The CAR (confront, address, replace) Strategy is an antiracist pedagogy aiming to drive out exclusionary terminology in engineering education. “Master-slave” terminology is still commonplace in engineering education and industry. However, questions have been raised about the negative impacts of such language. Usage of exclusionary terminology such as “master-slave” in academia can make students—especially those who identify as women and/or Black/African-American—feel uncomfortable, potentially evoking Stereotype Threat (Danowitz, 2020) and/or Curriculum Trauma (Buul, 2020). Indeed, prior research shows that students from a number of backgrounds find non-inclusive terminologies such as “master-slave” to be a major problem (Danowitz, 2020). Currently, women-identifying and gender nonbinary students are underrepresented in the engineering industry (ASEE, 2020) while Black/African-American students are underrepresented in the entire higher education system, including engineering fields (NSF, 2019). The CAR Strategy, introduced here, stands for: 1) confront; 2) address; 3) replace and aims to provide a framework for driving out iniquitous terminologies in engineering education such as “master-slave.” The first step is to confront the historical significance of the terminology in question. The second step is to address the technical inaccuracies of the legacy terminology. Lastly, replace the problematic terminology with an optional but recommended replacement. This thesis reports on student perceptions and the effectiveness of The CAR Strategy piloted as a teaching framework in the computer engineering department of Cal Poly. Of 64 students surveyed: 70% either agree or strongly agree that The CAR Strategy is an effective framework for driving out exclusionary terminologies. Amman Asfaw first presented certain portions of this thesis at the virtual 2021 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition. The original publication’s copyright is held by ASEE (Asfaw, 2021); secondary authors included Storm Randolph, Victoria Siaumau, Yumi Aguilar, Emily Flores, Dr. Jane Lehr, and Dr. Andrew Danowitz.

<p dir="ltr">Empathic design involves two social practices – one is collaboration with users to elicit and make a meaning of user experiences, and another is intrateam collaboration to develop a mutually understood, agreed-upon interpretation of user experiences among team members. This study is focused on the latter phenomenon, conceptualizing this social practice as team learning for shared empathic understandings. Through this conceptualization, this study aimed to characterize a social mechanism underlying intrateam collaboration in empathic design in terms of how professionals interact with each other to develop and apply shared empathic understandings to design ideas within a team over a design process. For this objective, I conducted a conversation analysis to examine one professional design team’s conversations over a design journey from need-finding to initial ideation to prototyping and testing, exploring team members’ conversational behaviors revealed in conversational exchanges. More specifically, I investigated their conversational behaviors at both the team and individual levels: team learning behaviors (i.e., construction, co-construction, and constructive conflict) for team-level collective behaviors and interpersonal reactions (e.g., move, question, block, etc.) and empathy perspectives (i.e., the first, second, and third-person perspectives) for individual-level behaviors. Through this investigation, I found that a team’s design journey can be characterized by their travel among the team learning behaviors during design conversations and that each type of team learning behavior can be featured by frequently used interpersonal reactions and empathy perspective transitions at the individual level. Through this behavior-oriented, holistic view of team learning for shared empathic understandings, this study provides fresh insights into what conversational behaviors can be more used at the team and individual levels and how these behaviors can facilitate a team to arrive at team-level empathic understandings and design ideas. I discuss the research and educational implications of this study and future research ideas based on this study.</p>

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1011/thumbnail.jpg

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1012/thumbnail.jpg

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1013/thumbnail.jpg

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1019/thumbnail.jpg

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1020/thumbnail.jpg

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1021/thumbnail.jpg

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1022/thumbnail.jpg

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1023/thumbnail.jpg