Search for: All records

This paper provides an overview of the literature exploring the realities of contingent faculty at U.S. universities and colleges with a focus on STEM. We focus our review of the literature by exploring the experiences of Latinx/é contingent faculty in STEM and propose a series of conceptual frameworks that can be used to explore the hidden professional realities of this population. A focus on the field of STEM, via a deeper exploration of the literature, points to the evolution of contingent faculty in the disciplines and the diversity of the roles they currently fill at our universities and colleges. This paper draws on various frameworks for exploring the experiences of contingent faculty. 

The use of educational digital games as supplemental tools to course instruction materials has increased over the last several decades and especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Though these types of instructional games have been employed in the majority of STEM disciplines, less is known about how diverse populations of students interpret and define the value of these games towards achieving academic and professional pursuits. A mixed-method sequential exploratory research design method that was framed on the Technology Acceptance Model, Game-Based Learning Theory and Expectancy Value Theory was used to examine how 201 students perceived the usefulness of an intuitive education game that was designed to teach engineering mechanics used in designing civil structures. We found that students had different expectations of educational digital games than games designed for entertainment used outside of classroom environments. Several students thought that the ability to design their own structures and observe structure failure in real-time was a valuable asset in understanding how truss structures responded to physical loading conditions. However, few students thought the educational game would be useful for exam (14/26) or job interview (19/26) preparation. Students associated more value with engineering games that illustrate course content and mathematical calculations used in STEM courses than those that do not include these elements. 

In this guest editorial, we problematize the terms Latiné, Latinx, Latina, Latino, and Hispanic used to describe people with Latin American ancestry in the United States to better inform engineering education scholarship and practice. As members of communities that have been classified as Latiné/x/a/o or Hispanic, we are always challenged with the questions: What term should be used in our research, and why? As scholars who are also members of these communities, we bridge the contradictions emerging from our lived experiences and imposed realities while seeking to engage in a critical conversation emerging from our “theory in the flesh” (Moraga & Anzaldua, 1981). While we situate the terms historically in this guest editorial, as an act of resistance, our title places the most recent term (Latiné) first to continue to challenge historical terminologies that demoralize and oppress our communities (Revelo et al., 2022). At the same time, we recognize that for some cultures, choosing to identify by one term over another has real-life implications and consequences, such as being the targets of discrimination and oppression and being seen as transgressors (Mejiaet al., 2022), or being perceived as insiders or outsiders. 

The motivation for this exploratory qualitative study is to understand what a culture of belonging may look like across six engineering education making spaces in institutions of higher education in the U.S. The research question for this study was: In what ways are the management, instructors, and staff operating engineering education making spaces influencing a culture of belonging (if any) for engineering students? We examined the transcripts of semi-structured interviews of 49 faculty members and 29 members of management/staff of making spaces, using thematic coding. From the data, we identified four themes that described the culture of belonging being created in these six engineering making spaces: (a) a ‘closed loop’ culture for inclusion, diversity, equity, and access; (b) a ‘transactional, dichotomous’ culture; (c) a ‘band-aid, masquerading’ culture; (d) a potential ‘boundary-crossing’ culture. Our primary conclusion was that created cultures in engineering making spaces are extensions of normative cultures found in traditional engineering classrooms. Additionally, while making spaces were attempting to change this culture in their physical infrastructures, it was deemed that the space leadership needs to expand hiring strategies, the nature of making activities, the ambient/physical appearance of the space, disciplines, and required expertise, to create a truly inclusive and equitable culture of belonging.