Preparing the Engineer of 2020: Analysis of Alumni Data

Irene B. Mena; Sarah E. Zappe; Thomas A. Litzinger

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Publication Date: June 10, 2012
Start Date: June 10, 2012
End Date: June 13, 2012
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: Before and After: Matriculants and Alumni
Tagged Division: Educational Research and Methods
Page Count: 22
Page Numbers: 25.1062.1 - 25.1062.22
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--21819
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/21819
Download Count: 542

Paper Authors

biography

Irene B. Mena Pennsylvania State University, University Park

visit author page

Irene B. Mena has a B.S. and M.S. in industrial engineering, and a Ph.D. in engineering education. Her research interests include first-year engineering and graduate student professional development.

visit author page

biography

Sarah E. Zappe Pennsylvania State University, University Park

visit author page

Sarah Zappe is the Director of Assessment and Instructional Support in the College of Engineering at Penn State University. In this role, she provides support to faculty in trying innovative ideas in the classroom. Her background is in educational psychology with an emphasis in applied testing and measurement. Her current research interests include integrating creativity into the engineering curriculum, development instruments to measure the engineering professional skills, and using qualitative data to enhance response process validity of tests and instruments.

visit author page

author page

Thomas A. Litzinger Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Preparing the Engineer of 2020: Analysis of Alumni DataThe College of Engineering at a large mid-Atlantic University aspires to educate engineers of2020: engineers who are innovative, ethical, and good communicators, and have the skills towork globally and in multidisciplinary teams. For evaluation purposes, the Universityperiodically sends out surveys in which engineering alumni are asked about how well-preparedthey perceive themselves to be for their post-graduation employment. Using the results from the2010 version of this survey, this study seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What arealumni’s perceptions of their preparedness in these areas: ethics, innovation, communication,project management, global and international work, and multidisciplinary teamwork? (2) Inwhat ways do these perceptions differ by departments? and (3) Can groups, or clusters, beidentified from the survey results?An exploratory cluster analysis was performed on survey data from 799 engineering alumni.The cluster analysis identified three groups: (1) Group A: the well-prepared engineers. Theseparticipants perceived themselves to be very prepared for ethics, multidisciplinary teamwork,project management, innovation, and communication, and somewhat prepared for global work.(2) Group B: the moderately prepared engineers who communicate well. These participantsperceived themselves to be very prepared in communication, and somewhat prepared in ethics,global work, multidisciplinary teamwork, project management, and innovation, and (3) Group C:the moderately prepared engineers. These participants perceived themselves to be somewhatprepared in ethics, project management, innovation, and communication, and not prepared forglobal work or multidisciplinary teamwork. The results indicated differences by departments,illustrated by the different cluster patterns across departments.In this paper, additional emphasis will be placed on Group A, the well-prepared engineers.Fifteen alumni classified as being in the well-prepared group participated in one thirty-minutetelephone interview in which they described the undergraduate engineering experiences thathelped prepare them for these skills. Preliminary results from these interviews are presented inthis paper.The methods described in this paper can be used by universities and departments interested inconducting program evaluations. The preliminary results presented in this paper willdemonstrate some of the experiences that have and have not been effective in the process ofpreparing engineers of 2020, with the goal of propagating these effective experiences acrossdepartments.

Citation
Format

Mena, I. B., & Zappe, S. E., & Litzinger, T. A. (2012, June), Preparing the Engineer of 2020: Analysis of Alumni Data Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--21819

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -              Preparing the Engineer of 2020: Analysis of Alumni DataThe College of Engineering at a large mid-Atlantic University aspires to educate engineers of2020: engineers who are innovative, ethical, and good communicators, and have the skills towork globally and in multidisciplinary teams. For evaluation purposes, the Universityperiodically sends out surveys in which engineering alumni are asked about how well-preparedthey perceive themselves to be for their post-graduation employment. Using the results from the2010 version of this survey, this study seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What arealumni’s perceptions of their preparedness in these areas: ethics, innovation, communication,project management, global and international work, and multidisciplinary teamwork? (2) Inwhat ways do these perceptions differ by departments? and (3) Can groups, or clusters, beidentified from the survey results?An exploratory cluster analysis was performed on survey data from 799 engineering alumni.The cluster analysis identified three groups: (1) Group A: the well-prepared engineers. Theseparticipants perceived themselves to be very prepared for ethics, multidisciplinary teamwork,project management, innovation, and communication, and somewhat prepared for global work.(2) Group B: the moderately prepared engineers who communicate well. These participantsperceived themselves to be very prepared in communication, and somewhat prepared in ethics,global work, multidisciplinary teamwork, project management, and innovation, and (3) Group C:the moderately prepared engineers. These participants perceived themselves to be somewhatprepared in ethics, project management, innovation, and communication, and not prepared forglobal work or multidisciplinary teamwork. The results indicated differences by departments,illustrated by the different cluster patterns across departments.In this paper, additional emphasis will be placed on Group A, the well-prepared engineers.Fifteen alumni classified as being in the well-prepared group participated in one thirty-minutetelephone interview in which they described the undergraduate engineering experiences thathelped prepare them for these skills. Preliminary results from these interviews are presented inthis paper.The methods described in this paper can be used by universities and departments interested inconducting program evaluations. The preliminary results presented in this paper willdemonstrate some of the experiences that have and have not been effective in the process ofpreparing engineers of 2020, with the goal of propagating these effective experiences acrossdepartments.
AU  - Irene B. Mena
AU  - Sarah E. Zappe
AU  - Thomas A. Litzinger
CY  - San Antonio, Texas
DA  - 2012/06/10
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Preparing the Engineer of 2020: Analysis of Alumni Data
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/21819
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--21819
ER  -