This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
Susan M. Lord received a B.S. from Cornell University in Materials Science and Electrical Engineering (EE) and the M.S. and Ph.D. in EE from Stanford University. She is currently Professor and Chair of Integrated Engineering at the University of San Diego. Her research focuses on the study and promotion of diversity in engineering including student pathways and inclusive teaching. She is Co-Director of the National Effective Teaching Institute (NETI). Her research has been sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Dr. Lord is among the first to study Latinos in engineering and coauthored The Borderlands of Education: Latinas in Engineering. Dr. Lord is a Fellow of the IEEE and ASEE and is active in the engineering education community including serving as General Co-Chair of the Frontiers in Education Conference, President of the IEEE Education Society, and Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Education (ToE) and the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE). She and her coauthors received the 2011 and 2019 Wickenden Awards for the best papers in JEE and the 2011 and 2015 Best Paper Awards for the IEEE ToE. In Spring 2012, Dr. Lord spent a sabbatical at Southeast University in Nanjing, China teaching and doing research. She is on the USD team implementing “Developing Changemaking Engineers”, an NSF-sponsored Revolutionizing Engineering Education (RED) project. Dr. Lord is the 2018 recipient of the IEEE Undergraduate Teaching Award.
Engineers are increasingly called on to develop sustainable solutions to complex problems. Within engineering, however, economic and environmental aspects of sustainability are often prioritized over social ones. This paper describes how efficiency and sustainability were conceptualized and interrelated by students in a newly developed second-year undergraduate engineering course, An Integrated Approach to Energy. This course took a sociotechnical approach and emphasized modern energy concepts (e.g., renewable energy), current issues (e.g., climate change), and local and personal contexts (e.g., connecting to students’ lived experiences). Analyses of student work and semi-structured interview data were used to explore how students conceptualized sustainability and efficiency. We found that in this cohort (n = 17) students often approached sustainability through a lens of efficiency, believing that if economic and environmental resources were prioritized and optimized, sustainability would be achieved. By exploring sustainability and efficiency together, we examined how dominant discourses that privilege technical over social aspects in engineering can be replicated within an energy context.
Laura Gelles; Joel Mejia; Susan Lord; Gordon Hoople; Diana Chen. Is It All about Efficiency? Exploring Students’ Conceptualizations of Sustainability in an Introductory Energy Course. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7188 .
AMA StyleLaura Gelles, Joel Mejia, Susan Lord, Gordon Hoople, Diana Chen. Is It All about Efficiency? Exploring Students’ Conceptualizations of Sustainability in an Introductory Energy Course. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (13):7188.
Chicago/Turabian StyleLaura Gelles; Joel Mejia; Susan Lord; Gordon Hoople; Diana Chen. 2021. "Is It All about Efficiency? Exploring Students’ Conceptualizations of Sustainability in an Introductory Energy Course." Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7188.
As student veterans transition to four-year institutions from the military, they navigate pathways that are often neither linear nor easy. Using Turner’s theory of liminality, we examine student veterans’ perspectives of the transition from military to civilian life. Interviewees include 60 student veterans from all military branches from four universities in the USA. Student veterans describe successes and challenges as they matriculate into engineering education as transfer students. Analyses of qualitative data yield original findings about the importance of mentors and student veteran networks for fostering student veterans’ educational interests and in promoting their persistence. This study uses a framework of liminality to highlight the bridge between prior military position and a forthcoming reentry into society with a new professional identity as an engineer. In describing their studies, student veterans greatly valued military-learned skills, such as patience, discipline, and technical skills, that give them an advantage in their engineering studies. These findings will be relevant to researchers studying transitions in general and researchers investigating veterans or other populations experiencing transitions. University leaders, including student affairs administrators, faculty members, and others who serve the student veteran community will also benefit from the results.
Michelle Camacho; Susan Lord; Catherine Mobley; Joyce Main; Catherine Brawner. Transitions of Student Military Veterans into Engineering Education. Social Sciences 2021, 10, 228 .
AMA StyleMichelle Camacho, Susan Lord, Catherine Mobley, Joyce Main, Catherine Brawner. Transitions of Student Military Veterans into Engineering Education. Social Sciences. 2021; 10 (6):228.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMichelle Camacho; Susan Lord; Catherine Mobley; Joyce Main; Catherine Brawner. 2021. "Transitions of Student Military Veterans into Engineering Education." Social Sciences 10, no. 6: 228.
What do engineering students in 2020 need to know about energy to be successful in the workplace and contribute to addressing society’s issues related to energy? Beginning with this question, we have designed a new course for second-year engineering students. Drawing on the interdisciplinary backgrounds of our diverse team of engineering instructors, we aimed to provide an introduction to energy for all engineering students that challenged the dominant discourse in engineering by valuing students’ lived experiences and bringing in examples situated in different cultural contexts. An Integrated Approach to Energy was offered for the first time in Spring 2020 for 18 students. In this paper, we describe the design of the course including learning objectives, content, and pedagogical approach. We assessed students’ learning using exams and the impact of the overall course using interviews. Students demonstrated achievement of the learning objectives in technical areas. In addition, interviews revealed that they learned about environmental, economic, and social aspects of engineering practice. We intend for this course to serve as a model of engineering as a sociotechnical endeavor by challenging students with scenarios that are technically demanding and require critical thinking about contextual implications.
Gordon Hoople; Diana Chen; Susan Lord; Laura Gelles; Felicity Bilow; Joel Mejia. An Integrated Approach to Energy Education in Engineering. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9145 .
AMA StyleGordon Hoople, Diana Chen, Susan Lord, Laura Gelles, Felicity Bilow, Joel Mejia. An Integrated Approach to Energy Education in Engineering. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (21):9145.
Chicago/Turabian StyleGordon Hoople; Diana Chen; Susan Lord; Laura Gelles; Felicity Bilow; Joel Mejia. 2020. "An Integrated Approach to Energy Education in Engineering." Sustainability 12, no. 21: 9145.
The global pandemic of COVID-19 brought about the transition to Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) at higher education institutions across the United States, prompting both students and the faculty to rapidly adjust to a different modality of teaching and learning. Other crises have induced disruptions to academic continuity (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes), but not to the same extent as COVID-19, which has affected universities on a global scale. In this paper, we describe a qualitative case study where we interviewed 11 second-year Integrated Engineering students during the Spring 2020 semester to explore how they adapted to the transition to remote learning. Our results revealed several student challenges, how they used self-discipline strategies to overcome them, and how the faculty supported students in the classroom through a compassionate and flexible pedagogy. Faculty members showed compassion and flexibility by adjusting the curriculum and assessment and effectively communicating with students. This was especially important for the women participants in this study, who more frequently expressed utilizing pass/fail grading and the personal and gendered challenges they faced due to the pandemic. During this unprecedented crisis, we found that a key element for supporting students’ well-being and success is the faculty members communicating care and incorporating flexibility into their courses.
Laura A. Gelles; Susan M. Lord; Gordon D. Hoople; Diana A. Chen; Joel Alejandro Mejia. Compassionate Flexibility and Self-Discipline: Student Adaptation to Emergency Remote Teaching in an Integrated Engineering Energy Course during COVID-19. Education Sciences 2020, 10, 304 .
AMA StyleLaura A. Gelles, Susan M. Lord, Gordon D. Hoople, Diana A. Chen, Joel Alejandro Mejia. Compassionate Flexibility and Self-Discipline: Student Adaptation to Emergency Remote Teaching in an Integrated Engineering Energy Course during COVID-19. Education Sciences. 2020; 10 (11):304.
Chicago/Turabian StyleLaura A. Gelles; Susan M. Lord; Gordon D. Hoople; Diana A. Chen; Joel Alejandro Mejia. 2020. "Compassionate Flexibility and Self-Discipline: Student Adaptation to Emergency Remote Teaching in an Integrated Engineering Energy Course during COVID-19." Education Sciences 10, no. 11: 304.
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.
Idalis Villanueva; Laura Ann Gelles; Marialuisa Di Stefano; Buffy Smith; Renetta G. Tull; Susan M Lord; Lisa Benson; Anne Therese Hunt; Donna M. Riley; Gery W. Ryan. What Does Hidden Curriculum in Engineering Look Like and How Can It Be Explored? 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleIdalis Villanueva, Laura Ann Gelles, Marialuisa Di Stefano, Buffy Smith, Renetta G. Tull, Susan M Lord, Lisa Benson, Anne Therese Hunt, Donna M. Riley, Gery W. Ryan. What Does Hidden Curriculum in Engineering Look Like and How Can It Be Explored? 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIdalis Villanueva; Laura Ann Gelles; Marialuisa Di Stefano; Buffy Smith; Renetta G. Tull; Susan M Lord; Lisa Benson; Anne Therese Hunt; Donna M. Riley; Gery W. Ryan. 2020. "What Does Hidden Curriculum in Engineering Look Like and How Can It Be Explored?" 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 1.
Improving the Diversity of Faculty in Electrical and Computer Engineering (iREDEFINE) offers an innovative model for improving diversity at the ECE postdoc and professorial levels. As a field, Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) suffers from a lack of participation of women and underrepresented minorities (W-URM) at the undergraduate, graduate, and professorial levels, even compared to other engineering disciplines. iREDEFINEis a collaborative effort among ECE leaders which aims to proactively motivate and prepare some W-URM PhD students to consider tenure track faculty or postdoc positions in ECE departments of USA universities. The iREDEFINE project capitalizes on a unique opportunity to bring together ECE department heads with W-URM graduate students. Funded by the National Science Foundation and supported by the ECE Department Heads Association (ECEDHA), the project includes an annual workshop held in conjunction with the ECEDHA Annual Conference and Expo and follow up mentoring activities. Over fifty applications were received for the first iREDEFINE cohort. Fourteen were funded by NSF and others were funded by their institutions to form a cohort of 46 individuals. The number of applicants demonstrates the need for such a program. The first iREDEFINE workshop offered in 2017 provided professional development on negotiation skills, a glimpse of the life and career of ECE faculty members, information on different types of schools, tips on how to prepare for a successful academic position interview, and opportunities for networking with over 300 department heads and 40 peers. In response to a post-workshop survey, students reported that they particularly valued the networking opportunities with department heads and peers provided by this unique opportunity to bring students and chairs together at the ECEDHA conference. Participants’ interest in postdoc and faculty positions increased after the workshop with more of an increase in interest in faculty positions. Those who responded to a second survey six months later reported that they particularly valued gaining clarity about the job search process and application materials and the networking. Ten participants responding to this survey had applied for postdoc or faculty positions. One had obtained a faculty position and one a postdoc. Those who attended mentoring teleconferences on topics such as mock interviews, found them to be very useful. Participant suggestions for improvements are being incorporated into the second iREDEFINE workshop in 2018 including a panel of junior ECE faculty and a longer poster session.
Susan M. Lord; Athina Petropolu. Professional Development Program for Improving the Diversity of Faculty in Electrical and Computer Engineering (iREDEFINE ECE). 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleSusan M. Lord, Athina Petropolu. Professional Development Program for Improving the Diversity of Faculty in Electrical and Computer Engineering (iREDEFINE ECE). 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSusan M. Lord; Athina Petropolu. 2020. "Professional Development Program for Improving the Diversity of Faculty in Electrical and Computer Engineering (iREDEFINE ECE)." 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 1.
How can we educate current students to be the most effective engineers when they graduate? Many leaders, researchers, and educators have been calling for the need to move from educating engineers in a way that reinforces that engineering is a purely technical endeavor to one that recognizes it as socio-technical. However, how does an engineering educator do this in required engineering courses? As part of an NSF-funded project, our engineering program is exploring such issues. In this paper, we present examples of how a heat transfer instructor has integrated such content. Heat transfer is a fundamental course in mechanical engineering which includes key concepts that are useful in wide range of applications. Contemporary heat transfer textbooks highlight real-world applications but often struggle to integrate societal concerns. In this paper, we will describe details of two modules, their use with students in a required senior level heat transfer class, and evaluation. Recognizing that instructors have many demands on their time, our modules are designed to be easy to use and include activities for class, homework, and projects. Instructors could choose some or all to incorporate in their heat transfer classes. The first module is designed to be included in the design of electrical water heaters for residential applications. This topic is covered when teaching conduction and convection heat transfer. Current water heaters in the US run constantly so hot water is available 24 hours a day. Water heater are usually insulated and located inside the garage or a closet inside the house. Despite improved insulation, heat is lost by conduction within the insulation and by convection to surrounding air. The cost of heat loss due to running the water heater constantly is calculated as a class activity. A new problem changes the focus from the US to developing countries, like Lebanon, where electrical energy is not abundant. In these countries, water heaters are typically kept off and turned on half an hour prior to taking a shower. In this case, students must grapple with different constraints as they explore the feasibility of having a water heater running in a global context where electricity is not always available. The second module is designed for use in the Heat Exchanger section of the course. This is framed around a successful student-faculty project at our university which was implemented in the Dominican Republic designed to provide affordable water heating for rural communities. In class, students are presented with a picture of the thermosiphon solar water heater and challenged to develop the model based on the heat exchanger equations learned in class. An open-ended design project involving modeling of similar heat exchangers is assigned where students use simulation software to calculate system performance and efficiency. Students can directly see the relevance of their heat transfer knowledge in a humanitarian context. We hope that these examples might help other instructors incorporate these important themes into their heat transfer courses enabling more engineering students to include broader considerations in their engineering practice.
Elizabeth A. Reddy; Breanne Przestrzelski; Susan M. Lord; Imane Khalil. Introducing Social Relevance and Global Context into the Introduction to Heat Transfer Course. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleElizabeth A. Reddy, Breanne Przestrzelski, Susan M. Lord, Imane Khalil. Introducing Social Relevance and Global Context into the Introduction to Heat Transfer Course. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleElizabeth A. Reddy; Breanne Przestrzelski; Susan M. Lord; Imane Khalil. 2020. "Introducing Social Relevance and Global Context into the Introduction to Heat Transfer Course." 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 1.
This NSF Research in Engineering Education (REE)-funded project explores the experiences of student veterans in engineering (SVE) through a comparative case study across four institutions in the USA. Our research plan incorporates interviews with key informants on each campus, focus group interviews with SVEs, and in-depth SVE interviews. The theoretical framework expands Tinto’s student integration model and Schlossberg’s adult transition theory. This study has potential for broad systemic impact by diversifying pathways to and through engineering programs. During the first three years of the grant, we interviewed 23 key informants including professionals in student veteran success centers, financial aid, advising offices, and other student support services, conducted five focus groups with a total of 21 SVEs, and conducted individual interviews with 60 SVEs. In Year 4, we focused on analyzing the interview and focus group data to provide a richer description of the experiences of military veterans who have chosen to pursue a bachelor’s degree in engineering. Salient themes include leadership skills learned in military as they relate to persistence in engineering education; tensions with transitions to higher education; the intersections of student veteran roles with other facets of their identities such as first-generation status; differentiation by military branch; and preparation for engineering education. We are focusing on disseminating results through journal papers and conference proceedings and presentations.
Susan M. Lord; Catherine Mobley; Catherine E. Brawner; Joyce B. Main; Michelle M. Camacho. Board 89: Military Veteran Students’ Pathways in Engineering Education (Year 4). 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleSusan M. Lord, Catherine Mobley, Catherine E. Brawner, Joyce B. Main, Michelle M. Camacho. Board 89: Military Veteran Students’ Pathways in Engineering Education (Year 4). 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSusan M. Lord; Catherine Mobley; Catherine E. Brawner; Joyce B. Main; Michelle M. Camacho. 2020. "Board 89: Military Veteran Students’ Pathways in Engineering Education (Year 4)." 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 1.
To improve opportunities for women student veterans in engineering (WSVE), our qualitative study contributes to the body of knowledge about women SVEs and female gender identity in engineering. Our exploratory research presents information about WSVEs’ pathways into engineering and begins to unpack the factors related to WSVEs’ gender, military and engineering identities. The research was guided by three main questions: 1. Why do WSVEs pursue a Bachelor’s degree in engineering? 2. How do military experiences shape WSVEs’ educational experiences? 3. To what extent are the WSVEs’ current engineering education experiences shaped by their gender, veteran, and engineering identities? We interviewed seven WSVEs about their transition out of the military and into engineering programs at four institutions. Participants also completed an identity exercise articulating the extent to which various components of their identity were most central to their core self (e.g., woman, engineering student, socioeconomic status, veteran or military status, etc.). The analysis of the participants’ narratives reveals several themes: (1) there is often a connection between WSVEs’ military occupational specialty (MOS) and their decision to pursue an engineering degree program; (2) the participants’ military experiences served to support their academic experiences in engineering; (3) the participants do not directly indicate that gender identity is particularly salient to their military experience or in engineering; however, their narratives illuminate how they conceptualize engineering identity as central to their experiences; and (4) although participants did not indicate that gender was central to their identities and experiences, nearly all of them discussed relational elements, including the significance of relationships and caregiving to their educational experiences. That is, family roles (e.g., daughter, wife, sister) were central to their identity, even if the women did not say that gender, per se, was salient. Our initial results offer insights into the unique experiences of women who served in the military and who then chose to advance their careers and education in engineering. Policies and programs for WSVEs should account for previous military experience related to engineering, the similar male-dominated cultures both the military and engineering fields possess, and the importance of family- and relationship-oriented responsibilities to WSVEs.
Rebecca C. Atkinson; Catherine Mobley; Catherine E. Brawner; Susan M. Lord; Michelle M. Camacho; Joyce B. Main. I Never Played the 'Girl Card': Experiences and Identity Intersections of Women Student Veterans in Engineering. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleRebecca C. Atkinson, Catherine Mobley, Catherine E. Brawner, Susan M. Lord, Michelle M. Camacho, Joyce B. Main. I Never Played the 'Girl Card': Experiences and Identity Intersections of Women Student Veterans in Engineering. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleRebecca C. Atkinson; Catherine Mobley; Catherine E. Brawner; Susan M. Lord; Michelle M. Camacho; Joyce B. Main. 2020. "I Never Played the 'Girl Card': Experiences and Identity Intersections of Women Student Veterans in Engineering." 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 1.
This project seeks to expand the number of institutions participating in The Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD). MIDFIELD is a resource enabling the study of students that includes longitudinal, whole population data for multiple institutions. Retention, measured in various ways, has been the dominant mode of studying student success in engineering education and in higher education in general. However, simply studying who matriculates and who graduates does not tell the complete story of a student's path through the engineering curriculum nor should it be used as a measure of an institution. A national, longitudinal student unit-record database would enable study of engineering programs and benchmark metrics consistently. MIDFIELD has already been proven to facilitate data on student matriculation habits disaggregated across various engineering disciplines, ethnicities and genders. However its value as a predictive tool has also been somewhat limited due to the small (eleven) number of institutions who have provided their student data. This project aims to expand MIDFIELD database from eleven to 103 institutions containing over 10 million students. More specifically the data will represent over 50% of the U.S. engineering undergraduate degrees awarded and increase the diversity of institutions in the dataset. MIDFIELD will include public and private institutions, minority serving institutions, and institutions from a broad range of research classifications. The sheer scope and longitude of MIDFIELD will enable significant improvements in research in higher education. It will enable the development of research capacity to examine student characteristics (race/ethnicity/gender/social class) and curricular pathways (including coursework) by institution and over time. Because the dataset contains students records of all students matriculating over a period of time, researchers can study students across all disciplines, not solely engineering. As of October 4, 2017, we have secured participation agreements from 27 institutions in addition to the original 11, bringing the total number of institutions in MIDFIELD to 38. In addition to collecting student record information, we are compiling academic policy information for each partner institution. We have also held workshops at engineering education conferences to educate the broader research community, expanding the network of researchers capable of conducting this research and the sharing of innovative research methods in addition to the actual data. Whereas the project is designed to recruit a stratified sample of US institutions with engineering programs, institutions interested in joining MIDFIELD can typically be substituted for those originally targeted for recruitment. MIDFIELD partners have the opportunity to conduct peer comparisons, carry out research to inform local policies and practice, and receive unblinded information about their institution from partner researchers. Due to the broad nature of the disciplines represented by MIDFIELD, this project has cross-Directorate support from the Directorates of Engineering, Math and Physical Sciences (MPS), and Education and Human Resources (EHR) as well as the Office of Integrative Activities (OIA). Within the MPS Directorate, this work is supported by Astronomy, and Physics; within EHR, this work is supported by the EHR Core Research (ECR) program.
Matthew W. Ohland; Susan M. Lord; Marisa K. Orr; Russell Andrew Long; Richard A. Layton; Catherine E. Brawner; Nichole Ramirez. Board 90: Expanding Access to and Participation in MIDFIELD (Year 2). 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleMatthew W. Ohland, Susan M. Lord, Marisa K. Orr, Russell Andrew Long, Richard A. Layton, Catherine E. Brawner, Nichole Ramirez. Board 90: Expanding Access to and Participation in MIDFIELD (Year 2). 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMatthew W. Ohland; Susan M. Lord; Marisa K. Orr; Russell Andrew Long; Richard A. Layton; Catherine E. Brawner; Nichole Ramirez. 2020. "Board 90: Expanding Access to and Participation in MIDFIELD (Year 2)." 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 1.
Energy is a foundational topic across engineering disciplines; however, energy concepts are typically introduced in a disjointed fashion across multiple courses. Students often have difficulty making connections across disciplines that leverage their own personal funds of knowledge. For example, many students often fail to connect their personal experience with technology (e.g. home appliances) with the engineering concepts (e.g. 1st law of thermodynamics) introduced in class. We are exploring a reconceived approach for introducing students to these important concepts. The authors, with expertise in four different engineering disciplines, recognize that many discourses in engineering exist in tension with each other. The context in which we teach energy is too often narrowly defined and framed by both hegemonic disciplinary literacies (i.e., mechanical engineers tend to focus heavily on steam tables) and dominant cultural perspectives (i.e., White, male, colonial, and heteronormative). Our objective is to redefine the teaching and learning of energy in engineering to recognize the broad diversity that exists within the world around energy. This paper, submitted as a work in progress, describes our vision for a new course that brings together energy concepts from traditional middle year courses such as thermodynamics and circuits. We propose to use culturally sustaining pedagogies (CSPs) to provide all students with a stronger foundation and a broader perspective. CSPs seek to value and cultivate the cultural and social pluralism that creates a democratic educational experience and have been shown to increase student engagement and improve student outcomes in K-12 education. We hypothesize that the use of CSPs will help with breaking down the false dichotomy of engineering problems as strictly “social” or “technical.” In this paper, we briefly review approaches taken to teach energy in engineering. We then examine CSPs and make the case for how they might be used within engineering. We discuss our preliminary ideas for the course itself. The goal of this paper is to stimulate discussion within the ASEE community to improve course effectiveness in enhancing student learning. This project is part of a larger overall effort at [University] to integrate social justice themes across the curriculum of a new general engineering department. This paper will present our progress towards instantiating in the classroom the broader vision laid out for our program.
Gordon D. Hoople; Joel Alejandro Mejia; Diana A. Chen; Susan M. Lord. Reimagining Energy: Deconstructing Traditional Engineering Silos Using Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleGordon D. Hoople, Joel Alejandro Mejia, Diana A. Chen, Susan M. Lord. Reimagining Energy: Deconstructing Traditional Engineering Silos Using Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleGordon D. Hoople; Joel Alejandro Mejia; Diana A. Chen; Susan M. Lord. 2020. "Reimagining Energy: Deconstructing Traditional Engineering Silos Using Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies." 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 1.
How could we talk about race in an engineering classroom? What about other socially constructed identities? Although diversity and inclusion have become important topics discussed and researched within engineering education, these are not easy concepts for most engineering educators to discuss with students in the classroom. In this paper, we describe examples of class activities that we have used in two engineering courses to help students learn about privilege, its relationship to different –isms, such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism, and the role engineering plays/can play in maintaining or dismantling that privilege. Specifically, we describe activities in a required User Centered Design course for first or second year students, and an Engineering and Social Justice course required for third year students in General Engineering and open as an elective to other engineering majors. As engineering professors, we also describe our own positionality as the instructors. We hope that these examples will be helpful to others interested in integrating such content into their courses.
Joel Alejandro Mejia; Diana A. Chen; Odesma Onika Dalrymple; Susan M Lord. Revealing the Invisible: Conversations about -Isms and Power Relations in Engineering Courses. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleJoel Alejandro Mejia, Diana A. Chen, Odesma Onika Dalrymple, Susan M Lord. Revealing the Invisible: Conversations about -Isms and Power Relations in Engineering Courses. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJoel Alejandro Mejia; Diana A. Chen; Odesma Onika Dalrymple; Susan M Lord. 2020. "Revealing the Invisible: Conversations about -Isms and Power Relations in Engineering Courses." 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 1.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) REvolutionizing engineering and computer science Departments (RED) program is an important initiative in engineering education. The goals of RED are to “enable engineering and computer science departments to lead the nation by successfully achieving significant sustainable changes necessary to overcome longstanding issues in their undergraduate programs and educate inclusive communities of engineering and computer science students prepared to solve 21st-century challenges.” In 2015, six RED projects were funded followed by seven in 2016 and six more in 2017, bringing the total number of projects to 19. In addition, NSF funded REDPAR (RED Participatory Action Research), the collaborative effort between researchers at Rose-Hulman and the University of Washington to facilitate communication and collaboration among the RED teams and to study the processes followed by RED teams. This work in progress provides a brief overview of the program and current progress of some projects. We highlight the diversity of current RED projects through updates from eight projects across the three cohorts: four from Cohort 1: Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Oregon State University, and the University of San Diego, three from Cohort 2: Boise State University, Rowan University, Virginia Tech, and one from Cohort 3: Georgia Tech. Updates are also included from the REDPAR team about the RED Consortium (REDCON) and research that crosses the consortium. We hope that this paper will help the engineering education community to learn how these projects are changing the landscape of engineering education in the US and consider approaches for enacting change on other campuses.
Susan M. Lord; Beena Sukumaran; Ella Lee Ingram; Anthony A. Maciejewski; James D. Sweeney; Thomas Martin; Joseph M. LeDoux; Jeremi S. London; Noah Salzman. Work in Progress: Progress of the NSF RED Revolution. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleSusan M. Lord, Beena Sukumaran, Ella Lee Ingram, Anthony A. Maciejewski, James D. Sweeney, Thomas Martin, Joseph M. LeDoux, Jeremi S. London, Noah Salzman. Work in Progress: Progress of the NSF RED Revolution. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSusan M. Lord; Beena Sukumaran; Ella Lee Ingram; Anthony A. Maciejewski; James D. Sweeney; Thomas Martin; Joseph M. LeDoux; Jeremi S. London; Noah Salzman. 2020. "Work in Progress: Progress of the NSF RED Revolution." 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 1.
Student Demographics and Outcomes in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Including their Exchange of StudentsThere is a large amount of overlap in Mechanical (ME) and Aerospace Engineering (Aero)curricula, and yet the student populations look quite different in terms of race and gender. Thisstudy includes institutional data from 11 institutions, all of which offered ME and six of whichoffered Aero over the period 1987-2010. This large sample (over 90,000 first-time-in-collegeengineering students) allows us to adopt an intersectional framework to study race and gendertogether. In this paper, we examine the demographics of students in ME and Aero and their six-year graduation rates. Then we consider the exchange of students between these two similardisciplines and how that impacts graduation rate.Within each racial/ethnic group, men who start in engineering choose Aero and ME at higherrates than women who start in engineering. In Aero, the gender gaps are small to moderateamong White (11.7% of males vs. 10.5% of females), Hispanic (13.3% vs. 12.0%), and Asianstudents (9.3% vs. 6.2%). There is a larger gap between Black men and women choosing Aero(9.4% vs. 3.5%). Mechanical Engineering on the other hand, has large gender gaps within allracial/ethnic groups with more men than women choosing ME (White: 20.6% vs. 11.6%, Black:19.0% vs.10.3%, Hispanic: 17.3% vs. 9.2%, and Asian: 15.1% vs. 8.2%).Considering six-year graduation in ME or Aero, women out persist men in all subgroups exceptAsian Aero students. Overall, graduation rates are lower in Aero than ME. In Aero, six-yeargraduation rates range from 11.2% for Black males to 29.3% for Hispanic females, while in MEthey range from 31.6% for Hispanic males to 47.8% for Asian females.Over 500 students in this study started in Aero but graduated in ME, and 40 started in ME butgraduated in Aero. The switching population from ME to Aero has a higher percentage ofwomen than the starting population of ME and the Aero to ME population has a lowerpercentage of women than the starting population of Aero. While Aero has smaller genderenrollment gaps, ME has smaller enrollment and outcome gaps between racial/ethnic groups.By studying the differences between Aero and ME and the exchange between them, bothdisciplines can learn from each other about how to improve their recruiting and retention ofunderrepresented groups. The forthcoming paper will include further detail as well asimplications for engineering educators and administrators.
Marisa K. Orr; Susan M Lord; Matthew W. Ohland; Richard A. Layton. Student Demographics and Outcomes in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Including Migration between the Disciplines. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 24.1111.1 -24.1111.10.
AMA StyleMarisa K. Orr, Susan M Lord, Matthew W. Ohland, Richard A. Layton. Student Demographics and Outcomes in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Including Migration between the Disciplines. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():24.1111.1-24.1111.10.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarisa K. Orr; Susan M Lord; Matthew W. Ohland; Richard A. Layton. 2020. "Student Demographics and Outcomes in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Including Migration between the Disciplines." 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 24.1111.1-24.1111.10.
Engineering Students’ Development as Lifelong LearnersIt is widely accepted that one goal of higher education is to instill in students the need for and thepractice of lifelong learning. All major stakeholders of higher education – graduates, employers,faculty and accrediting agencies – agree that this outcome is critically important given the rapidpace of change of society, especially in engineering and technology. Our graduates must adaptto this change in order to remain productive contributors. Indeed, it can be argued that much – oreven most – of what an engineering graduate needs to know several years after obtaining his orher degree will not have been learned in school but will need to be acquired through independentlearning outside of formal instructional settings. Given the importance of lifelong learning, it issurprising that there is a paucity of methods to assess this outcome in students. Two recentlydeveloped assessment instruments (Kirby et al., 2010; Macaskill & Taylor, 2010) purport tomeasure various facets of this outcome in college students. We use these instruments to assessfor differences between engineering students at a large, public university in the western UnitedStates, and also to compare the results between the two instruments as a check on congruence.Engineering students from the first through senior year of study in a variety of disciplines weresurveyed using both instruments. The sample (n=390) also included a fair representation byfemales and minority groups. Analysis of variance was used to assess for differences betweenthe various subgroups of students.
John C. Chen; Susan M Lord; Karen J McGaughey. Engineering Students' Development as Lifelong Learners. 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 23.521.1 -23.521.9.
AMA StyleJohn C. Chen, Susan M Lord, Karen J McGaughey. Engineering Students' Development as Lifelong Learners. 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():23.521.1-23.521.9.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJohn C. Chen; Susan M Lord; Karen J McGaughey. 2020. "Engineering Students' Development as Lifelong Learners." 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 23.521.1-23.521.9.
If You Build It, They Will Come (and Stay): Recruiting and Retaining Women and Underrepresented Minority Students1 This Panel Session will present findings from two companion studies that examinedrecruitment strategies to attract and serve women and underrepresented minority students and supportservices that aid in their retention in engineering programs. Panel members will first present findingsfrom a national survey, summarizing recruitment and retention practices, students’ perceptions ofengineering program climate, and the role of support services in students’ plans to work in oroutside of engineering professions. Detailed examples of recruitment and retention practicesdrawn from case studies of engineering schools will provide specific examples of effectivepractices and policies. Following the presentation of findings, two commentators with extensiveexpertise will open a dialogue with the audience by remarking on the implications of the findings forengineering schools, as well as directions for future research on this topic. Findings are drawn from Prototype to Production (P2P) and Prototyping the Engineer of2020 (P360), both funded by NSF. P2P investigated curricular, instructional, and organizationalpractices and policies, as well as the educational experiences of undergraduates, in a nationallyrepresentative sample of more than 100 engineering programs in 30 four-year institutions.Findings based on data from students, faculty, program chairs, and associate deans will be shared.P360 complemented P2P through case studies of six institutions that outperformed their peers on atleast one measure; four of the six outperformed peer institutions in recruiting and graduatingunderserved students. P2P findings indicate that about one-third of engineering faculty members assist inrecruiting women and underrepresented students. The majority of faculty may not participatebecause these activities, according to program chairs and faculty, have very little value in meritsalary, promotion, and tenure decisions. Additionally, almost 20% of faculty members andprogram chairs believe it is difficult to increase student diversity without sacrificing academicquality. Interviews with faculty and administrators from the P360 study reveal how these1 This proposed panel has been submitted to both the Minorities in Engineering and Women inEngineering Divisions. We hope these divisions will consider co-sponsoring this panel.concerns are expressed -- or rejected -- as barriers to diversification of the engineering studentpopulation. In this session we will explore whether negative faculty attitudes contribute to themore negative perceptions of engineering program climates reported by women andunderrepresented minority students compared to their male and White counterparts. We alsoexplore whether these attitudes influence women and underrepresented minority students’interests in remaining in the engineering field after graduation. Finally, we also explore the importance of certain support services to women andunderrepresented minority students. Underrepresented minority students, for example, reportthat the services of a learning/tutoring center are important to their academic success. Data fromthe case studies provides insight into why these services are valued by students, as well asfaculty and administrators’ perceptions of their role in recruiting and retaining women andunderrepresented minority students. We anticipate that these findings and the commentary of two engineering facultymembers prominent in promoting a more diverse student body will produce a lively andproductive conversation.
Hyun Kyoung Ro; Rose M. Marra; Patrick T. Terenzini; Ardie D. Walser; Lois Calian Trautvetter; Susan M. Lord. If You Build It, They Will Come (and Stay): Recruiting and Retaining Women and Underrepresented Minority Students. 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 22.794.1 -22.794.6.
AMA StyleHyun Kyoung Ro, Rose M. Marra, Patrick T. Terenzini, Ardie D. Walser, Lois Calian Trautvetter, Susan M. Lord. If You Build It, They Will Come (and Stay): Recruiting and Retaining Women and Underrepresented Minority Students. 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():22.794.1-22.794.6.
Chicago/Turabian StyleHyun Kyoung Ro; Rose M. Marra; Patrick T. Terenzini; Ardie D. Walser; Lois Calian Trautvetter; Susan M. Lord. 2020. "If You Build It, They Will Come (and Stay): Recruiting and Retaining Women and Underrepresented Minority Students." 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 22.794.1-22.794.6.
Applying “Cultural Consensus Analysis” to a Subgroup of Engineering Educators Abstract In this paper, we review the theoretical premises of cultural consensus analysis and offer a detailed description of its methodological components, including data collection and analytical procedures. We demonstrate how this quantitative method drawn from cultural anthropology could be used in engineering education research. Our findings indicate that a measurable amount of consensus regarding beliefs about effective teaching exists among the engineering educators in our study. According to the mathematical criteria of the cultural consensus model, this population constitutes a cultural group. Further, the beliefs listed and prioritized by respondents indicate that a coherent cultural domain exists for “effective teaching”. The wider implications of this research include not only potential applicability of this method within engineering education research but also a critical analysis of variations among engineering educators and a contribution to the emerging discourses of engineering education as a “culture”. 1. Introduction Some researchers have suggested that engineering education may be described as a “culture” in which knowledge, beliefs and practices are shared.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Less attention has been paid to the nuances within engineering education, the variability in the degree to which members accept or share a base of knowledge, beliefs and practices. Quantitative methods can be used to test whether cultural constructs are shared among some engineering educators. One anthropological research method, “cultural consensus analysis,”6 measures the extent to which group members agree or disagree about beliefs or practices. Specifically, to what extent do individuals agree or disagree with the group? In our case, do engineering educators share beliefs about teaching? Can we conceptualize them as a cultural group, based on their beliefs, or are their beliefs idiosyncratic and random? To answer these questions we began researching a subgroup of engineering educators. We identified attendees at the 2006 “Frontiers in Education” (FIE) conference as a “subgroup” of engineering educators because the annual conference is devoted to improving engineering education (for example, the conference theme for FIE 2008 is “Racing toward Innovation in Engineering Education”). Given this association, do these members share a cultural model about what constitutes effective teaching? And if so, how might their beliefs differ from other engineers who do not attend conferences specific to engineering pedagogy? These questions motivate us to study “intracultural variability” – the extent to which group members agree and disagree. We suggest, following cognitive anthropological theory, that agreement or “shared knowledge” can be measured and is an indicator of shared culture. The culture of engineering education, however, is varied and diverse, contextual and dynamic. This analysis presents a snapshot of one cultural construct. Just as we specifically examine one subgroup of engineering educators (many of whom, in the qualitative interviews, expressed a fluency in pedagogical discourses and eloquently described situationally-specific modes of learning/teaching), other subgroups of engineers may have strongly differing ideas about how to effectively teach. One objective of this paper is to bring data to bear on the idea of an “engineering education culture”. Based on evidence presented below, the “culture of engineering education” is not monolithic; rather, data show that pockets of instrumental actors
Susan Lord; Michelle Camacho; Christina Aneshansley. Applying "Cultural Consensus Analysis" To A Subgroup Of Engineering Educators. 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 13.213.1 -13.213.16.
AMA StyleSusan Lord, Michelle Camacho, Christina Aneshansley. Applying "Cultural Consensus Analysis" To A Subgroup Of Engineering Educators. 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():13.213.1-13.213.16.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSusan Lord; Michelle Camacho; Christina Aneshansley. 2020. "Applying "Cultural Consensus Analysis" To A Subgroup Of Engineering Educators." 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 13.213.1-13.213.16.
Student Self-Directed Learning Outcomes for Different Learning EnvironmentsCalls for educational reform emphasize the need for student-centered learning approaches thatfoster a capacity for lifelong learning. Lifelong learners exhibit self-regulated behaviors consistentwith those of self-directed learners (SDL). Such learners are characterized as curious, motivated,reflective, analytical, persistent, flexible, and independent. Engineering educators and ABETrecognize that students’ development of SDL aptitudes is vital for their success in today’sengineering environment, and that instructors play a critical role in influencing outcomes related toSDL-development through their course design. Yet there is a critical lack of research examininghow instructor choices promote SDL development in undergraduate engineering students.We are conducting a large study investigating how instructor choices affect a range of studentoutcomes related to their development as self-directed learners. This study examines a variety ofundergraduate engineering courses at four different institutions throughout the U.S. with fourdifferent instructors employing a range of active learning pedagogies. The theoretical frameworkfor our study employs Pintrich’s model for assessing self-regulation, which has within it four areasof self-regulation: (a) cognition, (b) motivation, (c) behavior, and (d) context.Our research question considers “In what ways do engineering instructors assist students to becomeself-directed learners?” The courses involved students from sophomores through seniors.Instructor 1 taught a Heat Transfer course in a problem-based learning format. Instructor 2 used aproject-based learning studio for a Mechanical Engineering elective on Failure Analysis and aMetals and Alloys course. Instructor 3 taught Thermodynamics and Statics courses with in-classproblem solving activities using clickers and peer-to-peer instruction. Instructor 4 taught a Circuitscourse including in-class problem solving activities and semester-long cooperative learninghomework teams.Student outcomes are measured using the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire(MSLQ). The MSLQ is a validated self-report instrument that gauges college students’motivational orientations and use of different learning strategies. Dependent groups t-tests wereused to compare within group differences from pre-test to post-test. Effect sizes were calculatedusing Cohen’s d. Preliminary results show some significant differences for student outcomes onseveral subscales of the MSLQ for different instructors. These subscales may be tied back toPintrich’s model. After the problem-based learning course, students reported higher intrinsicmotivation (d = 0.46), elaboration (d=0.28), organization (d=0.56), effort regulation (d=0.93), andpeer learning (d=0.46). After the project-based learning courses, students reported lower task value(d=-1.18) and effort regulation (d=-0.73). After the courses with Instructor 3, students reported anincrease in metacognitive self regulation (0.24). After the course with Instructor 4, studentsreported an increase in organization (0.44).The different ways that students change in different courses suggest that different pedagogiesstudent-centered course structure required self-directed behaviors while the regulation ofinfluence development of certain behaviors related to SDL. For example, perhaps the problem-based learning impacted student development in all four areas in Pintrich’s model because thecognition in Instructor 4’s course might be tied to the structure of class assignments. Analysis ofthese results can help inform other engineering educators about effective ways to help studentsdevelop important SDL behaviors.
Susan M. Lord; Candice Stefanou; Michael J. Prince; John Chen; Jonathan D. Stolk. Student Lifelong Learning Outcomes for Different Learning Environments. 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 22.1334.1 -22.1334.17.
AMA StyleSusan M. Lord, Candice Stefanou, Michael J. Prince, John Chen, Jonathan D. Stolk. Student Lifelong Learning Outcomes for Different Learning Environments. 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():22.1334.1-22.1334.17.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSusan M. Lord; Candice Stefanou; Michael J. Prince; John Chen; Jonathan D. Stolk. 2020. "Student Lifelong Learning Outcomes for Different Learning Environments." 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 22.1334.1-22.1334.17.
Understanding Diverse Pathways: Disciplinary Trajectories of Engineering StudentsEngineering as a whole continues to suffer from a low participation of women of all races andBlack, Hispanic, and Native American men. To diversify pathways for students to and throughengineering and to improve student success, we must first know how to measure success andprovide baseline data describing the current situation for all students. Our previous work hasshown that persistence or success varies by race and gender, and how we measure persistencematters in understanding this variation. Once women matriculate in engineering, they graduate insix-years at the same or better rates than their male counterparts of all races. This finding,however, shows considerable variation by engineering subdiscipline. Earlier work explores thecultural uniqueness of disciplines that helps explain this variation. Electrical engineering (EE)and mechanical engineering (ME) are the largest disciplines and have the lowest percentage ofwomen. Most other engineering disciplines have higher percentages of women but fewerstudents overall. Thus aggregating all engineering disciplines tends to produce a skewed view ofthe field. Disaggregation by race and gender is imperative because not all populations respondthe same way to similar conditions. Building on earlier findings that trajectories of engineeringpersistence are non-linear, gendered, and racialized as a whole and for electrical and computerengineering, we are extending these analyses to other engineering disciplines. Using an existingdataset that includes whole population data from eleven institutions throughout the U.S. spanningmore than 20 years, we have an unprecedented opportunity to conduct analyses of studentpersistence disaggregated by race, gender, and engineering discipline. This gives us a uniqueopportunity to paint a more complete picture of the current situation for students in engineeringand to identify successes and areas of concern. We are conducting detailed quantitative analysesto examine the research question How do the trajectories of engineering students in differentengineering disciplines vary by race and gender? Trajectories are measured at matriculation,four years later, and six-year graduation for matriculants to the disciplines as well as all studentsin the major, including first-time-in-college (FTIC) and transfer students. The impact of first-year engineering (FYE) programs is also considered. Work to date has focused on mechanical,electrical, and computer engineering with the lowest percentages of women and the smaller fieldof chemical engineering that attracts more women.
Susan M. Lord; Matthew W. Ohland; Richard A. Layton. Understanding Diverse Pathways: Disciplinary Trajectories of Engineering Students. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 24.1289.1 -24.1289.7.
AMA StyleSusan M. Lord, Matthew W. Ohland, Richard A. Layton. Understanding Diverse Pathways: Disciplinary Trajectories of Engineering Students. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():24.1289.1-24.1289.7.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSusan M. Lord; Matthew W. Ohland; Richard A. Layton. 2020. "Understanding Diverse Pathways: Disciplinary Trajectories of Engineering Students." 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 24.1289.1-24.1289.7.
Undergraduate Women in Chemical Engineering: Exploring Why They Come and Stay Catherine E. Brawner and Susan M. LordObjectiveThis paper presents research illuminating the reasons women choose and remain as chemicalengineering (ChemE) undergraduate majors.Relevance to the Chemical Engineering CommunityChemical engineering attracts a larger proportion of women than most other engineering majors.The purpose of this research is to explore the qualities of the major that make it particularlyattractive to women and women’s experiences in the major. Chemical Engineering departmentsthat wish to continue to attract relatively large numbers of women can learn from the positiveexperiences and attitudes of these women. Likewise, their negative perceptions may be mitigatedby policies and programs designed to do so. This study is part of a larger National ScienceFoundation-sponsored study of pockets of success for women in engineering.MethodsFocus groups were held with women majoring in chemical engineering at two universities in thesoutheastern United States. There were 10 participants ranging in age from 20 to 27 who werejuniors and seniors. Participants were asked why they chose their institution, why they chosechemical engineering, and what factors encourage them to stay in the major. They were alsoasked to comment on why they believe women choose and succeed in chemical engineering.ResultsSeveral themes emerged from the focus groups that will be detailed in the final paper. Theseinclude the students’ perceptions of Chem E as a discipline: • A challenging curriculum that the women students take pride in being able to successfully complete • High starting salaries with excellent job prospects for students who wish to enter the workforce immediately upon graduation • A wide range of curricular choices that allow students to be well prepared for a range of graduate study options including medical school • Availability of high quality internships Many felt that chemical engineering was a more “feminine” profession where students are not required to “get their hands dirty” compared with more male-dominated engineering majors where even the buildings “smell like men.In addition, other themes related to the experiences of the women ChemE majors: • Students enjoy chemistry but not physics, particularly at the level required for many other engineering majors. • These women are determined: some stay not so much because they enjoy the major but because they have “made it this far” and can not imagine delaying graduation by changing majors. • These women are resilient: some describe the environment for women as “competitive,” “cutthroat,” and “unfriendly” and yet they stay.
Catherine E. Brawner; Susan M. Lord; Matthew W. Ohland. Undergraduate Women in Chemical Engineering: Exploring Why They Come. 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings 2020, 22.1570.1 -22.1570.16.
AMA StyleCatherine E. Brawner, Susan M. Lord, Matthew W. Ohland. Undergraduate Women in Chemical Engineering: Exploring Why They Come. 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2020; ():22.1570.1-22.1570.16.
Chicago/Turabian StyleCatherine E. Brawner; Susan M. Lord; Matthew W. Ohland. 2020. "Undergraduate Women in Chemical Engineering: Exploring Why They Come." 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , no. : 22.1570.1-22.1570.16.