Search for: All records

In this qualitative case study, we explore how first- and second year undergraduate students make space for expansive thinking in their engineering modeling work. We focus on the ways in which one group of five women negotiated the inclusion of different social, political, and economic factors in their design model, particularly energy distribution and transboundary equity. Drawing on discourse analysis methods, we analyzed a small-group in-class discussion and identified five expansive moves that helped the students to make space for rethinking what they could include in their model. These included being explicit about their assumptions and uncertainties and acknowledging task difficulties. 

In this work-in-progress qualitative case study, we explore how first- and second year undergraduate students experience uncertainty when doing expansive thinking in sociotechnical engineering modeling work. For this purpose, we analyze stimulated recall interviews of four students to identify the different ways in which they experienced both relational and epistemological uncertainty during an in-class discussion activity. 

Here's a shorter abstract for this introduction: This paper examines efforts to integrate justice perspectives throughout a first-year computing course for engineers, moving beyond traditional approaches that separate technical and social content. Funded by NSF, our redesigned course embeds justice components through weekly sociotechnical labs, readings with written reflections, justice-themed coding projects, and a final project addressing social impacts. This analysis focuses on students' weekly reflections from one course section to understand how they conceptualize bias, differential impacts, and causes of societal outcomes across different topics. Our findings offer insights for educators seeking to center justice in engineering education through integrated reflection activities rather than standalone ethics modules. 

The Improving Students’ Sociotechnical Literacy in Engineering project aims to integrate social justice topics with technical knowledge in a first-year engineering course. The approach involves redesigning an existing intro to computing course with justice-based activities, supported by an Equity Learning Assistant (ELA) program. This program trains upperclass students to facilitate in-class discussions on equity and social justice. The project targets improvements in students' critical sociotechnical literacy and engineering identity. Activities include analyzing ethically complex data sets and developing equity-focused projects, while encouraging students to integrate social, economic, and political dimensions into their engineering work. This initiative spans four years (one pilot year plus three NSF-funded iterations) and involves a multidisciplinary research team of engineers and education researchers. 

There have been increased calls to include sociotechnical thinking–grappling with issues of power, history, and culture–throughout the undergraduate engineering curriculum. One way this more expansive framing of engineering has been integrated into engineering courses is through in-class discussions. There is a need to understand what students are attending to in these conversations. In particular, we are interested in how students frame and justify their arguments in small-group discussions. This study is part of an NSF-funded research project to implement and study integrating sociotechnical components throughout a first-year computing for engineers course. In one iteration of the revised course, each week students read a news article on a current example of the uneven impacts of technology, then engaged in in-class small-group discussions. In this study, we analyze students’ discourse to answer the research questions: What arguments do students use to argue against the use of a technology? How do these arguments relate to common narratives about technology? In this qualitative case study, we analyzed videorecordings of the small group discussions of two focus groups discussing the use of AI in hiring. We looked closely at the justifications students gave for their stated positions and how they relate to the common narratives of technocracy, free market idealism, technological neutrality, and technological determinism. We found all students in both groups rejected these common narratives. We saw students argue that (1) AI technology does not solve the hiring problem well, (2) it is important to regulate AI, (3) using AI for hiring will stagnate diversity, and (4) using AI for hiring unfairly privileges some groups of people over others. While students in both groups rejected the common narratives, only one group explicitly centered those who are harmed and how this harm would likely occur, and this group did so consistently. The other group managed to consistently reject the narratives using vague, safe language and never explicitly mentioned who is harmed by the technology. As a result, only one group’s discussion was clearly centered on justice concerns. These results have implications for how to scaffold small group sociotechnical discussions, what instructors should attend to during these discussions, and how to support students to orient toward systemic impacts and sustain a focus on justice. 

Concerns about technocentric undergraduate engineering courses have now become widely disseminated. As a result, universities are diligently working to include more sociotechnical content in formerly purely-technical courses, with the goal of engaging students in recognizing and analyzing the economic, political, and social impacts of technology. In the U.S., many of the focus topics for this sociotechnical content are grounded in a U.S. context, requiring an understanding of the history and current state of racial and economic power structures. While U.S. residents are likely familiar with these structures, it is important to consider how these topics are encountered by international students. This case study on international student experience is part of a larger NSF-funded research project exploring integrating sociotechnical topics in a first-year engineering computing course. The revised course included weekly readings followed by small-group discussions on curriculum-aligned real-world justice topics. This work in progress study analyzes post-course student interviews of six international students of color to understand their experiences in this course. We use a qualitative case study approach to analyze these interviews, drawing heavily from work in identity (e.g., Berhane, Secules, & Onuma, 2020), being careful to take an intersectional lens (e.g., Ross, Capobianco, & Godwin, 2017). We draw heavily from the emergent framework of Learning Race in the U.S. Context (Fries-Britt, Mwangi, & Peralta, 2014). We focus on the unique challenges for international students as they navigate justice discourse in the U.S. context. Our examination of international student interviews illuminated conflicts between international students’ self-identity and what they felt they were expected to know and have experienced. Most first-year international students of color reported strong identities as international students and did not identify as strongly with their racial/ethnic groups. They felt they were lacking U.S. racial context, including both knowledge of the history of U.S. racial relations and lived experiences within these systems. At the same time, there is evidence that other students in the classes positioned the international students of color as experts in racial relations in the U.S., looking to them to share personal experiences or for approval of what other students were sharing. Without essentializing these particular international students’ experiences, we hope to draw attention to the social dynamics encountered during sociotechnical lessons and the potential for marginalization of the international student population. 

In the ConnecTions in the Making project, researchers and district partners work to develop and study community-connected, integrated science and engineering curriculum units that support diverse elementary students’ science and engineering ideas, practices, and attitudes. In the community-connected units, students in the third, fourth, and fifth grades use human-centered design strategies to prototype and share functional solutions to a design challenge rooted in the students’ local community while scientifically exploring the phenomena and mechanisms related to the challenge. One of the units is “Accessible Playground Design,” a grade three unit that engages students in designing a piece of accessible playground equipment. It comprises 10 lessons, approximately 1 hour each, including a launch lesson, followed by four inquiry and four engineering design lessons, and a final design exposition. 

Although curricular resources for elementary engineering design continue to grow, it remains challenging to identify assessment tools that focus on students’ reasoning within engineering design and that are feasible for classroom use and accessible for emerging writers. In collaboration with third-grade teachers, we developed an open-response task that asks students to evaluate and improve on the first iteration of a design solution. In this paper, we present the assessment task and an exploratory analysis of the pre- and post-unit responses collected from one classroom implementation using the final version of the task. The evaluate-and-improve assessment task presents a diagram of an unbalanced, lopsided cart for transporting classroom plants and asks students to identify problems with the cart design, propose changes to improve it, and justify those proposed changes. Across their pre- and post-unit responses, the 18 students proposed 14 different changes and provided seven different justifications to support those changes. Students included more justifications in their post-unit explanations, especially when they did not include any justifications in their pre-unit responses. Our exploratory study of this evaluate and improve task suggests that it gives third-grade students an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to scope problems, propose design iterations, and justify those changes.