This study provides an understanding of the necessity for diversity in the development of manufacturing personnel, i.e., the effects of changing awareness and acquiring basic knowledge of diversity and inclusion (D&I). To understand diversity and inclusion, which are closely related to the realization of diversity that is important in STEAM education, it is necessary for learners to be familiar and comfortable with these issues. To this end, an experiential learning cycle framework was used in this study to design learning activities and familiarize students with the aforementioned issues. A gender specialist and an engineer with physical disabilities were invited as guest lecturers, and activities were designed to deepen students’ understanding through interactive discussions. Students gained an understanding of the importance and necessity of D&I through the learning activities and discussions with the instructors. After the class, some students were able to connect the newly acquired knowledge to its relevance for their own research. This might have been partly due to the instructor’s demonstration of an electric wheelchair and a customized automobile. Understanding diversity is important for future development of manufacturing personnel, and learning methods must be continuously examined and evaluated for effectiveness.

1. [1] G. Yakman, “STΣ@M education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education,” Pupils Attitudes Towards Technology Conf., 2008.
2. [2] Y. Kumanoh, “Basic STEM/STEAM education concepts,” Chemistry & Education, Vol.9, No.8, pp. 316-319, 2021 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.20665/kakyoshi.69.8_316
3. [3] J. Kawata, J. Morimoto, M. Higuchi, and S. Fujisawa, “The educational effects of practical manufacturing activities in graduation research,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.31, No.3, pp. 391-404, 2019. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2019.p0391
4. [4] A. Mitani and T. Hosoya, “Mechatronics education in school of design – Development of educational tool to study design expression using mechatronics,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.23, No.5, pp. 629-637, 2011. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2011.p0629
5. [5] Y. Takahashi, M. Takagi, and I. Yoneda, “Design education using personal mobile robot,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.23, No.5, pp. 739-747, 2011. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2011.p0739
6. [6] C. F. Quigley, D. Herro, and F. M. Jamil, “Developing a conceptual model of STEAM teaching practices,” School Science and Mathematics, Vol.117, Nos.1-2, pp. 1-12. 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12201
7. [7] H. Hasti et al., “Effects of a diversity STEAM workshop on teacher perceptions and abilities,” Int. Conf. on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, pp. 613-621, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1814-6_60
8. [8] P. Plaza et al., “Educational robotics for all: Gender, diversity, and inclusion in steam,” 2020 IEEE Learning with MOOCS (LWMOOCS), pp. 19-24, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/LWMOOCS50143.2020.9234372
9. [9] J. Dewey, “Experience and education,” The Educational Forum, Vol.50, No.3, pp. 241-252, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764
10. [10] D. A. Kolb, “Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development,” FT Press, 2014.
11. [11] M. Kawase and T. Ozeki, “Evaluation and understanding degree analysis by visualization of design thinking process using divergence-convergence curve,” J. of JSEE, Vol.67, No.1, pp. 1_48-1_53, 2019 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.4307/jsee.67.1_48
12. [12] T. Brown, “Design Thinking,” Harvard Business Review, Vol.86, No.6, pp. 84-92, 2008.
13. [13] E. F. Pienaar, D. K. Lew, and K. Wallmo, “The importance of survey content: Testing for the context dependency of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale,” Social Science Research, Vol.51, pp. 338-349, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.09.005
14. [14] S. C. Gagnon Thompson and M. A. Barton, ”Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment,” J. of Environmental Psychology, Vol.14, No.2, pp. 149-157, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80168-9
15. [15] K. Higuchi, “A two-step approach to quantitative content analysis: KH coder tutorial using Anne of Green Gables (Part II),” Ritsumeikan Social Science Review, Vol.53, No.1, pp. 137-147, 2007.