From Message to Strategy: A Pathways Approach to Characterize the Hidden Curriculum in Engineering Education

SURVEY SECTION	DESCRIPTION	TYPE OF QUESTIONS
(1) Raw engineering perceptions	Participants were asked their perceptions of engineering and who belongs in engineering before definitions of HC were provided to them.	Qualitative (QUAL)
(2) Hidden curriculum awareness	Participants were given a written definition of HC followed by six HC statements. Participants were asked whether they agreed with the HC provided in the context of engineering	Quantitative (QUAN) & QUAL
(3) Video vignette	Participants watched a 7.5-minute video, which highlighted several examples of HC involving a marginalized Latino student and faculty member. The video vignette contains layers of HC, including racism, sexism, first-generation student status, as well as professionalism and success in engineering. The video does not focus on a single HC issue, and the participant likely interpreted the video based on their salient issues. Participants then defined HC in their own words and provided personal examples of engineering HC.	QUAL
(4) Emotions	Participants selected an emotion they felt corresponded to six HC assumptions and whether their emotion was positive or negative. They also recalled a personal experience with HC and the emotions they experienced in that situation.	QUAN & QUAL
(7) Self-efficacy (coping)	Participants were given a definition of self-efficacy and indicated their belief that they can succeed in engineering if six HC assumptions were present in their education. They also described an obstacle they have had to overcome in engineering.	QUAN & QUAL
(8) Self-advocacy	Participants were given a definition of self-advocacy and identified their willingness to ignite an action on behalf of themselves and others around six HC assumptions. They provided a personal example highlighting what they have self-advocated for in engineering.	QUAN & QUAL
(9) Wrap-up	These questions inquired about the major lessons learned about HC through this survey and asked participants to reflect on their major passions for pursuing a degree in engineering.	QUAL
(10) Demographics	Participants were asked to enter information about their axes of inequity, such as age, role (student versus faculty), university of study or employment, race, gender, ethnicity, and first-generation status.	QUAL

Table 2

Demographics of participants (n = 330).

DEMOGRAPHIC	n	%
Gender
Men	188	57
Women and Non-Binary	142	43
Age
18-29 years of age	276	84
30-39 years of age	23	7
40 years of age or older	31	9
Racial and/or Ethnic Identity
Native American or Alaska Native	2	1
Asian	23	7
Black or African American	15	5
Hispanic, Latina/o, Chicana/o/	101	31
White/Middle Eastern^a	160	48
Two or more races or ethnicities or Race and/or ethnicity not listed	29	8
Engineering Role
Undergraduate and graduate students	204	91
Professors and other professionals	19	9
Concentration
Aerospace/Mechanical/Automotive/Nuclear Engineering	76	23
Architectural/Civil/Environmental Engineering	121	37
Biological/Biomedical/Agricultural Engineering	25	8
Chemical/Petroleum/Materials Engineering	31	9
Computer/Electrical/Electronics/Audio Engineering	52	16
Engineering Education	3	1
Industrial/Process Engineering	15	5
Concentration not listed	7	2
First-generation undergraduate student^b
Yes	108	33
No/Not sure	222	67

[i] ^a Please note that the White racial and/or ethnic category in the UPHEME survey includes participants from countries of origin outside the United States, e.g., Ireland or Poland.

^b We defined first-generation in the instrument as individuals who are the first person to attend college from their immediate family and are aware of other terminologies that are surfacing in the literature (e.g., post-traditional).

Diagram of the coding scheme, showing initial, secondary, and thematic codes of participant’s interaction, HC, and strategy from sample quote. In order, we coded for strategies, HC, and interactions.

RQ1:	What are salient HC messages in engineering?
RQ2:	How are HC messages communicated in engineering?
RQ3:	What strategies do individuals in engineering use to mitigate HC?
RQ3a:	What strategies do demographic groups in engineering use to mitigate HC?

Table 3

HC message by participant identity. Bolded values indicate the HC message with the highest percentage for each demographic category.

	N	# OF INSTANCES	ENGINEERING IS DIFFICULT		ENGINEERING IS INFLEXIBLE		PEOPLE ARE UNDER- VALUED/REPRESENTED		ENGINEERING FOSTERS SUPPORT/GROWTH
	N	# OF INSTANCES	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Interaction total	330	374	134	36	128	34	107	29	5	1
Gender
Men	188	221	94	43	105	48	17	8	5	2
Women and Non-Binary	142	153	40	26	23	15	90	59	0	0
Racial Category
Majority^a	186	207	86	42	69	33	50	24	2	1
Marginalized^b	144	167	48	29	59	35	57	34	3	2
Gender X Racial Category
Majority Men	108	125	60	48	56	45	7	6	2	2
Marginalized Men	80	96	34	35	49	51	10	10	3	3
Majority Women and Non-Binary	78	82	26	32	13	16	43	52	0	0
Marginalized Women and Non-Binary	64	71	14	20	10	14	47	66	0	0

[i] ^a “Majority” indicates participants’ racial and/or ethnic identities, including those who identify as Asian, Middle Eastern, or White, and are overrepresented in engineering, according to the National Science Foundation (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics & National Science Foundation, 2021).

^b “Marginalized” indicates participants’ racial and/or ethnic identities who identified as Black or African/African American, Native American and Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latin American, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander and are historically underrepresented in STEM (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics & National Science Foundation, 2021).

Table 4

Types of HC interactions (institutional, nonspecific, interpersonal) among participants. Bolded values indicate the highest percentage of strategies used by demographic category (row).

	N	# OF INSTANCES	INSTITUTIONAL HC		INTERPERSONAL HC		NONSPECIFIC HC
	N	# OF INSTANCES	#	%	#	%	#	%
Interaction total	330	353	234	66	82	23	37	10
Gender
Men	188	198	151	76	39	20	8	4
Women and Non-Binary	142	155	83	54	43	28	29	19
Racial Category
Majority	186	199	138	69	46	23	15	8
Marginalized	144	154	96	62	36	23	22	14
Gender X Racial Category
Men Majority	108	112	86	77	22	20	4	4
Men Marginalized	80	86	65	76	17	20	4	5
Women and Non-Binary Majority	78	87	52	60	24	28	11	13
Women and Non-Binary Marginalized	64	68	31	46	19	28	18	26

Table 5

HC strategies by demographic category. Bolded values indicate the highest percentage of strategies used by demographic category (row).

	N	CHANGING ENVIRONMENT		NEGOTIATING SELF		NO OR MINIMAL ACTION
	N	#	%	#	%	#	%
Interaction total	330	54	14	318	83	54	14
Gender
Men	188	8	4	202	94	5	2
Women and Non-Binary	142	46	27	116	69	6	4
Racial Category
Majority	186	26	12	186	86	5	2
Marginalized	144	28	17	132	80	6	4
Gender X Racial Category
Men	188	8	4	202	94	5	2
Majority	108	3	2	118	95	3	2
Marginalized	80	5	5	84	92	2	2
Women and Non-Binary	142	46	27	116	69	6	4
Majority	78	23	25	68	73	2	2
Marginalized	64	23	31	48	64	4	5

Differences in salient pathways between participants with intersectional racial/ethnic and gender identities.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/see.113 | Journal eISSN: 2690-5450

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 176 - 200

Submitted on: Oct 18, 2022

Accepted on: Oct 3, 2023

Published on: Dec 14, 2023

Published by: Virginia Tech Publishing

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

hidden curriculum,

engineering education,

pathways,

coping self-efficacy

© 2023 Victoria Sellers, Idalis Villanueva Alarcón, published by Virginia Tech Publishing
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 4 (2023): Issue 2

From Message to Strategy: A Pathways Approach to Characterize the Hidden Curriculum in Engineering Education

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Table 2

Figure 1

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Figure 2

Paradigm

My account