Personal Reflection | Teaching Design course

This semester has deepened my understanding of engineering not only as a technical discipline, but as an iterative and deeply human practice. Through class discussions, readings, my portfolio development, attending the AERA conference, and continuing to shape my own PhD work, I have found myself thinking differently about what it means to be an engineer, educator, researcher, and leader. Rather than seeing these identities as separate, I increasingly see them as connected parts of how I move through the world and through my work.

One of the biggest lessons I am taking from this semester is that meaningful work is often messy and nonlinear. In my own PhD project, I have felt the tension between building curriculum and studying it at the same time. At first, that tension sometimes made me feel behind, as though I needed to rush toward a polished research product. Over time, I have started to see that the iterative nature of this process is not a weakness but part of the work itself. When you are trying to design learning experiences that truly matter you learn by listening and iterating. That has made me more comfortable with allowing my research to evolve. I feel less attached to rushing toward publication and more committed to creating something useful and responseive.

This shift has also influenced how I understand my own professional identity. As we explored the engineering design cycle and questioned what it means to be an engineer, I realized I had started to feel distant from a more traditional image of engineering. Because so much of my current work involves management, curriculum development, and an engineering education PhD, I sometimes wondered whether I was moving away from a traditional "engineer". This semester helped me reframe that. I now see that I still approach my work very much as an engineer: I begin with a problem, work within constraints, draw on multiple forms of knowledge, and iteratively refine toward a better solution. I feel more and more that my research and curriculum work are expressions of that cycle.

My class project on multistakeholder curriculum development helped solidify that realization. The project asked how engineering curriculum can better connect classroom learning to the realities of engineering practice, a question that feels central to both my professional role and my research. Thinking through how students, faculty, alumni, industry, and engineering staff each contribute to curriculum design pushed me to see learning as something shaped through contet and distributed expertise. I appreciated the opportunity to think in partnership with both graduate and undergraduate peers about how people learn, how teams function, and how classroom dynamics shape confidence, belonging, and engagement. This work reinforced my growing interest in engineering education as a space where technical learning and identity development intersect.

The course readings also helped me better name and frame what I care about. Ideas related to engineering identity, psychological safety, universal design, ambiguity in problem solving, and belonging all stayed with me. Together, they challenged me to think beyond whether students simply complete tasks or gain content knowledge. They pushed me to consider how students come to see themselves as capable engineers, how classroom environments support or constrain that process, and how teaching can make engineering feel more accessible. I found myself returning often to the idea that learning is not just cognitive, but social and emotional as well.

I also deeply valued the chance to practice teaching and to observe my peers teach. It was a joyful part of the semester. I also appreciated how Dr. Zarske facilitated a psychologically safe and engaging learning environment. It reminded me that good teaching is not only about clarity or expertise, but about how people feel in the room: whether they feel welcomed and able to take risks. That matters enormously in engineering education, where students can so easily interpret struggle as a sign that they do not belong.

Attending AERA further expanded my perspective. I was especially moved by the emphasis on equity, social justice, and historical memory. The opening plenary made a strong impression on me as scholars from Native, Black, Latin American, and Chicano communities spoke about the importance of remembering history as a way of imagining better futures. I was struck by the reminder that education is always in conversation with the past. The stories shared about forced assimilation of Native children and the suppression of Black educational histories made clear that educational systems are never neutral. That perspective has stayed with me. It has made me think more seriously about what it means to design engineering education that is not only innovative, but also reflective, responsible, and attentive to whose histories, knowledge, and futures are being centered.

Looking ahead, I want to continue growing as someone who builds bridges between engineering practice, teaching, and research. I want to keep developing curriculum that helps students connect theory to practice in ways that strengthen both their technical skills and their sense of belonging. I want to grow as a qualitative and mixed-methods researcher who can hold complexity without rushing to oversimplify it. I also want to continue developing as a leader who creates environments where others can learn, contribute, and flourish. More than anything, this semester helped me see that my future does not need to fit into just one category. I can be an engineer, educator, researcher, and leader at once. In fact, I think my best work will come from continuing to bring those identities together.