research at the graduate level. However, studying creativity at thegraduate level is essential because creativity is required to generate new knowledge throughresearch. This study seeks to address the gap in knowledge about graduate-level creativitythrough a thematic analysis of five semi-structured interviews with engineering graduatestudents. These interviews are part of a larger mixed-methods research project with the goal ofcharacterizing the creative climate of graduate-level engineering education. In the interviews, weasked participants about their creative endeavors, how they define creativity, and theirperceptions of creativity within engineering. We used Hunter et al.’s (2005) creative climatedimensions as a theoretical framework to
. For example, three changes were made to the definition for outcome 2 “Students considerimpacts of solutions on relevant contexts.” The word “approaches” substituted “solutions” sincethe performance task prompt doesn’t ask students to specifically identify technical solutions tothe problems raised in the scenario but, rather, to propose approaches that could address or beginto solve the problems. The next modifications were to add two contexts to the existing list:professional and legal. Thus, the revised definition reads: “Students consider how their proposedapproaches to solve the problem(s) impact relevant local, global, professional, economic, legal,environmental, and cultural/societal contexts.”The fourth modification was in the last
this, we quantify thecomplexity of the example problem as 26. We could choose to use other network centralitymeasures and an investigation into their suitability will be conducted in the future. Thehorizontal shear equation computation node is the most “central” to the computation, with adegree centrality of 5. Figure 3a-d: (a) Digraph of the correct solution. Steps to the two-part correct solution start at the "reaction forces" node. Solid circles show target nodes for achieving the two-part solution to the problem. (b) Student 1’s solution with solid and dotted circles showing parts of the solution achieved and unachieved, respectively. (c-d) Student 2’s and 3’s solutions, respectively, with dotted circles showing both
) conveniently suggested a 3-factor model, the three factorsaligned only partially with the three dimensions of Fila et al.’s [19] engineering for, with, and aspeople framework. The first factor, which contained items focused on students’ generalengineering attitudes (i.e., sense of belonging in engineering, academic self-confidence and self-efficacy, and attitudes toward persisting and succeeding in engineering), fits well with theengineering as people dimension. This dimension takes into account that engineers areindividuals who have their own skill sets and experiences in engineering, which contributes totheir feelings of belonging because there are certain values and skills that are more acceptablethan others [31, 58]. A diminished sense of
of conversationalways, that students could discover during their analysis of the interviews and include in theirworkstation designs.Table 1: Human-centered Design (HCD) Problem Workstation Design: You have been asked to design the workstations The workstation, at a minimum, that will be constructed in each faculty and staff private office for a should account for: brand-new Industrial Engineering building at the university. Each University assigned desktop computer private office will have a window. This is a workstation meant for a and monitor(s), placement of the sitting individual while working with a desktop computer. There are computer tower / central processing about the same number of male and females
mental illness: an exploration of their experiences and challenges,” in 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2019, pp. 1–5.[2] J. Meickle, “Beyond burnout: Mental health and neurodiversity in engineering,” 2018.[3] C. L. Taylor, A. Esmaili Zaghi, J. C. Kaufman, S. M. Reis, and J. S. Renzulli, “Divergent thinking and academic performance of students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder characteristics in engineering,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 213–229, Apr. 2020.[4] C. L. Taylor and A. E. Zaghi, “Leveraging divergent thinking to enhance the academic performance of engineering students with executive functioning difficulties,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 45, p. 101109, Sep. 2022.[5] L
the NationalScience Foundation.References[1] D. F. Lohman, “Spatial Ability and G.” 1993.[2] K. S. McGrew, “CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research,” Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Jan. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004.[3] H. B. Yilmaz, “On the Development and Measurement of Spatial Ability,” International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 83–96, Mar. 2009.[4] C. Julià and J. Ò. Antolì, “Enhancing Spatial Ability and Mechanical Reasoning through a STEM Course,” International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 957–983, Dec. 2018.[5] M. Stieff and D. Uttal, “How
Suskie’s [71]where assessments should focus on thinking and performance skills (participants’ want toimprove students’ problem-solving skills and assess different knowledge with different testdesign). Overall, our studies have contributed to a more detailed exploration of instructors’beliefs in test question design.References[1] O. Rompelman, “Assessment of student learning: Evolution of objectives in engineering education and the consequences for assessment,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 339–350, 2000, doi: 10.1080/03043790050200386.[2] S. Sheppard, K. Macatangay, A. Colby, and W. M. Sullivan, Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
in education: Scientific and educationalimportance and implications for the learning sciences," The Journal of the Learning Sciences,vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 11-34, 2006.[3] T. Bielik, I. Delen, M. Krell, and O. B. Z. Assaraf, "Characterising the literature on theteaching and learning of system thinking and complexity in STEM education: A bibliometricanalysis and research synthesis," Journal for STEM Education Research, vol. 6, no. 2, 2023.[4] K. E. Dugan, E. A. Mosyjowski, S. R. Daly, and L. R. Lattuca, "Systems thinkingassessments in engineering: A systematic literature review," Systems Research and BehavioralScience, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 840-866, 2022.[5] J. R. Grohs, G. R. Kirk, M. M. Soledad, and D. B. Knight, "Assessing systems thinking
of growth mindsets than their White peers,yet they also reported lower levels of fixed mindsets [13]. Said differently, Ge et al.’s [13] cross-sectional study showed that White engineering students demonstrate a higher predispositiontowards a growth mindset and a higher predisposition towards endorsing a fixed view of theirabilities. An exploratory study aimed at understanding the relationship between students’engineering identity and mindsets longitudinally found that both a fixed and a growth mindsetwere positive predictors of identity [14]. However, the authors did acknowledge that there may bemoderating effects not considered in the model, such as course difficulty, that may also helpexplain the positive relationships [14]. The studies
teaching courses.Therefore, instead of using coding to present commonness, our strategy is to present acomprehensive picture that can capture different ideas. The main qualitative tacticsused include noting patterns/relations, building logical evidence, and makingcontrasts [25]. The interviews were conducted in Chinese, quotations were selectedand translated into English. The translation was confirmed with the interviewees. Table 2. The information of participants Years of teaching Participants Major Teaching course(s) * University
state of the literature in aspecific area without using formal quality examination in the inclusion or exclusion criteria [6].An ScR may also indicate whether conducting a systematic review would be appropriate [7].2.1 The Scoping Review Protocol. During the initial phase of the ScR, the research team must becritically reflective of the process, re-visiting prior stages to ensure that the final review meetsthe project's desired scope and research questions. The research team currently consists of anengineering librarian, two literature reviewers, and one content expert. Arksey and O'Malley'smethodology informed thedevelopment of the scoping review ScR S age Ob ec e O c
. Bilec, A. Dukes, A. Nave, A. Landis, and K. Parrish, “Developing and Sustaining Inclusive Engineering Learning Communities and Classrooms.” In 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN, 2022.[3] D. T. Rover, M. Mina, A. R. Herron-Martinez, S. L. Rodriguez, M. L. Espino, and B. D. Le, “Improving the Student Experience to Broaden Participation in Electrical, Computer and Software Engineering,” in 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2020, pp. 1–7.[4] L. Long and J. A. Mejia, “Conversations about Diversity: Institutional Barriers for Underrepresented Engineering Students,” J. Eng., vol. 105, no. 2, 2016.[5] M. E. Matters, C. B. Zoltowski, A. O. Brightman, and P. M. Buzzanell
to student success in engineering education,” EuropeanJournal of Engineering Education, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 368–381, 2017.[5] M. Scheidt, A. Godwin, E. Berger, J. Chen, B. P. Self, J. M. Widmann, and A. Q. Gates,“Engineering students’ noncognitive and affective factors: Group differences from clusteranalysis,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 343–370, 2021.[6] S.-M. R. Ting and R. Man, “Predicting academic success of first-year engineeringstudents from standardized test scores and psychosocial variables,” International Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 75–80, 2001.[7] B. F. French, J. C. Immekus, and W. C. Oakes, “An examination of indicators ofengineering students’ success and persistence
when accomplishing this purpose. Specifically, a largeamount of information is considered indirect knowledge, or knowledge only reasonablyaccessible to a learner through social contact [1]. Further, within the learning context,interactions are adapted reciprocally by the learning environment and learner [2]. These andrelated foundations indicate that understanding the social aspect(s) of the learning environment isessential for understanding and improving learning.To identify and optimize social variables related to student learning, recent engineeringeducation literature shows a growing awareness of and interest in peer support. Theseobservations of student interactions and outcomes indicate improved learning, motivation, andself-efficacy due
components ofspatial ability which may aid in the creation of more complete training.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation underGrant No. 1712887. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References[1] K. S. McGrew, “CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research,” Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Jan. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004.[2] D. F. Lohman, “Spatial Ability and G.” 1993.[3] A. Ramful, T. Lowrie, and T. Logan, “Measurement of Spatial
system users andother practitioners. For example, the LSRM may enhance the CATME system by accuratelymodeling longitudinal social relations data, and thereby improving the evaluation of teamdynamics and identifying potential areas for improvement. Ultimately, this may help instructorsbetter support their students' collaborative learning experiences and foster a more inclusivelearning environment. ReferencesAgrawal, A. K., & Harrington-Hurd, S. (2016). Preparing next generation graduates for a global engineering workforce: Insights from tomorrow's engineers. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 29(4), 5-12.Alsharif, A., Katz, A., Knight, D., & Alatwah, S. (2022). Using
, mathematics, and physics. His current research interests are focused on educational innovation and educational technologies.Dr. Gibr´an Sayeg-S´anchez, Tecnologico de Monterrey (ITESM) Dr. Gibr´an Sayeg-S´anchez is professor – consultant in the Science Department in Tecnologico de Mon- terrey, Puebla campus. He studied a PhD in Financial Science in EGADE Business School (2016), a MSc in Industrial Engineering in Tecnologico de Monterrey (2011), and a BEng in Industrial and Systems En- gineering in Tecnologico de Monterrey (2006). Dr. Sayeg-S´anchez has more than 11 years of experience in teaching statistics, mathematics, and operations research; and more than 13 years of experience in Op- erational Excellence consulting
context.AcknowledgmentsThis work was made possible by a U.S. Department of Education Graduate Assistance in Areasof National Need (GAANN) Grant Number P200A210109 and by a NSF Innovations inGraduate Education (IGE) Program [IGE DGE#2224724] grant. 5 References[1] Gilmore, J. A., Wofford, A. M., & Maher, M. A. (2016). The Flip Side of the Attrition Coin: Faculty Perceptions of Factors Supporting Graduate Student Success. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 419–439. https://doi.org/10.28945/3618[2] S. Spaulding, L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2012). Hearing their Voices
undergraduate students NicholasInsinga, David Lentz, Dylan Letcher, Alfred Marchev, and Ryan Petzitillo who assisted in thedevelopment of the interview protocol and identification of the initial emergent codes.References[1] A. Godwin and A. Kirn, “Identity‐ based motivation: Connections between first‐year students’ engineering role identities and future‐time perspectives,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 362–383, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20324.[2] D. R. Simmons, J. Van Mullekom, and M. W. Ohland, “The Popularity and Intensity of Engineering Undergraduate Out‐of‐Class Activities,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 611–635, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1002/jee.20235.[3] R. S. Adams, S. R. Daly, L. M. Mann, and G. Dall’Alba
of communicating learning achievement since theearly 1900’s [1]. Despite grades having the very practical purpose of communicating our levelsof learning or performance achievement to both the learners and the educational system morebroadly [2], [3], when reflecting on the moments and instances in which we remember receivinggrades we likely don’t only remember the learning material or content. Intertwined with thesememories of receiving grades are likely emotional reactions - sometimes incredibly strong. Thejoy and pride of achieving a good grade, the disappointment or frustration with a bad grade, orthe anticipatory excitement or fear related to either preparing for a graded event such as an examor presentation, or even waiting for a grade
to figure out which elements on project teams are prompting the development and practiceof professional skills on project teams to understand if those elements can be replicated in other settings.Not all students or institutions have the resources or availability to expand or participate in project teams.However, by understanding which structures or elements have been useful for developing professionalskills, instructors can introduce similar tactics into classroom settings so more students have opportunitiesto develop their professional skills.References[1] L. Bland, S. Kusano, and A. Johri, “Engineering Competitions as Pathways to Development of Professional Engineering Skills,” in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
engineering.ConclusionThis study described underrepresented students’ own perceptions of sense of belonging,highlighting the multiple and varied ways that students describe what belonging in engineeringmeans to them. Responses demonstrated the ways in which students described belonging asmeaning (a) having competence, (b) positive experiences in the learning environment, and (c)finding meaningful social connections. These findings, part of a broader mixed-methods study onsense of belonging in engineering students, can inform further research, helping to contextualizestudent interpretations of belonging and providing strategies to improving learning environmentsto support student sense of belonging.References[1] C. E. Foor, S. E. Walden, and D. A. Trytten, “’I wish
, et al. (2021, Between Level Up and Game Over: A Systematic Literature Review of Gamification in Education. Sustainability 13(4).[5] L. Sardi, A. Idri, and J. L. Fernández-Alemán, "A systematic review of gamification in e-Health," Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 71, pp. 31-48, 2017/07/01/ 2017.[6] K. Robson, K. Plangger, J. H. Kietzmann, I. McCarthy, and L. Pitt, "Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamification," Business Horizons, vol. 59, pp. 29-36, 2016/01/01/ 2016.[7] A. Behl, P. Sheorey, A. Pal, A. K. V. Veetil, and S. R. Singh, "Gamification in E- Commerce: A Comprehensive Review of Literature," Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations (JECO), vol. 18, pp. 1-16, 2020
NationalCenter for Education Statistics (NCES), many university students in the United States are non-traditional. Despite these challenges, non-traditional students excel because they understand thevalue of a college degree in today's job market, particularly for certain engineering disciplineswhere a degree is required. Hispanic/Latino(a) students are often non-traditional and face unique challenges andobstacles in their pursuit of their degree. Hispanics/Latino(a)s are more likely than otherdemographic groups to work while attending college [2]. The high rate of labor forceparticipation among Hispanic/Latino(a) students can be seen as an example of intersectionality[3], as it is influenced by multiple factors, including their race, ethnicity
may aggravate stress, distress, and traumatic experiences that inordinately impact BLstudents.References[1] K. J. Jensen and K. J. Cross, “Engineering stress culture: Relationships among mental health, engineering identity, and sense of inclusion,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 371–392, 2021, doi: 10.1002/jee.20391.[2] M. Asghar, A. Minichiello, and S. Ahmed, “Mental health and wellbeing of undergraduate students in engineering: A systematic literature review,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 1046–1075, 2024, doi: 10.1002/jee.20574.[3] H. Perkins et al., “Holistic Wellbeing and Belonging: Attempting to Untangle Stress and Wellness in Their Impact on Sense of Community in
, orresearch competency development among engineering graduate students.Main and Wang [3] are two of the only researchers to date who have conducted interculturalcompetency research among engineering doctoral students, and the results demonstrate that femaleengineering doctoral students are more likely to score higher on the MGUDS-S than maleengineering doctoral students. Proficiency in multiple languages is positively associated withdoctoral students’ intercultural competency.Several additional papers assessing the current status of graduate students [3], [4] recommendhaving work/volunteer-related international experience due to the positive correlation ofinternational experiences to the development of intercultural/global competencies in their
shows three contexts that influence engineering instructors offundamental engineering courses (FECs) in using tests in their courses: 1) autonomy, 2) coursecontext, and 3) inertia. These contexts are largely consistent with the literature, but also revealsome research gaps that the engineering education community should think about addressing toimprove our education processes. In addition, the community can use our findings to raisequestions about test usage, introducing intentionality with test usage in engineering classrooms.ReferencesAbadi, M. G., Hurwitz, D. S., & Brown, S. (2017). Influence of context on item-specific self- efficacy and competence of engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(4
work is consideredrigorous engineering research? What work is considered to have the most value? What is valuedby the dominant cultural and political voices? This work-in-progress paper provides currentfindings as a brief narrative exploration of literature on engineering research culture, and theparadigm(s) that lead engineering research work that was guided by the following question: whatare the research and cultural paradigms that guide engineering research?As this question is ambiguous and broad, I would like to explicitly note that this paper does notreport on preliminary findings from the first stages of a scoping literature review, but it is anarrative literature review to lay a foundation for further exploration. This paper serves as