Paper ID #34520
”Asking ’why’ instead of ’how’”: Outcomes of an interdisciplinary Degree Program in Engineering Studies
Dr. Jenn Stroud Rossmann, Lafayette College
Jenn Stroud Rossmann is Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Co-Director of the Hanson Center for Inclusive STEM Education at Lafayette College. She earned her BS in mechanical engineering and the PhD in applied physics from the University of California, Berkeley. Prior to joining Lafayette, she was a faculty member at Harvey Mudd College. Her scholarly interests include the fluid dynamics of blood in vessels affected by atherosclerosis and aneurysm, the cultural history of engineering, and the aerodynamics of sports projectiles. Dr. Kristen L. Sanford P.E., Lafayette College
Dr. Kristen Sanford is an associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lafayette Col- lege. Her expertise is in sustainable civil infrastructure management and transportation systems, and transportation and infrastructure education. She teaches a variety of courses related to transportation and civil infrastructure as well as engineering economics, and for the last ten years she chaired Lafayette’s interdisciplinary Engineering Studies program. Dr. Sanford currently serves on the Transportation Re- search Board Committee on Workforce Development and Organizational Excellence (formerly Education and Training). She previously has served as chair of the ASEE’s Civil Engineering Division, vice-chair of the ASCE Infrastructure Systems Committee, and as a member of several other American Society of Civil Engineers’ education-related committees as well as several other Transportation Research Board technical committees. She received her Ph.D. and M.S. from Carnegie Mellon University, and her B.S.E. from Duke University. Benjamin Cohen, Lafayette College
Benjamin R. Cohen is an associate professor at Lafayette College in Easton, PA. He earned his Ph.D. in Science and Technology Studies, after earning bachelor degrees in Chemical Engineering and History, from Virginia Tech. He is the author of Pure Adulteration: Cheating on Nature in the Age of Manufactured Food (2020) and Notes from the Ground: Science, Soil & Society in the American Countryside (2009), and co-editor of Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement (2011). He also writes widely on the history of food, the environment, science, and technology, and the ways engineers contribute to those stories.
c American Society for Engineering Education, 2021 “Asking ‘why’ instead of ‘how’": Outcomes of an interdisciplinary degree program in Engineering Studies
Abstract The Engineering Studies Program at Lafayette College has graduated more than 900 majors over its 50-year history. These graduates have gone on to careers in a wide range of roles in a variety of industries. While the major requirements have evolved over time, the core principles of the program – articulated in the program’s founding documents as “Society needs more liberally-educated persons with technical backgrounds” – have not. Thus, as the program celebrates its 50 years of educating sociotechnical citizens, and as society grapples with all-consuming sociotechnical problems – climate change, systemic racism, and pandemic spread and disruption – we are endeavoring to understand how our alumni see themselves and how their sociotechnical education has contributed to their identities and paths.
In previous work, the authors have documented the history of the program, its current status, its core curriculum, and the impacts on students in terms of sociotechnical thinking and diversity. It is clear from this work that students approaching graduation do view themselves as sociotechnical thinkers. This analysis also shows that graduates are more diverse in terms of gender than those in other engineering programs on our campus, and more racially/ethnically diverse than both students in other engineering programs and students as a whole at our institution.
This paper considers more deeply why the program is successful in developing sociotechnical thinking and in attracting such a diverse group of students to the major and classes. We are investigating alumni perspectives on their experiences in the program as undergraduates and how those experiences have shaped their thinking about themselves, their citizenship, and their careers. The paper summarizes and synthesizes the results of alumni surveys to provide insights. These insights provide faculty at our own and other institutions with lessons that will be useful in considering how to better educate students to be socio-technical thinkers while broadening participation in engineering.
Introduction
Lafayette College initiated its sociotechnical program of study, first known as its AB in Engineering program, in 1970, the same year it became a coeducational institution. (If these two events were linked, the linkage goes unmentioned in the founding documents for and initial discussions of the degree program.) Lafayette College is an undergraduate liberal arts college with strong, ABET-accredited engineering programs in mechanical, chemical, civil, and electrical engineering and a new BS program in Integrative Engineering.
1 The rationale presented when the program was proposed, in 1969, was that: “Society needs more liberally-educated persons with technical backgrounds. The technology to remedy or alleviate many of man’s pressing public-sector problems exists; the major obstacles are non-technical—e.g. economic, cultural, organizational, legal, political. This is true of housing, environmental pollution, food, education, and so on. These obstacles require the attention of professionals who know what technology can do, can work as or with engineers, and who have the necessary socio-political inclinations and capabilities.” This program was both a natural outgrowth of Lafayette College’s founding principles of liberal education and consistent with the trends in engineering education in the 1960s, which also impacted other institutions [1].
Our campus newspaper greeted the new program with enthusiasm: “It will explore the nature and roles of engineering, the problem solving skills employed by engineers, and the socio-political issues involved in the direction and control of technology,” student journalists wrote in 1970 [2].
Since its 1970 establishment, the program has experienced significant restructuring, including a major 2008 overhaul in focus and curriculum, leading to a name change to Engineering Studies [3]. The foundational vision and motivation remain. The curriculum for the major in Engineering Studies consists of fundamental courses in math, science, and engineering sciences – selected by each student from an approved list – as well as considerable coursework in the traditional liberal arts. The framework for students to integrate all these courses is provided by a three-course required core curriculum in Engineering Studies: Engineering Economics and Management; Engineering & Public Policy; and Engineering and Society [4].
Our Engineering Studies degree program [4] is uniquely well-designed to address two urgent challenges facing engineering education: to educate interdisciplinary thinkers who appreciate that engineering is inherently sociotechnical, and to broaden participation in engineering.
Previous studies of the program’s evolution, curriculum, and outcomes have been performed from the perspective of faculty members [3,4,5]. The student voices quoted in those studies suggested that the core curriculum of Engineering Studies cultivated a sociotechnical perspective, for example: ● “One of the most valuable skills that [the program] has taught me is this skill of asking ‘why’ not ‘how.’ Asking ‘how’ typically results in a methodological solution, rather than a solution that conveys understanding. Asking ‘why’ instead of ‘how’ has resulted in a better understanding of the reasoning behind things, as well as an increased awareness of the methodology.” ● “Contextual understanding is the greatest strength a senior engineering studies (EGRS) major possesses and while other Engineers are trained to problem solve with their design goals in mind, EGRS majors are taught to go beyond the straight-forward analysis and consider other, non-technical factors. EGRS [majors] look towards social, economic, and political factors (among others) to fully comprehend the problem at hand. In doing so, EGRS majors are better equipped to make informed decisions on project alternatives. This ability to understand the subtle nuances of complex technical problems makes EGRS majors the intermediary between traditionally trained engineers and society.”
2 Engineering Studies graduates are more diverse in terms of gender than are the College’s graduates with BS degrees in engineering, and they are more diverse in terms of ethnicity than both those with BS Engineering degrees and students with degrees in disciplines other than engineering [3]. Clearly, the Engineering Studies Program is a place where women and students of color feel comfortable. However, given the challenges in messaging that historically have surrounded the program (e.g., a perception that the degree is less “rigorous” and therefore less “valuable” than a BS in engineering), concerns persist about ghettoization – that is, e.g., a perception that because the program is more attractive to women and students of color it must be less valuable [6]. We have found that such concerns are more commonly voiced by faculty than by students [3], providing the impetus for a deeper investigation of student and alumni perceptions of the program.
The current study was further motivated by a desire to deepen our understanding of the student experience in our Engineering Studies program. We hoped to identify specific factors that influence the success the program has had in broadening participation in engineering and in developing sociotechnical skills and methods.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) frames broadening participation as its goal to “cultivate a world-class, broadly inclusive science and engineering workforce” [7]. NSF elaborates on “broadly inclusive” as defined by “seeking and accommodating contributions from all sources while reaching out especially to groups that have been underrepresented” [8]. Interventions and investigations over many years have identified some factors that improve the experience and increase the retention of underrepresented students in engineering. These include: (1) emphasizing the social construction of engineering knowledge, which empowers and liberates students as prospective makers-of-knowledge; (2) emphasizing the social relevance of engineering content, particularly in engineering projects; and (3) emphasizing the collaborative, creative nature of engineering design. An understanding of engineering as inherently sociotechnical supports the goal of broadening participation; moreover, bracketing off the “social” has been shown to do harm -- as Cech and others have shown, depoliticizing engineering instruction and culture exacerbates feelings of marginalization [9].
Because technologies are designed by people, it follows that technologies are steeped in human culture and our attendant moral and political concerns. Scholars have established this always-political identity of technologies [10], and further research has demonstrated the value-ladenness of technologies. Examples of this work stretch from the historical contingency of the very idea of technology-as-progress [11], as gendered [12] and racialized [13,14], as tied up in larger political negotiations [15], and as culturally dependent not just because of individual value commitments but even at the scale of national-cultural values [16]. We understand the technologies engineers design not just as things people make and have, but as activities people perform, ideas people hold, and social visions people put into material form. Key to introducing students to this image of engineering are the concepts of technology as a sociotechnical system and engineers as sociotechnical analysts.
Our Engineering Studies program’s mission to educate sociotechnical analysts is consistent with our profession’s goal of broadening participation. The focus of both our program’s full-time, tenured faculty members’ work on topics in sustainability resonates further, emphasizing the
3 social values inherent in engineering design in an area that has been recognized as a possible avenue for broadening participation [17].
Rossmann and Roth [18] proposed a classification system for integrative sociotechnical experiences in the form of a taxonomy: from mere familiarity with multiple disciplines, to facility using the methods and applications, to fluency, “the ability to analyze and critique one discipline from a different disciplinary perspective; to appreciate multiple disciplines’ unique expertise and compare them.” At the most sophisticated level, “fluidity,” they proposed that students would have the ability to “combine multiple disciplines’ methods and perspectives; to translate between them; and to produce new knowledge that links them.” In these terms, we characterized the EGRS fundamental coursework in methods and applications as achieving interdisciplinary facility, and the capstone as developing students’ fluency, with the combination of experiences throughout the degree program developing fluidity.
A recent article by Van den Beemt et al. [19] reviewed the literature on Interdisciplinary Engineering Education from 2005 to 2016. Their “working definition considers interdisciplinary interactions as attempts to address real-world cases and problems by integrating heterogeneous knowledge bases and knowledge-making practices, whether these are gathered under the institutional cover of a discipline or not” and was adapted from (Krohn 2010). In the literature they reviewed, “the reported success factors include taking a system approach, employing real-world problems as exemplars and tasks, involving reflective dialogue, and aspects of infrastructure and collaboration. Reported challenges address institutional barriers, complexity, and acquiring adequate levels of support.” The authors go on to report that “motivation behind interdisciplinary education … is that engineers are not yet being trained well to address complex real-world problems, which require interactions across disciplinary boundaries.” A second common theme is “an imperative to produce engineers capable of shaping their professional work.” The authors note that in the literature they reviewed, interdisciplinarity most often refers to “connecting different engineering domains, with only a few examples of broader collaborations with medical sciences or social sciences thus far.” Our Engineering Studies program possesses many of the characteristics discussed, but it does in fact offer an example of “interdisciplinary” extending outside of engineering domains rather than simply across them. The above features and more--facility, fluency, fluidity, interdisciplinarity, NSF-level definitions of engineering workforce needs--have helped shape the Engineering Studies program and led us to examine how graduates of the program have brought its principles and learning outcomes to their working lives.
Methods
Previous assessments of the program included two significant findings. First, “students in the core Engineering Studies courses are more diverse in terms of gender than are Lafayette College students pursuing BS degrees in engineering, and they are more diverse in terms of ethno-racial identity than both those pursuing BS Engineering degrees and students pursuing degrees in disciplines other than engineering” [4]. Second, students in the program develop sociotechnical ways of thinking distinct from other engineering programs [3].
4 The goal of the current multi-method study was to more deeply understand these findings, and to identify the specific influences of the program on its students’ knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and careers. We also sought to deepen our understanding of students’ professional trajectories -- of particular interest since this program is not ABET accredited, unlike our institution’s discipline-specific engineering B.S. degree programs.
To investigate these questions, we developed a survey instrument and distributed it to more than 700 of the program’s 900+ alumni over its 50-year history. The survey, included as Appendix A, featured a combination of Likert scale questions about the skills the program developed as well as open-ended questions about what drew students to the program, what they learned within it, and how they articulated its outcomes. Several questions related to alumni employment histories are more salient to ongoing program assessment than to the research questions of the current study, and those results are not included in this paper. Both the quantitative and qualitative data are examined using the theoretical frameworks of broadening participation and sociotechnical integration; this work is best characterized as multi- rather than mixed-method research [20].
Our study was exempted from IRB approval by Lafayette’s IRB after review in fall 2020. The survey instrument was created with Qualtrics survey software. The authors -- three faculty members and an undergraduate research assistant -- drafted the survey and tested it, revising to maximize response process validity [21]. Participants were invited via email and required to read and agree to an informed consent document prior to accessing the survey. The invitation included a description of the study and an assurance of confidentiality. Responses were anonymous and data stored securely.
We coded survey responses through an inductive analysis. While some ideas and themes could be anticipated based on our hypotheses and theoretical framework, other patterns emerged during our analysis. We identified clusters of meaning by coding the data, and categorizing these codes into themes. Each member of the research team performed this coding process independently, and, following best practices principles, we discussed the results thrice and recoded to establish reliability of the codes and themes [22].
We also marked a few limitations of the study as we interpreted data. The self-selection of respondents is one such limitation. Of the approximately 700 alumni invited to participate, 256 responded to our survey instrument. We consider the question of how representative these respondents were in the discussion of our results. Regardless, we are mindful that our dataset includes only about a third of the eligible participants. There is also a potential for coverage bias both because the survey was web-based and distributed through email and because some respondents may have been “particularly interested in the study for reasons that may or may not be related to the content and/or objective of the survey itself” [23].
Results
Overall, 35% of those invited to participate responded to the survey instrument. There was significant variation per graduation year, as shown in Figure 1, with an average response rate over the 50 year program history of 28%. (One caveat is that the enrollments have varied with
5 time, from a first graduating class of 2 to current averages of approximately 20 graduates per year. Details of the program’s enrollment patterns are further discussed in [3].)
Figure 1. Response rate as a function of graduation year
Figure 2 shows the demographic distribution of survey respondents. In order to consider how representative these respondents are, we sought to compare these data to overall alumni demographics. The respondents identified as 87% white, a much larger proportion than we observed in our alumni from 1995 onward [3]. As that study reported, since 1995 the Engineering Studies student population has been 31% female and 26% “under-represented minorities” as recorded by our Office of Institutional Research. Lafayette College’s records of students’ gender and ethnoracial backgrounds were inconsistently maintained prior to 1995. We can thus compare our survey respondents from classes of 1995 and later, as in Figure 2b. The left side of Figure 2b shows differences in gender ratio as found in our survey (blue) compared to data available from the College’s fuller data set from 1995-2020 (orange). The right side shows that our survey returned much lower ethno-racial representation (9%) than College-side records show the program having over the past quarter century (26%).
Figure 3 identifies the factors that influenced survey respondents’ decision to pursue the AB in Engineering Studies and shows the frequencies of these responses. Respondents reported that the curricular flexibility and interdisciplinarity of the Engineering Studies program were the most significant factors in their decision to pursue the degree. The desire for flexibility harmonizes with what we know about the number of Engineering Studies students who pursue double majors.
6 Figure 2a. Gender (left) and ethno-racial (right) information provided by survey respondents.
Figure 2b. Gender and ethno-racial information provided by survey respondents as compared to all Engineering Studies graduates (Institutional Research data), both from 1995-2020.
It also is noteworthy (Figure 3) that positive experiences in the Engineering Studies program (both with faculty and in specific classes) were cited as influential at a comparable frequency to negative experiences in the BS engineering programs on our campus. In the context of the program’s long struggle to establish its own identity beyond being understood as what it was not, this finding suggests that simply being “not BS engineering” may have been sufficient to recruit some students to the program.
The changes made to the program to provide more structure and coherence to the curriculum described elsewhere [3] made it more likely that students chose to pursue the degree earlier in
7 their undergraduate careers. Beginning with the class of 2012, we observe a threefold increase in those who chose the major as sophomores, rather than during their junior or even senior year.
Figure 3. Frequency that respondents identified particular factors influencing their decision to pursue the AB in Engineering Studies degree.
Respondents were then asked to select the most valuable skills developed by the degree program in Engineering Studies; results are shown in Figure 4. The first, third, and fourth most frequent responses, “big picture and systems thinking,” “solving open-ended problems,” and “ability to relate technical issues to social/cultural context,” correlate with the program’s goal of developing sociotechnical perspectives and methods. The second-most frequent response, “critical thinking,” is representative of the program’s identity as a liberal arts BA program at a liberal arts college. The relatively low frequency with which “global competence,” “multicultural sophistication,” and “entrepreneurial thinking” were identified by alumni spanning the 50 year program history may be an indication of trends in academic (and promotional) language. The process of coding respondents’ open-ended answers to questions revealed a number of ways these skills might be described by alumni without using particular buzzwords, as discussed below.
Respondents’ open-ended responses to the question “What were the strengths of the degree program” were coded for themes. The methodology and key results are shown in Table 1. The “sociotechnical” theme arose most frequently in alumni responses to this question, consistent with the program mission and perhaps best articulated by one respondent: “[the program] established a life of Renaissance learning.”
A number of responses surfaced an emergent theme identifying “Faculty/Classes in Engineering Studies,” as a strength, mentioning faculty members themselves, the classroom dynamic (with more discussion than typical BS engineering classes), and the bond among Engineering Studies
8 classmates. This theme arose in 17 survey responses. “Hands down, the faculty,” wrote one alum, and another: “felt like professors really cared about us as individuals.” One comment, ”Small class sizes led to openness in discussion, which was invaluable.” resonates with another alum’s response that their most valuable skill was “learning to ask questions.”
Figure 4. Frequency with which respondents identified particular skills developed by Engineering Studies program
One response regarding strengths of the program, that Engineering Studies “felt more like a community than some of the other engineering” programs, correlated with the previous finding that the program is more diverse and inclusive than other engineering disciplines at our college. In response to a question specifically asking respondents to compare engineering studies to the other engineering disciplines, one respondent reported feeling “discriminated against as a female” in the BS engineering programs; another described engineering studies as “more diverse” than BS engineering. Still another reported being turned off by traditional BS engineering’s “rigid classroom dynamics.” This resonates with another respondent’s description of AB Engineering Studies classes as “more collaborative” than BS engineering. (Although this was a common observation, a single respondent felt that BS classes had “more camaraderie” than AB classes.) Another response described the effect of different classroom styles on the student: “In BS classes, my thinking was myopic, and I was focused on simply absorbing the curriculum. In AB classes, I felt much more curious and open-minded.”
Each of these responses related to an aspect of the “Faculty/Classes in Engineering Studies,” suggesting that a strength of the program is its faculty members and the classroom environments and experiences they facilitate. One aspect of this theme is an inclusive atmosphere, with
9 multiple alumni recalling that it “felt like a community” and that they valued “working with classmates of different backgrounds and opinions.”
Table 1. Themes and codes, representative responses, and frequencies: strengths of program
Theme Definition & coding Representative Responses Frequency
Sociotechnical Bridge, connect, “Good combination of technical 113 interdisciplinary, big coursework with social science and picture, systems, communication coursework to bridge context two sometimes disparate skill areas” and “Thinking holistically about problems” and “Help students to learn from all perspectives and understand society in a more sophisticated way“
Flexibility “best of both “Ability to gain a well rounded, 94 worlds,” double multi-disciplinary education and cater a majors, minors, curriculum to fit your career goals and extracurricular interests.” interests, study abroad, well rounded
Nontechnical skills Communication, “Ability to work in teams” and “In my 25 collaboration, first position I was specifically called out teamwork, by my boss as an example of an engineer leadership that could write.“
Analytical skills Problem solving, “I found that the EGRS courses prepared 21 analysis, me very well for my career. The majority programming of what I learned in these courses were not taught to many of my colleagues (such as engineering budgeting and construction scheduling). This allowed me to quickly adapt in my first job as a new hire directly out of college.”
Entrepreneurship Business, creativity “I felt that this degree allowed me to 14 take a firm understanding of technology and apply it to real world problems in a creative way.” and “merging the creative and the analytical, being able to structure/organize/ plan a longer term project” and “including business courses like accounting, finance, marketing with the technical classes”
10 We note in Table 1 that although “entrepreneurship” is still the least frequently surfaced theme anticipated by the research team, it emerged more frequently than the quantitative results shown in Figure 4 would have suggested. Responses highlighted “creativity” as an aspect of entrepreneurship, with alumni comparing their AB engineering classes to the BS engineering science classes they took: “The BS courses were more academically rigorous, while the AB courses involved more creativity and independent problem-solving.” Alumni also described a particular entrepreneurial mindset cultivated by the program: “There are two kinds of creativity, the Einstein version to see something in nothing; few of us have that ability, certainly not I, and the creativity that comes from seeing how things in one place can become something else in a different place, a different market, a different use, a new service or product. This kind of creativity requires more of a ‘renaissance man’ experience with exposure and familiarity with many different things, and this is what the AB engineering curriculum develops. It has served me extraordinarily well.”
An emergent theme, particularly among more recent graduates, was “Sustainability,” which has been a strong focus of the program and the research of its faculty since 2012. We note that sustainability has been shown to be a topic of particular interest when “broadening participation” in engineering [17] and also involves a range of sociotechnical systems. Five responses about strengths of the program coded to this theme, including this list of specific strengths: “The tangible nature of the coursework - conducting an energy audit of [our] campus, working on a book about sustainable agriculture in the Lehigh valley, working on a traffic calming solution for [local] street. All within arms length with measurable and visible impact on student life (especially if you were a student who volunteered at [campus organic farm], like I did!)” Another respondent invoked sustainability as a way of explaining the program to others: “I try to explain that it is a degree focused on policy and critical thinking in engineering and sustainability with a technical background.”
Responses about the perceived strengths of the program also surfaced an emergent theme of “professional preparation” (8 responses). While this theme was not unexpected as a response to survey questions addressing their professional practice, we had not anticipated its strength as an aspect of student recruitment.
We observed a relationship between how well prepared alumni felt by the program and the nature of their career: if they are in a less technical position, they describe themselves as “well prepared” or “having an edge”; if they are in a technical position, they sometimes describe feeling less prepared for their first professional role, with some expressing regret about their choice of major. Perhaps relatedly, some respondents suggested that the program name had been a hindrance in their ability to gain employment.
Our survey also addressed respondents’ perception of both the internal and external reputation of the program. Faculty and administrators work to cultivate the reputation of the program, of course, but students do the more quotidian work of building the reputation through daily work
11 and class-to-class activity over their years as undergraduates We thus asked about what they remembered: “When you were a student, how was the program perceived by students and faculty members in the engineering division and across campus generally?” The vast majority (143 of our 256 responses) reported that the program had a negative reputation, with alumni invoking phrases like “engineering lite” and “pretengineering,” and a perception that those who chose Engineering Studies “couldn’t cut it as a real engineer.” A number of respondents reported having heard such remarks and other undermining comments directly from other engineering faculty members. A relatively small number, 37 responses, reported a positive reputation; 11 reported that the program did not have much of a profile or reputation during their tenure; and many described the program as “misunderstood.” Often, responses describing a negative perception of the program included the respondent’s sense that the program was misunderstood, for example: “I think we are a much more dynamic, well rounded, and flexible group of individuals than anyone who specified in one type of engineering.” Looking longitudinally, graduates from the early years of the program and in more recent years are fairly balanced between positive and negative comments, with more negative than positive comments about reputation coming from graduates during the 1990s and early 2000s. Given that those were years of noteworthy transition for the program--in terms of personnel, course offerings, and a newly codified core curriculum--this is not surprising.
Table 2 shows the distribution of responses when alumni were asked to compare their BS engineering courses (several student-selected engineering science classes required for the major) to their Engineering Studies coursework (either electives or the three-course core curriculum),. We observe that many alumni perceived their BS classes to be “more technical” and “more rigorous,” and often described them as “narrow” with “no applicability” or little “relevance,” reflecting EGRS’ stronger connection to broader societal context. One respondent reflected several of our frequently observed themes: “BS courses were extremely in-depth learning opportunities oriented toward solving very specific problems. Don’t get me wrong, the lessons learned from a heavy BS course load freshman through half of Junior year were and are extremely pertinent in the sense that I really learned how to problem solve, dig into details, and manage my time. BA courses applied that BS way of thinking to broader issues and through varying contexts. I think the BA coursework was more enjoyable for me because I like thinking big.”
The alumni, in this regard, were reflecting a component of engineering education that engineering education scholar Donna Riley has examined. Riley’s work, for instance, found that “rigor is used to maintain disciplinary boundaries, with exclusionary implications for marginalized groups and marginalized ways of knowing” [24]. In kind, the sense that Engineering Studies classes may be “less rigorous” may well be linked to their recruitment of a more diverse student population to perform more interdisciplinary work. The disciplinary chauvinism of traditional engineers is reflected in the pervasive diminishing remarks (“engineering lite” and “pretengineering”). This chauvinism may even be compounded by the program’s success in recruiting and retaining diverse students [6]. Respondents’ reports that they felt less creative and less encouraged to envision the big picture in BS engineering classes are consistent with other work suggesting that the rigid conformity of traditional engineering education stifles creative thinking [25].
12 Table 2. Themes and codes, representative responses, and frequencies: BS relative to EGRS Theme Definition & Coding Representative Response Frequency
More Math, technical, “More mathematical less philosophical” 51 technical problem solving, “More technical knowledge needed in BS methodical, dry, engineering classes versus more management quantitative, focus on training and reactions to real life scenarios in numerical grades AB/Engineering” “Focused on technical skills applied in what seemed like Cold War engineering contexts.”
More More challenging, “It was like a meat grinder for me back then, but 46 rigorous more rigorous, bigger truly appreciate it now.” time commitment
Narrower Specific, focused, “More laser focused. As a BS engineer, you were 26 single method, not being trained for specific jobs/roles. As an AB open to discussion engineer, you were being taught a subset of skills that could be used in a variety of circumstances.” “Sometimes those classes were too specific to be of much use to me in my future endeavors.” “In BS engineering courses, there is obviously a bigger focus on technical solutions and usually a one way route towards attaining a solution. But with courses in AB Engineering, there is a big focus on how there is no one solution to a problem. There is a balance on how we can approach solutions by taking a interdisciplinary approach.“
Less Fewer applications, “more management training and reactions to real 40 relevant less “real life” or “real life scenarios in AB/Engineering Studies“ world” relevance, less “In BS Engineering classes there was a lot less of interesting that professor-student relationship and those classes were more focused on you understanding the technical aspects and exam/quizzes...while in AB Engineering there was more of focus on decisions and understanding the topics of the class.”
Less Less creative, less big “I remember BS classes as less lively” 13 creative picture thinking “AB also had more thought-provoking discussions and global/cultural nuances which I appreciated.” “In BS classes, my thinking was myopic, and I was focused on simply absorbing the curriculum. In AB classes, I felt much more curious and open-minded.”
No “No difference to speak of ... grades were strong in 18 differenc both”
13 e “both highly valuable” Related to the issue of the program’s internal reputation at our institution is its reputational currency beyond campus. Figure 5 shows the breakdown of responses to our survey question, “how do you describe your degree in Engineering Studies” to employers, colleagues, and peers. The most frequently cited description was “a combination of engineering and the liberal arts,” though a comparable number of respondents reported describing the program as a degree in management or in a particular flavor of engineering (general or industrial, most commonly). In 10% of the responses, alumni described including a particular disciplinary “concentration” with their description of the general program. Our admissions office and others charged with promoting the program have found it hard to communicate the unique aspects of the program, and we see from our survey results that even our alumni find themselves shorthanding it as “engineering management” or “industrial engineering” in their professional contexts. Some respondents noted that they did this to help people understand “quicker,” and some said that, as one alum put it, describing the program was “always and still a challenge.” Additional responses to this question included: ● “It was a multi-faceted path that opened many doors to figure out what I wanted to do in life, ultimately joining the Navy and flying F/A-18 Super Hornets.” ● “A major where you learn to talk like, think like and work with engineers, without being one” ● “Know enough about technology to understand it and ask good questions”
Figure 5. How alumni of the program describe their degree to others.
14 Lastly, we asked our alumni to describe what they feel distinguishes them as graduates of the AB Engineering Studies program. Responses to this question are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Themes and codes, representative responses, and frequencies: what distinguished graduates of Engineering Studies program Theme Definition & Coding Representative Response Frequency
Adaptability Flexibility, adaptability to “Being able to think creatively about 131 new roles and contexts, more technical challenges, flexibility and ““well-rounded”ness adaptability in our changing world”
Analytical skills Problem solving, “critical/analytical thinking. 113 technical skills multi-dimensional awareness of how to approach different problems.”
Sociotechnical Connect, act as a bridge, “Being able to understand and excel in 87 Perspective broader outlook than the technical world while having greater most engineers, knowledge of the world and our place in “real-world” applications, it.“ translation, integration “It shows employers I know how to work with and understand engineers. As a product/ project manager at a tech company, it means I know how to translate business needs to our engineers and technical concepts to stakeholders“ “I feel I have a better appreciation for the needs of society; locally, nationally, and internationally.”
Nontechnical Communication, time “Being able to think creatively about 28 skills management, more technical challenges, flexibility and collaboration adaptability in our changing world” “I have done well with engineering project management, and have strong communication skills with clients.” “I am more well rounded, can speak on a multitude of topics beyond just technical details. ...I can connect with people. I can listen, I can solve problems.”
Creativity / “Creative and resourceful thinking “ 15 Entrepreneurship
We observe that the sociotechnical theme emerged strongly, and that alumni reported both holistic appreciation for and more utilitarian benefits of this perspective. As one alum put it, “I
15 have knowledge of the systems that we live in; I have the ability to communicate my ideas through writing. I think in general Lafayette College teaches its students this well but Engineering Studies distinguishes itself by combining both skills more frequently.”
It is also noteworthy that Engineering Studies graduates feel that their technical skills are a strength and distinction in their chosen professional roles. Particularly in light of reputational challenges for the program regarding its “rigor” and “technical” content, this finding suggests that alumni have been well prepared for professional practice in technical as well as creative and sociotechnical dimensions.
Discussion As stakeholders, we engage in a variety of discussions about this program, including self-reflection, steering and strategic planning conversations, external reviews, and the sharing of anecdotal observations. As an unusually named program offering a Bachelor of Arts degree distinct from five BS engineering programs offered under the same roof, we are often trying to articulate the “value” of this degree to prospective students and their families. While each of the faculty authors has a folder full of appreciative emails from alumni or their graduate advisors describing the virtues of the program, this comprehensive alumni survey offered an opportunity to flesh out those anecdotal observations, appreciate how well they represent the program, and deepen our understanding of previous observations. We sought to understand more fully what our graduates identify as strengths of the program, and how they describe their own experiences of selecting and communicating about it.
This degree program has existed for 50 years, and we undertook the current study partly to consider whether it has thrived -- and been successful in recruiting such a diverse, socially engaged population -- because of what it offers, or whether the program has thrived because of the students who are drawn to it. Currently, we observe that the “most socially motivated” (borrowing from Bielefeldt in [26]) engineering students on our campus are in our Engineering Studies program. Bielefeldt found evidence that traditional engineering curricula reduced students’ interest in social welfare [26]. We cannot be sure whether our program draws students predisposed to a sociotechnical outlook, or whether it enhances that perspective, in greater measure. Regardless, it is clear from our study that both directions feed the character of the program.
Alumni responses to the survey also supported an argument we have frequently made when talking with prospective students: just because you are capable of completing a BS engineering program doesn’t mean you have to, or that you should if you’re not interested. Our respondents reported that the strengths of this program included its relevance to their lives and goals, its breadth (contra the narrowness of BS engineering courses), and its support of their curiosity and creativity. The program’s appeal is complex: it is perceived as “easier” than other BS programs partly because it feels more relevant and interesting, and more like what students expected “learning engineering in liberal arts context” to be like.
The results of our survey provide empirical support for our anecdotal understanding of this complexity: more than half of our respondents clearly said interest in interdisciplinary connections and curriculum flexibility were important factors in their decision to pursue this
16 major. While an identifiable strength, engineering education scholars have found that the curricular flexibility for students and resultant adaptability of its graduates also correlate with a negative reputation. In particular, increased “curricular flexibility, customizability, or course choice in engineering programs may run the risk of being biased as easier, less rigorous” [27]. In the context of new research demonstrating the value of self determination or autonomy for students in motivating learning, enhancing self-efficacy, and supporting persistence [28, 29], Engineering Studies’s flexibility and “high-choice” nature remain an important strength, with positive implications for diversity and inclusion. That makes the reputational risk well worth taking. We are gratified, too, that despite pervasive biases feeding a negative perception of the program as lesser than other engineering disciplines offered at our college, our alumni report great pride in both professional achievements and personal fulfillment enabled by the program.
Our survey respondents felt that the interdisciplinary, sociotechnical perspective was a significant strength. This theme surfaced as what drew many students to the program, what distinguished their classes from traditional engineering science coursework, and what distinguished them now as professionals. They described the importance of learning to ask questions, and to ask why in addition to how, appreciating context. Their responses credited Engineering Studies classroom dynamics, individual faculty, course structure, and project experiences with contributing to this development of a sociotechnical, creative and curious way of thinking. Instead of “a one way route towards attaining a solution,” to quote one respondent, Engineering Studies graduates describe “taking an interdisciplinary approach” and recognizing that there may be more than one solution.
Respondents also noted the inclusive, respected, and supported feeling in Engineering Studies classes and project experiences, and they described appreciating diverse perspectives in their work. The social relevance and emphasis on communication across disciplines and specialties also contributes to the breadth of participation in Engineering Studies. In the context of Moore’s [29] finding that student self-determination supports inclusion and persistence of diverse students in STEM, it is significant that this program supports all three dimensions of student self-determination: autonomy (curricular choice and flexibility), competence (“Being able to understand and excel in the technical world while having greater knowledge of the world and our place in it“), and relatedness (“feels like a community!”). The flexibility of the Engineering Studies curriculum may also play a role in broadening participation. Indeed, research suggests that providing students with more choices in their learning will lead to an increase in persistence and resilience [30]. We note that by surveying 50 years of alumni, we had a respondent pool that was significantly less diverse than our more recent student body. So while we gained meaningful information, our respondents may not be the optimal group to help us understand inclusion, equity, and current diversity.
Further work could include looking for correlations between responses and grad year, to more closely examine trends over time and effects of changes to the program, particularly its 2008 renaming and subsequent restructuring. Additionally, interviews and focus groups with current students and recent alumni could be useful in developing a deeper understanding of what makes the program more welcoming to, and more successful in retaining, women and students of color than our institution’s BS engineering programs have been.
17 Our study also is consistent with other observations by alumni obtained by the College’s communication division. Given that 2020 was the 50th anniversary of the program, the College was interested in broadcasting the program’s achievements to a readership largely composed of alumni and prospective students. For example, an article about the 50th anniversary at the College website quoted capstone project students and alumni as describing “holistic” mindsets. One noted the skills of their education as “being able to communicate technical issues to a layperson and how to help multiple stakeholders understand the impacts of engineering decisions.” Another praised the “interdisciplinary thinking” that enables them to address “justice and social issues” including environmental, racial, and economic injustice [31].
An external review of the program was conducted in 2012. The review team recommended that the faculty “revise and hone the identity and mission of the program” in response to many of the concerns documented in this paper. According to the survey results, changes such as structuring the curriculum to encourage students to choose the major earlier in their academic careers have had the desired impact. Further, the team’s recommendation “that an important and defining component of the EGRS identity be the application of an engineering perspective to other disciplines” is reflected by our survey respondents. However, it’s also clear that efforts to communicate these clearly to all stakeholders--majors themselves, other students, faculty, and potential employers and graduate programs--must continue.
As noted above, the study reported here had some limitations, primary among them being the self-selection of those alumni who chose to respond to the survey. Demographic shifts in our population over time meant that surveying 50 years of alumni did not capture as diverse a group as our more recent graduates have been. Our efforts to relate our survey data to other institutional data repositories were also stymied by the facts that (a) Admissions categories for gender and ethno-racial identity have changed over time, and (b) the Alumni Relations database uses its own categories for, and allows open-ended self-description of, alumni’s current industries. Again, we hope that future research will include focus group interviews among alumni from distinct stages of the program’s evolution that could allow us to probe beyond the survey responses and enhance our understanding of their experiences.
Conclusions More than 250 alumni from the full fifty-year history of an interdisciplinary degree program in Engineering Studies deepened our understanding of the program’s strengths and challenges. Their responses credited Engineering Studies classroom dynamics, individual faculty, course structure, and project experiences with contributing to their development of a sociotechnical, creative, and curious way of thinking. Instead of “a one way route towards attaining a solution,” Engineering Studies graduates describe “learning to ask questions,” “taking an interdisciplinary approach” and recognizing that there may be more than one solution. These elements, combined with curricular flexibility and social relevance, have also played a role in supporting the diverse student population in Engineering Studies and “broadening participation” in engineering. The program’s on-campus reputation has been strengthened by increased curricular structure and clear communication of its mission, but it continues to be challenging for its graduates to describe. Both pedagogical and programmatic choices made within the program have made it effective in developing sociotechnical perspectives and in broadening participation in
18 engineering. The coupled nature of these two features is also clear: sociotechnical pedagogy, and emphasis on the sociotechnical concepts of technology and engineering, facilitate and support broader demographics. Our results add empirical evidence of this previously observed linkage, supporting our own and others’ theoretical examinations of the interrelationship of how, what, and with whom we consider engineering education.
Acknowledgements We thank the many alumni who responded to our survey for their thoughtful and frank responses. We also are indebted to Lafayette’s Gateway Career Center and Simon Tonev in the Office of Institutional Research for providing historical data. Finally, we are grateful to the Provost’s Office for supporting Shantae Shand’s work through the Excel Scholars Program.
References
[1] M. Wisnioski, Engineers for Change: Competing Visions of Technology in 1960s America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. [2] The Lafayette, February 27, 1970. [3] K.L. Sanford Bernhardt and J.S. Rossmann, “An integrative education in engineering and the liberal arts: An institutional case study”, in Proceedings of the 127th Annual ASEE Conference & Exposition, Tampa, FL., 2019. [4] J.S. Rossmann, K.L. Sanford, J.N. Nicodemus, and B.R. Cohen, “The socio-technical core curriculum: An interdisciplinary Engineering Studies degree program,” in Proceedings of the 128th Annual ASEE Conference & Exposition, Montreal (virtual), 2020. [5] B.R. Cohen, J.S. Rossmann, and K.L. Sanford Bernhardt, “Introducing Engineering as a Sociotechnical Process,” in Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, 2014. [6] C.E. Foor and S.E. Walden, “‘Imaginary Engineering’ or ‘Re-imagined Engineering: Negotiating Gendered Identities in the Borderlands of a College of Engineering,” NWSA Journal, Vol. 21(2), pp. 41-64, 2009. [7] National Science Foundation. NSF at a glance. http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp [8] National Science Foundation. Merit review broader impacts criterion: Representative activities. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf [9] E. Cech and A. Sherick, “Depoliticization as a Mechanism of Gender Inequality among Engineering Faculty,” in Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Tampa, FL, 2019. [10] L. Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” in Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1, Winter 1980. [11] M. Smith and L. Marx, Eds. Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
19 [12] N. Lerman, R. Oldenziel, and A. Mohun, Eds., Gender and Technology: A Reader. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. [13] S.U. Noble, Algorithms of Oppression, NYU Press, 2018. [14] R. Benjamin, Race After Technology, Polity Press, 2019. [15] W. Bijker, “Sociohistorical Technology Studies.” In Sheila Jasanoff, et al., Eds., Handbook of STS, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995. [16] G. Downey, J. Lucena, and C. Mitcham, “Engineering ethics and identity: Emerging initiatives in comparative perspective,” Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 13, pp. 463-487, 2007. [17] L. Klotz, G. Potvin, A. Godwin, J. Cribbs, Z. Hazari, and N. Barclay, N. “Sustainability as a Route to Broadening Participation in Engineering.” J. Eng. Educ., 103: 137-153, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20034 [18] J.S. Rossmann and M. Roth, M. “A Classification System for Integrative Engineering Education,” Proceedings of the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio, 2017. 10.18260/1-2--27449 [19] A.V. den Beemt, M. MacLeod, J. Van der Veen, A. Van de Ven, S. van Baalen, R. Klaassen, and M. Boon, “Interdisciplinary Engineering Education: A Review of Vision, Teaching, and Support,” Journal of Engineering Education 109, no. 3 (2020): 508–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20347. [20] J.W. Creswell and C.N. Poth, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publishing, 2016. [21] G. Rickards,C. Magee,and A.R. Artino, “You Can't Fix by Analysis What You've Spoiled by Design: Developing Survey Instruments and Collecting Validity Evidence,” Journal of graduate medical education, 4(4), 407–410, 2012. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00239.1 [22] J. Saldaña, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage Publishing, 2015. [23] Y. Khazaal, M. van Singer, A. Chatton, S. Achab, D. Zullino, S. Rothen, R. Khan, J. Billieux, and G. Thorens, “Does self-selection affect samples' representativeness in online surveys? An investigation in online video game research,” Journal of medical Internet research, 16(7), e164, 2014. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2759 [24] D. Riley, “Rigor/Us: Building Boundaries and Disciplining Diversity with Standards of Merit,” Engineering Studies, 9:3, 249-265, 2017. DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2017.1408631 [25] R.S. Koh and J.S. Rossmann, “Interrogating Engineering Education in a Time of Rising Fascism: Strategic Disruptions,” forthcoming in Proceedings of the 2021 ASEE Annual Conference and Exhibition, 2021.
20 [26] A.R. Bielefeldt, “Disengaging or Disappearing? Losing the most Socially Motivated Students from Engineering?” Proceedings of the 2017 ASEE Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio, 2017. [27] M.H. Forbes,A.R. Bielfeledt, J.F. Sullivan, and R. Littlejohn, “Low-Choice Culture in Undergraduate Engineering and Autonomy-Supportive Exceptions,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 144, Issue 1, 2018. [28] J. Stolk, R. Martello, and J. Geddes, “Work in Progress - Building autonomous students: Modeling curricular approaches for lifelong learning,” Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE. F3B-20, 2007 . 10.1109/FIE.2007.4418141. [29] M.E. Moore, D.M. Vega, K.M. Wiens, and N. Caporale, N. “Connecting Theory to Practice: Using Self-Determination Theory To Better Understand Inclusion in STEM,” Journal of microbiology & biology education, 21(1), 21.1.32, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1955 [30] C.F. Ratelle, F. Guay, R.J. Vallerand, S. Larose, and C. Senécal, “Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of aca-demic motivation: a person-oriented analysis,” J Educ Psychol 99(4):734–746, 2007. [31] B. Hay, https://news.lafayette.edu/2021/02/17/celebrating-50-years-of-engineering-studies/
Appendix A. Survey Distributed to Program Alumni
Q43 This is the 50th anniversary of the Engineering Studies Program, formerly known as the AB Engineering program, at Lafayette College. As we celebrate and reflect, we want to learn more about the experiences of program alumni. We would be most grateful if you would be willing to participate in the following survey. The survey should take approximately 20 minutes of your time and will ask you to reflect on your experiences as a student and how they have impacted your career. We will use our analysis of the anonymized results to inform the trajectory of the program going forward and as the basis for a presentation at the 2021 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. If you are interested in participating, please read the informed consent document on the next page and indicate your consent. Also, please note that in the survey, both the terms AB Engineering and Engineering Studies (EGRS) are used to refer to the major program; the actual degree conferred to all of you is an AB in Engineering.
Q1 Demographics Information We are asking for the following information because we are interested in whether responses to the survey questions correlate with demographics. If you would rather not provide an answer for any of these, please check the “Prefer not to answer” option. If any of these identities have changed over time, please indicate the best match for your identity when you were a student at Lafayette College.
21 Q2 What year did you graduate from Lafayette College? ▼ 1970 (1) ... 2020 (51)
Q3 Did you graduate with a double major, dual degree, or a minor? (choose all that apply)
▢ No, I did not graduate with a second major, dual degree, or minor.
▢ Yes, I earned a second AB major.
▢ Yes, I earned a dual BS degree.
▢ Yes, I earned a minor.
Display This Question: If Double major/minor = Yes, I earned a second AB major.
Q4 In which program did you earn a second AB degree? (Current program names are listed; if the name of your program does not appear, please choose "Other".) ▼ Africana Studies (1) ... Other (32)
Display This Question: If Double major/minor = Yes, I earned a dual BS degree.
Q5 In which program did you earn a BS degree? (Current program names are listed; if the name of your program does not appear, please choose "Other".) ▼ Biochemistry (1) ... Other (15)
Display This Question: If Double major/minor = Yes, I earned a minor.
22 Q6 In which program did you earn a minor? (Current program names are listed; if the name of your program does not appear, please choose "Other".) ▼ Africana Studies (1) ... Other (41)
Display This Question: If Second AB major = Other
Q7 Please write in the name of your second AB degree:
______
Display This Question: If Dual BS degree = Other
Q8 Please write in the name of your BS degree:
______
Display This Question: If Minor = Other
Q9 Please write in the name of your minor:
______
Q10 Which of the following best describes you?
o Female
o Male
o Non-binary
o Prefer not to answer
23 Q11 Which of the following best describes you?
o Asian or Pacific Islander
o Black or African American
o Hispanic or Latino
o Native American or Alaskan Native
o White or Caucasian
o Multiracial or Biracial
o Prefer not to answer
Q12 Were you an international student?
o Yes
o No
o Prefer not to answer
Q13 Did you have a disability?
o Yes
o No
o Prefer not to answer
24 Q14 Career Information Students who have graduated with an AB in Engineering from Lafayette have gone on to a wide variety of careers. The following questions ask about your career, including your first professional position, your current professional position, and any graduate degrees you have earned.
Q15 For your first professional position post-graduation, which of the following best describes your industry?
o Agriculture
o Architecture
o Arts/Entertainment
o Construction
o Education
o Energy
o Engineering
o Financial Services
o Health Care
o Law
o Manufacturing
o Policy
o Other ______
25 Q17 For your first professional position post-graduation, which of the following best describe your role?
o Analyst
o Consultant
o Engineer
o IT
o Manager
o Sales
o Other ______
Q19 For your current professional position, which of the following best describes your industry?
o Agriculture
o Architecture
o Arts/Entertainment
o Construction
o Education
o Energy
26 o Engineering
o Financial Services
o Health Care
o Law
o Manufacturing
o Policy
o Other ______
Q21 For your current professional position, which of the following best describes your role?
o Analyst
o Consultant
o Engineer
o IT
o Manager
o Sales
o Other ______
27 Q23 Have you earned or are you currently pursuing a graduate degree?
o Yes
o No
Display This Question: If Have you earned or are you currently pursuing a graduate degree? = Yes
Q24 Which graduate degree(s) have you earned/are you pursuing? Select all that apply.
▢ JD
▢ MA
▢ MBA
▢ MD
▢ MEM
▢ MS
▢ PhD
▢ Other ______
Q26 Engineering Studies / AB Engineering Experience The following questions ask you to reflect on your experiences as a student at Lafayette.
28 Q27 As best you can recall, when did you decide to pursue the AB in Engineering degree?
o Before I began at Lafayette
o First year
o Sophomore year
o Junior year
o Senior year
o I really don't remember
Q28 What factors affected your decision to pursue the AB in Engineering degree? (choose all that apply)
▢ Advisor recommended
▢ Career path
▢ Curriculum flexibility
▢ Interest in interdisciplinary connections
▢ Negative experience(s) in BS engineering program
▢ Negative experience(s) in humanities/science/social science program
▢ Positive experience with EGRS/AB Engineering classes
▢ Positive experience with EGRS/AB Engineering faculty
29 ▢ Program mission
▢ Sense of belonging in major
▢ Student word of mouth
▢ Other ______
Q29 Which skills developed as an AB Engineering/Engineering Studies student have been most valuable to you? (choose all that apply)
▢ Ability to relate technical issues to social/cultural context
▢ Big picture and systems thinking
▢ Communication skills
▢ Creativity
▢ Critical thinking
▢ Entrepreneurial thinking
▢ Global competence
▢ Multicultural sophistication
▢ Solving open-ended problems
▢ Technical skills
30 ▢ Time management
▢ Other ______
Q30 In recent years, the Engineering Studies Program has required majors to complete the three core courses listed below. If you took these courses, please respond below to indicate how valuable each course has been since you graduated.
Not valuable (1) Somewhat Valuable Very Valuable (3) (2)
Engineering Economics and o o o Management (1)
Engineering and Public Policy (2) o o o
Engineering and Society (Capstone o o o Seminar) (3)
Q31 If you want to comment on any of your responses regarding the three core courses, please do so here. ______
Q32 Which class or classes that you took at Lafayette have been the most valuable to you since you graduated? ______
Q33 What were the strengths of your EGRS/AB Engineering curriculum? ______
31 Q34 When you were a student, how was the program perceived by students and faculty members in the engineering division and across campus generally?
______
Q35 How would you describe your experience in BS Engineering classes as compared to the AB Engineering/EGRS classes you took? ______
Q36 How do you describe your major to others? ______
Q37 What distinguishes you as an AB Engineering/Engineering Studies graduate? ______
Q44 Is there anything else you'd like to share with us? ______
Q38 Thank you for participating in this survey! If you are willing to continue the conversation with us to answer some follow up questions, please provide your name and contact email.
Q39 Name: ______
Q40 Email address: ______
32