Search for: All records

Engineering education is typically described using a “pipeline” metaphor, wherein students are shuffled along pre-determined pathways toward a narrow set of career outcomes. However, several decades of research have shown that this pipeline model does not accurately describe engineering trajectories and may exclude students who enter the pipeline at different times and have other career outcomes in mind. Similarly, qualitative studies have shown that normative identities in engineering feature masculine stereotypes such as “geeks” and “nerds” that reproduce technical/social dichotomies. Several studies have suggested that broadening the expected outcomes and identities in engineering to include “alternative” pathways and identities may contribute to a shift to a more inclusive form of engineering education. To make these alternative pathways more visible to faculty and students, we have developed a set of engineering “personas” based on interviews [n=16] with senior engineering students at a liberal arts university. Interviews were coded by three members of the research team using consensus coding techniques to ascertain core elements of the personas: Origins, Identities, and Trajectories. Early drafts of student personas were presented to students, who provided insights into future iterations. We propose several engineering personas using a matrix approach, which allows each persona to be adaptable for various origins, identities, and trajectories. These personas contribute to our understanding of alternative engineering pathways based on real student experiences. We intend to use these personas as pedagogical tools to help faculty recognize a wider range of engineering identities, and to help students see themselves as “real engineers” without sacrificing other (non-technical) core values, identities, and pathways. 

This paper addresses the theme of “the Moral and Ethical Responsibility of Engineers and Engineering”, particularly responding to the question of how to define or deliberate the meaning of ‘public welfare’ and ‘common good’ in engineering degree programs. Drawing from decades of international work on human development, particularly in the global south, this paper reports on adapting the capability approach to an engineering degree program. Developed by Amartya Sen, the capability approach sought to replace GDP-based models of welfare economics by framing the goal of development as enabling individuals to live a life they value. The things a person values, what they are and can do (determined by their opportunities, experiences, and cultural affordances) are their ‘functionings’. In Sen’s framework each individual has a unique ‘functionings vector’ based on what they value. Although someone’s functionings vector indicates valued goals, they will be unsuccessful in achieving their goals unless they have access to needed resources, can effectively utilize those resources, possess agency, and have the ‘capability’ to enact the functionings. ‘Capabilities’ determine the set of functionings that are actually available to a person. Although rarely used in engineering, the capability approach offers a mature and well-developed framework to address issues of public welfare. Public good is defined through an individual’s freedom to pursue a life they have reason to value, and such freedom defines both the means and end of development. The role of engineering in society—primarily through development of infrastructure—is to support equitable access to capabilities for all individuals. Through support of an NSF Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (RED) grant, an ECE department in a mid-Atlantic liberal arts university has adapted the capability approach to inform change in an undergraduate degree program. Specific examples from four years of implementation are shared. 

The recent surge in artificial intelligence (AI) developments has been met with an increase in attention towards incorporating ethical engagement in machine learning discourse and development. This attention is noticeable within engineering education, where comprehensive ethics curricula are typically absent in engineering programs that train future engineers to develop AI technologies [1]. Artificial intelligence technologies operate as black boxes, presenting both developers and users with a certain level of obscurity concerning their decision-making processes and a diminished potential for negotiating with its outputs [2]. The implementation of collaborative and reflective learning has the potential to engage students with facets of ethical awareness that go along with algorithmic decision making – such as bias, security, transparency and other ethical and moral dilemmas. However, there are few studies that examine how students learn AI ethics in electrical and computer engineering courses. This paper explores the integration of STEMtelling, a pedagogical storytelling method/sensibility, into an undergraduate machine learning course. STEMtelling is a novel approach that invites participants (STEMtellers) to center their own interests and experiences through writing and sharing engineering stories (STEMtells) that are connected to course objectives. Employing a case study approach grounded in activity theory, we explore how students learn ethical awareness that is intrinsic to being an engineer. During the STEMtelling process, STEMtellers blur the boundaries between social and technical knowledge to place themselves at the center of knowledge production. In this WIP, we discuss algorithmic awareness, as one of the themes identified as a practice in developing ethical awareness of AI through STEMtelling. Findings from this study will be incorporated into the development of STEMtelling and address challenges of integrating ethics and the social perception of AI and machine learning courses. 

Traditional engineering curriculum and course structures prioritize preparing students for technical and logical reasoning skills that are intrinsic to becoming an engineer. While these skills are undeniably vital for an engineering career, these courses often fail to provide opportunities for students to explore skills that go beyond the traditional curriculum and classroom walls. In addition, course structures often reinforce the stereotypical narrative in engineering that there is a dichotomy between the social and technical aspects with the latter being more important. Preparing students for both social and technical sides of engineering, requires a reorganization of how learning environments are designed and how engineering programs and faculty evaluate how learning occurs. 

Context: As faculty of engineering degree programs in private liberal-arts universities in the United States the authors are structurally insulated from many immediate crises, but at the leading edge of other, more slowly evolving ones. These slow-motion crises are occurring in the education systems of many developing countries and can be classified as crises of economics, related to the cost and received value of a degree; crises of equity from ongoing and systemic disparities in educational outcomes; and crises of organization arising from contested visions of the purpose of higher education. While lacking the urgency of current water, food, energy, and climate crises, they are no less important since education is both a core capability and functioning for living a life one values. Methodology: To address these persistent and systemic issues this paper reports on an ongoing conceptual reorganization of a degree program using the capability approach. The reorganization entails shifting from the dominant outcomes-based paradigm of engineering education in the United States to an opportunity-based framework that prioritizes student development over human capital. We report on efforts over a two-year time frame to adapt the capability approach to the degree programs in a single engineering department. While much of the application of the capability approach in education has focused on the systemic or macro-scale, in this work we have adopted an ecological metaphor to work across scales, drawing from prior macro-scale work to inform change efforts at micro-scale of a single degree program. Several parallel efforts were required to align the program to a more capability informed model. One was to identify and articulate sets of capabilities across educational scales for a variety of stakeholders, following processes recommended by established capabilities scholars (Robeyns 2017, Walker 2008, Mathebula 2018). A set of potential capabilities were developed by drawing from multiple internal and external influencers of the program. These lists were then iteratively refined based on faculty feedback, ethnographic observations, and case studies before being vetted by student stakeholders using a Q-method approach (Simpson 2018). Another was to find ways to directly engage students with the capabilities-driven transformation structural changes to the curriculum were implemented to elicit reflection. Finally, to ground these efforts in prior student developmental work in engineering education, we revised a model of the capabilities approach that integrates social cognitive career theory (SCCT) (Lent et al. 2002). This model integrated existing educational outcomes with capabilities and functionings, explicating their relationships. The model also emphasized various pedagogical processes used in the degree program and connected them to student development in engineering using social cognitive career theory. Data collection involved modifications to previously validated instruments. Analysis: These development efforts are at a stage where data is still emerging, but have shown the viability of a capability approach as a tool for reconsideration of processes and mission of degree programs. As in other domains where the capability approach has been applied, many of the results emerge from the process itself as normative questions are fore fronted and addressed in a democratic fashion. As a case study in micro-scale application of the capability approach, this paper shows the viability of this framework to engender and assess the highly multidimensional effects the capability approach can have on student learning and well-being in higher education degree programs. This case study discusses ongoing reorganization of a degree program from an outcomes-based paradigm to an opportunity-based framework using the capability approach. Preliminary results show the capability approach is a viable framework for normative reconsideration of processes and missions of degree programs. This works informs use of the capability approach in a localized, small-scale implementation within higher education in the Unites States. 

In the wake of COVID-19, student mental health has become a cause for concern in American universities, given rising rates of anxiety and depression amongst college-age youth. Faculty and administrators are beginning to take note of longstanding calls for a more holistic view of student life, acknowledging the impact that students’ emotional well-being has on their ability to learn. The capabilities approach is well suited to this challenge, offering a holistic account of opportunities and barriers students experience in college. Emotions are a prominent factor in many capabilities lists, including that of “emotional balance”, meaning the “ability to deal with challenges and stress”, or the “ability to be happy” (Walker et al. 2022:58). Education literature demonstrates that students’ ability to learn is significantly influenced by their emotional state (Immordino-Yang 2007, Phye et al. 2007). Positive emotions can stimulate students’ motivation to learn, while negative emotions such as anxiety or fear may cause students to withdraw. Emotional states are difficult to measure, which creates a need for assessment tools to evaluate students’ emotional capabilities in higher education. In this paper, we draw upon focus group outcomes and life-history interviews (n=24) with college seniors in an Electrical & Computer Engineering department in the United States to develop an assessment tool for emotional balance. We conducted a content analysis of the focus group and interview data, using qualitative codes that correspond with our capabilities list, material resources, and conversion factors. We then selected four case studies that demonstrate the importance of emotional balance, which were reviewed by the research team using consensus coding techniques (Stemler 2019, Harry et al. 2005). These case studies reveal the complex intersections between “emotional balance” and other higher education capabilities. Emotional imbalance may be exacerbated by a lack of structural support for emotional wellbeing on campus. However, in some cases, students may find more emotional support in campus environments than they find at home, making the university a place where emotional resilience is fostered. From this qualitative data, we generated an assessment tool that can be adapted for use by higher education administration. The assessment tool includes a survey element for collecting responses from students, along with a structural analysis to understand whether adequate support exists to help students navigate moments of emotional distress. This research will help operationalize the capabilities approach to make it more easily adaptable to other universities.