English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The under-representation of women and students of color in the undergraduate engineering population is a persistent and complex issue. The numerous “leaks” in the talent pipeline, along with the multifarious causes of under-representation , lead many institutions, including our own, to take a scattershot approach to recruiting and retaining diverse students in the undergraduate engineering population that may include extra-curricular K12 programming, college admissions scholarships, “gold shirt” programs, and wrap-around mentoring and academic support . While many of these programs have been shown effective in recruiting and/or retaining under-represented students into engineering, they are often implemented with little consideration to the scale or efficiency needed to achieve institution-level goals for undergraduate diversity, which assumes that such goals have even been clearly articulated in the first place. In this workshop, we propose and demonstrate the use of the Engineering Design Process (EDP) as an effective framework for goal-setting and developing targeted interventions to substantively advance undergraduate diversity at the institutional level. We adopted a 4-phase EDP that involves: (1) Defining the problem; (2) Generating multiple unique and viable concepts and selecting a final concept; (3) Detailed design and implementation of a final design; and (4) Design validation and iteration. This case study specifically details the use of Phase 1 through Phase 3 of the EDP for developing and implementing a strategic plan of action for undergraduate diversity at the institution level; and, to our knowledge, it represents the first attempt to use EDP in this context. Although this effort is still ongoing, we have thus far found EDP to be both efficient and effective in developing a clear plan of action related to undergraduate diversity. Our small working group, consisting of 8 faculty and staff members, initiated EDP in September 2016, concluding problem definition (Phase 1), concept generation and selection (Phase 2), and drafting of a final plan of action (Phase 3) within 6 months. This process included substantive buy-in from faculty uninvolved with the project as well as upper administration. One reason for this efficiency may be our own familiarity as engineers with EDP as well as the comfort of our peers and administrators with this process. We also developed several novel tools that may be useful, either stand-alone or as part of an institution’s diversity EDP. First, in defining diversity issues at our institution (Phase 1), we utilized publically available national databases to establish specific target values for student recruitment and retention within each engineering program at our institution. We found that the clarity of these targets resonated with faculty and administration, as well as the “friendly competition” fostered by intra and inter-departmental performance comparisons. A second valuable tool developed during this case study was the Diversity Intervention Graph (DIG), which allowed for easy visualization and, ultimately, selection of the vast array of potential interventions that could be applied towards solving diversity issues. In conclusion, we assert through this early-stage case study that EDP can be a roadmap for addressing issues of undergraduate diversity at the institution level. Given how daunting diversity issues can sometimes appear, we have found that framing and addressing this issue like engineers and explicitly using the EDP has made the process of goal setting, intervention, and evaluation remarkably clear. The overall process and specific tools presented in this case study may be easily extended to other institutions. Introduction The under-representation of women and racial minorities in the undergraduate engineering population is a persistent and complex issue. Taking a wide lens, this lack of diversity can be attributed to a variety of causes, including but not limited to cultural bias, lack of exposure or access, few role models, and general lack of interest in the discipline due to yet another range of factors like decontextualized instruction in core STEM courses and a perceived lack of societal impact relative to other disciplines . The numerous “leaks” in the pipeline, along with the shear variety of established causes, lead many institutions, including our own, to take a scattershot approach to diversity in the undergraduate engineering population. Through a patchwork of federal, state, and internal support, post-secondary engineering programs simultaneously offer intra and extra-curricular K12 programming, college admissions scholarships, “gold shirt” programs, and wrap-around mentoring and academic support . While many of these programs have proven to be effective in recruiting and/or retaining underrepresented students into engineering, they are often implemented with little consideration to the scale or efficiency needed to achieve institution-level goals for undergraduate diversity, which assumes that such goals have even been clearly articulated in the first place. In this paper, we propose and demonstrate that the Engineering Design Process (EDP) provides an effective framework for goal-setting and developing targeted interventions to substantively advance undergraduate diversity at the institutional level. We adopted a 4-phase EDP (Figure 1) that involves: (1) Defining the problem; (2) Generating multiple unique and viable concepts and selecting a final concept; (3) Detailed design and implementation of a final design; and (4) Design validation and iteration. This case study specifically details the use of Phase 1 through Phase 3 of the EDP for developing and implementing a strategic plan of action for undergraduate diversity at the institution level; and, to our knowledge, it represents the first attempt to use EDP in this context. Figure 1: A 4-Phase Engineering Design Process (EDP). Engineering Design Process Applied to Diversity The setting for this case study is a mid-sized, research-focused, land grant university on the US East Coast. Responding to institution-level priorities, the administration of the College of Engineering (COE) at this institution formed a working group, consisting of eight faculty and student-focused administrative staff with one faculty director, to focused on issues of diversity the COE undergraduate student body. The working group was provided a modest budget in its pilot year and direct access to institutional data, specifically from enrollment, admissions, and the registrar’s office. The working group adopted the Engineering Design Process (EDP) as a core philosophy for developing, implementing, and evaluating its strategic plan of action related to undergraduate diversity in COE. The outcomes of this process are presented in subsequent sections, using standard terminology related to EDP, which is underscored for emphasis in this case study. Phase 1: Problem Definition Project Scope The project scope is to achieve academic excellence by broadening participation within the COE undergraduate population. Given the present state of diversity in the College, the scope will presently encompass exclusively under-representation of women and under-represented racial groups (URGs, non-white and non-Asian) as a first effort towards diversification, recognizing that there are many other diverse groups, e.g., LGBTQ+, religious minorities, that will benefit from these early diversification efforts and will subsequently receive explicit consideration. Metrics & Target Values Metrics for gender and racial diversification were developed through benchmarking against other US engineering programs as well as researching underlying sociological phenomenon that result in persistent under-representation (Table 1). One of these phenomena is “critical mass,” which can be defined as sufficient representation of a minority population to self-perpetuate that population and affect cultural change within the broader community . Targets for critical mass are famously hard to pinpoint; however, it is generally accepted that 30% represents a valid “critical mass” for women in business, academia, and the sciences. For racial minorities in STEM, under-representation is so severe that 30% critical mass is unreachable without substantive shifts in secondary education practices; and a “skewed” distribution of 15% was targeted, which still represents substantial progress from present conditions. National benchmarks for the gender and racial composition and retention rates for undergraduate engineering students were also considered in developing metrics and associated target values for this plan (see Table 1). Using a published database containing demographic information for the graduating classes in every ABET-accredited engineering program in the US, target values were set for “average” to be the median and “excellent” to be the top quartile of programs nationally for gender and racial diversity in their graduating class. These target values developed for each engineering disciplines within the college separately, i.e., institution civil engineering vs. all civil engineering programs in the US. Similarly, a national report on student retention was data mined to establish “average” and “excellent” measures of student retention. Based on 6-year graduation rates, “average” retention was determined to be approximately 60% for majority (white male) and women students and 40% for URGs. “Excellent” retention rates were 70% with no disparities by race or gender. Table 1: Metrics table for design of strategic plan of action for undergraduate diversity. Metrics, target values, and current performance by engineering program of study are presented. Metric Target Value Program Current Performance Diversity of Graduating Class Women: 30% or 75th percentile nationally URGs: 15% or 75th percentile nationally %Students | Percentile Women URG Biomedical Engineering

Engineering (verb) Diversity: Using the Engineering Design Process to Define and Intervene in the Issue of Undergraduate Diversity at the Institution Level