2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This Work-in-Progress (WIP) study explores how engineering faculty members reflect their understanding and implementation of culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP). While substantial research and federal effort focuses on student experiences in STEM, limited work examines the beliefs, attitudes, and self-perceptions of faculty—the primary agents in shaping inclusive classroom environments. This study seeks to address that gap by centering the voices of faculty members as they engage with CRP in engineering education. The research is guided by two primary questions: (1) How do engineering faculty members understand culturally responsive pedagogy? and (2) How do their understandings influence their pedagogical approaches?
The study is grounded in the theoretical framework of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy is focused on cultural competence, which “refers to helping students to recognize and honor their own cultural beliefs and practices while acquiring access to the wider culture, where they are likely to have a chance of improving their socioeconomic status and making informed decisions about the lives they wish to lead” (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 36). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy seeks to develop sociopolitical consciousness among students, which includes a teacher’s obligation to find ways for “students to recognize, understand, and critique current and social inequalities” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 476).
This exploratory qualitative study was conducted at a large public research university in the southwestern United States, a designated Hispanic-Serving Institution with a diverse undergraduate population. Data collection involves semi-structured interviews with ten engineering faculty members actively teaching undergraduate courses. Each interview, lasting 60–90 minutes, examines six interrelated pedagogical dimensions: course design, content, learning climate, learner support, teaching strategies, and assessment. The interviews are audio- and video-recorded with participant consent. Data analysis will follow Saldaña’s (2015) three-stage approach: inductive coding, codebook development, and pattern coding. Both inductive and deductive coding strategies will be used to explore emerging themes related to privilege, bias, and faculty growth. To ensure credibility, the study will employ member checking and intercoder reliability procedures.
Preliminary findings suggest that faculty members exhibit varying levels of understanding and engagement with CRP, often shaped by their own identities, experiences, and positionalities. Some faculty appear more inclined to integrate inclusive and empathetic teaching strategies, while others approach CRP from theoretical or compliance-based perspectives. These early insights underscore the importance of creating structured, reflective opportunities for faculty to examine their own assumptions and biases because faculty members cannot foster inclusive pedagogies alone without the support and reward from their institutions.
The anticipated outcome of this research is to inform the design of faculty development programs that promote equity-minded reflection and growth-oriented teaching practices. By understanding how faculty beliefs and positionalities shape their pedagogical choices, institutions can foster more inclusive and supportive learning environments that broaden participation and belonging in engineering education.