Search

This Work-In-Progress falls within the research category of study and, focuses on the experiences and perceptions of first- and second year engineering students when using an online engineering game that was designed to enhance understanding of statics concepts. Technology and online games are increasingly being used in engineering education to help students gain competencies in technical domains in the engineering field. Less is known about the way that these online games are designed and incorporated into the classroom environment and how these factors can ignite inequitable perspectives and experiences among engineering students. Also, little if any work that combines the TAM model and intersectionality of race and gender in engineering education has been done, though several studies have been modified to account for gender or race. This study expands upon the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by exploring perspectives of intersectional groups (defined as women of color who are engineering students). A Mixed Method Sequential Exploratory Research Design approach was used that extends the TAM model. Students were asked to play the engineering educational game, complete an open-ended questionnaire and then to participate in a focus group. Early findings suggest that while many students were open to learning to use the game and recommended inclusion of online engineering educational games as learning tools in classrooms, only a few indicated that they would use this tool to prepare for exams or technical job interviews. Some of the main themes identified in this study included unintended perpetuation of inequality through bias in favor of students who enjoyed competition-based learning and assessment of knowledge, and bias for students having prior experience in playing online games. Competition-based assessment related to presumed learning of course content enhanced student anxiety and feelings of intimidation and led to some students seeking to “game the game” versus learning the material, in efforts to achieve grade goals. Other students associated use of the game and the classroom weighted grading with intense stress that led them to prematurely stop the use of the engineering tool. Initial findings indicate that both game design and how technology is incorporated into the grading and testing of learning outcomes, influence student perceptions of the technology’s usefulness and ultimately the acceptance of the online game as a "learning tool." Results also point to the need to explore how the crediting and assessment of students’ performance and learning gains in these types of games could yield inequitable experiences in these types of courses.

The relationship between graduate students and their research advisors within academia is pivotal to the development and success of the research enterprise. Graduate students rely on their faculty advisor to be a source of information, a departmental negotiator, and a role model to guide their professional and ethical behavior. However, if an advisor does not fully recognize a student’s best interest or they are unaware of how to be an “ethical mentor”, they may overlook the unique social capital of the graduate student (e.g., background, culture) and jeopardize the research relationship. This work aims to explore how women graduate students and faculties in science and engineering understand ethical mentoring within research relationships. Particularly, we are interested in understanding the six ethical mentoring principles suggested by Johnson (2016)—beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, fidelity, fairness, and privacy—all of which require an in-depth understanding for a productive research relationship. Qualitative analysis revealed that participants emphasized the principles of beneficence and fidelity, while principles of privacy and fairness were mentioned the least. Three key themes emerged from this analysis: (a) communication; (b) relative power between mentor and mentee; and (c) awareness (or a lack thereof) around implicit expectations within the research culture.

In order for an engineering academic body (e.g., facultyand students) to navigate their surroundings, they must first become aware of the hidden curriculum around them. Hidden curriculum represents how particular assumptions, values, attitudes, and beliefs about schooling manifests in practice. When understood, these types of lessons or messages allow students, faculty, and staff to more easily navigate the academic and socio-political customs needed for success. As part of a larger study, a total of 224 participants across 57 engineering programs in the United States and Latin America were asked to comment on a survey that asked respondents about the expectations they perceived are placed on engineering students or faculty at their institution and from what source they believed these expectations came from. Preliminary findings pointed to concerns from participants that standardization (e.g., ABET) may not consider the unique resources needed among a diverse group of students as well as impinge contradictory influences on competency development in engineering. Also, the notions of elitism in engineering was seen among underrepresented participants as potentially harmful, in terms of mental and emotional health, in engineering. Results from this work can guide administrators, educators, and policy makers in engineering to consider the context and unique challenges of engineering students and faculty alike in meeting the expectations of this field.

This work in progress paper describes the initial stages of a project which aims to characterize the mechanisms of hidden curriculum (HC) in engineering and identify methods for exploring this phenomenon. To effectively study the complex nature of HC, this work brings together researchers with a range of expertise (sociology, engineering education, engineering, statistics, policy analysis, curriculum and instruction) to develop a holistic approach to explore HC in engineering. This work describes the process of gathering input from this multidisciplinary team as well as the literature to develop a mixed-method instrument and model to explore the mechanisms behind HC in engineering, a new realm in engineering education. Early findings suggest that HC may require considerations of an individual’s motivation, self-efficacy, and self-advocacy. The paper also discusses the initial stages of a vignette design used to elicit participants’ responses and reactions to the presented scenes. The vignette scenes focus on HC elements present during classroom preparation and instruction in engineering. Preliminary work on these HC elements per scene are also discussed here.

This work addresses the lack of a national guidance for the integration of mathematics and engineering in the Dual Language Education (DLE) programs in Spanish. Participants will learn about the impact of DLE programs on Latina/o students, and explore potential guidelines and strategies to implement mathematics and engineering in DLE schools. Educators and program developers, advocating for the integration of STEM knowledge in DLE programs in their district(s)/school(s), would particularly benefit from this session.

The relationship a graduate student and their research advisor have while they work together in academia is pivotal to the development and success of the research and involved parties (Polson, 2003). Students rely on their advisor to guide them through the academic and research process while also being a role model of professional and ethical behavior (Johnson, 2016; King, 2003). In essence, a research advisor must accept the trust and confidence of the graduate student to act in their best interest by following ethical mentoring principles. However, if the advisor is unaware of the best interest of their students or how to be an ‘ethical mentor’, they may overlook a student’s unique needs and risk relationship dysfunction. This work aims to explore the hidden players of ethical research mentoring perspectives, principles, norms, and issues of inclusivity for women graduate students in science and engineering. Particularly, we are interested in understanding six ethical mentoring principles: (1) Beneficence, (2) Nonmaleficence, (3) Autonomy, (4) Fidelity, (5) Fairness, and (6) Privacy, all which require an in-depth understanding for a productive research relationship. Preliminary qualitative analysis has revealed the importance of effective communication; how power imbalances are reinforced between the research advisor and graduate student; and how awareness of hidden norms and expectations within the research culture can shape research relationships.

This paper describes a U.S. National Science Foundation-funded Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site program that aims to provide undergraduate students with experiences in engineering education research (i.e., education research in the context of engineering). This paper provides an overview of the program and briefly describes the common intellectual focus of this REU Site program. Over the past two years, a total of 16 undergraduate students, seven graduate mentors, and five faculty mentors have actively participated in the program. Four important components of the program are described in this paper, including student recruitment and selection, REU seminars, weekly reflections, and REU research projects. The results of the project evaluation show that the program has made a positive impact on increasing education research skills and communication skills of the participating REU students. Eighty percent of the participating REU students reported that the research projects they worked increased their motivation and confidence for continuing to engage in engineering education research.