-looking and action oriented programmes.” The Sagicor Visionaries Challenge, a sustainability challenge launched by the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC), the Caribbean Science Foundation, and the Ministries of Education across 12 Caribbean countries in 2012, represented an example of such a partnership that fostered many key competencies now needed for meeting the SDGs. It asked secondary school students in the Caribbean to identify a challenge facing their school and or community, propose a sustainable and innovative solution, and show how that solution uses Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) as well as got the support of the school community. For its inaugural year, teacher and student sensitization workshops were organized in each country. Teachers supervised the student projects with support from mentors who were either local or virtual, including many members of the Caribbean diaspora. 175 projects entered the competition, representing 900 students ranging in age from 11 to 19. Experience from the inaugural year, which saw Belize’s Bishop Martin Secondary emerge the regional challenge winner, demonstrated interest by young people of the Caribbean in many of the themes listed in the SIDS outcomes like climate change, sustainable energy, disaster risk reduction, sustainable oceans and seas, food security and nutrition, water and sanitation, sustainable transportation, sustainable consumption and production, and health and non-communicable diseases. Reflection on student projects from Belize from the 2013 challenge, as well as current examples of teacher led inquiry-based projects for CXC’s School Based Assessments (SBAs), offer multiple opportunities for ensuring reef to ridge sustainable development in Belize and the rest of the Caribbean.more » « less
-
Intelligent Autonomous Systems, including Intelligent Manufacturing & Automation and Industry 4.0, have immense potential to improve human health, safety, and welfare. Engineering these systems requires an interdisciplinary knowledge of mechanical, electrical, computer, software, and systems engineering throughout the design and development process. Mechatronics and Robotics Engineering (MRE) is emerging as a discipline that can provide the broad inter-disciplinary technical and professional skill sets that are critical to fulfill the research and development needs for these advanced systems. Despite experiencing tremendous, dynamic growth, MRE lacks a settled-on and agreed-upon body-of-knowledge, leading to unmet needs for standardized curricula, courses, laboratory platforms, and accreditation criteria, resulting in missed career opportunities for individuals and missed economic opportunities for industry. There have been many educational efforts around MRE, including courses, minors, and degree programs, but they have not been well integrated or widely adopted, especially in USA. To enable MRE to coalesce as a distinct and identifiable engineering field, the authors conducted four workshops on the Future of Mechatronics and Robotics Engineering (FoMRE) education at the bachelor’s degree level. The overall goal of the workshops was to improve the quality of undergraduate MRE education and to ease the adoption of teaching materials to prepare graduates with a blend of theoretical knowledge and practical hands-on skills. To realize this goal, the specific objectives were to generate enthusiasm and a sense of community among current and future MRE educators, promote diversity and inclusivity within the MRE community, identify thought leaders, and seek feedback from the community to serve as a foundation for future activities. The workshops were intended to benefit a wide range of participants including educators currently teaching or developing programs in MRE, PhD students seeking academic careers in MRE, and industry professionals desiring to shape the future workforce. Workshop activities included short presentations on sample MRE programs, breakout sessions on specific topics, and open discussion sessions. As a result of these workshops, the MRE educational community has been enlarged and engaged, with members actively contributing to the scholarship of teaching and learning. This paper presents the workshops’ formats, outcomes, results of participant surveys, and their analyses. A major outcome was identifying concept, skill, and experience inventories organized around the dimensions of foundational/practical/applications and student preparation/MRE knowledgebase. Particular attention is given to the extent to which the workshops realized the project goals, including attendee demographics, changes in participant attitudes, and development of the MRE community. The paper concludes with a summary of lessons learned and a call for future activities to shape the field.more » « less
-
Electrical and computer engineering technologies have evolved into dynamic, complex systems that profoundly change the world we live in. Designing these systems requires not only technical knowledge and skills but also new ways of thinking and the development of social, professional and ethical responsibility. A large electrical and computer engineering department at a Midwestern public university is transforming to a more agile, less traditional organization to better respond to student, industry and society needs. This is being done through new structures for faculty collaboration and facilitated through departmental change processes. Ironically, an impetus behind this effort was a failed attempt at department-wide curricular reform. This failure led to the recognition of the need for more systemic change, and a project emerged from over two years of efforts. The project uses a cross-functional, collaborative instructional model for course design and professional formation, called X-teams. X-teams are reshaping the core technical ECE curricula in the sophomore and junior years through pedagogical approaches that (a) promote design thinking, systems thinking, professional skills such as leadership, and inclusion; (b) contextualize course concepts; and (c) stimulate creative, socio-technical-minded development of ECE technologies. An X-team is comprised of ECE faculty members including the primary instructor, an engineering education and/or design faculty member, an industry practitioner, context experts, instructional specialists (as needed to support the process of teaching, including effective inquiry and inclusive teaching) and student teaching assistants. X-teams use an iterative design thinking process and reflection to explore pedagogical strategies. X-teams are also serving as change agents for the rest of the department through communities of practice referred to as Y-circles. Y-circles, comprised of X-team members, faculty, staff, and students, engage in a process of discovery and inquiry to bridge the engineering education research-to-practice gap. Research studies are being conducted to answer questions to understand (1) how educators involved in X-teams use design thinking to create new pedagogical solutions; (2) how the middle years affect student professional ECE identity development as design thinkers; (3) how ECE students overcome barriers, make choices, and persist along their educational and career paths; and (4) the effects of department structures, policies, and procedures on faculty attitudes, motivation and actions. This paper will present the efforts that led up to the project, including failures and opportunities. It will summarize the project, describe related work, and present early progress implementing new approaches.more » « less
-
Who and by what means do we ensure that engineering education evolves to meet the ever changing needs of our society? This and other papers presented by our research team at this conference offer our initial set of findings from an NSF sponsored collaborative study on engineering education reform. Organized around the notion of higher education governance and the practice of educational reform, our open-ended study is based on conducting semi-structured interviews at over three dozen universities and engineering professional societies and organizations, along with a handful of scholars engaged in engineering education research. Organized as a multi-site, multi-scale study, our goal is to document differences in perspectives and interest the exist across organizational levels and institutions, and to describe the coordination that occurs (or fails to occur) in engineering education given the distributed structure of the engineering profession. This paper offers for all engineering educators and administrators a qualitative and retrospective analysis of ABET EC 2000 and its implementation. The paper opens with a historical background on the Engineers Council for Professional Development (ECPD) and engineering accreditation; the rise of quantitative standards during the 1950s as a result of the push to implement an engineering science curriculum appropriate to the Cold War era; EC 2000 and its call for greater emphasis on professional skill sets amidst concerns about US manufacturing productivity and national competitiveness; the development of outcomes assessment and its implementation; and the successive negotiations about assessment practice and the training of both of program evaluators and assessment coordinators for the degree programs undergoing evaluation. It was these negotiations and the evolving practice of assessment that resulted in the latest set of changes in ABET engineering accreditation criteria (“1-7” versus “a-k”). To provide an insight into the origins of EC 2000, the “Gang of Six,” consisting of a group of individuals loyal to ABET who used the pressure exerted by external organizations, along with a shared rhetoric of national competitiveness to forge a common vision organized around the expanded emphasis on professional skill sets. It was also significant that the Gang of Six was aware of the fact that the regional accreditation agencies were already contemplating a shift towards outcomes assessment; several also had a background in industrial engineering. However, this resulted in an assessment protocol for EC 2000 that remained ambiguous about whether the stated learning outcomes (Criterion 3) was something faculty had to demonstrate for all of their students, or whether EC 2000’s main emphasis was continuous improvement. When it proved difficult to demonstrate learning outcomes on the part of all students, ABET itself began to place greater emphasis on total quality management and continuous process improvement (TQM/CPI). This gave institutions an opening to begin using increasingly limited and proximate measures for the “a-k” student outcomes as evidence of effort and improvement. In what social scientific terms would be described as “tactical” resistance to perceived oppressive structures, this enabled ABET coordinators and the faculty in charge of degree programs, many of whom had their own internal improvement processes, to begin referring to the a-k criteria as “difficult to achieve” and “ambiguous,” which they sometimes were. Inconsistencies in evaluation outcomes enabled those most discontented with the a-k student outcomes to use ABET’s own organizational processes to drive the latest revisions to EAC accreditation criteria, although the organization’s own process for member and stakeholder input ultimately restored much of the professional skill sets found in the original EC 2000 criteria. Other refinements were also made to the standard, including a new emphasis on diversity. This said, many within our interview population believe that EC 2000 had already achieved much of the changes it set out to achieve, especially with regards to broader professional skills such as communication, teamwork, and design. Regular faculty review of curricula is now also a more routine part of the engineering education landscape. While programs vary in their engagement with ABET, there are many who are skeptical about whether the new criteria will produce further improvements to their programs, with many arguing that their own internal processes are now the primary drivers for change.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
