An official website of the United States government
Abstract BackgroundStudents' identification with engineering is intertwined culturally with being smart. Broadly, engineering students are often considered to be smart by others and by themselves, and these beliefs about smartness—what it is and who has enough of it to be an engineer—are a fundamental and limiting aspect of students' experiences. PurposeThe purpose of this study was to explore how undergraduate engineering students describe themselves as smart enough to be engineers. We aimed to develop rich descriptions of the complex ways they articulate their identities as smart before coming to college and during the first two years of their undergraduate degrees. Design/MethodWe collected data through a series of interviews with 25 participants. We iteratively and collaboratively analyzed the data to determine the predominant ways the participants articulated their identities as smart enough to be engineers. We generated a qualitative data display to check for patterns related to pathways into engineering programs and privileged social identities. ResultsWe found that engineering students have three different ways to articulate that they are smart enough to be engineers: (1) they have innate abilities, (2) they are hardworking and dedicated to learning, and (3) they have skills and experience related to engineering. Additionally, we provide qualitative evidence that the innate abilities articulation relates to privilege. Discussion/ConclusionThe study participants engaged in identity work that produced the three articulations. As engineering educators, we need to take responsibility for the ways in which our participation in the cultural practice of smartness reproduces inequity.
more »
« less
You’re an Engineer? You Must Be Really Smart! A Theoretical Discussion of the Need to Integrate “Smart” into Engineering Identity Research
Background: Those who participate in engineering are often assumed to be smart by others. At the same time, the cultural construction of what counts as “smart” is biased and therefore functions as a barrier to broadening participation in engineering. While considerable work has been done to understand engineering identity, how students understand themselves as smart is rarely made explicit in engineering identity research. Purpose: This paper is a theoretical discussion which highlights the need for engineering identity research to integrate students’ understanding of themselves as smart. By not incorporating students’ understanding of themselves as smart explicitly in work on engineering identity, we allow the bias in what gets recognized as smart to remain implicit and oppressive. Scope: In this paper, we argue that the idea of smart is very salient in engineering contexts and contributes to inequity. Then, we demonstrate how three different framings of identity allow for the explicit integration of how students are understanding themselves as smart. We also present selected examples from our empirical data to illustrate the concrete ways in which students’ understandings of themselves as smart manifest in an engineering context. Conclusions: We provided explicit opportunities for researchers to integrate students’ understandings of themselves as smart across three different framings of identity and how such understanding has shown up in our empirical research. In doing so, we conclude that making “smart” explicit in engineering identity provides a way to understand the exclusionary nature of engineering, and a new lens to apply when considering efforts to broaden participation in engineering.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1920421
- PAR ID:
- 10531494
- Publisher / Repository:
- Virginia Tech Publishing
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Studies in Engineering Education
- Volume:
- 4
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 2690-5450
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 22 to 37
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- identity theory, engineering identity, smart, undergraduate, broadening participation
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Common discourse conveys that to be an engineer, one must be “smart.” Our individual and collective beliefs about what constitutes smart behavior are shaped by our participation in the complex cultural practice of smartness. From the literature, we know that the criteria for being considered “smart” in our educational systems are biased. The emphasis on selecting and retaining only those who are deemed “smart enough” to be engineers perpetuates inequity in undergraduate engineering education. Less is known about what undergraduate students explicitly believe are the different ways of being smart in engineering or how those different ways of being a smart engineer are valued in introductory engineering classrooms. In this study, we explored the common beliefs of undergraduate engineering students regarding what it means to be smart in engineering. We also explored how the students personally valued those ways of being smart versus what they perceived as being valued in introductory engineering classrooms. Through our multi-phase, multi-method approach, we initially qualitatively characterized their beliefs into 11 different ways to be smart in engineering, based on a sample of 36 engineering students enrolled in first-year engineering courses. We then employed quantitative methods to uncover significant differences, with a 95% confidence interval, in six of the 11 ways of being smart between the values personally held by engineering students and what they perceived to be valued in their classrooms. Additionally, we qualitatively found that 1) students described grades as central to their classroom experience, 2) students described the classroom as a context where effortless achievement is associated with being smart, and 3) students described a lack of reward in the classroom for showing initiative and for considerations of social impact or helping others. As engineering educators strive to be more inclusive, it is essential to have a clear understanding and reflect on how students value different ways of being smart in engineering as well as consider how these values are embedded into teaching praxis.more » « less
-
Involving undergraduate STEM majors in authentic research has been cited as being an imperative goal in advancing the field of science and preparing students for careers and post-graduate educational programs. An important component of authentic research that is often overlooked is student understanding of the Nature of Science (NOS) and how this relates to novel research. Previous research in these authentic settings appears to have depended upon an implicit approach to the teaching of NOS, and, not surprisingly, these studies revealed that students’ understandings only marginally improved. Research in authentic setting since indicates students develop deeper understandings of NOS in general, but struggle with more abstract concepts, such as the role of social and cultural influences as well as imagination and creativity in science. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative study is to examine student understanding of these NOS concepts as they are engaged in novel research. NOS concepts were introduced using an explicit and reflective approach. Specifically, students were engaged with reflection questions, in-class discussions, historical narratives, and autobiographical stories of the instructor as they explored the NOS concepts and how these relate to scientific research. Student NOS understandings (n = 16) were measured pre/post using the SUSSI with semi-structured interviews taking place at the end of the course. The findings from the interviews revealed that students understanding of the NOS concepts improved. Students came to better understand how society and culture impact scientific research, and how imagination and creativity are used throughout the entire scientific process. Students largely cited the reflection questions and in-class discussions as contributing to their change in understanding in their responses to how their views changed. In discussing society and culture, students noted that they better understood how society impacts what and how research is conducted as well as noting instances where gender bias is still present in science today. Likewise, students indicated during the interviews how they came to understand how imagination and creativity can be found throughout the entire scientific process instead of just the stage where a research question is posed. This study shows the importance of discussing NOS using an explicit/reflective approach as it relates to authentic research in helping students develop deeper understandings.more » « less
-
The 2024 SEFI conference posed the question, “How can we ensure the highest quality of technical competence while at the same time ensuring that social and environmental responsibility is core to the identity of engineering graduates?” Identity formation is a complex process that has been theorized in many ways. In this workshop, I invited participants to consider Holland and colleagues’ theory of identity as a useful framework for reflecting on our how our participation in engineering education contributes to beliefs about what makes a “real” or the “best” engineer. This theory posits that within our classrooms, students are participating in a complex cultural practice through which they ultimately learn to identify (and be identified) as more or less of an engineer than others. Our everyday classroom practices ultimately function to co-construct 1) shared beliefs about what makes a “good” engineer, and 2) everyone’s relative position in a social hierarchy. Furthermore, identify development is theorized to include both social forces (i.e., rules and guidelines that influence how people behave in a social space) and individual agency (i.e., we are not just carbon copies of culture or norms because our actions shape the culture and norms). Understanding identity development as such empowers us to be intentional with our own participation in identity construction by providing theoretical entry points for conveying the value of social responsibility. The usefulness of this particular identity theory to ideate strategies for integrating social responsibility into students’ engineering identities has been corroborated by the empirical findings of our U.S.-based engineering education research. During this workshop, we utilized the theory to draw out existing or future concrete practices that each of us, given our unique global and institutional contexts, are motivated to enact in support of social responsibility as core to engineering. Specifically, our interactions culminated with answering the following question: What is one concrete way I can be intentional in how I participate in identity co-construction? Participant responses to this prompt are presented directly.more » « less
-
With the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in society, our children have routine interactions with these technologies. It has become increasingly important for them to understand how these technologies are trained, what their limitations are and how they work. To introduce children to AI and Machine Learning (ML) concepts, recent efforts introduce tools that integrate ML concepts with physical computing and robotics. However, some of these tools cannot be easily integrated into building projects and the high price of robotics kits can be a limiting factor to many schools. We address these limitations by offering a low-cost hardware and software toolkit that we call the Smart Motor to introduce supervised machine learning to elementary school students. Our Smart Motor uses the nearest neighbor algorithm and utilizes visualizations to highlight the underlying decision-making of the model. We conducted a one week long study using Smart Motors with 9- to 12- year old students and measured their learning through observation, questioning and examining what they built. We found that students were able to integrate the Smart Motors into their building projects but some students struggled with understanding how the underlying model functioned. In this paper we discuss these findings and insights for future directions for the Smart Motor.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.21061/see.86
