ArticlePDF Available

First‐generation college students' funds of knowledge support the development of an engineering role identity

Journal of Engineering Education

March 2024
113(2)

DOI:10.1002/jee.20591

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Dina Verdín

Arizona State University

Background Identifying as an engineer is essential for belonging and student success, yet the social context and professional norms make it more difficult for some students to establish an identity as an engineer. Purpose/Hypothesis This study investigated whether first‐generation college students' funds of knowledge supported their engineering role identity. Design/Methods Data came from a survey administered across the United States western, southern, and mountain regions in the fall semester of 2018. Only the sample of students who indicated they were the first in their families to attend college was used in the analysis ( n = 378). Structural equation modeling was used to understand how first‐generation college students' funds of knowledge supported their engineering role identity; measurement invariance was examined to ensure that the model was valid for women and men alike. Results First‐generation college students' funds of knowledge individually supported the components of the engineering role identity development process. Tinkering knowledge from home and perspective‐taking helped inform interest and performance/competence beliefs. First‐generation college students' bids for external recognition were supported through their mediational skills, their connecting experiences, and their local network of college friends. The bundle of advice, resources, and emotional support from family members was the only fund of knowledge that directly supported students' perceptions of themselves as engineers. Conclusions The relationships we established between first‐generation college students' funds of knowledge and emerging engineering role identities call for engineering educators to integrate students' funds of knowledge into engineering learning and to broaden disciplinary norms of what counts as engineering‐relevant knowledge.

Content uploaded by Dina Verdín

Content may be subject to copyright.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

First-generation college students' funds of knowledge

support the development of an engineering role identity

Dina Verdín

| Jessica M. Smith

| Juan C. Lucena

Engineering, Arizona State University,

Mesa, Arizona, USA

Humanitarian Engineering and Science

Graduate Program, Colorado School of

Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA

Humanitarian Engineering

Undergraduate Programs and Outreach,

Colorado School of Mines, Golden,

Colorado, USA

Correspondence

Dina Verdín, Engineering, Arizona State

University, Mesa, Arizona, USA.

Email: dina.verdin@asu.edu

Funding information

NSF, Grant/Award Number: 2130157

Abstract

Background: Identifying as an engineer is essential for belonging and student

success, yet the social context and professional norms make it more difficult

for some students to establish an identity as an engineer.

Purpose/Hypothesis: This study investigated whether first-generation college

students' funds of knowledge supported their engineering role identity.

Design/Methods: Data came from a survey administered across the United

States western, southern, and mountain regions in the fall semester of 2018.

Only the sample of students who indicated they were the first in their families

to attend college was used in the analysis (n=378). Structural equation

modeling was used to understand how first-generation college students' funds of

knowledge supported their engineering role identity; measurement invariance

was examined to ensure that the model was valid for women and men alike.

Results: First-generation college students' funds of knowledge individually

supported the components of the engineering role identity development pro-

cess. Tinkering knowledge from home and perspective-taking helped inform

interest and performance/competence beliefs. First-generation college stu-

dents' bids for external recognition were supported through their mediational

skills, their connecting experiences, and their local network of college friends.

The bundle of advice, resources, and emotional support from family members

was the only fund of knowledge that directly supported students' perceptions

of themselves as engineers.

Conclusions: The relationships we established between first-generation col-

lege students' funds of knowledge and emerging engineering role identities call

for engineering educators to integrate students' funds of knowledge into engi-

neering learning and to broaden disciplinary norms of what counts as

engineering-relevant knowledge.

KEYWORDS

engineering identity, social and cultural capital, structural equation model

Received: 2 January 2023 Revised: 28 February 2024 Accepted: 3 March 2024

DOI: 10.1002/jee.20591

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided

the original work is properly cited.

J Eng Educ. 2024;113:383–406. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jee 383

1|INTRODUCTION

Learning and identity are inseparable. Lave and Wenger (1991) rightfully acknowledged the connection between

learning and identity development, emphasizing that learning is identity in the making. Wenger (2010) further empha-

sized how learning experiences are fundamental to our practice of gaining competency and “becoming a certain person,

a knower in a context”(p. 2). Becoming a certain kind of person (e.g., by forming an engineering role identity) is critical

in helping college students to sustain motivation and engagement in the process of learning (National Academies of Sci-

ence, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Ample studies have documented how an engineering identity supports students'

intentions to choose a major in engineering (Godwin & Kirn, 2020), supports persistence beliefs (Jones et al., 2013; Patrick

et al., 2018; Verdín, 2021a,2021b), bolsters confidence in their choice of major (Verdín & Godwin, 2021; Verdín, Godwin,

Sonnert, & Sadler, 2018), and helps them pursue an engineering industry-related career (Verdín & Godwin, 2017). More

recently, Verdín (2024) found that Latinx students' engineering role identity positively impacted their perceptions of their

future career outcomes, which encompassed beliefs about obtaining their desired engineering job and succeeding in their

chosen career. Identifying as an engineer also has important implications for students' sense of belonging (Meyers

et al., 2012;Tonso,1999,2007;Verdín,2021b). Tonso (2007) further posited that “identities serve as focal points for

learning to belong in communities of practice”(p. 235). Given its utmost importance to students' persistence and future

career outcomes, it is crucial that we understand how an engineering role identity is developed.

Identities are not entirely based on individual manifestations but emerge from “our position and the position of our

communities within broader social structures”(Wenger, 2010, p. 148). The engineering community of practice,

established under a “system of practices, meanings, and beliefs,”influences how students develop their engineering

identity (Tonso, 1996, p. 218). Because engineering communities of practice are constituted by norms, students are not

entirely free to develop any type of engineering identity. Instead, students are guided by “larger and more pervasive

meanings […] derived from sociohistorical legacies”(Carlone & Johnson, 2007, p. 1192) that include racialized and gen-

dered norms, which are especially fraught for minoritized students. For students who do not fit the predominant mold

of an engineer, their position within the engineering community is often contested (Pawley, 2012a,2012b). As a result,

ways of knowing in engineering can differentially enable students to form an engineering identity, depending on how

knowledge is selected, organized, bounded, delivered, valued, and evaluated (e.g., Claris & Riley, 2012; Downey, 2015;

Riley, 2017). Knowledge and judgments of expertise inflected by gender, race, and socioeconomic class bias have been

baked into engineering (Calvert, 1967; Smith Rolston & Cox, 2015; Slaton, 2010) and, subsequently, the dominant engi-

neering identities encountered by students. This historical context helps explain why minoritized students—specifically

first-generation college students—describe the culture and content of undergraduate engineering programs as foreign

or even hostile (e.g., Foor et al., 2007; Ong et al., 2018; Verdín, 2021a). Hence, it is no accident that first-generation col-

lege students find their knowledge and skills absent from or undervalued in the engineering curriculum.

When first-generation college students enroll in engineering programs, they bring with them their histories of

learning and ways of participating in the world. Here, we define the specific type of shared history of learning as stu-

dents' funds of knowledge, that is, the bodies of knowledge acquired through home or community's everyday practices

and lived experiences (Gonz

alez et al., 2005). Studies have documented that first-generation college students enter engi-

neering programs with accumulated engineering-relevant bodies of knowledge from their experiences at home,

including through their participation in communities and through manual or other skilled labor (Smith & Lucena,

2015,2016). However, the funds of knowledge that first-generation college students bring to higher education are often

negotiated because they do not resonate with the dominant engineering practices or identities embedded in the engi-

neering communities of practice. Thus, critically reflecting on what knowledge “counts”as engineering knowledge is

important for understanding and better supporting first-generation college student's development of an engineering

role identity.

First-generation college students' funds of knowledge should also be considered resources that can be leveraged to

help them to identify as engineers. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a relationship between first-generation college

students' accumulated bodies of knowledge from home or through work experiences and their formation of an engi-

neering role identity. The engineering role identity development process used throughout this study includes mecha-

nisms of interest, performance/competence beliefs, and external and internal recognition. While students' funds of

knowledge are extensive, this paper focuses on seven that have been validated in prior work (Verdín et al., 2021). Our

study shows that a funds of knowledge approach can provide a platform for students to incorporate their lived experi-

ences into defining their identities within the engineering context.

384 VERDÍN ET AL.

21689830, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20591, Wiley Online Library on [21/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

1.1 |First-generation college students

First-generation college students encompass a complex and diverse group of individuals whose experiences are shaped by

multiple intersecting social identities. While the designation of “first-generation college student”can vary across institutions,

Whitley et al. (2018) identified that among U.S. institutions with a formal definition, more than half of them used the fol-

lowing classification: “neither parent or guardian hav[ing] a four-year college degree”(p. 7). However, the first-generation

college student identity does not exist in isolation. From an intersectional perspective, we recognize that the first-generation

college student label intertwines with other core aspects of their lives. Many of these students also come from challenging

socioeconomic backgrounds, as indicated by their comparatively high eligibility for programs such as Federal Pell Grants, a

need-based financial aid for U.S. higher education students. Furthermore, first-generation college students are often from

racially/ethnically diverse backgrounds (i.e., Latinx, Black, etc.; Cahalan et al., 2019; Rieckenberg et al., 2014;Saenz

et al., 2007;Snyderetal.,2019;U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2001). While first-generation college students' intersecting

identities and lived experiences bring unique strengths and obstacles to their educational journeys (Ives & Castillo-

Montoya, 2020), empirical research has found that after controlling for socioeconomic status, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and

institution type, the “first-generation status appears to be a disadvantage throughout postsecondary education”when

predicting degree attainment (U.S. Department of Education & National Center for Education Statistics, 2001,p.26).There-

fore, our study examines students who, at minimum, identified as first-generation college students.

2|PURPOSE

Identities are created, recreated, and sustained through participation in activities or experiences (Brickhouse, 2001;

Lave & Wenger, 1991; Ligorio, 2010; Roth & Barton, 2004); included in these experiences should be those obtained

from home or throughout one's young adult life. More recently, Esteban-Guitart and Moll (2014) and Esteban-Guitart

(2021) argued that the accumulated bodies of knowledge individuals gathered from their home or lived experiences

(i.e., funds of knowledge) are reservoirs individuals use to construct their self-definitions. The authors postulated that

an individual's funds of knowledge help define one's identity when they are actively leveraged in practice.

Literature, however, has yet to discuss how funds of knowledge are reservoirs that can be appropriated to support

the engineering identity development process. This paper investigates if and how first-generation college students' funds

of knowledge inform their development of an engineering role identity, especially the crucial dimensions of interest,

performance/competence beliefs, and recognition. While performance/competence beliefs are a general view of stu-

dent's capabilities to perform well in their coursework, it does not elucidate how first-generation college students devel-

oped this belief. Prior work has found that first-generation college students' perceptions of being recognized as an

engineer by instructors, parents, and peers are informed by performance/competence beliefs (Verdín, 2021b; Verdín

et al., 2019; Verdín & Godwin, 2019). However, that relationship is only a partial view of how students come to be rec-

ognized as engineers. As well, it remains unclear how their accumulated bodies of knowledge from home and/or work

foster their enjoyment in learning engineering (i.e., interest). In this study, we examine whether performance/

competence beliefs, interest, recognition, and students' overall perceptions of themselves as engineers are also culti-

vated by their funds of knowledge. Specifically, using a sample of first-generation college students who predominantly

identified as Latinx, we sought to answer the following research question:

RQ: How do first-generation college students' funds of knowledge support the development of an engineering role

identity?

3|THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

We use two theoretical frameworks to guide our analysis, specifically engineering role identity and funds of knowledge.

3.1 |Engineering role identity

An individual who takes on an engineering role identity adopts its meanings and expectations “and then act[s] to repre-

sent and preserve these meanings and expectations”in interaction with others (Sets & Burke, 2000, p. 227). Through

VERDÍN ET AL.385

this framing, identity is tied to meanings an individual embraces as a role-holder and the different social positions that

a person holds (Stets & Burke, 2003). Therefore, the meaning and expectations associated with an engineering role

identity are contextualized to students' life stage, that is, students in postsecondary education instead of those in a pro-

fessional environment. When students reflect and respond to the statement “I see myself as an engineer,”they think

about the meanings, expectations, and practices that accompany their new social position as a student in an engi-

neering program. The social position of a student is intimately tied to the role (and expectations) of learning, acquiring

new skill sets, studying, passing courses, progressing toward degree completion, and being interested in the topics

they are learning. The expectations of a role are learned throughinteractionswithotherswithinthecommunityof

practice; through those interactions, students are afforded (or denied) recognition. Importantly, expectations of a

role can also be aspirational “goals or outcomes that one should achieve in a role”(Sets & Burke, 2000, p. 114). Spe-

cifically, authoring a role identity in the undergraduate engineering context, when considering the social position

of the individual, is a process that encompasses the expectations and meanings of (1) being interested in the con-

tent, (2) demonstrating competence through performative practices, (3) being externally recognized, and ultimately

(4) internalizing the recognition (Carlone & Johnson, 2007;Cribbsetal.,2015;Godwin,2016;Godwin&

Kirn, 2020; Hazari et al., 2010; Verdín, Godwin, & Ross, 2018). We acknowledge that this framing of engineering

role identity is distinctly separate from the lens that could be applied to the professional identity of an engineer.

1. Interest in the context plays a key role in framing identity and involves a personal desire for learning and under-

standing in each context (Hazari et al., 2010). Interest can be understood as a psychological state with affective and

cognitive factors focused on particular content and/or an “enduring predisposition to re-engage [with] particular

classes of objects, events, or ideas”(Renninger & Hidi, 2002, p. 174; also refer to Ainley et al., 2002; Hidi &

Renninger, 2006). Interest is often considered ubiquitous and may even be overlooked, yet it is a crucial expectation

associated with students' perceptions of themselves as engineers. Simply put, one cannot see him/herself as an engi-

neer if he or she has no interest in the role and the practices and meanings associated with it.

2. For engineering students, some practices and expectations are tied to demonstrating their competence. That is, stu-

dents are expected to acquire the patterns of behaviors and actions necessary to do engineering-related work—for

example, application of math, science, design process, and other technical concepts, to name a few—and perform

their competence in their coursework or internships. Carlone and Johnson (2007) initially theorized that students

are recognized as a certain kind of persons when they make visible their ability to perform well and understand the

course material in particular domains, thus signaling the important role performance abilities have in how (if at all)

students become recognized as engineers.

3. External recognition is both an external manifestation and an internal state required for identity development

(Burke & Stets, 2009; Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Gee, 2001; Potvin & Hazari, 2013). Stets and Burke's (2003) approach

to understanding role identity through a structural symbolic interactionist perspective asserts that “persons who act

in the context of social structures name one another in the sense of recognizing one another as occupants of posi-

tions [e.g., an instructor recognizing a student] and come to have expectations of those others”(p. 130). This concep-

tualization of role identity sits in tandem with identity in the education literature (e.g., Gee, 2001). Gee's (2001)

approach to understanding identity also emphasized the importance of individuals “acting and interacting in a given

context”and the interchange of “being recognized as a certain ‘kind of person’” based on one's performance (p. 99).

4. However, being externally recognized as an engineer is still an incomplete representation of students' percep-

tions of themselves (Gee, 2001). It is equally important that students internalize the recognition, as it also

shapes how they position themselves in the engineering community of practice (Godwin et al., 2016;Potvin&

Hazari, 2013). Thus, internalized recognition, for example, seeing oneself as an engineer, is necessary in devel-

oping an identity.

In isolation, these four elements are not enough to inform how engineering students come to define themselves as

engineers, but combined, they form a process that helps students to internalize the role identity of an engineer.

3.2 |Funds of knowledge in higher education

The funds of knowledge framework acknowledges the rich experiences, resources, and bodies of knowledge economi-

cally disadvantaged families possess as a result of their daily activities (Gonz

alez et al., 2005; Marquez Kiyama & Rios-

386 VERDÍN ET AL.

Aguilar, 2017; Moll et al., 1992). Framing students' lived experiences as rich with funds of knowledge rejects the notion

that students' households can be reduced to being economically poor and poor in terms of quality of experiences (Moll

et al., 1992). The framework emphasizes the importance of a family's knowledge, social networks, and resourcefulness

as sources of learning for students (Gonz

alez et al., 2005). Mejia and Wilson-Lopez (2016) captured how Latinx adoles-

cents leveraged their engineering-related funds of knowledge to create a solution for a design project or problems faced

in their everyday lives.

The original conceptualization of the funds of knowledge framework focused too heavily on the perspectives and

practices of adults in students' lives. However, Oughton (2010) acknowledged a shift in how we think about funds of

knowledge, drawing attention to viewing cultural and cognitive resources as not only “possessed by households or com-

munities to those possessed by individuals”(p. 67, original emphasis). Within higher education, scholars also pushed for

greater acknowledgment that adult students have their own accumulated funds of knowledge, distinct from those of

their families of origin (Marquez Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, 2017). Early critiques of the funds of knowledge framework

included using a single methodological approach (e.g., ethnography) and its focus on K–12 students only, with an over-

emphasis on merely recognizing that students have funds of knowledge (Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011). There have been

concerted efforts toward moving beyond simply recognizing that students have funds of knowledge toward a conversa-

tion about how their bodies of knowledge are converted into forms of capital (Marquez Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, 2017;

Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011). Shifting the focus to understanding how students convert their funds of knowledge into cap-

ital aims to disrupt the deficit discourse found in the cultural capital theory and “challenges power structures that

reproduce educational inequalities”(Marquez Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, 2017, p. 35). This perspective calls attention to

the relationships of power within which engineering students live, including the curriculum, classroom settings, and

engineering culture.

Funds of knowledge and cultural capital can be transmitted between generations, accumulated, and converted

(Kiyama, 2010; Oughton, 2010). Both are characterized by “sets of gradually acquired and long-lasting dispositions […]

manifested in skills, know-hows, and competencies”(Oughton, 2010, p. 69). The work of engineering studies scholars

has emphasized how cultural and social capital has played a significant role in the organization, legitimation, dis-

semination, and use of engineering knowledge around the world since the creation of engineering schools

(Downey & Lucena, 2005; Layton, 1986;Lucena,2007;Lucena,2009). Thus, a funds of knowledge approach presses

against dominant hegemonic notions of social and cultural capital by asserting working class families' social and

cultural capital. Recognizing how first-generation college students' funds of knowledge can be converted into

forms of capital to support their engineeringroleidentitydevelopmentisapremise for positioning their lived expe-

riences as equally valuable knowledge in engineering. Positioning first-generation college students' lived experi-

ences as valuable knowledge in engineering is therefore necessary to convert funds of knowledge into capital. Our

research expands on this scholarship by investigating the link between students' funds of knowledge and the devel-

opment of an engineering role identity.

4|METHODS

Data for this study came from students enrolled in nine different four-year ABET-accredited institutions in the

United States West, South, and Mountain regions in the fall semester of 2018. We used purposeful and snowball sam-

pling to collect our data. We leveraged our social networks and deliberately sought out institutions that could increase

our sample of first-generation college students. Five participating institutions had engineering student support pro-

grams that supported racially/ethnically minoritized, low-income, and first-generation college students; these were

Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI). The other institutions were selected because of their geographic diversity, particu-

larly targeting rural regions.

This study focused exclusively on students who indicated that their parents' level of education was either “less than

a high school diploma,”“high school diploma/GED,”or “some college or associate/trade degree.”The sample of stu-

dents who indicated their parents had less than a bachelor's degree (i.e., first-generation college students) comprised

n=378. Those who reported having at least one parent who completed a “bachelor's degree”or “master's degree or

higher”were removed from the analysis. The distribution of first-generation college students who responded to our

survey ranged from 125 (15%) first year, 157 (19%) second year, 205 (25%) third year, and 332 (41%) fourth year or

higher. Additional demographic information of the sample is shown in Table 1. No student selected a gender different

from female or male, even though multiple options were presented.

VERDÍN ET AL.387

All analyses were conducted using R software (R Core Team, 2021). Data used in this study are cross-sectional.

4.1 |Survey measures

4.1.1 | Engineering role identity

Prior work has established strong and valid evidence for the engineering role identity measures used in this analysis,

that is, interest, performance/competence, and external/internal recognition (Godwin, 2016; Verdín et al., 2019).

Internal consistency measured using Cronbach's alpha for the engineering role identity latent constructs was between

.78 and .88, which is considered within the acceptable range (Cronbach, 1951). Students were evaluated on their level

of agreement using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree)to6(strongly agree).

4.1.2 | Funds of knowledge

The seven funds of knowledge constructs used in this study were created using ethnographic data of first-generation

college students. Validity evidence was obtained using a sample with a high representation of such students (i.e., 46%;

Verdín et al., 2021). Table 2describes each fund-of-knowledge construct, with the understanding that these constructs

are not an exhaustive representation of students' various funds of knowledge but a categorization of major themes

salient to a group of first-generation college students. For the survey items associated with the network from family, col-

lege friends, and coworkers/mentors, students were asked to indicate to what extent the statements were true using a

7-point anchored numeric Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all true)to6(very true). Students were asked to rate their

TABLE 1 Demographics of the first-generation college student sample.

Overall Women Men

Total number of students 378 151 227

Race/ethnicity

Asian 79 43 36

Black or African American 17 9 8

Latinx or Hispanic 181 64 117

Middle Eastern or Native African 19 4 15

Native American or Alaska Native 3 1 2

Native Hawaiian or another Pacific Islander 6 3 3

White 108 41 67

Another race/ethnicity not listed above 1 1 0

Pell Grant recipients

Yes 247 93 154

No 114 50 62

Not disclosed 17 6 11

Transfer students 111 45 66

Has or has held a job(s)

Yes, paid 338 123 202

Yes, unpaid 9 2 7

No 31 13 18

Students were allowed to select multiple choices for race/ethnicity. We acknowledge that some scholars treat race and ethnicity as separate categories; here we

group them to draw attention to the racialized experiences faced by members of certain ethnic groups.

Pell Grants are awarded to students who demonstrate exceptional financial need; financial need is determined upon completion of a Free Application for

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

388 VERDÍN ET AL.

level of agreement using a 7-point anchored numeric Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree)to6(strongly agree)

for items associated with connecting experiences and tinkering knowledge from home. Students were prompted with

the question “How accurately do the following describe you?”for items associated with perspective-taking and media-

tional skills. They responded using a 7-point anchored numeric Likert scale ranging from 0 (very inaccurately)to6(very

accurately). All Cronbach's alpha values were within acceptable ranges between .80 and .88.

4.2 |Data analysis

Our data analysis comprised of four steps: (1) examining the assumptions of univariate and multivariate normality;

(2) examining the measurement model using a confirmatory factor analysis; (3) testing all possible regression paths

(i.e., relationships); and (4) examining measurement invariance to determine equality of men and women engineering

students. The confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation model were conducted using the lavaan package for

R software (Rosseel, 2012).

5|OVERALL MODEL QUALITY

5.1 |Assumptions of normality

The analytical method requires that we examine assumptions of univariate and multivariate normality. Skewness and

kurtosis were examined, and measures were within acceptable ranges; that is, skewness did not exceed ±2 and kurtosis

did not exceed ±7 (Curran et al., 1996); exact values can be found in Appendix A. Multivariate normality using Mardia's

test showed that our data was not multivariate-normal (multivariate skewness value =141.34, p< .001; kurtosis

value =986.58, p< .001). However, Micceri's (1989) work evaluating real-world psychometric distributions found that

non-normality is common. Given the outcome of the multivariate normality test, we conducted a Satorra–Bentler

(SBχ

) mean-adjusted test statistic to account for non-normality in the distribution (Satorra & Bentler, 2010). Addition-

ally, a robust maximum likelihood estimator was used to correct the model Chi-square and the standard errors of the

parameter estimates for deviations from a normal distribution (Brown, 2015; Satorra & Bentler, 2001).

5.2 |Measurement model

The measurement model's SB-adjusted Chi-square test for goodness of fit was SBχ

=852.37, df =505, p<.001. It is

common for measurement models to output a significant SBχ

goodness of fit, as Chi-square tests tend to be sensitive to

large sample sizes (Lomax & Schumacker, 2004). The fit indices for the final model suggest an overall good model fit

TABLE 2 Funds of knowledge constructs in this study (Verdín et al., 2021).

Funds of knowledge Definition

Tinkering knowledge from home Tinkering knowledge from home relates to activities (i.e., repairing, assembling, or building) that

students have engaged with in their home environment

Perspective-taking Having the capacity to examine a situation or another person's experience

Mediational skills Students' ability to help others to sort things out in unfamiliar situations or circumstances

Network from family members Family members provided advice, resources (i.e., material or non-material), and/or support to aid

in their engineering coursework

Network from college friends Friends made while in college provided advice, resources (i.e., material or non-material), and/or

support to aid in their engineering coursework

Network from coworkers/mentors Coworkers/mentors provided advice, resources (i.e., material or non-material), and/or support to

aid in their engineering coursework

Connecting experiences Students' ability to draw from hobbies or home environment activities to scaffold what they are

currently learning in engineering

VERDÍN ET AL.389

with CFI =0.95, TLI =0.94, RMSEA =0.040 with a 90% confidence interval of 0.036–0.045, and an SRMR =0.048. The

comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) are within the recommended range of 0.90–0.95

(Brown, 2015; Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2016). Scholars recommend a root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) value of less than 0.05, with the upper confidence interval not exceeding 0.080 (Brown, 2015;Hu&

Bentler, 1999; Maccallum et al., 1996; West et al., 2012). Brown (2015) adds that additional support to a good model fit

solution is evidenced in the upper limit of a 90% confidence interval that does not exceed 0.08 cutoff value. An SRMR

value no greater than 0.80 indicates a reasonable model fit (Brown, 2015; Hu & Bentler, 1999); our SRMR value is well

below the reasonable fit metric. These fit indices are used to assess how well the model adequately explains the relation-

ships between the variables under study. Because all the fit indices are within acceptable ranges, we conclude that our

model is a good fit to the data.

In addition, the following model parameters and factor reliability values were evaluated and found to be within acceptable

ranges: factor loadings, indicator reliability, variance, and construct reliability. All standardized factor loadings were well above

0.45, as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013). Indicator reliability, evaluated by individually squaring the standard-

ized factor loadings, were above 0.50, demonstrating that each item measured above 50% of the true-score variance

(Brown, 2015). The amount of variance captured by each latent construct was greater in relation to the amount of variance due

to measurement error, that is, the variance was above .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The construct reliability, evaluated using

Cronbach's alpha, was between .80 and .89, which is above the recommended alpha value of .70 and indicating good construct

reliability (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Table 3summarizes the model parameter estimates and factor reliability estimates.

Overall, these model parameters and factor reliability values provide evidence for validity of the constructs.

5.3 |Structural model fit

This study is the first to model the relationships between funds of knowledge and engineering identity; therefore, we

cannot solely rely on the literature to help guide the model. We took an exploratory approach to testing regression

paths. All possible paths were tested, and their p-values were evaluated. Relationships with high p-values were removed

one at a time. This process was iterative, and we stopped when all regression paths had a p-value of ≤.05, leading us to

the most parsimonious model.

The final structural model fit had an SBχ

(test for goodness of fit) =6651.87, df =630, and p< .001. The fit indices

were CFI =0.95, TLI =0.94, RMSEA =0.044 with a 90% confidence interval of 0.038–0.049, and an SRMR =0.051.

Overall, the fit indices suggest good overall model fit (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2016). The final model is shown in

Figure 1, with all non-significant paths removed, as a simpler model is preferred (Kline, 2016). A summary of the non-

significant paths that were tested and later removed can be found in Appendix B.

5.4 |Measurement invariance

After establishing an acceptable model fit, a measurement invariance test was conducted to determine whether women

and men similarly conceptualized the constructs of engineering role identity and the seven funds of knowledge constructs.

Table 4summarizes the three levels of measurement invariance we tested: configural (Model 1), metric (Model 2), scalar

(Model 3), and strict invariance (Model 4) using a Chi-square difference test. Model 1 examines whether the number of

factors and factor patterns are identical across women and men. Model 2 examines whether women and men attributed

similar meanings across each latent construct. Model 3 examines how students use the survey Likert scale, specifically

investigating whether “one group systematically [gave] higher or lower responses than another group”(Cheung &

Rensvold, 2000, p. 190). Lastly, Model 4 examines whether the measures reflect true differences rather than random error.

A more comprehensive discussion of measurement invariance can be found in Brown (2015), Kline (2016), and Sass and

Schmitt (2013). Because the model is equivalent across women and men, the discussion of our results should be focused

on the broader group of first-generation college students rather than distinguished by gender.

6|RESULTS

This study builds on prior research by investigating how first-generation college students' funds of knowledge may

inform the process of developing an engineering role identity. These funds of knowledge are a collection of

390 VERDÍN ET AL.

TABLE 3 Summary of measurement model estimates and factor reliabilities.

Latent

constructs Observed variables

Std. factor

loadings SE

Item

reliability

Cronbach's

alpha AVE

Interest .89 .74

1. I am interested in learning more about engineering 0.83 0.05 .69

2. I enjoy learning engineering 0.90 0.05 .81

3. I find fulfillment in doing engineering 0.84 0.05 .71

Recognition .77 .56

4. My instructors see me as an engineer 0.83 0.06 .69

5. My peers see me as an engineer 0.82 0.06 .67

6. My parents see me as an engineer 0.56 0.07 .31

Performance/

competence

beliefs

.88 .65

7. I am confident that I can understand engineering in class 0.90 0.06 .81

8. I am confident that I can understand engineering outside

of class

0.83 0.06 .69

9. I can do well on exams in engineering 0.65 0.08 .42

10. I understand concepts I have studied in engineering 0.79 0.05 .62

Connecting

experiences

.80 .50

11. I see connections between my hobbies and what I am

learning in my engineering coursework

0.67 0.07 .45

12. I see connections between my experiences at home and

what I am learning in my engineering courses

0.64 0.08 .41

13. I draw on my previous experiences from my hobbies

when little instruction is given on how to solve an

engineering task

0.78 0.07 .61

14. I draw on my previous experiences at home when little

instruction is given on how to solve an engineering task

0.71 0.09 .50

Perspective-

taking

.82 .61

15. I am open to listen to the point of view of others 0.82 0.06 .67

16. I consider other people's point of view in discussions 0.86 0.05 .74

17. I like to view both sides of an issue 0.67 0.06 .49

Mediational skills .85 .67

18. I help someone else adjust to unfamiliar social situation 0.76 0.07 .58

19. I help different groups of people understand each other

better

0.86 0.07 .74

20. I bring people together in the same space who usually

would not spend time with each other

0.81 0.07 .66

Tinkering

knowledge—

Home

.87 .70

21. At home, I learned to use tools to build things 0.86 0.07 .74

22. At home, I worked with machines and appliances

(considered broadly, e.g., gym equipment, sewing

machines, lawn mower, bikes, etc.)

0.81 0.08 .66

23. At home, I learned to assemble and disassemble things 0.84 0.07 .71

Community

network—

Family

members

.84 .60

24. Family member(s) have given me advice that helped me

with my engineering coursework

0.86 0.09 .74

25. Family member(s) have given me resources that helped

me with my engineering coursework

0.84 0.09 .71

(Continues)

VERDÍN ET AL.391

interpersonal skills (i.e., perspective-taking and mediational skills), practices and skillsets acquired from home

(i.e., tinkering knowledge from home and connecting experiences), and the strategic use of community resources from

family members, coworkers/mentors, and college friends. Findings from our model point to seven funds of knowledge

that help inform first-generation college students' engineering role identity development.

6.1 |Engineering role identity development process

The engineering role identity development process has been previously modeled with a sample of White, male engi-

neering students (Godwin & Kirn, 2020), and the same framework was used with first-generation college students in

engineering programs (Boone & Kirn, 2016; Verdín et al., 2019). The findings presented in this section corroborate the

relationships observed in prior work with first-generation college students, albeit with a sample of predominantly

Latinx students, specifically confirming that interest in engineering and external recognition are directly related to

these students' views of themselves as engineers (“I see myself as an engineer”;β=0.46, p< .001 and β=0.41, p< .001,

respectively). No direct relationship was found between first-generation college students' performance/competence

beliefs and their views of themselves as engineers, thus supporting prior work. Instead, students' beliefs about their per-

formance/competence indirectly supported their engineering role identity via interest and recognition (β=0.64,

p< .001 and β=0.51, p< .001, respectively). That is, beliefs about one's performance abilities were not enough to foster

their engineering role identity development: students must attach meaning to their engagement by being interested in

the subject area and have their bids for recognition externally validated.

6.2 |Funds of knowledge that support students' views of themselves as engineers

We found only one fund of knowledge that had a direct and positive relationship to first-generation college

students' perceptions of themselves as engineers: network from family members (β=0.11, p<.05).

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Latent

constructs Observed variables

Std. factor

loadings SE

Item

reliability

Cronbach's

alpha AVE

26. Family member(s) have given me emotional support

that helped me continue my engineering coursework

0.53 0.09 .28

Community

network—

School friends

.80 .58

27. Friend(s) in my current school have given me advice

that helped me in my engineering coursework (e.g.,

design projects, homework, exams, presentations)

0.81 0.08 .66

28. Friend(s) in my current school have given me resources

that helped me in my engineering coursework

0.79 0.08 .62

29. Friends(s) in my current school have given me

emotional support that helped me continue my

engineering coursework.

0.68 0.10 .46

Community

network—

Coworkers

.88 .73

30. Coworker(s) or mentors have given me advice that

helped me with my engineering coursework

0.94 0.08 .88

31. Coworker(s) or mentors have given me resources that

helped me with my engineering coursework

0.91 0.07 .83

32. Coworker(s) or mentors have given me emotional

support that helped me continue my engineering

coursework.

0.70 0.09 .49

Note: All standardized factor loadings are significant at p< .001 and within acceptable range; acceptable values of item reliab ility >.50, Cronbach's alpha >.70,

and average variance ext racted (AVE) >.50.

392 VERDÍN ET AL.

Conversely, the resources and advice students receive from individuals whom they consider mentors or

coworkers had a negative relationship toward students' perceptions of themselves as engineers

(β=0.15, p< .001).

FIGURE 1 Summary of the relationship between first-generation college students' funds of knowledge and engineering identity

development. Only significant paths were retained in the model. Estimates appear in standardized form.

TABLE 4 Summary of measurement invariance of latent constructs used in the model.

Measurement

invariance models Model comp. χ

2SB

(df ) CFI

RMSEA

(90% CI) Δχ

2SB

(Δdf )p

Freely

estimated

parameters Decision

Model 1: Configural invariance –1698.3 (1040) .94 .05 (0.04–0.05) ––––

Model 2: Metric

invariance (loadings)

1 versus 2 1737.2 (1063) .94 .05 (0.04–0.05) 271.83 (23) 1 –Accept

Model 3: Scalar invariance

(loadings +intercepts)

2 versus 3 1763.7 (1087) .94 .05 (0.04–0.05) 26.48 (24) .330 –Accept

Model 4: Strict invariance

(loadings +intercepts +

residuals)

3 versus 4 1890.4 (1136) .94 .05 (0.04–0.05) 65.29 (45) .060 –Accept

Note: CFI recommended range is .90–.95; RMSEA value of ≤.05 with the upper confidence interval not exceeding .080; chi-square change (Δχ

2SB

)p-value

should be greater than .05.

VERDÍN ET AL.393

6.3 |Funds of knowledge that support performance/competence beliefs

Our findings point to three funds of knowledge that help build on students' existing beliefs about their performance/

competence abilities. Specifically, first-generation college students' interpersonal skill of perspective-taking was found

to support performance/competence beliefs (β=0.12, p< .05). Tinkering knowledge from home also positively

supported first-generation college students' performance/competence beliefs (β=0.15, p< .05). Our model also suggests

that when first-generation college students capitalize on the knowledge attained from their home or hobby activities to

support their learning (our construct of connecting experiences), this promotes positive beliefs about their performance

capabilities (β=0.36, p< .001). Moreover, connecting one's experiences from home or hobbies to one's engineering

learning (i.e., connecting experiences) was twice as important to students' performance/competence beliefs compared

to the other funds of knowledge.

6.4 |Funds of knowledge that support students' engineering interest

We found three funds of knowledge that had a positive influence on first-generation college students' engineering

interest: tinkering knowledge from home (β=0.14, p< .05), perspective-taking (β=0.13, p< .05), and accessing

coworkers/mentors networks (β=0.10, p< .05). However, one fund of knowledge had a negative influence on interest:

accessing family networks (β=0.18, p< .01). The negative relationship suggests that the more the students' family

network provides resources and advice to help them with their engineering coursework, the less interested they

become in engineering—even though this same fund of knowledge supported an internalized recognition as an engi-

neer, as discussed above. There was, however, a significant positive correlation between networks from family members

and tinkering knowledge from home, which is a fund of knowledge that supports their performance/competence

beliefs. Thus, family networks seem to positively influence first-generation college students' identity development,

albeit through different routes.

6.5 |Funds of knowledge that support students' external recognition

First-generation college students' bids for recognition can be realized through the application of their mediational skills

(β=0.13, p< .05). The advice, resources, and even emotional support college friends provide to first-generation college

students to help them progress through their engineering coursework also afforded them positive recognition as engi-

neers (β=0.20, p< .000). Lastly, students' ability to see connections between their home experiences and capitalize on

these experiences to scaffold their learning not only supports how they perceive their performance abilities but also

affords them positive recognition as engineers by their instructors, peers, and parents (β=0.16, p< .000).

7|LIMITATIONS

This study has some limitations. Our data were collected at only one point in time. Therefore, we cannot determine

how first-generation college students' funds of knowledge continue to evolve through work-related experiences or at-

home experiences. Our funds-of-knowledge survey scale captured a limited number of bodies of knowledge that one

group of participants accumulated throughout their lives. We acknowledge that there is an array of knowledge that could

help explain engineering identity development and persistence that could not be modeled with our survey scale. Expan-

ding our current instrument would be a fertile area for future research. Identities are dynamic, malleable, and constantly

being (re)shaped through experiences. Our study captured past experiences that support identity development, but a longi-

tudinal qualitative study would be ideal to shed light on how students continued to use their funds of knowledge to shape

their identities as engineers. Lastly, there is skepticism about using single-item measures (e.g., “I see myself as an engi-

neer”). This is due to the limitations surrounding single-item measures, including the inability to compute an internal reli-

ability score, susceptibility to unrecognized interpretation biases, and potential exposure to measurement errors

(Hoeppner et al., 2011). Yet, despite these acknowledged shortcomings, a number of studies employing diverse survey

scales have shown that single-item measures can yield satisfactory or comparable results as compared with multi-item

measures (refer to Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007; Drolet & Morrison, 2001; Gardner et al., 1998;Hoeppneretal.,2011).

394 VERDÍN ET AL.

8|DISCUSSION

8.1 |Engineering role identity: Evaluating the importance of interest and recognition

Our findings confirm the importance of fostering first-generation college students' interest in engineering and vali-

dating their bids for recognition, as these equally influence their identity formation. A unique finding from our model

is that external recognition and interest have a comparable impact on first-generation college students' engineering role

identity (i.e., “I see myself as an engineer”) when comparing the β-values. Our present finding contrasts with those of

prior work, suggesting that receiving external recognition is the most influential source for engineering identity develop-

ment (e.g., Godwin & Kirn, 2020). Many previous studies that used this framing of identity in a science, math, and engi-

neering context (e.g., Cribbs et al., 2015;Godwinetal.,2016; Godwin & Kirn, 2020) were based on samples that over-

represented White males. Similarly, in a study of first-generation college students that over-represented White males,

Verdín and Godwin (2019) also found that recognition had the highest influence on their engineering role identity. These

prior studies suggest that recognition may play a key role in bolstering engineering role identity because White males'

bids for recognition might be more easily validated and conferred. The present study included more participants whose

experiences in higher education and the broader society have been racialized, that is, Latinx students (refer to Yosso &

Sol

orzano, 2005). Taken together, this body of research underscores that the process of being recognized as an engineer is

racialized. This conclusion was also arrived at over a decade ago by Carlone and Johnson: “[B]lack and American Indian

women in this study reported experiences where their recognition as science people w[ere] disrupted also suggests that

processes of recognition within science institutions may be more shaped by race and ethnicity than we would like to

admit”(Carlone & Johnson, 2007, p. 1207). Considering that students are embedded in an engineering community of

practice, they enact roles they believe will support their membership within that community of practice, but unfortu-

nately, that can conflict with how they want to exist as aspiring engineers. The process of receiving recognition can repro-

duce historical and prototypical depictions of engineers. Unless fundamental change occurs that redefines what it means

to be an engineer, recognition will be more readily conferred on to those whose lived experiences, ways of talking,

looking, and acting align with the discipline. Therefore, it is vital to understand how to validate Latinx, first-generation

college students' bids for recognition equitably. This study points to three funds of knowledge that can validate students'

bids for recognition: mediational skills, connecting experiences, and networks from college friends.

Our study also points to the salience of interest in developing an engineering role identity. Interest has received less

attention than external recognition and performance/competence beliefs, perhaps due to its absence in Carlone and

Johnson's (2007) original identity model and Gee's (2001) focus on recognition. While Carlone and Johnson (2007)

stated, “developing a satisfactory science identity hinges not only upon having competence and interest in science”

(p. 1197), their focus seemed to be more on how women's bids for recognition were validated or disrupted. By focusing

on the influential role that others play in students' identity development through recognition, the authors downplayed

the powerful influence interest had on identity development. In their discussion, however, they did acknowledge how

interest had a pervasive undertone among the participants, stating, “the women in this study did not need any support

for their interest in science; on the contrary, in some cases, they steadfastly maintained that interest despite the discour-

agement they received”(p. 1209). Our goal is not to criticize Carlone and Johnson's (2007) identity model but to under-

line the importance of interest. Although interest may be thought of as a ubiquitous component of an individual's

pursuit of an engineering degree, Verdín's (2021a,2021b) study found that minoritized women's interest in engineering

was the strongest predictor of their persistence beliefs, which parallels with Patrick et al.'s (2018) findings.

8.2 |Tinkering knowledge from home

Tinkering knowledge from home relates to activities (i.e., repairing, assembling, or building) that students have

engaged with at home, making it a practical fund of knowledge borne out of the family's need to be resourceful amidst

economic necessity (Verdín et al., 2021). The present study shows that this fund of knowledge supports the engineering

identity development process. Specifically, students' home tinkering knowledge supported their interest in

engineering and perception of their abilities to perform well and understand engineering course material. This finding

builds on our previous research, which demonstrated that this fund of knowledge directly supported first-generation

college students' certainty of graduating (Verdin et al., 2020). Our previous study also found that tinkering knowledge

supported their beliefs about doing well in engineering coursework, which in turn helped their certainty of majoring in

VERDÍN ET AL.395

engineering (Verdin et al., 2020). We suspect that tinkering knowledge may be especially powerful for first-generation

college students because it is a fund of knowledge that is increasingly validated externally by many engineering disci-

plines, from the public celebration of “tinkerers”such as Thomas Edison and Steve Jobs to the makerspace movement.

We note, however, that this relationship is not straightforward, as the scientization of U.S. engineering education

devalued manual labor (Smith Rolston & Cox, 2015), and some makerspaces were found to reinforce the privileges of

White, male, able-bodied, and economically privileged students (Foster, 2017; Ottemo et al., 2023; Schauer et al., 2023;

Stark Masters, 2018). Engineering educators must critically reflect on how a scientized curriculum and the accreditation

criteria that legitimize it are biased against a particular form of tinkering. Even though the practice of tinkering is rec-

ognized as highly important for innovation in engineering (Baker & Krause, 2007; Bettiol et al., 2014), it is important to

create spaces that celebrate first-generation college students' tinkering knowledge and abilities in engineering courses

without reinforcing stereotypes.

8.3 |Interpersonal skills of perspective-taking and mediational skills

While the original funds of knowledge framework emphasized practical knowledge (e.g., tinkering abilities), our

research emphasizes the significance of interpersonal skills. Our prior work identified perspective-taking and media-

tional skills as important funds of knowledge that first-generation college students capitalized on in their engineering

internships (Verdín et al., 2021). Perspective-taking is the capacity to examine a situation from another person's experi-

ence, and mediational skills are understood as students' ability to help others sort things out in unfamiliar situations or

circumstances. While these funds of knowledge seem similar in how they help individuals manage social relationships,

their influence on first-generation college students' identity development differs. Perspective-taking supported first-

generation college students' performance/competence beliefs and interest in engineering, while their mediational abili-

ties supported only their bids for recognition.

Having a dispositional outlook of perspective-taking adds to an engineer's problem-scoping capability by allowing

students to think critically and incorporate perspectives often ignored or left invisible in the decision-making process

(Hess et al., 2017; Leydens & Lucena, 2017). The perspective-taking fund of knowledge is also linked to empathic prac-

tices, and empathy is an attribute engineers should emulate in their practice (Hess et al., 2016; Park & Raile, 2010;

Parker & Axtell, 2001; Strobel et al., 2013). Additionally, the leadership and management literature confirms the impor-

tance of perspective-taking, noting that this capacity is essential for effective leadership, as it supports solving problems

and implementing change through perspectives different from one's own (Northouse, 2016). Studies have also found

emotionally intelligent leaders possess and utilize the interpersonal skill of perspective-taking to cultivate cooperative

behaviors (Parker & Axtell, 2001), enhance team communication (Park & Raile, 2010), and amplify creativity when

working in teams (Hoever et al., 2012). Even though perspective-taking is an applicable skill in teamwork and in the

engineering design process, our study did not identify a link between perspective-taking and receiving external recogni-

tion. We suspect this is because technocentric dominant images of engineering devalue “social”skills. This is a missed

opportunity, and we urge engineering educators to validate first-generation college students' perspective-taking fund of

knowledge in their classroom, as this is an essential trait in engineering design and project management.

First-generation college students' ability to help others sort things out in unfamiliar situations (i.e., mediational

skills) is another important fund of knowledge that can also be applied in problem-solving. Scholarship has identified

mediational skills as having underlying components of active listening, summarizing and reframing problems, managing

conflict, and building positive rapport (Boulle et al., 2008;Doherty&Guyler,2008). Mediation has also been identified as

a necessary workplace skill for managers and team leaders that can enhance workplace well-being, cooperation, and pro-

ductivity (Doherty & Guyler, 2008). Engineers need to be able to work effectively in teams, and part of working in an

effective team is having team members capable of managing conflict within and across teams (i.e., engineers and techni-

cians). Exercising one's mediational skills prompts others to view this skill as an engineering and leadership attribute

that—we believe and the data show—validated first-generation college students' bids for recognition.

8.4 |Accessing networks for advice, resources, and emotional support

Community networks play an integral role in the accumulation of funds of knowledge. Originally, the funds-

of-knowledge framework demonstrated that economically marginalized families facing scarcity created social networks

396 VERDÍN ET AL.

to facilitate the exchange of resources, information, and skills to support their homes. The framework has since

expanded to acknowledge that students create networks as young adults participating in society and obtaining a higher

education, among other activities (Marquez Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, 2017). Adult students experiencing some form of

“scarcity”of their own also create social networks to exchange resources, information, or skillsets to support their

career paths. Our study highlights three social networks first-generation college students created to support their engi-

neering learning: family members, college friends, and coworkers/mentors.

We confirmed that college friends are a resource that first-generation college students draw upon to support them

in their engineering coursework. Another paper, focused on one Latina first-generation college student, found that for-

ming study groups with classroom peers created an emotionally supportive “safe space”and validated her learning

capabilities (Verdín, 2021a). Martin et al.'s (2020) research on first-generation college students also found that college

peers were the first source they tapped into for academic support. Other studies have similarly affirmed the vital role

college friends have in supporting engineering students' navigation and persistence (Denton & Borrego, 2021; Martin

et al., 2020; Simmons & Martin, 2014). In our study, networks of college friends provided first-generation college stu-

dents with the necessary advice, resources, and emotional support to help them through difficult engineering course

material. Moreover, accessing this network of peers validated first-generation college students' bids for external recogni-

tion. Since peers can influence one's perception of how engineers should behave, when external recognition by peers is

not conferred to a student, it may lead them to feel that who they are as engineers is incongruent with who engineers

should be. Furthermore, if the role performance expected in the classroom environment is incongruent with first-

generation college students' perceptions of themselves, this may undermine their views of themselves as engineers.

First-generation college students must feel as if their bids for recognition are validated by their peers so the exchange of

advice, resources, and support can positively influence their identity formation.

Studies have confirmed that family members influence students' choice to pursue engineering (Cruz &

Kellam, 2018; Dorie et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2021). Martin et al. (2014) have confirmed that first-generation college stu-

dents access resources similar to those of their continuing-generation college student peers, dispelling a common

misconception that they lack resources or social capital in engineering. First-generation college students' families have

been found to provide broad encouragement, motivating them to work hard and obtain a promising career (Martin

et al., 2020). Our findings extend those reported in Martin and colleagues' work by underscoring how family members

reinforce first-generation college students' learning through advice, resources, and emotional support and, in turn, how

these efforts support the development of an engineering identity. Even though, by definition, first-generation college

students would not have parents with 4-year engineering degrees, it is crucial to note that the capital provided by

family members was the only fund of knowledge that had a direct and positive impact on how they saw themselves as

engineers. Thus, first-generation college students do come from families that are supportive of their engineering career

pathway, a narrative that has been long overshadowed by the deficit views of their families (e.g., Engle, 2007; Ives &

Castillo-Montoya, 2020; Raque-Bogdan & Lucas, 2016; Stephens et al., 2012).

Accessing networks of coworkers and mentors had a negative direct relationship with engineering identity but did

support interest in engineering. We suspect this may be because coworkers and mentors represent sources of authority

and legitimacy in engineering workplaces that are in tension with students' current engineering role identity. If these

networks espouse more traditional definitions of who engineers are and what they do, this could preclude first-generation

college students' self-identification as engineers. Hence mentors, especially faculty and coworkers, should reflect on how

their advice could reinforce traditional stereotypes of an engineer. Instead, through proper mentoring, faculty and

coworkers could help highlight the contributions that engineers who were the first in their families to attend college have

made to engineering and society in general, first, as technicians where these demographics are more welcomed

(e.g., Noble, 2017), and, second, by understanding the structural constraints that historically had been put in place to keep

these demographic groups away from engineering (Smith Rolston & Cox, 2015; Slaton, 2010;Zussman,1985).

8.5 |Capitalizing on funds of knowledge: Connecting experiences

The construct connecting experiences sought to capture the shift from simply recognizing students' funds of knowledge

to acknowledging its application in engineering coursework. It was initially developed as a higher order representation

of students' funds of knowledge rather than a specific form of knowledge, such as tinkering knowledge from home.

Results from this study show that the fund of knowledge of connecting experiences supported students' performance/

competence beliefs and their external recognition as engineers. This relationship underscores the potential power of

VERDÍN ET AL.397

transforming funds of knowledge into forms of capital that can support positive student outcomes (Rios-Aguilar

et al., 2011). The acquisition of engineering skills and students' confidence in understanding course material should not

be limited to traditional classroom settings. Students' lived experiences, home, and work environments should be lever-

aged to help bridge engineering ways of knowing and doing. When first-generation college students can connect and

capitalize on their home experiences to scaffold their learning, that connection and capitalization can increase their

confidence in performing well in their engineering coursework and support their bids for recognition. Students have

also been enculturated into believing that there is only one way of knowing and doing engineering. How a profession

bounds its epistemologies has implications for how students come to see themselves in relation to that profession.

Scholars have well documented that the field of engineering has shifted toward a narrow focus on scientific and analyt-

ical knowledge obtained through academic means (as summarized in Kant & Kerr, 2019), thus neglecting the value of

practical knowledge gained through hands-on experiences or in a work setting. Yet, our study highlights the impor-

tance of recognizing the practical knowledge gained through hands-on experiences or personal experiences outside of

academia. Engineering ways of knowing and doing have undergone cultural shifts over the centuries (Kant &

Kerr, 2019), and the field of engineering is now in a position to shift its epistemology to include and validate the

everyday experiences, knowledge, and practices of students as valuable sources of learning. Helping to validate

everyday knowledge can be achieved by allowing students to adapt engineering problems to incorporate their own tin-

kering experiences at home or in their community (refer to Leydens & Lucena, 2017, and Mogul & Tomblin, 2019 for

examples).

9|PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our study adds to the growing evidence of the importance of developing an engineering role identity (Godwin &

Kirn, 2020; Jones et al., 2013; Patrick et al., 2018; Verdín, 2021b; Verdín & Godwin, 2021). Our results lead us to advo-

cate for first-generation college students' funds of knowledge to be mobilized by engineering educators for pedagogical

purposes. Leveraging students' lived experiences, accumulated through everyday practices, allows them to create conti-

nuity between their social position and learning engineering to help inform their identity development. Conversely,

failing to leverage first-generation college students' funds of knowledge in the classroom is a missed opportunity that

may hamper their development of an engineering role identity. Engineering educators should consider mechanisms to

reinforce student interest and beliefs in their performance capabilities, validate their bids for recognition through peda-

gogical choices, and, perhaps more importantly, connect the content of engineering courses to the funds of knowledge

that have the most impact on identity development. As we and others have argued, the development of an engineering

role identity occurs within students' social position and contextual constraints: communities of practice, structures,

and/or sociohistorical legacies with their own biases (Schwartz et al., 2011). It can be challenging to incorporate per-

sonal experiences into STEM education because of historical practices of teaching and learning, as highlighted by Civil

(2016). Engineering educators need to find ways to incorporate students' funds of knowledge into their classrooms to

support the development of students' identities in the field.

Efforts to help first-generation college students develop their identification as an engineer in the classroom have

been limited, except for Svihla et al.'s (2022) recent effort. There is evidence that these students apply their funds of

knowledge without the support of instructors (Smith & Lucena, 2016), and there are opportunities to celebrate and con-

nect students' funds of knowledge to their engineering studies at the edges of the engineering curriculum, such as

through makerspace clubs, design projects, and reflective writing in humanities and social science classes. However,

there is still much potential for engineering educators to encourage students to draw from their funds of knowledge in

the core of the engineering curriculum, such as basic math and science courses and engineering science courses, as

well as in programs designed to prepare students for these core courses, such as summer bridge camps, pre-engineering

programs at community colleges, and preparatory courses.

How can engineering educators explicitly begin to apply students' funds of knowledge in their classrooms to support

the mechanisms that promote identity development? We provide preliminary recommendations on leveraging first-

generation college students' funds of knowledge to enhance interest in engineering, strengthen performance/

competence beliefs, and support bids for recognition. For example, educators can provide opportunities to tap into stu-

dents' important perspective-taking funds of knowledge in course assignments by rewriting engineering problems to

include different perspectives of people they are interested in serving. Educators can also encourage knowledge

acquired from tinkering at home to inform the rewriting of engineering problems, including home-related activities

398 VERDÍN ET AL.

such as repairing, assembling, or building. Leydens and Lucena (2017) have shown how engineering problems can be

rewritten in many engineering science courses to include different perspectives of groups that engineers are interested

in serving. In addition, instructors and advisors can invite students to outline their funds of knowledge and see how

they map against well-established and validated career competencies, such as communication, teamwork, and critical

thinking, and how to incorporate these in resumés and interviews (National Association of Colleges and Employers,

2022). This strategy capitalizes first-generation college students' funds of knowledge into social and cultural capital

needed for career advancement.

Furthermore, educators can teach students to map their perspectives to help them find more rewarding opportunities to

connect with engineering, for example, through theses or capstone projects. When mapping their perspectives, educators can

invite first-generation college students to reflect on their funds of knowledge on their path to engineering school, the knowl-

edge required to define and solve problems, and their desires for engineering contributions to society. After this perspective-

mapping, rooted mainly in their funds of knowledge, first-generation college students will be more ready to scope, define,

and be involved in engineering projects that are meaningful to them and the people and problems they care about.

Lastly, to enhance engineering performance/competence beliefs and recognition, engineering educators could pro-

vide first-generation college students in-class opportunities to help identify lived experiences and capitalize on their rele-

vance in engineering problem-solving practices. Smith and Lucena (2016) showed, for example, how first-generation

college students used home experiences, such as helping their families do maintenance of rental properties or reuse/resell

garage sale items to make a living, to hone their problem-solving skills amid scarcity. If engineering educators can make

these connecting experiences visible and valued in how first-generation college students solve problems in the engineering

classroom, the students can contribute to their engineering performance/competence beliefs, recognition, and bolster

their interest. An important caveat is that women and men often have disparate experiences. More often, men's experi-

ences are seen as valuable ways of doing engineering (Faulkner, 2011; Powell et al., 2009; Tonso, 1999). Educators need to

be mindful of the gendered ways of being like an engineer that is more often celebrated in the classroom and find ways of

positioning fewer masculine experiences at the forefront of engineering. Through a shift from masculine experiences to

feminine experiences, women can have more opportunities to leverage their hobbies or home activities in the classroom,

promote confidence in their abilities, and ultimately support the development of an engineering role identity.

10 |CONCLUSION

Engineering educators should consider students' funds of knowledge and the connection between their lived experi-

ences and the content taught in class. Capitalizing on students' funds of knowledge to learn engineering content offers

a student-centered approach that supports engineering identity development. We investigated if and how first-

generation college students' funds of knowledge inform the development of an engineering role identity by examining

their relationship with three important facets: interest, performance/competence beliefs, and external/internal recogni-

tion. We found that first-generation college students' beliefs about performing well in their engineering coursework

could be explained through their tinkering knowledge abilities learned at home, perspective-taking capability, and rec-

ognizing and capitalizing on their home knowledge (i.e., connecting experiences). Their interest in engineering was fur-

ther validated by their experiences and learned skills through tinkering at home, perspective-taking, and the social

network built through coworkers or mentors. First-generation college students' bids for recognition were actualized

through the support offered by college friends, their mediational skills, and connecting their lived experiences. Of the

seven funds-of-knowledge constructs examined in this study, only one directly supported students' perceptions of them-

selves as engineers: their family network. Overall, this work helps lay the foundation for future work exploring relation-

ships between funds of knowledge and identity development among racial and ethnic groups, students from different

socioeconomic statuses, and transfer students.

ORCID

Dina Verdín https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6048-1104

REFERENCES

Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of

Educational Psychology,94(3), 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.3.545

VERDÍN ET AL.399

Baker, D., & Krause, S. (2007). Do tinkering and technical activities connect engineering education standards with the engineering profession in

today's world? Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Honolulu, HI. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–1546

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of

Marketing Research,44(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175

Bettiol, M., Di Maria, E., Vladi, F., & Micelli, S. (2014). The hidden side of innovation: Why tinkerers matter. Working Paper Series,8(April),

1–29. http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/druid/acc_papers/oqjttv7vuhk9bv60kdvyus7e25ln.pdf

Boone, H., & Kirn, A. (2016). First generation students identification with and feelings of belongingness in engineering. Paper presented at the

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26903

Boulle, L., Colatrella, M. T., & Picchioni, A. P. (2008). Mediation: Skills and techniques. LexisNexis.

Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 282–295.

https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<282::AID-TEA1006>3.0.CO;2-0

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford University Press.

Cahalan, M., Perna, L. W., Yamashita, M., Wright-Kim, J., & Jiang, N. (2019). Indicators of higher education equity in the United States. The

Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), and Alliance for Higher

Education and Democracy of the University of Pennsylvania (PennAHEAD).

Calvert, M. A. (1967). The mechanical engineer in America, 1830–1910: Professional cultures in conflict. Johns Hopkins Press.

Carlone, H., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experience of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching,44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equa-

tions modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,31(2), 187–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031002003

Civil, M. (2016). STEM learning research through a funds of knowledge lens. Cultural Studies of Science Education,11(1), 41–59. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s11422-014-9648-2

Claris, L., & Riley, D. (2012). Situation critical: Critical theory and critical thinking in engineering education. Engineering Studies,4(2),

101–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2011.649920

Cribbs, J. D., Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2015). Establishing an explanatory model for mathematics identity. Child Development,

86(4), 1048–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12363

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

Cruz, J., & Kellam, N. (2018). Beginning an engineer's journey: A narrative examination of how, when, and why students choose the engi-

neering major. Journal of Engineering Education,107(4), 556–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20234

Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor

analysis. Psychological Methods,1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16

Denton, M., & Borrego, M. (2021). Navigational capital of Latinx engineering transfer students: A qualitative study. Journal of Women and

Minorities in Science and Engineering,27(2), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2020035154

Doherty, N., & Guyler, M. (2008). The essential guide to workplace mediation & conflict resolution: Rebuilding working relationships. Kogan

Page Publishers.

Dorie, B. L., Jones, T. R., Pollock, M. C., & Cardella, M. E. (2014). Parents as critical influence: Insights from five studies (other). Paper pres-

ented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2—22901

Downey, G. L. (2015). Opening up engineering formation. Engineering Studies,7(2–3), 217–220.

Downey, G. L., & Lucena, J. C. (2005). National identities in multinational worlds: Engineers and engineering cultures. International Journal

of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning,15(3–6), 252–260.

Drolet, A. L., & Morrison, D. G. (2001). Do we really need multiple-item measures in service research? Journal of Service Research,3(3),

196–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050133001

Engle, J. (2007). Postsecondary access and success for first-generation college students. American Academic,3(1), 25–48.

Esteban-Guitart, M. (2021). Advancing the funds of identity theory: A critical and unfinished dialogue. Mind, Culture, and Activity,28(2),

169–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2021.1913751

Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. C. (2014). Funds of identity: A new concept based on the funds of knowledge approach. Culture and

Psychology,20(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X13515934

Faulkner, W. (2011). Gender (in)authenticity, belonging and identity work in engineering. Brussels Economic Review—Cahiers Economiques

De Bruxelles,54(2/3), 277–293.

Foor, C. E., Walden, S. E., & Trytten, D. A. (2007). “I wish that I belonged more in this whole engineering group”: Achieving individual

diversity. Journal of Engineering Education,96(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00921.x

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of

Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Foster, E. K. (2017). Making cultures: Politics of inclusion, accessibility, and empowerment at the margins of the maker movement. Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute. https://www.proquest.com/pagepdf/1970758330?accountid=4485

Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales an empirical

comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement,58(6), 898–915.

400 VERDÍN ET AL.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 25, pp.

99–126). https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X025001099

Godwin, A. (2016). The development of a measure of engineering identity. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition,

New Orleans, LA. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26122

Godwin, A., & Kirn, A. (2020). Identity-based motivation: Connections between first-year students' engineering role identities and future-

time perspectives. Journal of Engineering Education,109(3), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20324

Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016). Identity, critical agency, and engineering: An affective model for predicting engineering

as a career choice. Journal of Engineering Education,105(2), 312–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20118

Gonz

alez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms.

Routledge.

Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics iden-

tity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,47(8), 978–1003. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20363

Hess, J. L., Fila, N. D., & Purzer, S. (2016). The relationship between empathic and innovative tendencies among engineering students. Inter-

national Journal of Engineering Education,32(3), 1236–1249.

Hess, J. L., Strobel, J., & Brightman, A. O. (2017). The development of empathic perspective-taking in an engineering ethics course. Journal

of Engineering Education,106(4), 534–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20175

Hoeppner, B. B., Kelly, J. F., Urbanoski, K. A., & Slaymaker, V. (2011). Comparative utility of a single-item vs. multiple-item measure of self-

efficacy in predicting relapse among young adults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,41(3), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.

2011.04.005.Comparative

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist,41(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.

1207/s15326985ep4102

Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to

unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied Psychology,97(5), 982–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of

Business Research Methods,6(1), 53–60.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.

Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Ives, J., & Castillo-Montoya, M. (2020). First-generation college students as academic learners: A systematic review. Review of Educational

Research,90(2), 139–178. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319899707

Jones, B. D., Ruff, C., & Paretti, M. C. (2013). The impact of engineering identification and stereotypes on undergraduate women's achieve-

ment and persistence in engineering. Social Psychology of Education,16(3), 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9222-x

Kant, V., & Kerr, E. (2019). Taking stock of engineering epistemology: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Philosophy and Technology,32(4),

685–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0331-5

Kiyama, J. M. (2010). College aspirations and limitations: The role of educational ideologies and funds of knowledge in Mexican American

families. American Educational Research Journal,47(2), 330–356. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209357468

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Layton, E. T., Jr. (1986). The revolt of the engineers. Social responsibility and the American engineering profession. Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Leydens, J. A., & Lucena, J. C. (2017). Engineering justice: Transforming engineering education and practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Ligorio, M. B. (2010). Dialogical relationship between identity and learning. Culture and Psychology,16(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/

1354067X09353206

Liu, Y., Verdín, D., & Sonnert, G. (2021). Understanding how social agents and communicative messages influence female students' engineering

career interest from high school to first semester of college (fundamental). Paper presented at the ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content

Access, Virtual Conference. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–37959

Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press.

Lucena, J. (2009). Imagining nation, envisioning progress: Emperor, agricultural elites, and imperial ministers in search of engineers in 19th

century Brazil. Engineering Studies,1(3), 191–216.

Lucena, J. C. (2007). De criollos a Mexicanos: Engineers' identity and the construction of Mexico. History and Technology,23(3), 275–288.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07341510701300361

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure

modeling. Psychological Methods,1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130

Marquez Kiyama, J., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2017). Funds of knowledge in higher education: Honoring students' cultural experiences and resources

as strengths. Routledge.

Martin, J. P., Miller, M. K., & Simmons, D. R. (2014). Exploring the theoretical social capital “deficit”of first generation college students:

Implications for engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education,30(4), 822–836.

Martin, J. P., Stefl, S. K., Cain, L. W., & Pfirman, A. L. (2020). Understanding first-generation undergraduate engineering students' entry and

persistence through social capital theory. International Journal of STEM Education,7(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-

00237-0

VERDÍN ET AL.401

Mejia, J. A., & Wilson-Lopez, A. (2016). Sociocultural analysis of engineering design: Latino high-school students' funds of knowledge and

implications for culturally responsive engineering education. In Qualitative research in STEM (pp. 60–82). Routledge.

Meyers, K. L., Ohland, M. W., Pawley, A. L., Silliman, S. E., & Smith, K. A. (2012). Factors relating to engineering identity. Global Journal of

Engineering Education,14(1), 119–131.

Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin,105(1), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.

1037/0033-2909.105.1.156

Mogul, N. F., & Tomblin, D. (2019). Just add context? Analyzing student perceptions of decontextualized and contextualized engineering

problems and their use of storytelling to create context. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Tampa, FL.

https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–33035

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes

and classrooms. Theory into Practice,XXXI(2), 132–141.

National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. The National Acade-

mies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783

National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2022). Development and Validation of the NACE Career Readiness Competencies.

Noble, D. (2017). Forces of production: A social history of industrial automation. Routledge.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage Publications.

Ong, M., Smith, J. M., & Ko, L. T. (2018). Counterspaces for women of color in STEM higher education: Marginal and central spaces for per-

sistence and success. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,55(2), 206–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21417

Ottemo, A., Berge, M., Mendick, H., & Silfver, E. (2023). Gender, passion, and ‘sticky’technology in a voluntaristically-organized technology

makerspace. Engineering Studies,15(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2023.2203396

Oughton, H. (2010). Funds of knowledge—A conceptual critique. Studies in the Education of Adults,42(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/

02660830.2010.11661589

Park, H. S., & Raile, A. N. W. (2010). Perspective taking and communication satisfaction in coworker dyads. Journal of Business and

Psychology,25(4), 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9149-6

Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of

Management Journal,44(6), 1085–1100. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069390

Patrick, A. D., Borrego, M., & Prybutok, A. N. (2018). Predicting persistence in engineering through an engineering identity scale. Interna-

tional Journal of Engineering Education,34(2), 351–363.

Pawley, A. L. (2012a). Chapter 3: What counts as “engineering”: Towards a redefinition. In Engineering and social justice: In the university

and beyond. Purdue University Press.

Pawley, A. L. (2012b). Engineering faculty drawing the line: A taxonomy of boundary work in academic engineering. Engineering Studies,

4(2), 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2012.687000

Potvin, G., & Hazari, Z. (2013). The development and measurement of identity across the physical sciences. In PERC proceedings (pp. 281–

284). https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2013.pr.058

Powell, A., Bagilhole, B., & Dainty, A. (2009). How women engineers do and undo gender: Consequences for gender equality. Gender, Work

and Organization,16(4), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00406.x

R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL

https://www.R-project.org/.

Raque-Bogdan, T. L., & Lucas, M. S. (2016). Career aspirations and the first generation student: Unraveling the layers with social cognitive

career theory. Journal of College Student Development,57(3), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0026

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In A. Wigfield & J. S.

Eccles (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation (pp. 173–195). Academic Press.

Rieckenberg, D., Demetriou, C., & Mann, A. (2014). First-generation college students (FGCS) success: A report from the Office of Undergraduate

Retention and the FGCS Committee. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Riley, D. (2017). Rigor/us: Building boundaries and disciplining diversity with standards of merit. Engineering Studies,9(3), 249–265. https://

doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2017.1408631

Rios-Aguilar, C., Kiyama, J. M., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital

approach to examining funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education,9(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409776

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation. Journal of Statistical Software,48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.

v048.i02

Roth, W. M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. Routledge.

Saenz, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D., & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my family—A profile of first-generation college students at four-

year institutions since 1971. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2013). Testing measurement and structural invariance. In T. Teo (Ed.). Handbook of quantitative methods for

educational research (pp. 315–345). SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-404-8_15

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Analysis,66(4), 507–514.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika,75(2), 243–248.

Schauer, A. M. K., Schaufel, H., & Fu, K. (2023). The makeup of a makerspace: The impact of stereotyping, self-efficacy, and physical design on

women's interactions with an academic makerspace. Engineering Studies,15(2), 122–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2023.2224016

402 VERDÍN ET AL.

Schwartz, S. J., Luyckx, K., & Vignoles, V. L. (2011). Handbook of identity theory and research. Springer.

Sets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. American Sociological Association,63(3), 224–237. https://www.

jstor.org/stable/2695870

Simmons, D. R., & Martin, J. P. (2014). Developing effective engineering fictive kin to support undergraduate first-generation college students.

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering,20(3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014010979

Slaton, A. E. (2010). Race, rigor, and selectivity in U.S. engineering: The history of an occupational color line. Harvard University Press.

Smith, J. M., & Lucena, J. C. (2015). Making the Funds of Knowledge of Low Income, First Generation (LIFG) Students Visible and Relevant

to Engineering Education Paper Presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. https://doi.org/10.

18260/p.24464

Smith, J. M., & Lucena, J. C. (2016). Invisible innovators: How low-income, first- generation students use their funds of knowledge to belong

in engineering. Engineering Studies,8(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2016.11%55593

Smith Rolston, J., & Cox, E. (2015). Engineering for the real world: Diversity, innovation and hands-on learning. In S. H. Christensen,

C. Didier, A. Jamison, M. Meganck, C. Mitcham, & B. Newberry (Eds.), International perspectives on engineering education (Vol. 1).

Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2019). Digest of education statistics 2017 (NCES 2018-070).

Stark Masters, A. (2018). How making and maker spaces have contributed to diversity & inclusion in engineering: A [non-traditional] literature

review. Paper presented at the CoNECD—The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity Conference, Crystal

City, VA. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–29543

Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities'

focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology,102(6), 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027143

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2003). A sociological approach to self and identity. In Handbook of self and identity (pp. 128–152). The Guilford

Press. http://wat2146.ucr.edu/papers/02a.pdf

Strobel, J., Hess, J., Pan, R., & Wachter Morris, C. A. (2013). Empathy and care within engineering: Qualitative perspectives from engineering

faculty and practicing engineers. Engineering Studies,5(2), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2013.814136

Svihla, V., Chen, Y., & Kang, S. “.P.”. (2022). A funds of knowledge approach to developing engineering students' design problem framing

skills. Journal of Engineering Education,111(2), 308–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20445

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education,2,53–55. https://doi.org/

10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Tonso, K. L. (1996). The impact of cultural norms on women. Journal of Engineering Education,85(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.

2168-9830.1996.tb00236.x

Tonso, K. L. (1999). Engineering gender-gendering engineering: A cultural model for belonging. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science

and Engineering,5(4), 365–405. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v5.i4.60

Tonso, K. L. (2007). On the outskirts of engineering: Learning identity, gender, and power via engineering practice. Brill Sense.

U.S. Department of Education, N. C. for E. S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and attain-

ment (NCES 2001-126).

Verdín, D. (2021a). Negotiating belongingness: A longitudinal narrative inquiry of a Latina, first-generation college student's experience in the

engineering culture. Paper presented at the ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference. https://doi.org/10.

18260/1-2–37524

Verdín, D. (2021b). The power of interest: Minoritized women's interest in engineering fosters persistence beliefs beyond belongingness and

engineering identity. International Journal of STEM Education,8(33), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00292-1

Verdín, D. (2024). Examining the funds of knowledge that support Latinx students' engineering identity development and career certainty.

In L. Perez-Felkner, S. Rodgriuez, & C. Fluker (Eds.), Latin* students in engineering. Rutgers University Press; pp. 69-88.

Verdín, D., & Godwin, A. (2017). Physics identity promotes alternative careers for first-generation college students in engineering. Paper pres-

ented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Columbus, OH. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–28741

Verdín, D., & Godwin, A. (2019). The relationship engineering identity and belongingness on certainty of engineering major for first-generation col-

lege students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Toronto, Canada. https://doi.org/

10.3102/1431660

Verdín, D., & Godwin, A. (2021). Confidence in pursuing engineering: How first-generation college students' subject-related role identities sup-

ports their major choice. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference. Lincoln, NE, USA; pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/

FIE49875.2021.9637157

Verdín, D., Godwin, A., Kirn, A., Benson, L., & Potvin, G. (2019). Engineering role identity fosters grit differently for women first- and

continuing-generation college students. International Journal of Engineering Education,35(4), 1037–1051.

Verdín, D., Godwin, A., & Ross, M. (2018). STEM roles: How students' ontological perspectives facilitate STEM identities. Journal of Pre-

College Engineering Education Research,8(2), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1167

Verdín, D., Godwin, A., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2018). Understanding how first-generation college students' out-of-school experiences,

physics and STEM identities relate to engineering possible selves and certainty of career path. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education

Conference. 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), San Jose, CA, USA, pp. 1-8; https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8658878

VERDÍN ET AL.403

Verdin, D., Smith, J. M., & Lucena, J. C. (2020). The influence of connecting funds of knowledge to beliefs about performance, classroom

belonging, and graduation certainty for first-generation college students. Paper presented at the ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content

Access, Virtual Online. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–35343

Verdín, D., Smith, J. M., & Lucena, J. C. (2021). Recognizing the funds of knowledge of first-generation college students in engineering: An

instrument development. Journal of Engineering Education,110(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20410

Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social Learning Sys-

tems and Communities of Practice, 179–198. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2_11

West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook

of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). The Guilford Press.

Whitley, S. E., Ph, D., Benson, G., & Wesaw, A. (2018). First-generation student success: A landscape analysis of programs and services at four-

year institutions. NASPA—Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Yosso, T. J., & Sol

orzano, D. G. (2005). Conceptualizing a critical race theory in sociology. In M. Romero & E. Margolis (Eds.), The Blackwell

companion to social inequalities, 117–146. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996973.ch7

Zussman, R. (1985). Mechanics of the middle class: Work and politics among American engineers. University of California Press.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Dina Verdín, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Engineering in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona

State University. Her research program is dedicated to promoting equity and inclusion in engineering by confronting

the pervasive barriers facing minoritized students. Her research addresses the challenges Latinx, first-generation col-

lege students, and women face by creating culturally responsive opportunities to broaden access and dismantle bar-

riers that hinder minoritized students' persistence; dina.verdin@asu.edu.

Jessica M. Smith is the Director of Humanitarian Engineering and Science Graduate Program and a Professor in

the Engineering, Design, and Society Division at the Colorado School of Mines, 111 Engineering Annex, Colorado

School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401, USA; jmsmith@mines.edu.

Juan C. Lucena is the Director of Humanitarian Engineering Undergraduate Programs and Outreach and a Pro-

fessor in the Engineering, Design, and Society Division at the Colorado School of Mines, 111 Engineering Annex,

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401, USA; jlucena@mines.edu.

How to cite this article: Verdín, D., Smith, J. M., & Lucena, J. C. (2024). First-generation college students'

funds of knowledge support the development of an engineering role identity. Journal of Engineering Education,

113(2), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20591

404 VERDÍN ET AL.

APPENDIX A

Descriptive statistics of survey measured used in the final model

Variable number Mean Standard deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Interest

1 5.26 1.04 1.69 3.31

2 5.18 1.09 1.64 3.14

3 5.04 1.19 1.53 2.76

Recognition

4 4.14 1.42 0.61 0.10

5 4.39 1.37 0.86 0.63

6 4.86 1.37 1.31 1.40

Performance/competence beliefs

7 4.53 1.33 0.83 0.25

8 4.51 1.33 0.85 0.46

9 4.13 1.52 0.67 0.07

10 4.53 1.20 0.78 0.61

Connecting experiences

11 3.89 1.53 0.60 0.09

12 3.21 1.67 0.23 0.72

13 3.69 1.66 0.49 0.56

14 3.28 1.70 0.27 0.76

Perspective-taking

15 5.17 0.95 1.17 1.53

16 5.15 0.88 0.88 0.35

17 5.18 0.97 1.06 0.55

Mediational skills

18 4.54 1.35 0.97 0.79

19 4.08 1.45 0.50 0.25

20 3.97 1.55 0.51 0.43

Tinkering knowledge—Home

21 3.82 1.85 0.53 0.73

22 4.00 1.86 0.66 0.63

23 4.00 1.74 0.59 0.59

Community network—Family members

24 3.50 2.10 0.04 1.07

25 3.37 2.13 0.04 1.13

26 5.21 1.74 1.09 0.50

Community network—School friends

27 4.77 1.31 1.13 1.12

28 4.64 1.40 1.15 1.05

29 4.42 1.57 0.89 0.09

Community network—Coworkers

30 4.25 1.95 0.51 0.61

(Continues)

VERDÍN ET AL.405

Descriptive statistics of survey measured used in the final model

Variable number Mean Standard deviation Skewness Kurtosis

31 4.00 2.02 0.34 0.89

32 3.85 2.01 0.25 0.92

I see myself as an engineer

4.65 1.40 1.03 0.67

Note: Sample size was the same for all variables (n=378). Information about survey measures associated with each variable number can be found in Table 3.

Survey item does not appear in Table 3.

APPENDIX B

Summary of regression paths that were removed from the final model

Paths modeled

Network: Family àEngr. Performance/Competence Beliefs

Network: Family àEngr. Recognition

Network: Coworkers/Mentors àEngr. Performance/Competence Beliefs

Network: Coworkers/Mentors àEngr. Recognition

Network: College Friends àEngr. Performance/Competence Beliefs

Network: College Friends àEngr. Interest

Network: College Friends àEngineering Identity

Tinkering Knowledge Home àEngr. Recognition

Tinkering Knowledge Home àEngineering Identity

Connecting Experiences àEngineering Identity

Perspective Taking àEngr. Recognition

Perspective Taking àEngineering Identity

Mediational Skills àEngr. Performance/Competence Beliefs

Mediational Skills àEngr. Interest

Mediational Skills àEngineering Identity

Note: All paths with p-values >.05 were removed from the final model.

406 VERDÍN ET AL.

Learning Effects, Gender Variances, and Teacher Dynamics in Funds-of-Knowledge-Featured Mobile-Assisted Writing for Latinx English Learners

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025

This study investigated the effectiveness of a mobile-based writing tool (MBWT) on a group of middle school-aged Latinx English learners’ (ELs) narrative writing development in the Midwest United States. Implementing an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, 26 ELs completed five funds-of-knowledge-featured narrative writing essays in ten weeks operating under a switching replications quasi-experimental design. When controlling for the five writing topics, the results from mixed-effects multilevel modeling analysis revealed statistically significant and positive effects of the MBWT on the development of the ELs’ writing skills. The results also showed that the effect of the MBWT on writing performance was stronger for male students than for females. Findings of a follow-up qualitative research phase indicated that ELs had positive perceptions toward the adoption of the MBWT. Potential factors that influenced the integrated learning and gender effects were explored as well. This study is significant for engaging teachers in exploring the potential of designing and implementing inclusive mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) for diverse ethnic-minority student populations.

Listening to First Generation College Students in Engineering: Implications for Libraries & Information Literacy

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2022

First-generation college students (FGCS) in engineering bring a wealth of knowledge to their academic and social experiences in higher education, in contrast to deficit-based narratives that students are underprepared. By listening to FGCS’ own experiences navigating higher education and using information literacy in their project-based work, librarians and educators can better understand students’ funds of knowledge, social capital, and identities, as well as the institutional barriers that must be removed. This paper shares interview findings with (n = 11) FGCS and suggests implications for professional practice that are relevant to information literacy for design, project-based, or practitioner focused disciplines.

Crating the self: The interplay of agency, entrepreneurial mindset, and narrative identity

Article

May 2025
J ENG EDUC

Background Despite the well‐established positive effects of storytelling, narrative modes of thinking have neither been systematically assessed nor widely implemented in engineering education. Purpose Recently, the idea of story‐driven learning (SDL) as pedagogy has been applied in an engineering department at a public university. Our research question was: “How are students, as a result of story‐driven learning, changing in regard to both their self‐reported (1) entrepreneurial mindset, self‐concept clarity, and sense of narrative identity and (2) the ways in which they tell the stories of their lives?” Design We collected data from 60 students and compared the results from (1) students currently enrolled in “The Art of Telling Your Story” course and (2) students who had never taken the course. At the beginning and end of the semester, students completed self‐report measures (i.e., self‐concept clarity, awareness of narrative identity, entrepreneurial mindset) and two narrative prompts. The stories were then coded for six narrative themes: entrepreneurial mindset, redemption, contamination, agency, self‐concept clarity, autobiographical reasoning. Results Students in the class experienced an increase in agency and entrepreneurial mindset. Moreover, when directly compared with students not in the course, students in the course experienced an increase in autobiographical reasoning, awareness of narrative identity, and maintained their increase in entrepreneurial mindset. Conclusions These results showcase the potency of storytelling interventions, as well as highlighting—for the first time—their potential for influencing the development of entrepreneurially minded engineers.

EXAMINING THE FUNDS OF KNOWLEDGE THAT SUPPORT LATINX STUDENTS’ ENGINEERING IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT AND CAREER CERTAINTY

Chapter

Full-text available

Jul 2024

Dina Verdín

Interest, Learning, and the Psychological Processes That Mediate Their Relationship

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2002

Although influences of interest on learning are well documented, mediating processes have not been clarified. The authors investigated how individual and situational interest factors contribute to topic interest and text learning. Traditional self-report measures were combined with novel interactive computerized methods of recording cognitive and affective reactions to science and popular culture texts, monitoring their development in real time. Australian and Canadian students read 4 expository texts. Both individual interest variables and specific text titles influenced topic interest. Examination of processes predictive of text learning indicated that topic interest was related to affective response, affect to persistence, and persistence to learning. Combining self-rating scales with dynamic measures of student activities provided new insight into how interest influences learning.

The Makeup of a Makerspace: The Impact of Stereotyping, Self-Efficacy, and Physical Design on Women’s Interactions with an Academic Makerspace

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2023

The Relationship Engineering Identity and Belongingness on Certainty of Engineering Major for First-Generation College Students

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Jan 2019

Dina Verdín

Confidence in Pursuing Engineering: How First-Generation College Students' Subject-Related Role Identities Supports their Major Choice

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Oct 2021

Engineering Role Identity Fosters Grit Differently for Women First-and Continuing-Generation College Students*

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2019
Int J Eng Educ

This study examined two distinct groups of women in engineering (i.e., first-generation and continuing-generation college students) to understand how the engineering role identity constructs of interest, recognition, and performance/competence fostered grit-perseverance of effort and grit-consistency of interest. A survey was administered to first-year engineering students at four institutions across the United States. The sample of women was n = 675, from which n = 144 were identified as first-generation college students and n = 531 were identified as continuing-generation college students. Using existing instruments, two structural equation models were created to test the relationships between engineering role identity constructs and grit. The model of first-generation college students had high interest in engineering, which, in turn, was predictive of their grit-consistency of interest, while their beliefs about performing well and understanding engineering content was predictive of their grit-perseverance of effort. In the model of continuing-generation college students, being recognized as someone that can do engineering was predictive of grit-perseverance of effort while seeing oneself as an engineer was predictive of their grit-consistency of interest. The results of this work highlight different aspects of identity that may foster grit for women in engineering depending upon their parents' level of education.

Understanding How Social Agents and Communicative Messages Influence Female Students' Engineering Career Interest From High School to First Semester of College

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Jul 2021

How Making and Maker Spaces have Contributed to Diversity and Inclusion in Engineering: A [non-traditional] Literature Review

Conference Paper

Apr 2018

Adam Masters

Gender, Passion, and ‘Sticky’ Technology in a Voluntaristically-Organized Technology Makerspace

Article

Apr 2023

As ‘open’ and supposedly inclusive informal learning settings that participants visit out of interest and passion, there has been hope that makerspaces will democratize technology and challenge traditional gender patterns in engineering education. Passion for technology has, however, also been shown to be deeply intertwined with the masculinization of engineering. This article explores how this tension manifests among engineering students and other makers at an ‘open’ voluntaristically-organized technology makerspace located at the campus of a Swedish university of technology. It draws on a post-structural understanding of gender and Sara Ahmed’s queer-phenomenological conceptualization of emotions as ‘orienting devices’. Based on ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with makers, we show how passion for technology is articulated as a particularly absorbing emotion that underpins a playful approach to technology and a framing of makers as single-minded and asocial. We demonstrate how passion for technology thereby becomes a homosocial ‘glue’ that makes technology ‘sticky’ for only a select group of techno-passionate men. We conclude that this undermines the potential for ‘making’ to democratize technology and puts into question the degree to which interest-driven, voluntaristic and ‘authentic’ settings for engaging with technology can contribute to pluralizing engineering.

A funds of knowledge approach to developing engineering students' design problem framing skills

Article

Apr 2022

Background Engineering programs have increasingly incorporated design challenges into courses. These design challenges vary in the degree to which they present complex, ill-structured, and relevant problems, and therefore may vary in the degree to which they support students to learn to frame design problems. Purpose/Hypothesis We characterized how first-year engineering students with little formal design training approach problem framing. We developed design challenges informed by funds of knowledge. We compared the development of problem framing skills in first-year students who completed these challenges to students who completed more traditional challenges and to students in capstone design. Design/Method Students completed a pre/post performance-based assessment of problem framing skills. We analyzed student responses in terms of design requirements, design practices, and design styles. We used descriptive statistics and correlations to characterize how students initially approached problem framing and repeated-measures ANOVA to compare groups of students. Results First-year students approached framing a design problem in one of four primary ways. Compared to students in the original course, they showed growth in attending to an underlying need, considering contexts of use, and depicting design function. Compared to capstone students, they also showed growth in considering stakeholder roles and planning the next steps. Conclusions Funds of knowledge can provide a means to evaluate possible design challenges as authentic yet accessible for first-year students, in turn, providing opportunities to support the development of the design problem framing ability.

First‐generation college students' funds of knowledge support the development of an engineering role identity

Abstract

Recommended publications

The Influence of Connecting Funds of Knowledge to Beliefs about Performance, Classroom Belonging, an...

Recognizing the funds of knowledge of first‐generation college students in engineering: An instrumen...

Funds of Knowledge as Pre-College Experiences that Promote Minoritized Students’ Interest, Self-Effi...

5 Examining the Funds of Knowledge That Support Latinx Students’ Engineering Identity Development an...