More Like this

1. Board 220: Audio for Inclusion: Broadening Participation in Engineering Through Audio Dissemination of Marginalized Students’ Narratives

   Secules, Stephen; McCall, Cassandra; Kali, Maimuna Begum; Van Dyke, Gabe (June 2023, ASEE annual conference exposition)

   The transformation of engineering culture towards inclusion is a key objective in the retention and professionalization of a diverse engineering workforce. Faculty are key stakeholders impacting that inclusion because of their prominent role in shaping students’ underrepresented, marginalized, and/or hidden identities and core experiences in engineering classrooms. Yet, many faculty are not provided with practicable resources and training that can enrich their knowledge, empathy, and understanding of students’ diverse and marginalized experiences that differ from their own. This lack of resources has slowed the transformation of engineering culture and provides an opportunity for practical impact by researchers and faculty developers. However, the topic of developing inclusive culture remains understudied and has evaded traditional approaches to education research. Quantitative approaches can broadly identify the presence of marginalization or inclusion, but they lack the nuance to enhance a reader’s inclusive understanding. In contrast, qualitative and narrative-based approaches provide rich accounts of marginalized experiences and perspectives, but do not typically reach a broad audience of technical engineering faculty. Thus, these accounts are often disseminated to faculty and researchers already interested and invested in broadening participation, perpetuating a cycle of “preaching to the choir”. In the Audio for Inclusion project, we answer BPE’s call for innovative methods that increase research impact on broadening participation outcomes by proposing a novel audio narrative dissemination approach to foster inclusive understandings for engineering faculty. Specifically, we ask the following research questions: ● What marginalized student narratives related to identity and agency are present in engineering educational culture? ● How does hearing these narratives impact faculty perspectives of diversity and inclusion in engineering classrooms? This interactive poster presents the student audio narratives developed so far and overviews the entire project. 

   more » « less
2. "I'm looking at you, you're a perfectly good person …”: Describing non-apparent disability in engineering

   https://doi.org/https://strategy.asee.org/36059  

   Zongrone, C.; McCall, C.; Paretti, M. C.; Shew, A.; Simmons, D. R.; McNair, L. D. (January 2021, Collaborative Network for Engineerign and Computing Diversity)

   null (Ed.)

   In recent years, studies in engineering education have begun to intentionally integrate disability into discussions of diversity, inclusion, and equity. To broaden and advocate for the participation of this group in engineering, researchers have identified a variety of factors that have kept people with disabilities at the margins of the field. Such factors include the underrepresentation of disabled individuals within research and industry; systemic and personal barriers, and sociocultural expectations within and beyond engineering education-related contexts. These findings provide a foundational understanding of the external and environmental influences that can shape how students with disabilities experience higher education, develop a sense of belonging, and ultimately form professional identities as engineers. Prior work examining the intersections of disability identity and professional identity is limited, with little to no studies examining the ways in which students conceptualize, define, and interpret disability as a category of identity during their undergraduate engineering experience. This lack of research poses problems for recruitment, retention, and inclusion, particularly as existing studies have shown that the ways in which students perceive and define themselves in relation to their college major is crucial for the development of a professional engineering identity. Further, due to variation in defining ‘disability’ across national agencies (e.g., the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Justice) and disability communities (with different models of disability), the term “disability” is broad and often misunderstood, frequently referring to a group of individuals with a wide range of conditions and experiences. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to gain deeper insights into the ways students define disability and disability identity within their own contexts as they develop professional identities. Specifically, we ask the following research question: How do students describe and conceptualize non-apparent disabilities? To answer this research question, we draw from emergent findings from an on-going grounded theory exploration of professional identity formation of undergraduate civil engineering students with disabilities. In this paper, we focus our discussion on the grounded theory analyses of 4 semi-structured interviews with participants who have disclosed a non-apparent disability. Study participants consist of students currently enrolled in undergraduate civil engineering programs, students who were initially enrolled in undergraduate civil engineering programs and transferred to another major, and students who have recently graduated from a civil engineering program within the past year. Sensitizing concepts emerged as findings from the initial grounded theory analysis to guide and initiate our inquiry: 1) the medical model of disability, 2) the social model of disability, and 3) personal experience. First, medical models of disability position physical, cognitive, and developmental difference as a “sickness” or “condition” that must be “treated”. From this perspective, disability is perceived as an impairment that must be accommodated so that individuals can obtain a dominantly-accepted sense of normality. An example of medical models within the education context include accommodations procedures in which students must obtain an official diagnosis in order to access tools necessary for academic success. Second, social models of disability position disability as a dynamic and fluid identity that consists of a variety of physical, cognitive, or developmental differences. Dissenting from assumptions of normality and the focus on individual bodily conditions (hallmarks of the medical model), the social model focuses on the political and social structures that inherently create or construct disability. An example of a social model within the education context includes the universal design of materials and tools that are accessible to all students within a given course. In these instances, students are not required to request accommodations and may, consequently, bypass medical diagnoses. Lastly, participants referred to their own life experiences as a way to define, describe, and consider disability. Fernando considers his stutter to be a disability because he is often interrupted, spoken over, or silenced when engaging with others. In turn, he is perceived as unintelligent and unfit to be a civil engineer by his peers. In contrast, David, who identifies as autistic, does not consider himself to be disabled. These experiences highlight the complex intersections of medical and social models of disability and their contextual influences as participants navigate their lives. While these sensitizing concepts are not meant to scope the research, they provide a useful lens for initiating research and provides markers on which a deeper, emergent analysis is expanded. Findings from this work will be used to further explore the professional identity formation of undergraduate civil engineering students with disabilities. These findings will provide engineering education researchers and practitioners with insights regarding the ways individuals with disabilities interpret their in- and out-of-classroom experiences and navigate their disability identities. For higher education, broadly, this work aims to reinforce the complex and diverse nature of disability experience and identity, particularly as it relates to accommodations and accessibility within the classroom, and expand the inclusiveness of our programs and institutions. 

   more » « less
3. Creating Inclusivity in Engineering Teaching and Learning Contexts: Adapting the Aspire Summer Institute Model for Engineering Stakeholders

   Beverly, S. P.; Gillian-Daniel, D. L. (June 2023, 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)

   There have been many initiatives to improve the experiences of marginalized engineering students in order to increase their desire to pursue the field of engineering. However, despite these efforts, workforce numbers indicate lingering disparities. Representation in the science and engineering workforce is low with women comprising only 16% of those in science and engineering occupations in 2019, and underrepresented minorities (e.g., Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan Native) collectively representing only approximately 20% (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics [NCSES], 2022). Additionally, engineering has historically held cultural values that can exclude marginalized populations. Cech (2013) argues that engineering has supported a meritocratic ideology in which intelligence is something that you are born with rather than something you can gain. Engineering, she argues, is riddled with meritocratic regimens that include such common practices as grading on a curve and “weeding” out students in courses.Farrell et al. (2021) discuss how engineering culture is characterized by elitism through practices of epistemological dominance (devaluing other ways of knowing), majorism (placing higher value on STEM over the liberal arts), and technical social dualism (the belief that issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion should not be part of engineering). These ideologies can substantially affect the persistence of both women and people of color–populations historically excluded in engineering, because their concerns and/or cultural backgrounds are not validated by instructors or other peers which reproduces inequality. Improving student-faculty interactions through engineering professional development is one way to counteract these harmful cultural ideologies to positively impact and increase the participation of marginalized engineering students. STEM reform initiatives focused on faculty professional development, such as the NSF INCLUDES Aspire Alliance (Aspire), seek to prepare and educate faculty to integrate inclusive practices across their various campus roles and responsibilities as they relate to teaching, advising, research mentoring, collegiality, and leadership. The Aspire Summer Institute (ASI) has been one of Aspire’s most successful programs. The ASI is an intensive, week-long professional development event focused on educating institutional teams on the Inclusive Professional Framework (IPF) and how to integrate its components, individually and as teams, to improve STEM faculty inclusive behaviors. The IPF includes the domains of identity, intercultural awareness, and relational skill-building (Gillian-Daniel et al., 2021). Identity involves understanding not only your personal cultural identity but that of students and the impact of identity in learning spaces. Intercultural awareness involves instructors being able to navigate cultural interactions in a positive way as they consider the diverse backgrounds of students, while recognizing their own privileges and biases. Relational involves creating trusting relationships and a positive communication flow between instructors and students. The ASI and IPF can be used to advance a more inclusive environment for marginalized students in engineering. In this paper, we discuss the success of the ASI and how the institute and the IPF could be adapted specifically to support engineering faculty in their teaching, mentoring, and advising. 

   more » « less
4. Exploring Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Engineering Undergraduate Experiences through Autoethnography

   Haverkamp, A.; Butler, A.; Pelzl, N. S.; Bothwell, M. K.; Montfort, D.; Driskill, Q. (April 2019, 2019 CoNECD - The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity)

   Undergraduate programs in engineering are demanding, time consuming, and inherently social endeavors for young adults. Strong social support networks and communities which foster success are frequently found to increase student retention and perseverance through their engineering degree programs. Students with marginalized identities in higher education are met with additional workloads – managing their social identity, negotiating stereotypes, and finding belonging. Existing research shows that a student’s experience in in higher education is particularly shaped by gender interactions. This has been shown to be particularly true in engineering, whose gender demographics and professional culture is described as hegemonically masculine. Research on gender in engineering has typically framed gender within a rigid, essentialized cisgender binary. Current literature is lacking detail on the processes used by gender diverse students in the transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) community as they navigate the gendered engineering field. We wish to highlight the experiences that undergraduate engineering students have had in relation to their social support and perceptions of gender as it relates to engineering culture within their undergraduate programs. Two students participated in autoethnography as a method of data collection to meet this objective. Collaborative autoethnographic methods position the students as coauthors and coresearchers to ensure the validity of analysis alongside the project’s primary investigators. Using a resiliency framework and critical autoethnographic analysis, the primary focus is on the ways these students have formed support systems and their perception of the social landscape in engineering. Through exploring how students persevere through their programs we may uncover points of intervention to strengthen these support systems. 

   more » « less
5. Engineering Identity Profiles of Low-SES, High-Achieving Incoming Engineering Students

   https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028555  

   Revelo, Renata A.; Omitoyin, Janet; Cardona, Martin; Nazempour, Rezvan; Darabi, Houshang (October 2019, 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE))

   null (Ed.)

   This work-in-progress research paper explores the way in which low-socioeconomic status (SES), first-year undergraduate engineering students develop their engineering identity. Identification with the field of engineering, or engineering identity development, is an ongoing process for students. While scholars have used retrospective studies to understand the developmental aspect of this process, a longitudinal study that follows students' engineering identity development could provide an advantageous viewpoint. In this study, we investigate the engineering identity profiles of incoming low-SES, high-achieving engineering students. We interviewed 13 students using a protocol focused on understanding the students' engineering identity profiles before entering engineering school. An integrated model of engineering identity development was used to frame the research and guide the analysis. Our preliminary results show existing pre-college identity-related patterns across students as well as initial ways of identifying with their major and engineering as a field. This work has contributions to research in the areas of engineering identity development as well as broadening understanding of engineering students who are both low-income and high-achieving. Our work has practical implications for academic and professional support programs for low-income engineering students and programs that aim to support engineering identity development. 

   more » « less