Premium
Community cultural wealth in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: A systematic review
Author(s) -
Denton Maya,
Borrego Maura,
Boklage Audrey
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of engineering education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.896
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 2168-9830
pISSN - 1069-4730
DOI - 10.1002/jee.20322
Subject(s) - foregrounding , inclusion (mineral) , social capital , diversity (politics) , engineering ethics , empirical research , qualitative research , sociology , pedagogy , engineering , social science , epistemology , philosophy , linguistics , anthropology
Background One emerging approach to diversity and inclusion in engineering is to take an assets‐based view of what students from nondominant communities bring to their education and work experiences. Purpose/Hypothesis The purpose of this review is to understand how community cultural wealth (CCW), an assets‐based framework, has been applied in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education research. We address research questions focused on (a) the characteristics of studies using CCW in STEM education, (b) examples of the six types of capital (aspirational, linguistic, familial, navigational, social, and resistant) in STEM educational settings, and (c) gaps and opportunities in how CCW is being applied in STEM education. Design/Method We identified 33 dissertations, theses, journal articles, and conference papers using systematic review procedures. To qualify, each study must present empirical data and include at least one type of CCW capital in its results or discussion. We coded study characteristics, such as methods, participant populations, and research setting. We qualitatively analyzed each of the six types of CCW capital. Results Studies tended to focus on higher education settings, engineering, and qualitative methods, particularly student interviews. We identified several specific engineering‐relevant examples of assets for each type of capital. Future work should collect data from faculty, staff, and family members identified in several studies as important to CCW in addition to foregrounding student voices. Conclusions In synthesizing existing studies, this review provides insight into how an assets‐based framework is being interpreted and provides a foundation for more assets‐based perspectives in future engineering education work.