Search for: All records

Abstract BackgroundIn addition to the benefits of a diverse faculty, many institutions are under pressure from students and administrators to increase the number of faculty from historically excluded backgrounds. Despite increases in the numbers of engineering PhD earners from these groups, the percentages of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino tenure‐track faculty have not increased, and the percentage of women remains low. PurposeThe purpose of this study is to identify how experiences in graduate school encourage or deter PhD earners from historically excluded groups in pursuing an engineering academic career. MethodWe conducted 20 semi‐structured interviews with engineering PhD students and recent graduates, with half of participants interested and half disinterested in pursuing an academic career after graduation. ResultsThree key factors emerged as strongly influential on participants' desire to pursue an academic career: their relationship with their advisor, their perception of their advisor's work–life balance, and their perception of the culture of academia. Participants extrapolated their experiences in graduate school to their imagined lives as faculty. The results illuminate the reasons why engineering PhD earners from historically underrepresented groups remain in or leave the academic career pathway after graduate school. ConclusionsThe findings of this study have important implications for how graduate students' and postdoc's relationships with their advisors as well as perceptions of their advisors' work–life balances and the culture of academia affect future faculty. We make recommendations on what students, faculty, and administrators can do to create a more inclusive environment to encourage students from historically excluded groups to consider academic careers. 

This paper discusses creating and establishing an engineering mentorship program for high school students from Austin Title I public schools supported by NSF grant EEC-2217741. This program aims to provide high school students of underrepresented backgrounds exposure to engineering fields, the necessary support to navigate financial and accessibility obstacles posed by the college application process, and a role model and mentor. Typically, students from lower- income high schools do not receive the resources to be familiar with engineering areas and careers, nor the college application process, so this program aims to address these gaps. The goal is that students who participate in this program feel encouraged and confident to apply to engineering programs, resulting in increased applications and potential enrollment of students from low-income high schools. In this program, student mentors (current undergraduate engineering students) are responsible for helping second-year high school students find an engineering major based on their interests, discussing the college application process at a fundamental level, and connecting the student with various financial and academic resources. Weekly mentoring sessions are held over Zoom during the students’ school day in compliance with school district and university regulations. The program lasted five weeks, covering topics such as an overview of the University of Texas’ engineering program, the different engineering fields and careers, a thorough overview of the application process, and financial aid. This project was evaluated with an anonymous survey administered to the high school students after the completion of the program to gauge engagement, whether they felt the program was beneficial, and interest levels in engineering, all of which helped determine the program's effectiveness. 

It has been shown that out-of-classroom experiences build engineering students’ professional skills and engineering identities. Many other universities host engineering summer camps for middle and high school students and employ engineering undergraduate students as camp counselors. These camps are designed for students with minimal previous exposure to engineering. In this research study, we explore the impact of working as a counselor in these camps on counselors’ Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) assets and self-defined characteristics of an engineer. Five summer camp counselors in one institution’s 2023 summer camp programs participated in post-camp semi-structured interviews about their experiences as counselors. Two counselors identified as Black/ African American and three as Hispanic/ Latino/a/é; two identified as women and three as men. Collectively, counselors discussed all six types of capital in the CCW framework. Most commonly, they reported that they are actively improving skills they believe engineers to have (aspirational capital), that being a camp counselor improved their communication skills (linguistic capital), and built them a close network of friends that many consider to be like family (familial capital). Those who were in affinity-based student orgs, such as the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) and the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE), encouraged non-members to join, building their social capital on campus. One participant mentioned that because being a camp counselor was her first job, she gained valuable life skills such as completing tax forms and managing a personal budget (navigational capital). Some counselors also talked about what it meant to them to be role models for campers of their same racial/ ethnic backgrounds, since they didn’t know such engineers growing up (resistant capital). While out-of-classroom engineering experiences and their effects are well-studied, they are often limited to experiences such as extracurricular engineering activities or service learning projects. Despite the prevalence of engineering summer camp programs, the effects of working as a camp counselor are understudied. We hope that the results of this study will compel those running engineering summer camps to think not only about what the campers, but also the camp counselors themselves, are gaining from participating in these programs. 

The purpose of this work in progress paper is to share preliminary results and lessons learned from a pilot scale graduate student mentorship program being run in the spring of 2024. A wealth of research has demonstrated that LGBTQ+ individuals in engineering face a uniquely chilly environment rife with microaggressions, hypermasculine competitiveness, assumptions of heterosexuality, and overt homophobia. These experiences lead to a myriad of academic, health, and wellness issues for students and exert a pressure for all queer individuals to pass as cisgender and heterosexual to survive in the heteronormative environment of engineering. This is particularly salient for graduate students, who are in a key stage of professional development. As these students are socialized into the norms of their chosen field, they must contend with the ways these norms can be at odds with their LGBTQ+ identity. To counter this negative climate, we turn to mentorship programs, which have been shown to be highly effective for supporting minoritized students in STEM. Despite the evidence in support of mentorship programs for minoritized students, there are few programs described that focus specifically on LGBTQ+ students, and those that are reported focus on undergraduate students. To rectify this lack of programs, this paper serves as a scaffold for others to run similar mentorship programs at their home institution. We will discuss the logistics of running this program, the challenges and lessons learned, and ways in which a larger scale program can be approached. In this paper, we will also describe the impact this program had on both a student’s identity as a research scientist, and their overall perception of the climate in the engineering school at a large southern research institution. 

Program leaders put a tremendous amount of thought into how they recruit students for engineering summer camps. Recruitment methods can include information sessions, established partnerships with school districts, and teacher or school counselor nominations of students. This study seeks to assess if the methods used to recruit students broaden participation or have any impact on students’ perceptions of engineering. Two identical week-long summer camps were hosted by the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) in the summer of 2022. Camps were entirely free for all campers. A specific goal of the camp was to promote engineering as a career pathway for students from groups that have been historically excluded from STEM majors. Campers were rising 8th and 9th grade students in two cities near UT Austin; this age was intentionally identified as students who have sufficient STEM backgrounds to engage in meaningful engineering design challenges, and who are also at a critical inflection point with respect to decisions that put them on a trajectory to study engineering in college. Summer camp topics ranged from additive manufacturing to the chemical properties of water proofing, and students did activities such as constructing a prosthetic limb from recovered materials or designing an electronic dance game pad. In one camp session, students primarily found out about the camp by being nominated by counselors at their schools, with an intentional focus on recruiting students who might not otherwise be exposed to engineering. In the other camp session, parents signed up campers after hearing about the camp via information sent through the schools. All students who applied were accepted to the camps. Identical pre- and post-camp surveys asked campers questions about their knowledge of what engineers do, their interest in math and science, and what factors are important to them when choosing a career. Survey analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences in answers to questions between the groups in the pre-camp surveys, but post-camp surveys show that these differences disappeared after participating in the summer camp. Students whose parents directly enrolled them in the camp had higher pre-camp interest in science and technology; thus, counselor nominations may be a method to recruit students who might not have been interested in engineering had they not attended the camp. Additionally, prior to participating, campers recruited via counselor nominations had a narrower view of what engineers do than the parent-enrolled campers, but after camp the two groups had similar perceptions of what engineers do. The results of this study confirm literature findings regarding the importance of exposing young learners to engineering as a profession and broaden their views of opportunities in this field. The recruitment methods used for these camps show that nomination-based recruitment methods have the potential for greater impact on changing students’ engineering trajectories. 

In this paper, we present the design and implementation of a set of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) based modules, created to be deployed in two courses: one in introductory computing and one in algorithms. Our objective is to ensure that engineering undergraduate students, who are not historically exposed to DEI content, are introduced to these important topics in the context of their technical coursework and that they understand the relevance of DEI to their careers. We created 6 modules that cover a wide range of topics including untold stories throughout the history of computing and algorithms, identity and intersectionality in engineering, designs from engineering that have high societal impact, the LGBTQ+ experience in engineering, engineering and mental health, and cultural diversity within engineering. Each module gives a brief overview of the topic, followed by an associated assignment. We made all of these modules available to the students in the two courses and told them to choose one to complete. Each student engaged with their selected module in four specific ways: (1) watching a relevant video; (2) reading and annotating a provided article; (3) responding in a written reflection to a set of specific prompts relevant to the module; and (4) conducting an interview with a peer or community member using a list of suggested questions about the module’s contents . Afterwards, we required students to communicate what they learned through completing and submitting a graded final deliverable. This deliverable can be a video, slide presentation, a written op-ed piece, or a piece of art about the work they completed in the module. We evaluate the content of the modules through a survey that assesses the students’ interest in the modules and determines the utility of the modules in the context of the study of computing and algorithms. Based on the feedback of these surveys along with feedback from the instructors of the courses, we will further develop and improve the structure and content of these modules and expand their reach to additional engineering courses and disciplines.