More Like this

1. Best Practices for Developing a Virtual Peer Mentoring Community

   Faber, C.; Smith-Orr, C.; Coso Strong, A.; Lee, W.; McCave, E. (June 2017, ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings)

   This paper describes an approach for creating a virtual community for peer mentoring and provides insight, in the form of best practices, on how engineering faculty can elicit support through cross-institutional mentoring. The value of a virtual, peer-mentoring community is providing support that may be otherwise unavailable at one’s institution; it can also minimize negative impacts that may be associated with institutional power dynamics. The best practices described herein are informed by six early-career engineering education faculty that developed and participated in a virtual community of practice over the last two years. We will describe best practices for identifying a shared vision, developing possible tangible outcomes, writing operating procedures, selecting an appropriate platform for communication, and facilitating reflection and changes to practice. 

   more » « less
2. The Engineering Identity of Afterschool Educators

   Carey, Emma (May 2024, Afterschool matters)

   Hall, G; Gallagher, J (Ed.)

   The author describes how afterschool educators engage in practices that reflect the engineering process. 

   more » « less
3. Someone Like You: Theorizing LGBTQ Participation in Engineering through Network Homophily and State Authenticity

   Hughes, Bryce E.; MGWatson, Sidrah (June 2023, Proceedings of the 2023 ASEE National Conference and Exhibition)

   This theoretical paper proposes a framework to understand LGBTQ participation in STEM that reveals how heterosexism and cissexism operate in engineering. We propose a framework that connects the low representation of LGBTQ students in engineering to experiences of inauthenticity that threatens their participation in engineering and motivation to persist in their studies. LGBTQ students’ social networks in engineering are composed predominantly of people of different sexual and gender identities than them, whereas cisgender, heterosexual students have access to networks composed of peers who nearly entirely share these identities with them. A concept from social network theory, homophily describes how much one's social network is composed of people who are like oneself. Homophilous networks validate personal experiences and identities in ways that we anticipate foster a greater sense of authenticity within those environments. Schmader and Sedikides posit within their State Authenticity as Fit to Environment model that authenticity is an essential human need induced in environments that are congruent with one’s sense of identity. Experiencing state authenticity increases motivation and engagement within that environment; experiencing inauthenticity does the opposite. Heterosexual, cisgender students experience authenticity within engineering with little question, whereas LGBTQ students are more likely to experience inauthenticity which interferes with their participation in engineering fields. Attention to state in/authenticity as a critical aspect of engineering learning environments may help shift these demotivating and disengaging environments for minoritized students like LGBTQ students who wish to pursue these fields of study. To better understand LGBTQ participation in engineering social network analysis could help unpack the relationship between the composition of engineering students’ social networks, their experiences of in/authenticity, and different educational and vocational outcomes in engineering. This may also offer insight into how students organize their networks into environments where they are more likely to experience state authenticity. Implications for practice include helping LGBTQ students find community in engineering and other STEM fields through organizations like Out to Innovate and oSTEM. 

   more » « less
4. Global Engineering Ethics: What? Why? How? and When?

   Clancy, R.; Zhu, Q. (December 2022, Journal of international engineering education)

   Even though engineering programs, accreditation bodies, and multinational corporations have become increasingly interested in introducing global dimensions into professional engineering practice, little work in the existing literature provides an overview of questions fundamental to global engineering ethics, such as what global engineering ethics is, why it should be taught, how it should be taught, and when it should be introduced. This paper describes the what, why, how, and when of global engineering ethics – a form adopted from a 1996 article by Charles Harris, Michael Davis, Michael Pritchard, and Michael Rabins, which has influenced the development of engineering ethics for over twenty-five years. First, this paper describes global engineering ethics as a response to the increasingly cross-cultural, international characteristics of contemporary engineering, as well as four fundamental approaches to conceive and deliver this training (what). Next, it explains the motivations for global engineering ethics: Neither educators nor practitioners can necessarily assume a shared nationality or culture among students or between coworkers (why). Third, this paper discusses how global engineering ethics should be taught: One of the most prevalent approaches uses case studies with a cross-cultural and/or international dimension (how). Finally, it identifies spots within curricula for global engineering ethics: standalone courses, integrated modules, micro-insertions, competence-based training scenarios, and extracurricular activities (when). As the world becomes ever more cross-cultural and international, training in global ethics will be essential for both students and practicing engineers. 

   more » « less
5. Work in Progress: An Investigation of the Influence of Academic Culture on Engineering Graduates’ Workforce Expectations and Subsequent Work Behaviors

   Eshun, Philippa; Beddoes, Kacey (January 2023, American society for engineering education)

   The supply of civil engineering graduates has yet to meet the demand of civil engineering industries within the United States [1]. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted a 7 percent growth within the 2021-2031 decade with about 24,200 job openings available each year [2], but only an estimated 21,561 civil engineering degrees were awarded in the U.S. in 2020 [3]. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in employees quitting their jobs at higher rates than ever historically recorded [4]; this has been further observed in the civil engineering industry [5]. A research survey conducted by the Future World Vision showed that employees with less work experience (5 years or less) were most likely to resign from their positions and the civil engineering profession entirely [6]. Previous studies have examined engineering graduates’ retention in their professions as subsets of individual values and circumstance. However, there is limited research analyzing the overarching organizational culture of engineering colleges that may influence the expectations and outcomes of engineering graduates in industry. Organizational culture describes the customs and values unique to an organization [7, pp. 565]. These aspects of organizations can encourage or inhibit organizational success. Schönborn found that “there [were] specific sets of attitudes, values, and artifacts that differentiate[d] successful from unsuccessful companies” [8]. This work-in-progress expands on Schönborn’s findings in hypothesizing that there are specific cultural norms and values adopted by students in engineering colleges that differ from those of engineering industries, and those differences may affect if and how early career engineers successfully transition to engineering careers. 

   more » « less