Search

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professional societies (ProS) are uniquely positioned to foster national-level diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) reform. ProS serve broad memberships, define disciplinary norms and culture, and inform accrediting bodies, thus providing "excellent leverage with which to design and promote change" (National Academy of Sciences et al., 2005). ProS could be instrumental in achieving the DEI culture reform necessary to optimize engagement of all STEM talent by leveraging disciplinary excellence resulting from diverse teams. Inclusive STEM culture reform requires that underlying "mental models'' be examined (Kania et al., 2018). The "Inclusive Professional Framework for Societies (IPF:Societies)" can help ProS change leaders (i.e., "boundary spanners'") and organizations identify and address mental models hindering DEI reform. "IPF:Societies" uses four "I's"--Identity awareness and Intercultural mindfulness (i.e., equity mindset) on which Inclusive relationships and Influential DEI actions are scaffolded. We discuss how "IPF:Societies" complements existing DEI tools. We explain how "IPF:Societies" can be applied to existing ProS policy and practice associated with common ProS functions (e.g., leadership, membership, conferences, awards, and professional development). Next steps are to pilot "IPF:Societies" with a cohort of STEM ProS. Ultimately, "IPF:Societies" has potential to promote more efficient, effective, and lasting DEI organizational transformation, and contribute to inclusive STEM disciplinary excellence.

One of the problematic features of the increasingly influential discourse of student employability in higher education is the widespread conception of "skills" as de-contextualized bits of knowledge, ability, and disposition. Instead, how particular competencies are valued, defined, and utilized in practice is deeply shaped by sociocultural, political, and situational factors. The effect of these influences is especially relevant for communication skills, which are widely viewed as critical for employability. In this study we examine how nursing and engineering experts and novices conceptualize communication within specific situations. The data highlight distinct ways respondents define communication and the role of contextual and cultural factors in shaping these perspectives, and how views of "acceptable" communication risk reifying norms of dominant classes while ignoring cultural variability.

This paper examines evidence from the HESA DLHE six-month Censuses and 3½ year ('longitudinal') surveys relating to three aspects of the flows of those who have left university with Higher Education Engineering qualifications, to test the robustness of the conclusions of SKOPE Research Paper No. 122 (Dixon, 2015), which showed strong evidence that most Engineering graduates do not go on to work in the sectors of the economy that might be expected, in particular in the 'natural' Manufacturing sub-sector. Specifically, the paper examines three questions: (1) whether evidence of starting salary levels for those from particular disciplines going into particular sectors could explain the relative flows (on the assumption that higher salaries for graduate vacancies in a particular sector would attract more applications); (2) whether evidence of sector destinations three years on from the (six-month after graduation) Census data analysed in Dixon (2015) would show up significantly different levels of 'leakage'; and (3) whether those entering employment having completed Taught Masters (as opposed to First Degree) courses in particular Engineering disciplines would tend (in the light of their apparent greater interest and deeper understanding in the specific discipline) to enter the "expected" sectors more than their Bachelors colleagues. The "bottom line" answers to these questions is that -- with rather minor exceptions -- none of the relevant broader evidence from HESA DLHE data over a ten-year period significantly questions the very considerable 'leakage', away from the 'natural' Manufacturing sub-sector, that was found and presented in Dixon (2015). (1) There is "some" correlation between the "average salaries offered" (by employers in each 'destination' sector to cohorts from each Engineering discipline examined) and the "size of the flows" from each discipline into each sector, but it is limited and rarely strong. While there might be reasons why average salary differences might not be large enough to provide a sufficient incentive for Engineering graduates to choose one sector over another, evidence of considerably greater correlation would have been helpful to justify the traditional response of classical economics to employers' concerns about shortages: "offer more money"! (2) While there are sample size issues constraining the statistical precision of comparisons between the two DLHE surveys, these have been addressed, and comparisons of the "linear flows" of graduates from each discipline into the natural Manufacturing sub-sector show (a) comparatively very small differences, and (b) on balance, slightly "greater" 'leakage' three years on; and (3) More MSc's in "Automotive" and "Aerospace Engineering" have, over the ten years examined, then gone into the "Manufacture of Motor Vehicles"... and "Air and Space craft manufacture" (respectively) than BEng's from these disciplines. However, for the other disciplines compared, there is little difference, and -- in terms of entry into Manufacturing as a whole, for the most recent year in the period - the fraction of the disciplinary cohorts entering "any type of Manufacturing" is slightly "higher" for MSc's than First Degree (FD) graduates in "three" Engineering disciplines, though "lower" for MSc's than FD's in "four"! This new evidence, therefore, only serves to "strengthen" the great importance of NOT assuming linear flows of Engineering graduates into the "natural" Manufacturing sub-sectors corresponding to their discipline, in particular in policy responses to reports of shortages from such sub-sectors.

A defining characteristic of current U.S. educational policy is the use of data to inform decisions about resource allocation, teacher hiring, and curriculum and instruction. Perhaps the biggest challenge to data-driven decision making (DDDM) is that data use alone does not automatically result in improved teaching and learning. Research indicates that translating raw data into useable information and actionable knowledge for teachers requires not only adequate technical and social supports, but also an awareness of how educators in real-world settings actually use information to make decisions. Yet, little is known about DDDM in higher education, in general, and how postsecondary faculty make sense of and use data in their instructional decision-making processes, in particular. In this paper, we use naturalistic decision-making theory to generate practice-based descriptions of how 59 STEM faculty at three large public research universities used data as part of their course planning. Interview transcripts and notes taken while observing planning meetings were analyzed using an inductive approach to content analysis. In practice, respondents used different types of data and other information obtained from, for example, student assessments, end-of-semester evaluations, and conversations with colleagues. Results indicate that faculty generally collect and analyze data in informal, ad hoc scenarios ungoverned by institutional policy. Exceptions include disciplines with accreditation pressures and team-taught courses where structured (and supported) opportunities exist for faculty to collect, analyze, and reflect upon data about student learning. Thus, while numeric data are clearly viewed by this population of faculty as the most rigorous, in practice, even those that use quantitative data also use other sources of information. These results suggest an opportunity for educational leaders to design policies and professional development initiatives that facilitate a more formal collection of and reflection on data by faculty. In pursuing such technical solutions, however, policymakers and educational leaders must carefully negotiate the tension between rigor and relevance, and learn from the challenges experienced in the K-12 sector regarding DDDM.

The rapid proliferation of technology can have profound effects on the evolution of teaching, learning, scholarship, and governance in higher education (Katz, 2008). However, instructors report that simply "keeping up" with new instructional technologies, let alone integrating them productively into one's teaching, can be a significant challenge (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006; Zhu, Kaplan, & Dershimer, 2011). This Occasional Paper describes how instructors at the University of Michigan are currently using online collaboration tools (hereafter OCTs) in a variety of disciplines and teaching contexts to enhance student engagement and course management. Based on these cases and faculty interviews, the authors also outline recommendations for implementing OCTs effectively and efficiently in teaching.

Using data from the 2008 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey, we show that study time and academic conscientiousness were lower among students in humanities and social science majors than among students in science and engineering majors. Analytical and critical thinking experiences were no more evident among humanities and social sciences majors than among science and engineering majors. All three academically beneficial experiences were, however, strongly related to participation in class and interaction with instructors, and participation was more common among humanities and social sciences students than among science and engineering students. Bok's (2006) influential discussion of "underachievement" in undergraduate education focused on institutional performance. Our findings indicate that future discussions should take into account differences among disciplinary categories and majors as well. (Contains 4 tables and 13 footnotes.)

There is strong interest in broadening engineering education, bringing in more liberal arts content as well as additional subjects such as economics, business and law, with which engineers now have to be familiar. There are also cogent arguments for balancing against what is now the almost exclusively quantitative nature of the curriculum, adding more elements that relate to the actual practice of engineering, and structuring engineering education so as to provide multiple and later entry points, which should enable more informed career choices and make engineering attractive to a more diverse range of the population. Many have also sought a change in the level of the professional engineering degree from the bachelor's to the graduate level, which would logically, and probably also necessarily, accompany these changes. However, progress towards such changes in the United States has been marginal, in large part because incentives on the micro- and meso-scales do not match those on the macro-scale. On the other hand, there is much more substantial change in other countries, driven in part by the Bologna process. For the United States to be the last to change would be counter to the goal of retaining higher-functioning engineering jobs in the U. S. What needs to happen in order for the U. S. to change is evaluated. (Contains 37 endnotes.)

Disciplines codify related knowledge and have developed powerful approaches that enable both solutions to a wide variety of problems and efficient further extension of knowledge. Individual disciplines have translated into individual departments within universities. Academic departments tend to turn inward, deepening the knowledge within the discipline. Because of this inwardness, the differing methodological approaches among disciplines, and the reward systems within disciplines and universities, it is difficult for faculty to reach outside their disciplines and departments, so as to share knowledge and/or mine knowledge at the intersections of disciplines. However, world needs and opportunities are increasingly complex and require integrated, in-depth contributions from multiple disciplines for progress. Means for universities to encourage and facilitate multidisciplinary activities include organizational structure, incentive budgeting, and leadership and resources that enable directors of multidisciplinary units to negotiate effectively with academic department chairs. Major competitive initiatives involving large resources have proven particularly effective. New universities have opportunities for multidisciplinary research and teaching that would be much more difficult within existing universities. Today's university graduates must be able to work effectively with persons from other disciplines and understand enough of the basic vocabulary and methodologies of other disciplines to enable that collaboration. A liberal undergraduate education addresses those needs, where the definition of "liberal" encompasses courses reflecting many different disciplines, including the natural sciences and even some engineering. Professions are properly placed at the graduate level, built upon a foundational liberal education. Engineering should join the other professions by changing to that structure. (Contains 23 endnotes.)

Many societal trends and needs call for engineers to broaden their outlooks, have more flexible career options, and work closely and effectively with persons of quite different backgrounds. Yet the education and general orientation of engineers have been directed inward toward the profession, rather than outward toward the rest of society and the world. Engineering education should change to create a broader outlook and understanding in graduates and thereby engender capabilities for linkages and more likelihood of advancement into management and/or movement into other areas. The appropriate steps include moving the accredited professional engineering degree to the master's level and building upon a liberal education bachelor's degree that is analogous to pre-medical education. (Contains 14 footnotes.)