Understanding Equity of Access in Engineering Education Making Spaces

Understanding Equity of Access in Engineering Education Making Spaces
复制标题

DOI:
10.3390/socsci10100384
复制
发表时间:
2021-10
期刊:
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Idalis Villanueva Alarcón;R. Downey;L. Nadelson;Y. Choi;J. Bouwma-Gearhart;Chaz Tanoue
Idalis Villanueva Alarcón;R. Downey;L. Nadelson;Y. Choi;J. Bouwma-Gearhart;Chaz Tanoue
中科院分区:
--
文献类型:
--
作者:
Idalis Villanueva Alarcón;R. Downey;L. Nadelson;Y. Choi;J. Bouwma-Gearhart;Chaz Tanoue

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

我们探索性研究的目标是研究工程教育制作空间的管理层和工作人员如何在用户之间制定公平的访问权(例如,学生)。我们研究了六种不同的制造空间类型,这些类型由Wilczynsky和Hoover的学术创客空间分类进行分类,其中考虑了范围,可访问性,用户,足迹(大小)以及管理和人员配备。我们回顾了2017年至2019年期间对这些地方进行的两次单独访问期间大学创客空间工作人员,学生工作人员和领导/管理人员的研究备忘录和访谈记录。我们归纳和演绎编码的数据,研究结果表明,公平的访问是情境和上下文。从结果中,我们确定了四个额外的考虑因素,以确保公平获得工程教育的空间:(a)空间设计和操作的多个点的学生入学;(B)空间操作,以促进有效的学生制作过程和途径;(c)扩大访问的威胁:负担和后果;(d)通过归属感的文化提升学生的会员资格和公平。总之,研究结果指出,需要对访问的概念进行更细致的理解,远远取代对空间,设备和成本的扁平化定义。
The goal of our exploratory study was to examine how management and staff in engineering education making spaces are enacting equitable access amongst their users (e.g., students). We examined six different making space types categorized by Wilczynsky’s and Hoover’s classification of academic makerspaces, which considered scope, accessibility, users, footprint (size), and management and staffing. We reviewed research memos and transcripts of interviews of university makerspace staff, student staff, and leaders/administrators during two separate visits to these places that took place between 2017 and 2019. We inductively and deductively coded the data, and the findings suggested that equity of access was situational and contextual. From the results, we identified four additional considerations needed to ensure equitable access for engineering education making spaces: (a) spaces designed and operated for multiple points of student entry; (b) spaces operated to facilitate effective student making processes and pathways; (c) threats to expanded access: burdens and consequences; and (d) elevating student membership and equity through a culture of belonging. Together, the findings point toward a need for developing a more nuanced understanding of the concept of access that far supersedes a flattened definition of access to just space, equipment, and cost.