Poster Q12 - The Hidden Curriculum of Late Work Policies in Engineering

Introduction: The hidden curriculum (HC) refers to behaviors and knowledge that are transmitted but not intentionally taught [1,2]. One could consider the HC the “societal norms” of the classroom that are not explicitly stated, and which faculty may take for granted. One HC item of interest which has not been investigated, to the best of our knowledge, is the administration of late work policies (LWPs). Even though LWPs are often explicitly stated in the syllabus, individual professors may deviate or not strictly enforce their LWPs to allow flexibility for their students, while students themselves believe that faculty adhere more strictly to the policy [3]. If students are not explicitly taught that flexibility is available, they may not reach out in the first place. We hypothesized that approaching a professor regarding the LWP is a HC item that is not deliberately taught to students, and that different late work policies may affect how students perceive and interact with them. The main objective of this work was thus to explore the hidden curriculum of late work policies and its impact on students in engineering. We evaluated whether students are comfortable approaching their professors to ask for extensions, how strictly LWPs were enforced or perceived, and student perceptions of policies. Overall, we hope to gain insight into how different LWPs can be implemented to turn this hidden curriculum item into formal curriculum to make courses and policies more equitable.

Materials and

Methods: To assess student and faculty perceptions of and interactions with different types of LWPs, we administered surveys to both students and faculty in the College of Engineering. The student survey included Likert scale questions that assessed their understanding of course LWPs, their comfort approaching professors, and impressions of LWP strictness and fairness. Students also self-reported the number of times they requested an extension or submitted late work and were asked to identify reasons that they believed merited late work submission from a provided list of options. The faculty survey included mirrored questions to assess faculty perspectives, and both students and faculty provided self-reported demographic information including race, gender, and first-generation status. Students and faculty were encouraged to complete the survey in multiple courses, as courses often have distinct LWPs even when taught by the same professor. Over the fall 2022 and fall 2023 semesters, nearly 400 student responses and 26 faculty responses were received.

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions: Preliminary analysis suggests that students from different demographics have different levels of comfort asking for extensions. While about 93% of white students shared that they were comfortable asking for an extension, only 85% of BIPOC students shared this sentiment. Further, 93% of students who identified as male were comfortable, compared to 89% of students who identified as female, non-binary, or agender (Fig. 1). Students from groups often underrepresented in engineering may thus be less likely to take advantage of LWPs that require contact with their professors.

We also evaluated student and faculty perceptions of how strictly published LWPs were enforced. While students generally felt that professors strictly enforced LWPs, faculty indicated less strictness (Fig. 2a-b). This is consistent with prior research that showed a discrepancy between student impressions and faculty enforcement of LWPs [3] and suggests that LWPs are a component of the hidden curriculum. This effect was particularly pronounced in students from groups often underrepresented in engineering, including BIPOC and female students, who interpreted LWPs as being more strictly enforced than their white and male peers (Fig. 2c). This may put these students at an increased disadvantage if they do not seek the same exceptions that their peers do.

Students and faculty also disagreed on what constituted valid reasons to request extensions (Fig. 3). For example, faculty overwhelmingly believed that illness was a valid reason, while fewer students did. On the other hand, 67% of students believed that it was acceptable to ask for an extension if they were overwhelmed with other coursework, while only 43% of faculty agreed. These discrepancies suggest that faculty should deliberately communicate their expectations with students to help narrow these gaps.

In conclusion, LWPs appear to be an element of the hidden curriculum; students and faculty have different impressions of policy strictness and acceptable reasons for extensions. These discrepancies may have a greater effect on students from groups often underrepresented in engineering, who perceive policies as stricter and are less comfortable requesting extensions than their peers. Ongoing work will investigate how different types of LWPs affect these results and student use of policies.

Acknowledgements (Optional):

References:
[1] Villanueva, I., Carothers, T., di Stefano, M. & Khan, M. T. H., "“There is never a break”: The hidden curriculum of professionalization for engineering Faculty," Educ Sci (Basel) 8, (2018). DOI: 10.3390/educsci8040157
[2] Villanueva, I., Gelles, L., Youmans, K. & di Stefano, M., "Hidden Curriculum Awareness: A comparison of engineering faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates," World Engineering Forum, 2018, Albuquerque, NM.
[3] Santelli, B., Robertson, S. N., Larson, E. K. & Humphrey, S., "Procrastination and delayed assignment submissions: Student and faculty perceptions of late point policy and grace within an online learning environment," Online Learning Journal 24, 35–49 (2020). DOI: 10.24059/olj.v24i3.2302