advances, we movetowards a new industrial landscape where engineers face increasingly complex problems. Forengineering students of the 21st century to thrive in their future careers, it is crucial forinterdisciplinary education to equip them with the necessary tools and support required to solveproblems effectively and think more comprehensively. CT and the engineering way of thinkingenhance conceptualization and critical thinking skills, and their processes complement eachother. Thus, promoting CT in engineering education is essential. However, research on theinterpretation and development of CT is conducted to a limited extent at the undergraduate level.A semi-structured interview protocol was developed to gather insights on the five main
, new insights, and field recommendations. Weground our analysis in our individual and collective positionalities as well as the careful selectionof a guiding theoretical framework. We explore the use of a collaborative autoethnographyapproach and qualitative coding of the panel transcript as effective methods for analyzing paneldiscussions and capturing the information and ideas presented in peer-reviewed publications.We find the method presented especially impactful for topics related to broadening participationin engineering. Marginalized groups are still vastly underrepresented, and their perspectivesremain unvalidated within engineering and engineering education spaces. This paper is based ona panel of six early career women engineers in
supported by the National Science Foundation GraduateResearch Fellowship Program under Grant DGE1745048. Any opinion, findings, conclusions, orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflectthe views of the sponsors.References[1] K. L. Lockhart, M. K. Goddu, E. D. Smith, and F. C. Keil, “What could you really learn on your own?: Understanding the epistemic limitations of knowledge acquisition,” Child Dev, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 477–493, 2016, doi: 10.1111/cdev.12469.[2] A. Bandura, Social learning theory. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall, 1977.[3] N. Fouad, “Career theory and practice: Learning through case studies,” Third., 2014.[4] G. Hackett and N. E. Betz, “A self-efficacy approach
of ”Studying Engineering – A Road Map to a Rewarding Career”.Prof. Alessandro Hill, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Dr. Hill is an assistant professor in industrial engineering at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He has a background in mathematics, computer science and operations research and primarily teaches analytics related courses. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 A Novel Approach to Purposeful Team FormationAbstractThis evidence-based research paper presents a new approach to team formation in engineeringcourses. Teamwork plays a pivotal role in active learning and holds the potential to enhance
utilizing design projects as a way to engage students in experiential learning [8]. We havenoted growing interest in design projects, especially from faculty teaching technical electives.These courses and design experiences cover topics from all manner of engineering disciplinesand are wide ranging and diverse in their topics and approaches. This means that one student’sexposure to design learning experiences may differ greatly from another’s. Because design is acentral part of engineering, we should expect that students receive appropriate training in designthroughout their undergraduate career. By developing assessment tools that can be used tomeasure design self-efficacy over time, we can facilitate a better understanding of how studentsare
develop and iterate upon a mixed-methods survey that seeks to understandstudents’ perceptions of ethical issues within the aerospace discipline. In the most recent versionof our survey instrument, thirty-one Likert-scale questions asked about students’ feelingstowards the current state of aerospace engineering and their ideal state of the aerospace field.Within this survey, eight Likert-scale prompts are followed by open-ended questions askingstudents to explain their answers in-depth. For instance, if students agreed or strongly agreedwith the statement ‘It is important to me to use my career as an aerospace engineer to make apositive difference in the world.’, a follow-up item asked students to explain what positivedifferences they would like
in Grand Rapids, Michigan. She earned an M.S. and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, with research in protein engineering. Her current research interests include engineering career pathways as well as diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, both in engineering education and engineering workplaces.Ms. Shruti Misra, University of Washington I am a graduate student in Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. My research interest is broadly focused on studying innovation in university-industry partnerships. I am interesting in various ways that universities ©American Society for Engineering Education
increasing students' course grades and motivatingthem to continue studying biology.Another subtheme from the EVT review was a focus on differences in expectancy-value beliefsin students based on biological sex. An excellent example of this focus within engineeringeducation comes from a study by Jones et al. [47]. The researchers were interested in first-yearengineering differences in self-efficacy expectations, engineering success expectations,engineering identity, engineering values, achievement, and career plans between male andfemale students. An interesting finding was that males had higher expectancy beliefs, includingthose related to self-efficacy than females, but both populations saw losses in their expectancyand value beliefs over the first
career where they would be able to use their talents, feel like they belong,and look forward to working in. Factor 3 depicts students’ academic self-confidence and self-efficacy, in terms of their confidence in their engineering problem solving abilities, academicperformance, and confidence in succeeding in a college curriculum. Factor 4 characterizesstudents’ understanding of the broad nature of engineering, with respect to how they understandthe relationship between engineering and society and how engineers work with others. Factor 5describes students’ attitudes toward persisting and succeeding in engineering, in regard tostudents’ beliefs about their engineering capability, their confidence in succeeding in anengineering curriculum, and
University of South Dakota, her M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and her PhD in Engineering Education from Purdue University. Her research expertise lies in characterizing graduate-level attrition, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and methodological development. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Synthesizing Indicators of Quality across Traditions of Narrative ResearchMethods: A Procedural Framework and Demonstration of Smoothing FramesAbstractThe purpose of this methods paper is to describe and discuss one of the main indicators ofquality in narrative analysis, which is the process of narrative smoothing. Narrative analysisrefers
, no. 3, pp. 362– 383, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1002/jee.20324.[2] H. M. Matusovich, R. A. Streveler, and R. L. Miller, “Why Do Students Choose Engineering? A Qualitative, Longitudinal Investigation of Students’ Motivational Values,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 289–303, Oct. 2010, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01064.x.[3] M. Paretti and L. McNair, “Analyzing the intersections of institutional and discourse identities in engineering work at the local level,” Eng. Stud., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 55–78, 2012.[4] A. Godwin, G. Potvin, and Z. Hazari, “The development of critical engineering agency, identity, and the impact on engineering career choices,” in 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Socially Engaged Design.Vibhavari Vempala, University of Michigan Vibhavari (Vibha) Vempala is a PhD student in Engineering Education Research at the University of Michigan. Her research interests include access to opportunities, social networks, and career management of engineering students. Vibha received her B.S. in Engineering from the joint department of Biomedical Engineering at The North Carolina State University and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a M.S. in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Michigan.Dr. Jingfeng Wu, University of Michigan Jingfeng Wu is currently a PhD student at the University of Michigan majoring in Engineering Education Research. She holds a PhD in Chemical
comprehensionand problem-solving abilities. As STEM research focuses more on workforce developmentand students’ career visions rather than content learning, Takeuchi et al. [1] emphasize theneed to examine current learners, target learners, and their positions with respect to STEM.They argue that improving the rate of learning transfer across STEM education requiresgreater focus on spatial skills as a part of STEM integration applicable and relevant toindustry context. Literature suggests that visuospatial skills contribute to success in STEMdisciplines [2]–[4]. Children with good visuospatial skills performed better on numeric tasks,such as estimating the values on a number line, while children with poor visuospatial skillswere less accurate in their
practices by recognizing the richness of students' emphasizes storytelling, reflection, and stories and experiences and how it contributes to the creation of a shared vision. student outcomes. The anticipatory principle aligns with asset-based practices by focusing on the potential formation The anticipatory principle involves of professional identities among students. For envisioning and actively anticipating a instance, students' visions of their future careers positive future. or contributions
slowlyincreased (Cunninghame et al., 2016), this group still remains largely underrepresented in STEMdisciplines (Moon et al., 2012). This discrepancy in representation reflects larger issues ofmarginalization in STEM fields and higher education at large. Current support structures fordisabled people remain ineffective, as accessing necessary resources requires navigatingphysical, cultural, and bureaucratic barriers (Groen-McCall et al., 2018). These barriers onlycontinue to widen for disabled students planning to pursue engineering careers (Prema & Dhand,2019), as seen in the high unemployment rate for disabled scientists and engineers, which isgreater than that of the entire U.S. labor force (Lee, 2010; NSF, 2017). Yet, disability is rarelyincluded
racialidentity. Collins [10] defines the external environment as the institution of schooling, the workspace, andthe career space in which a Black student in STEM is situated. This environment influences a Blackstudent’s STEM identity because it houses the academic interactions Collins [10] defines as themicrocosms that develop a STEM identity. The external environment should also reinforce a Blackstudent’s gender-based racial identity. However, Collins [10] identifies how external environmentstraditionally threaten a Black student’s gender-based racial identity by perpetuating a chilly STEMclimate through stereotypes and gender biases. Nevertheless, she points out the need for Black studentsto cultivate STEM identities in external environments that are
with axis of what and how: individual to group activities, and “domainspecific content knowledge” to “key design qualities.”Research MethodsTo identify common features and distinguish elements across courses, studied three designcourse sequences at [university]. Methods involved in the research included documentationanalysis (course syllabi, course descriptions in academic course catalog) [28, 29] as well asstudent and alumni feedback obtained through structured qualitative interviews. This qualitativeset of descriptions are augments to a larger research project surveying alumni of each course [31-33] with respect to its short- and long-term effectiveness such as impact on career andprofessional development, and big takeaways on effectiveness
to do with research outcomes, and the difficulty of “playing thegame” or “following the money,” aligning our research goals with those we know would havethe best chance of receiving recognition, funding, and career mobility. In our experience, wenoticed that this approach could limit how we frame the work in which we engage. I find myselfperpetuating and acting within this system regularly as an engineering education researcher,often questioning the “so what” of work I do, attempting to frame any work I do to the NSF’sgoal of developing a diverse, innovative body of engineers for U.S. global competitiveness.There are tangible benefits that are gained from these endeavors, but these underlying valuesdirectly or indirectly influence any
student interviewsThemes are explained in order of the frequency with which they appeared during studentinterviews. 5.1.1 | Need for improvement in first-year students’ experiencesTo positively influence students’ MHW in undergraduate engineering, the student participantssuggested their institution take steps when students were in their first year. They thought thatexposing students to hands-on experience, while they were in their first year, was important forthem to engage with their course content. More steps need to be taken to do so. If students wereinformed more effectively about what engineering major career choices they could make in thecoming years while they were in the first year of their studies, they will be able to make
educational experiences that consider epistemic cognition. She develops and uses innova- tive research methods that allow for deep investigations of constructs such as epistemic thinking, identity, and agency. Dr. Faber has a B.S. in Bioengineering and a Ph.D. in Engineering and Science Education from Clemson University and a M.S. in Biomedical Engineering from Cornell University. Among other awards for her research, she was awarded a National Science Foundation CAREER Award in 2022 to study epistemic negotiations on interdisciplinary engineering education research teams.Lorna Treffert, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Lorna Treffert is a 1st year Ph.D. student in the Theory and Practice in Teacher Education Department at
believecontributes to a "usefulness" factor might be: The material presented in this class will behelpful in my future career and assessed on a Likert-type agreement scale (numerical scaledesigned to measure agreement with a statement). Generally, at least twice as many itemsshould be generated as you desire to have in the final instrument (i.e., for a 10-iteminstrument, you should generate 20 items). Another rule of thumb is to have no fewer thanthree items per factor in your final instrument, while five items per factor are even better [4].So, if we proposed a 5-factor model in the ideation stage (see Figure 1), we would need aminimum of 15 - 25 items in the final instrument. Thus, we would generate at least 30 orperhaps even 50 items to test in our
University and a M.S. in Biomedical Engineering from Cornell University. Among other awards for her research, she was awarded a National Science Foundation CAREER Award in 2022 to study epistemic negotiations on interdisciplinary engineering education research teams. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Representing Interview Data with I-poemsAbstractIn this methods paper, we describe the use of participant-generated I-poems as a tool to representdata from qualitative interviews. I-poems are poems composed of I-statements a participantmade during an interview. This form of qualitative analysis highlights a participant’s voice andself-focused statements within a text. For
students in pursuit of their careers.” Accessed: Jan. 15, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central- ny/education/2023/12/08/importance-of-stem-exposure-for-students-in-the-pursuit-of-their- careers[2] D. K. Deardorff, “Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization,” J. Stud. Int. Educ., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 241–266, 2006.[3] A. Jaiswal, L. Jin, and K. Acheson, “Evaluation of STEM Program on Student Intercultural Development: Do Intercultural Interventions Work?,” Innov. High. Educ., Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10755-023-09691-4.[4] P. Bahrami, Y. Kim, A. Jaiswal, D. Patel, S. Aggrawal, and A. J. Magana, “Information Technology Undergraduate
military veteran, licensed mechanical engineer, and associate professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Utah State University. Her research examines issues of access, equity, and identity in the formation of engineers and a diverse, transdisciplinary 21st century engineering workforce. Angie received an NSF CAREER award in 2021 for her work with student veterans and service members in engineering. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Generating, Consolidating, and Analyzing Social Network Data: Lessons Learned from a Large-Scale, Longitudinal, Network StudyIntroductionThis methods paper provides recommendations for engineering education researchersconsidering Social
workforce (Hoffman et al., 2010; NAE & NRC, 2012) and serve as a means inbroadening the participation in engineering careers that have been historically overrepresentedby White men. Moreover, strengthening the vertical transfer pathway to engineering disciplinescan improve equity by increasing the social and economic mobility of this diverse subpopulationof students (Dowd, 2012; Terenzini et al., 2014). However, the literature on engineering transferstudent success, specifically for ET students, and baccalaureate degree attainment remainssparse. Smith and Van Aken's (2020) systematic review of the persistence of engineering transferstudents found that the research predominantly focused on pre-transfer academic outcomes or,more broadly, on STEM
practices to incorporate social responsibility skills and collaborative and inclusive teams into the curriculum. Dr. Rivera-Jim´enez graduated from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayag¨uez with a B.S. and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. She earned an NSF RIEF award recognizing her effort in transitioning from a meaningful ten-year teaching faculty career into engineering education research. Before her current role, she taught STEM courses at diverse institutions such as HSI, community college, and R1 public university. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Work In Progress: A Scoping Literature Review on Institutional Culture and Transformational Change in Engineering
career goals [2], self-assessment can be a useful tool in helping students to improve or promote their task values andprovide the opportunity for them to improve their self-regulatory skills during progressevaluation. Self-assessment involves giving students the opportunity to evaluate their ownacademic performances [3] by assessing their own works and awarding scores [4]. Also, self-assessment could be used as an avenue for conveying feedback on students’ work [5], with thegoal of deepening learning and enhancing performance [6]. Self-assessment, as a self-regulatoryactivity, can also help students focus on their academic goals and performances. By imbibing areflective attitude to learning, students can self-regulate and work towards improving
anxiety (an intrapersonal competency), having a senseof belonging and engineering identity (an interpersonal competency), and having good studystrategies (a behavioral competency). Many such competencies – which impact both negative(e.g., stress and anxiety) and positive (e.g., gratitude, motivation) functioning – can be learnedand are an integral part of thriving. There is also evidence that thriving competencies presentduring the undergraduate years carry over to one’s post-graduation career [9].Previous FindingsSince 2016 our team has collaborated on a study premised on the importance of NCA factors forthe success of engineering and computing students. The research team developed a surveyinstrument with evidence for reliability and validity to
study examined whether the useof LCDLMs promoted similar levels of engagement for male and female students. As brieflydescribed in the introduction, gender differences still exist in educational outcomes, particularlyin STEM classrooms [6]. To reduce the gender gap in STEM, attention should be given toaddressing the contributory cognitive and motivational factors, primarily maximizing the numberof career options women perceive as attainable and compatible with their abilities and goals.Results of this study show no significant differences between the gender groups, which suggeststhat using LCDLMs is beneficial for females as they are for males. This is good because extantliterature shows gender differences in STEM, suggesting that gender gaps
entrepreneurship.Dr. Emily Dringenberg, The Ohio State University Dr. Dringenberg is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Ohio State Uni- versity. She holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (Kansas State ’08), a M.S. in Industrial Engineering (Purdue ’14) and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education.Dr. Elif Miskioglu, Bucknell University Dr. Elif Miskioglu is an early-career engineering education scholar and educator. She holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering (with Genetics minor) from Iowa State University, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Ohio State University. Her early Ph.D. work focused on the development of bacterial biosensors capable of screening pesticides for specifically