Search for: All records

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. 

This Research Work-in-Progress paper explores how motivation and identity can evolve when faculty from different disciplines (arts, engineering, medicine, etc.) collaborate to present on a central theme or topic (e.g. color) across multiple community settings. Sharing research findings beyond the academic community is essential for systemic change and wide spread enhancements to our everyday lives. Through this work, we explore how faculty researchers’ motivations to share their work and their identities as researchers develop through collaborative experiences with other faculty that aim at sharing research findings with the public. In this study, faculty from divergent academic fields are working together to present convergent presentations as one coherent theme across three different informal learning sessions as well as a control setting. These presentations intend to increase public engagement with scientific research and broaden the scope of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) learning by approaching the themes through the faculty’s different academic backgrounds. Through collaboration and engagement with the public, we will track how faculty’s identities as researchers and motivations to share their work develop over this experience through the use of the Longitudinal Model of Motivation and Identity (LMMI). Over the course of this study, we hope to see gains in faculty motivation and researcher identities who engage with the public through this experience. For this paper, we focus on framing the overall study and provide initial findings from our recruitment survey.