Background: In the field of engineering education, assessment and evaluation have been given insufficient attention as they relate to broadening participation. We posit that this lack of attention negatively impacts our ability to develop and implement sustainable solutions at scale.Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the presence of an assessment cycle in the literature related to broadening participation in engineering. The assessment cycle refers to the process by which assessment/evaluation is planned, enacted, and used to improve educational processes.Scope/Method: The scope of this study was influenced by it being situated in a larger study focused on broadening participation of Black Americans in engineering and computer science. We completed a literature map that illuminated a subset of literature broadly related to assessment/evaluation, and subsequently conducted a systematic literature review of 33 publications reporting on assessment/evaluation efforts. Our analysis of these efforts was grounded in a six‐stage assessment cycle.Results: The results of this study highlight common publishing practices related to the assessment cycle in the context of broadening participation. We find that assessment/evaluation is generally published at the program level, focused on student development or academic success as a proxy for program effectiveness, and concentrated on positive claims.Conclusion: There is room to significantly improve how assessment/evaluation information is published. By highlighting productive and unproductive publishing practices related to assessment/evaluation, this research has important implications for the use and publishing of assessment/evaluation, particularly as it relates to broadening participation in engineering.

Engineering education research (EER) is a growing and increasingly globally connected field. Understanding cultural and contextual factors is fundamental to EER and further is critical to enabling fruitful international collaborations. The purpose of this research is to understand how engineering education researchers experience and understand EER in Australia and the United States to better facilitate future international collaborations. This research draws on eight interviews conducted with participants who had significant experience carrying out EER in both the United States and Australia and ranged in their career status. Two key domains of comparison emerged from the data: 1) The landscape: Structure and resources of EER in each context, and 2) How the landscape plays out: Implications on EER studies and collaborations. Our analysis finds extremely different research environments for EER in Australia and the United States, the implications of which can be explained in par by resource dependency theory and institutional isomorphism. Our results can inform and enhance future collaborations across these national contexts and help researchers identify opportunities for symbiotic research relationships.

Graduate education in engineering is an extremely challenging, complex entity that is difficult to change. The purpose of this exploratory research paper was to investigate the applicability of the Collective Impact framework, which has been used within community organizing contexts, to organize the change efforts of a center focused on advancing equitable graduate education within engineering. We sought to understand how the conditions of Collective Impact (i.e., common agenda, backbone organization, mutually reinforcing activities, shared measurement system, and continuous communication) could facilitate the organization of equity-focused change efforts across a college of engineering at a single institution. To achieve this, we took an action research approach. We found the Collective Impact framework to be a useful tool for organizing cross-sectional partnerships to facilitate equity-focused change in graduate education; we also found the five conditions of Collective Impact to be applicable to the higher education context, with some intentional considerations and modifications. Through coordinated efforts, the Collective Impact framework can support the goal of reorienting existing decentralized structures, resource flows, and decision processes to foster bottom-up and top-down change processes to advance equitable support for graduate students.

In study abroad programs, overall student participation and the representation of minoritized students continue to rise, but barriers to participation for minoritized students persist, especially in engineering. As we strive to broaden participation in engineering study abroad programs, we must critically examine the experiences of minoritized students who engage in these programs so we can facilitate supportive educational environments. This study examines the experiences of minoritized students in a global engineering study abroad program, using the concept of habitus, a student’s collection of identities and embodied cultural capital. We find that students draw on various forms of habitus while studying abroad, connecting their new experiences abroad to their prior experiences. Based on these findings, we make recommendations for designing more equitable and inclusive study abroad programming elements.

It is well established that equitable participation in graduate programs is not always facilitated for students from all backgrounds, and there is a need to continue improving graduate STEM education practices and research cultures that are characterized as unwelcoming environments. In this chapter, the authors share insights from a 3-year effort to develop, implement, and refine a mandatory seminar course focused on promoting equity in STEM. Over the course of six semesters (i.e., Fall 2019–Spring 2022), the team taught the course to approximately 1500 graduate students from 12 engineering departments at a predominantly White institution, continuously evolving their pedagogical practices based on student experiences and feedback. Part I of this chapter summarizes insights on graduate education that informed the course design. Part II details the course design process. Part III overviews the assessment techniques used to evaluate course effectiveness. And Part IV presents lessons learned from the instructor team’s group reflection on their experiences.