Exploring Engineering Mindset

An optional survey instrument is used to investigate the mindset of engineering and computer-science students at a mid-sized, private university in the United States. The instrument was based on modification of prior survey instruments on mindset as well as student interpretation of talent and intelligence. With nearly 1/3 of the students responding, a significant data base was generated for student of mindset and student perceptions. In the present paper, a portion of the survey results are analyzed in an effort to explore: (i) what diversity of mindset is carried by first-year students into the university experience, (ii) how mindset evolves during the undergraduate experience, and (iii) whether differences in mindset can be identified by gender or discipline. Through multiple statistical analyses, the survey results indicate that the distribution of mindset is relatively diverse among the first-year students, but biased towards an open mindset (versus fixed mindset). There is also evidence that the mindset shifts somewhat towards fixed mindset as the students progress towards their final year. Differences in responses from students from different disciplines are noted, but no significant difference in mindset is observed by gender. Introduction The nature of student mindset is something that has remained nearly untouched in the field of engineering education. Over the years, we have discussed the nature of student beliefs, pre-existing notions of engineering students bring to the table, we have observed fascinating work on pedagogical differences leading to positive student outcomes, yet mindset in the form traditionally seen and debated within educational circles remains a somewhat elusive target. Educators, in particular, are interested in better understanding how students perceive their own intelligence so that programs and instructors might use that knowledge to help support learning. If students insist that intelligence and talent are fixed traits that cannot be influenced via instruction or practice, institutes of higher education become less able to promote the learning and achievement necessary in today’s marketplace. Certainly, in today’s engineering landscape, flexibility seems to be a requirement of the technical world, and one would hope the mindset of students could shift to better situate them for the challenges of tomorrow. A number of authors working within the field of education theory have argued that increasing the efficacy of our educational initiatives requires a deeper understanding of student self-perceptions of their individual ability to learn, increase intelligence, and develop professional talents (e.g., Dweck, 2006; Hattie, 2002). These selfperceptions have been related to the terms “fixed mindset” and “growth mindset” as a broad means of identifying student preparedness to pursue educational objectives. Perhaps the most significant work on mindset has been performed by Dweck (e.g., Dweck, 2007; Ehrlinger et al., 2015). In particular, Dweck has assessed the impact of these two mindsets on student learning with the fixed mindset tending to focus student learning on “documenting their intelligence or talent instead of developing them”. As such, such students can be expected to exhibit a tendency to avoid difficult problems, react with greater resistance to challenges, and be motivated by goals that validate current accomplishment rather stress new learning and an associated risk of failure. In contrast, the growth mindset has been characterized by students recognizing that they can develop their talents through effort and persistence, thus encouraging more focus on active learning. This work has led others to consider the impact of the student mindset on the resulting learning environment. Hattie (2002) for example has argued that the fixed mindset leads students to attempt to optimize their educational experience through trying to “look smart all the time and never look dumb”. In contrast, the growth mindset leads to greater effort, a focus on the quality of the learning environment, and great willingness to persist despite failure. Legget (1985) relates the combination of mindset and stereotypes to differences in persistence of different student groups. Specifically, while women and men with the growth mindset persist in STEM programs in similar percentages, women exhibiting the fixed mindset persist in lower percentages than do their male counterparts. These authors argue that this lower persistence is likely a result of the combination of the fixed mindset which leads the student to believe that improvement is likely not possible in basic talent and intelligence, and societal stereotypes that send messages to young ladies in K-12 environments that they are less qualified than their male counterparts to pursue technical STEM fields. Finally, Reid and Ferguson (2014) suggest that many engineering students evolve towards greater consistency with the fixed mindset during their educational experiences. Within the present paper, we use a survey instruments containing components adapted from the work of others (e.g., Dweck, 2007) to study the self-evaluations of students from a single university pursuing undergraduate degrees in multiple engineering and computer-science disciplines. This instrument allowed examination of a number of variables in the student learning environment. The present paper focuses on the following fundamental