Professional development for faculty
- DPD/Advance training of the faculty
We are leveraging OSU’s innovative Difference, Power, and Discrimination (DPD) faculty development program as well as the OSU’s ADVANCE summer seminar in order to empower CBEE faculty to engage in culture transformation. These 60-hour seminars are interactive learning experiences centered on analyzing the operations of difference, power, and privilege in higher education, each with slightly different foci. The DPD seminar’s emphasis is on critical pedagogies and curricular transformation while the ADVANCE seminar is adapted for faculty in STEM disciplines and provides opportunities to explore structural inequities within the university. Both seminars help faculty imagine a transformed future in which institutional structures and personal behaviors are both professionally and personally life-affirming for people across their differences. Participants gain skills in recognizing and reducing unconscious, unintentional biases, suggesting ways to increase the validity of the standard search process, and enhancing diversity outcomes throughout the search/selection process (from development of the position description [see below] through integration of the new hire into the unit).
Fourteen of 29 CBEE faculty have participated in one of these two seminars.
Meaningful consequential learning for students
- Studio 2.0
In Studio 2.0, our intent is to shift activity and re-situate learning by engaging students in meaningful, consequential work that directly and clearly relates to professional practice and desired professional attitudes and behaviors. Rather than attempting to direct students procedurally to a “correct” solution, a Studio 2.0 memorandum might explain a situation where a company is seeking to optimize a particular process and ask students to collaboratively decide on and perform calculations to make a design recommendation. Assessment is formative and immediate, focused on whether groups are “making progress” in grappling with the task. In this framing, as learners struggle with difficult concepts and may even sometimes fail to accomplish their short-term goals, they are continually positioned as engineers seeking meaningful progress towards a viable solution, rather than students following directions to get a grade.
Co-curricular activities for students
- Supporting international students
Policy and procedures for the School
- Position description changes
CBEE bases review upon employees’ Position Descriptions. Position Descriptions represent a clear opportunity in our efforts to empower faculty and staff to identify, agree upon, and carry out responsibilities that can be outside of the traditional norms in the academy. Our School is identifying Change Leaders with a formal allot of 10% of their effort toward shifting the School’s culture to re-situate learning and instruction. More broadly, all faculty will be expected to advance and equalize undergraduate and graduate student success across demographics through communicating clear expectations and holding people accountable to these expectations. This approach places responsibility for culture transformation on each community member as opposed to relying on a dedicated few.
Engineering work relies on effective collaboration and communication among diverse groups of people in many roles, including: engineers, scientists, managers, technicians, end-users, among others. While all engineering educational programs require student teamwork, instruction on effective and inclusive practices are often missing. When present they may be ad hoc and only addressed in the senior year. Moreover, outcomes are rarely assessed. As part of our unit’s efforts to revolutionize the undergraduate learning environment, we are strategically designing and implementing a scaffolded and progressive approach to growing students’ capacities to engage in inclusive teaming, where diverse perspectives are encouraged and valued. We call this approach inclusive teaming. We utilize a studio model where students regularly work in teams in ten courses in their first three years. By coordinating student team experiences in these courses, we aim to develop productive interaction practices. The studio teaming experiences prepare them to engage in more comprehensive team work in the senior year laboratory and design courses.
Design based implementation research (system) threads together all the others
Interacting components in our DBIR approach
Using a design-based implementation research (DBIR) approach ongoing analyses are used to inform ongoing design decisions. In DBIR, implementation “problems” and “successes” provide important information for redesign and elaboration decisions. In a rolling fashion, we will compare data from before the initiative and from early phases of implementation to that from later phases in the following areas: structural changes, climate and inclusiveness, teaching approaches used in core courses, opportunities for students to make sense of a variety of engineering workplaces and their climates in productive ways. In making these comparisons, we attend to changes in the activity systems involved (OSU, College of Engineering, CBEE)