The Problem: Rigid/Limiting Environments in STEM/Engineering Education

Outline

Introduction & Framing (5 minutes)

Content: Present the problem of rigid and limiting STEM/engineering environments. Introduce the concept of heterotopia as a framework.

Engagement: Quick audience poll (via device) about their own learning/teaching environments.

Survey Findings & Student Perspectives (10 minutes)

Content: Share key results from the undergraduate survey, highlighting themes of belonging, spatial/temporal flexibility, and learning preferences.

Engagement: Peer-to-peer discussion — attendees compare how these findings resonate with their own institutional contexts.

Instructional Design Strategies (15 minutes)

Content: Translate findings into evidence-based teaching strategies and design recommendations that foster inclusion, opportunity, and cultural competency.

Engagement: Small-group activity — participants brainstorm adaptations for their own settings and share back one idea.

Case Studies & Authentic Applications (10 minutes)

Content: Present practical examples of flexible, student-centered engineering environments (e.g., reimagined labs, hybrid collaboration).

Engagement: Interactive scenario — attendees use collaborative tools (e.g., shared digital whiteboard) to critique and redesign a rigid environment into a heterotopic one.

Reflection & Takeaways (5 minutes)

Content: Summarize principles, link back to ISTE Standards and Transformational Learning Principles.

Engagement: Individual written reflection — “one action I will take to reimagine my own learning environment.”

Q&A and Dialogue (5 minutes)

Content: Open floor for questions, clarifications, and dialogue.

Engagement: Encourage cross-sharing of perspectives and collaborative problem-solving.

Outcomes

After this session, participants will be able to:

Analyze survey findings on student experiences in rigid STEM environments through the lens of heterotopia.

Identify strategies for designing inclusive, flexible, and student-centered learning spaces that promote belonging and opportunity.

Apply design recommendations and culturally responsive practices to reimagine their own instructional environments.

Collaborate with peers to reflect on how heterotopia can inform broader educational innovation.

Supporting research

Foucault, M. (1986). Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias. Diacritics, 16(1), 22–27.
– Foundational text introducing heterotopia as a lens for reimagining spaces.

Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and… tensions with professional identity? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346.
– On challenges in shifting STEM teaching environments.

Freeman, S., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415.
– Large meta-analysis showing the impact of student-centered approaches.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All Students (2nd ed.). Routledge.
– Seminal work on belonging as a driver of student engagement.

Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2013). Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 626–659.
– Engineering education research methodology tied to student experience.

Litzler, E., Samuelson, C., & Lorah, J. (2014). Breaking it down: Engineering student STEM confidence at the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender. Research in Higher Education, 55(8), 810–832.
– On inclusivity and equity issues in engineering education.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
– Authoritative synthesis on learning sciences and the importance of context/flexibility.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57–72.
– Classic piece on accommodating diverse learning styles in engineering.

Borrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011). The emergence of engineering education research as an internationally connected field of inquiry. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 14–47.
– Recognized experts framing engineering education as a scholarly field.

Estrada, M., et al. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), es5.
– Research showing inclusive practices improve persistence and outcomes.