evidence that student thinking when completing the task (item) was consistentwith the type of reasoning that developers intended.12 Additionally, we completed two rounds ofdata collection with the full instrument (i.e., all items) and conducted quantitative analyses ofthese larger data sets to assess item and instrument performance.13, 14 These analyses resultshelped us revise items and update the domain model. Finally, we used a Q-matrix to documentthe mapping between item answers (correct and incorrect) with the normative concepts andmisconceptions specified in our evolving domain model.Examples of Redesign ProcessesQ-matrixTo provide more detail, we walk through examples of some of these critical redesign processes.First, one product that
measure undergraduate engineering students’ decisions toparticipate in out-of-class activities and the students’ outcomes from involvement in theseactivities. Specifically, this paper details the development of the items and face and contentvalidity for the Postsecondary Student Engagement Survey (PosSES). The instrument development is guided by a thorough literature review, web searches, a Q-studyusing focus group meetings, a panel of experts, and finally, think aloud sessions to determineface and content validity. The instrument measures positive and negative involvement outcomesand factors that promote and prevent participation decisions in out-of-class activities; andengineering identification, sense of belonging, engineering major
our energy future. Retrieved from http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/roper/Roper2002.pdf13. Bittle, S., Rochkind, J., & Ott, A. (2009). The energy learning curve. Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/media/the-energy-learning-curve14. Southwell, B. G., Murphy, J. J., DeWaters, J. E., & LeBaron, P. A. (2012). Americans' perceived and actual understanding of energy. (RTI Press peer-reviewed publication No. RR-0018-1208). Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press. Retrieved from http://www.rti.org/rtipress15. Langfitt, Q., Haselbach, L., & Hougham, R.J. (2014). Artifact-based energy literacy assessment utilizing rubric scoring. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. Retrieved from
support during the research process. Additionally,authors would like to thank University of Michigan - Flint institutional review board, faculty and staff fororganizing necessary field trips and to various locations related to current study and equipment support. References[1] Savoji, A. P. (2013). Motivational strategies and academic achievements in traditional and virtual university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences; 84 (2013), 1015-1020[2] Mazumder, Q. H. and Ahmed, K. (2014). “A Comparative Study of Motivation and Learning Strategies Between Public and Private University Students of Bangladesh” Proceedings of the 2014 ASEE North Central Section Conference
. Page 26.1552.1210. Oyserman, D.; Destin, M.; Novin, S. Self Identity 2014, 1–16.11. Fugate, M.; Kinicki, A. J.; Ashforth, B. E. J. Vocat. Behav. 2004, 65, 14–38.12. Ibarra, H. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 764–791.13. Ibarra, H. Identity transitions: possible selves, liminality and the dynamics of career change; 2005.14. Kerpelman, J. L.; Pittman, J. F. J. Adolesc. 2001, 24, 491–512.15. Godwin, A.; Potvin, G. Int. J. Eng. Educ. (In Press. 2015.16. Pizzolato, J. E. Cultur. Divers. Ethnic Minor. Psychol. 2006, 12, 57–69.17. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects; Katehi, L.; Pearson, G.; Feder, M. A., Eds.; The National Academies Press
Coll Univ. 2013.5. Brownell JE, Swaner LE. High-Impact Practices: Applying the Learning Outcomes Literature to the Development of Successful Campus Programs. PEER Rev. 2009.6. Kuh GD. High-Impact Educational Practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Assoc Am Coll Univ. 2008.7. Wenzel T. Definition of Undergraduate Research. Counc Undergrad Res Q. 1997;17.8. Laursen S, Hunter A, Seymour E, Thiry H, Melton G. What is Known About the Student Outcomes of Undergraduate Research? In: Undergraduate Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2010.9. Pajares F. Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A
. Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. (electronic version) Higher Education, 41, 299-325.14. Bain, K. (2004). What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.15. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography – A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21 (3), 28-49.16. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.17. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.18. Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research, 69
Universality-Diversity Scale. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 33, 157–69 (2000).9. Kottke, J. L. Additional evidence for the short form of the Universality-Diversity Scale. Personal. Individ. Differ. 50, 464–469 (2011).10. Jesiek, B. K. The Origins and Early History of Computer Engineering in the United States. IEEE Ann. Hist. Comput. 35, 6–18 (2013).11. Richardson, J. W., Imig, S. & Ndoye, A. Developing Culturally Aware School Leaders Measuring the Impact of an International Internship Using the MGUDS. Educ. Adm. Q. 49, 92–123 (2013).12. Yeh, C. J. & Arora, A. K. Multicultural Training and Interdependent and Independent Self-Construal as Predictors of Universal-Diverse Orientation Among School Counselors. J. Couns. Dev
between the interviewer and astudent when the student was asked to define critical thinking.A Well, I would define critical thinking as the employment of reason in order to reach a conclusion especially in regards to problem solving.Q Okay. Um, can you elaborate a bit more on that, like give me more explanation to it? Page 26.235.3A Um, more explanation of?Q Your, what you believe, maybe your reas—how you reason through something.A Okay. Um, (pause) well, I mean, you have to, well, I mean, I consider the multiple aspects that, um, are, it’s hard to phrase, let’s see…This student is having
O’Conner, K. (2014). Professional Engineering Work. In Johri, A. and Olds, B. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 119-140). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.15 Jesiek, B. K. and Beddoes, K. (2010). From Diplomacy and Development to Competitiveness and Globalization: Historical Perspectives on the Internationalization of Engineering Education. In Downey, G. L. and Beddoes, K. (Eds.), What is Global Engineering Education For?: The Making of International Educators (pp. 45-76). San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.16 Jesiek, B. K., Zhu, Q., Woo, S. E., Thompson, J., and Mazzurco, A. (2014). “Global Engineering Competency in Context: Situations and Behaviors.” Online Journal of
research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.[28] Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.[29] Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.[30] Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8, 69-91.[31] Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 1-22.[32] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985
. Educational Theory 45 (2): 1-22.26. Giffney, N. (2009). Introduction: The “q” Word. In N. Giffney, ed., The Ashgate Research Companion to Queer Theory (pp. 1-13). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing27. Adams, R.S., et al. (2011). Multiple Perspectives on Engaging Future Engineers. Journal of Engineering Education 100 (1): 48-88.28. Davis, L. J. (2014). Disabilities Studies Reader, 4th Edition. New York: Taylor & Francis.29. Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.30. Slaton, A.E. (2010). Race, Rigor and Selectivity in US Engineering: The History of an Occupational Color-Line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.31. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political
Simulations. International Journal of Engineering Education 28, 1019 (2012).17 Hardiman, P. T., Dufresne, R., & Mestre, J. P. (1989). The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices. Memory & Cognition, 17(5), 627-638.18 Patton, M. Q. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 3 edn, (Sage Publications, Inc, 2002).19 NanoHUB.org. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2015, from https://nanohub.org/tools/oof20 NanoHUB.org. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2015, from https://nanohub.org/tools/gibbs21 Magana, A. J., Brophy, S. P., & Bodner, G. M. (2012). Student Views of Engineering Professors Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Integrating Computational