More Like this

1. A descriptive examination by race/ethnicity in how engineering faculty understand their efficacy and responsibility for engaging in equity-based initiatives for faculty of color

   DeAngelo, Linda; Winkler, Christa; Stone, Blayne; Diaz, Charlie (June 2025, American Society of Engineering Education)

   This full empirical research paper addresses how engineering faculty perceive their roles and responsibility in creating an equitable environment within academia, an understudied but important area to address in organizational change efforts. To begin to fill this gap, we developed a survey to understand the ways that faculty take up responsibility for driving diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) changes. The instrument included 7 scales measuring faculty perceptions of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belongingness (DEIB) policies and practices, professional development and support for faculty of Color, and efforts to recruit and retain faculty of Color, as well as their perceptions of personal responsibility and self-efficacy to enact DEIB change. We collected data from 179 engineering faculty at three private engineering institutions in the Northeast region of which 137 provided race/ethnicity data and make up our analytical sample - Asian faculty (n=29, 16.2%), Black, Latiné, Indigenous (BLI), and multiracial BLI faculty (BLI(M)) (n=18, 10.1%), and white faculty (n=90, 50.3%). Mean standardized factor scores were created for each scale and pairwise comparisons using t-tests with a Bonferroni correction were used to examine differences between groups. The results highlight differences and trends among Asian, White, and BLI(M) faculty in DEIB readiness and responsibility. The findings of this study have implications for understanding how faculty assess their environments and how they view their responsibility and readiness to engage in enacting equity-based initiatives. 

   more » « less
2. Board 156: Concrete Tools to Practice Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging in the STEM Classroom

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--42498  

   Minkus, Geniene; Pollock, Meagan (June 2023, ASEE annual conference exposition)

   In this paper, the primary author offers a framework developed through action research as a participant in the CISTEME365 program of how STEM educators can ensure their students can access these critical skills to be agile problem solvers in all their coursework and careers. The science teacher's framework for a DEIB-aware classroom consists of five elements: intentional grouping, student-driven labs, project-based assessments, presentations, and reflections. 

   more » « less
3. Cultivating Curiosity: Faculty Insights on Mentoring S-STEM Undergraduate Researchers.

   Hassler, Ryan; Nathan, Rungun; Scanlon, Marietta; Cohan, Catherine (June 2025, American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) 2025 Annual Conference)

   Most first-year engineering students are initially paired with non-engineering advisors and typically only enroll in one engineering course during their first year. However, undergraduate research is vital for enhancing critical thinking skills and boosting STEM persistence, as highlighted by Kuh (2008) and Brown et al. (2015). Recognizing this gap, we initiated "Sprouting Research from Day 1," which paired S-STEM scholars during their second semester of college with engineering faculty research mentors. Faculty mentors met bi-weekly with their mentees to discuss individual research interests and then every other week as part of a group session about broader research concepts. To gain insights into the motivations and expectations of the faculty mentors, a focus group was conducted at the end of the semester. The transcript of that meeting was analyzed using the Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (Kaplan & Garner, 2017). Findings suggest mentors were motivated by the DEIB nature of this initiative, a modest financial incentive, and a desire to build deeper connections with scholars. They viewed the program primarily as a teaching opportunity, expecting scholars to be self-motivated and research inclined. Mentors noted that a better alignment of research projects with student aspirations and a more focused semester-end deliverable (e.g. REU application) would enhance the program's structure. Finally, the need for professional development for faculty was identified as crucial to scaling up the initiative. That suggestion led to the development of a five-part professional development workshop series on how to better engage first-year students in research which is currently being delivered. Feedback from this series will be analyzed and used to help foster a stronger research culture from the start of a student’s undergraduate engineering education. 

   more » « less
4. Design thinking among first‐year and senior engineering students: A cross‐sectional, national study measuring perceived ability

   https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20298  

   Coleman, Emma; Shealy, Tripp; Grohs, Jacob; Godwin, Allison (December 2019, Journal of Engineering Education)

   Abstract BackgroundPrior researchers developed an instrument to measure perceived design thinking ability of first‐year students interested in engineering, and they validated the instrument through exploratory factor analysis. Purpose/HypothesisOur study uses the previously developed instrument to evaluate perceived design thinking ability of senior engineering students. We make a cross‐sectional comparison of this measure on a national scale. Design/MethodWe surveyed a national sample of senior engineering students in 2018 and conducted a cross‐sectional comparison with results from a 2012 national sample of first‐year students who were interested in declaring an engineering major. Two‐way analysis of variance tests compared average design thinking scores across sample groups. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to improve the design thinking instrument. ResultsFirst‐year students who intended to declare an engineering major score significantly higher (2.80) on the design thinking scale than senior engineering students (2.59) with a medium effect size of 0.4. The senior engineering sample performs significantly worse on the feedback seeking and experimentalism instrument items, but significantly better on the integrative thinking and collaboration items. We found no significant differences in perceived design thinking ability among engineering disciplines among senior students. ConclusionsFeedback seeking and experimentalism are traits that engineering educators should develop in their students to improve perceived design thinking ability. Incorporation of user‐centered design and divergent thinking in the engineering classroom are recommended as avenues to foster feedback seeking and experimentalism. We also offer recommendations to improve the design thinking instrument for future research. 

   more » « less
5. How outreach camps incorporate design affects female high school students’ interest in engineering and perceptions of engineering design (Evaluation).

   Tyler, K.; Johnson-Glauch, N.; Dean, L. M.; Krogstad, J. A. (June 2019, ASEE annual conference exposition proceedings)

   Outreach summer camps, particularly those focused on increasing the number of women in engineering, are commonplace. Some camps take the approach of a broad survey of engineering as a whole, while others focus on one specific discipline. Within the discipline-specific camps, there is a high degree of variability in curriculum and structure. This is apparent when considering if and how engineering design is built into the camp structure. While many studies have investigated the impact of outreach camps on engineering self-confidence among participants, few studies have sought to understand how the camp curriculum as a whole can influence these outcomes. To begin to understand the connection between outreach camp curriculum and engineering self-confidence among participants, we studied outreach camps targeted to high school women that varied in the incorporation of design into their structure. We chose to study three camps: (1) a design-focused camp, (2) a design-incorporated camp (run by the authors), and a (3) design-absent camp. All three camps were at the same university but based in different engineering disciplines. Results from pre-post survey Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests showed that design-focused and design-incorporated camps were able to improve students’ perspective of what engineering is (p <.01 and p = .02), while the design-absent camp had no change. The design-incorporated camp increased the participants’ desire to be an engineer (p = .02) while the design-absent camp decreased the participants’ desire to be an engineer (p = .02) and the design-focused camp had no effect. The design-absent camp also decreased the participants’ overall interest in engineering (p = .02). Additionally, both the design-incorporated and design-focused camps increased the participants’ confidence in conducting engineering design (p <.01 and p <.01), but only the design-incorporated camp had consistent improvements throughout the entire design cycle. Motivated by these results, we intend in future studies to more systematically probe the potential of different outreach curricula and structures to positively influence engineering perceptions. 

   more » « less