Teaching Strategies that Incorporate Social Impacts in Technical Courses and Ease Accreditation Metric Creation

Abstract Abstract Background: Research has shown that students from underserved groups are more likely to persist when they see the link between their coursework and improving society (McGee, 2020, Chang, Wang, Chen, and Liao, 2011). Simultaneously, human welfare and social impacts have become a part of accreditation protocols for engineering programs (ABET, 2022; Chang et al., 2011, Cote and Branzan Albu, 2019). These two factors result in a need for faculty to strategically create inclusive classrooms where students 1) are engaged in the field of study through application to their personal, social, and global knowledge contexts and 2) are demonstrating proficiency on subject matter sufficient to demonstrate accreditation and programmatic requirements. In prior work the authors have shown strategies exist in engineering classrooms today that may be utilized broadly to improve engineering education (Scheel, Montfort, and Cate, 2022). Purpose: In this paper the authors use a linguistic and cultural lens based on Crick's Model of Deep Engagement (Crick, 2012) to assess the articulation of engineering applications and coursework potential impacts on society, learning objectives, and measurable faculty commitment to equitable classroom practices. The authors believe the use of these strategies can assist in the improvement of engineering education and practice and lay a foundation for creating learning spaces that promote belonging. In this paper, the authors identify these strategies and examine how inclusive and equitable content delivery may impact student perception of technical courses and their position as learners, a known barrier to the integration of social impacts into technical training (Leydens, Johnson, and Moskal, 2021; Niles, Contreras, Roudbari, Kaminsky, and Harrison, 2020). This paper is a continuing investigation into rhetorical strategies used by faculty to communicate and integrate technical concepts and content in engineering classrooms and the impacts associated with those strategies on relevant metrics for accreditation compliance. Method: Instructional delivery in engineering spaces is varied and deeply contextualized. The goal in this effort was to observe, document, discover, and build upon existing techniques faculty use to encourage sociotechnical thinking and foster a classroom culture of inclusivity. This work aimed to simplify documentation and dissemination of these techniques to other faculty and interested university groups and ease reporting responsibilities of faculty to Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and other accreditation bodies. The authors first performed field observations and then conducted faculty interviews. Then observed a variety of engineering courses that intentionally applied inclusive techniques to varying degrees. These were then reviewed and coded independently by the authors and triangulation was used to ensure consistency in data interpretation and analysis. Finally, interview transcripts and anonymized student survey data from prior efforts were used to compare this work with prior known indicators of inclusivity in engineering classrooms such as self-identified feelings of belonging and varied semantic approaches to engineering education (Montfort, Ideker, Parham-Mocello, Skilowitz, and Mallette, 2023). Results: This paper is a work in progress. Prior work determined that 1) modeling the limits of expertise, 2) positioning humans over technology, and 3) application exploration/storytelling are rhetorical tools that can strategically be used to increase inclusivity in classrooms. The nature of qualitative work is that answers often result in more questions (Creswell and Poth, 2018). As such this follow-on work is aimed at understanding the impact that 4) encouraging risk-taking, 5) building positive student-centered learning relationships, and 6) prioritizing team building concurrently with technical assignments may have on increasing inclusivity, potentially through fostering student belonging while simultaneously aiding faculty reporting processes. The goal is to create a model where faculty concurrently increase their effectiveness in teaching and showcase that effectiveness to accreditation bodies. This will prepare instructional staff to meet requirements that faculty show competence in equitable teaching practices and the creation of inclusive environments. Conclusion: In this paper the authors continued work in the identification and determination of sociotechnical teaching practices indicated by the dataset to complement the rhetorical strategies used by faculty emergent from our initial study and research report. The authors have demonstrated complementary possibilities for the following strategies: 4) encouraging risk-taking, 5) building positive student-centered learning relationships, and 6) prioritizing team building concurrently with technical assignments. While more work is needed, there are existing rhetorical practices and strategies that may be used immediately with minimal risk and great potential reward in the engineering education space.