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
Ways of Being Smart in Engineering: Beliefs, Values, and Introductory Engineering Experiences
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
- Award ID(s):
- 1920421
- PAR ID:
- 10531497
- Publisher / Repository:
- International Journal: Engineering Pedagogy
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP)
- Volume:
- 14
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2192-4880
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 129 to 148
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- first-year engineering education multi-method equitable classroom practices
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Although engineering is becoming increasingly important in K-12 education, previous research has demonstrated that, similar to the general population, K-12 teachers typically hold inaccurate perceptions of engineering, which affects their ability to provide students with relevant engineering experiences. Studies have shown that K-12 teachers often confuse the work of engineers with that of automotive mechanics or construction workers or assume that engineering is only for “super smart” students who are naturally gifted or who come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. This indicates that many teachers do not understand the nature of engineering work and have stereotypical attitudes about who is qualified to be an engineer. These inaccurate perceptions of engineering among K-12 teachers may influence the way that teachers introduce engineering practices to their students and make connections between engineering and the other STEM disciplines. In addition, teacher self-efficacy has been shown to not only influence teachers’ willingness to engage with a particular topic, but also to have a significant influence on the motivation and achievement of their students. Research also indicates that high-efficacy teachers typically exert more effort and utilize more effective instructional strategies than low-efficacy teachers. The goal of this study was to examine the perceptions that pre-service K-12 teachers hold about engineers and engineering, and to further explore how those perceptions influence their self-efficacy with teaching engineering and beliefs about what skills and resources are necessary to teach engineering in a K-12 classroom. We first developed a survey instrument that included questions taken from two previously published instruments: the Design, Engineering, and Technology survey and the Teaching Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale for K-12 Teachers. Forty-two students enrolled in an undergraduate program at {Name Redacted} in which students simultaneously pursue a bachelor’s degree in a STEM field and K-12 teacher licensure completed the survey. Based on survey responses, six participants, representing a range of self-efficacy scores and majors, were selected to participate in interviews. In these interviews, participants were asked questions about their perceptions of engineers and were also asked to sort a list of characteristics based on whether they applied to engineers or not. Finally, interview participants were asked questions about their confidence in their ability to teach engineering and about what skills and/or resources they would require to be able to teach engineering in their future classrooms. The results of this study indicated that the participants’ perceptions of engineering and engineers did impact their self-efficacy with teaching engineering and their beliefs about how well engineering could be incorporated into other STEM subjects. A recurring theme among participants with low self-efficacy was a lack of exposure to engineering and inaccurate perceptions of the nature of engineering work. These pre-service teachers felt that they would not be able to teach engineering to K-12 students because they did not personally have much exposure to engineering or knowledge about engineering work. In future work, we will investigate how providing pre-service teachers with training in engineering education and exposure to engineers and engineering students impacts both their perceptions of engineering and self-efficacy with teaching engineering.more » « less
-
What does it mean to be “smart” in an engineering classroom? How do engineering students make sense of themselves a s smart enough to be engineers? The development of shared beliefs about what it means to be “smart” and where you rank compared to others is a result of smartness as a cultural practice. With the cultural practice framing, smartness i s not a noun – something that someone possesses a certain amount of, but rather it is a verb – something that is actively happening to and with others in context. The interactions between individuals result in shared beliefs about what it means to be smart. Specifically, when we participate in smartness as a cultural practice, we learn what is recognized as smart and our place in the relative hierarchy of smartness.more » « less
-
Small group interactions and interactions with near‐peer instructors such as learning assistants serve as fertile opportunities for student learning in undergraduate active learning classrooms. To understand what students take away from these interactions, we need to understand how and what they learn during the moment of their interaction. This study builds on practical epistemology analysis to develop a framework to study this in‐the‐moment learning during interactions by operationalizing it through the lens of discourse change and continuity toward three ends. Using video recordings of students and learning assistants interacting in a variety of contexts including remote, in‐person, and hybrid classrooms in introductory chemistry and physics at two universities, we developed an analytical framework that can characterize learning in the moment of interaction, is sensitive to different kinds of learning, and can be used to compare interactions. The framework and its theoretical underpinnings are described in detail. In‐depth examples demonstrate how the framework can be applied to classroom data to identify and differentiate different ways in which in‐the‐moment learning occurs.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
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v14i1.41633
