bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Why Do Students Choose Engineering? A Qualitative, Longitudinal Investigation of Students' Motivational Values
Authors: Matusovich Holly M. , Streveler Ruth A. , Miller Ronald L. 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundRecently published reports call for an increase in the number of engineering graduates and suggest appropriate characteristics that these graduates should embody. Accomplishing such change first requires understanding why students choose to pursue engineering degrees.Purpose (Hypothesis)Framed in motivation theory, our purpose was to better understand how students choose engineering by answering the question: How do engineering students' engineering‐related value beliefs contribute to their choices to engage and persist in earning engineering degrees?Design/MethodThis research uses Eccles' expectancy‐value theory in a qualitative, longitudinal examination of undergraduate students' choices to enroll and persist in engineering majors. In particular, the focus of this work is Eccles' subjective task value (STV) construct, which incorporates the personal importance an individual assigns to engaging in an activity. Using a multiple case study method approach, participants included eleven students (five men and six women) at a U.S. technical school.ResultsResults demonstrate that different patterns exist in the types of value or personal importance that participants assign to earning an engineering degree. Moreover, a primary differentiating feature of these patterns is whether or not participants choose engineering because it is consistent with their personal identity or sense of self.ConclusionsWe conclude that values are very important in students' choices to become engineers. To increase persistence rates we must focus on values, especially by helping students connect their personal identities to engineering identities.
Comparing the Undergraduate Experience of Engineers to All Other Majors: Significant Differences are Programmatic
Authors: Lichtenstein Gary , McCormick Alexander C. , Sheppard Sheri D. , Puma Jini 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundThe authors partnered with the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to examine how persistence within the engineering major and engagement of undergraduate students in engineering compare to other majors.Purpose (Hypothesis)We explored three research questions: How do engineering students rate their college engagement compared to students in other majors? How do engineering persisters, non‐persisters, and migrators compare in terms of collegiate engagement, time on task, and enriching educational experiences? What college engagement factors predict persistence in engineering?Design/MethodData are from nearly 12,000 students who completed the NSSE survey in their first and senior years as undergraduates. Surveys were analyzed using ANOVA and Chi‐square calculations to determine whether differences emerged in three dimensions of student engagement based on students' self‐reported major. Due to the large sample, effect size was used to determine statistical significance. Binary logistic regression was used to identify factors that predict persistence among first year students and seniors in engineering.ResultsResults show that engineering majors are similar to non‐engineering majors on most variables. However, engineering majors reported significantly higher gains in practical competence and higher order thinking, but the lowest means on reflective learning and gains in general education. Engineering majors reported significantly more time preparing for class and less time participating in educationally enriching experiences.ConclusionsWe conclude that different educational outcomes between majors are the result of programmatic differences. The packed engineering curriculum requires students to make trade‐offs between gaining practical/marketable skills and participating in educationally enriching activities. We question this trade‐off and suggest alternative approaches.
Constructive Alignment of Interdisciplinary Graduate Curriculum in Engineering and Science: An Analysis of Successful IGERT Proposals
Authors: Borrego Maura , Cutler Stephanie 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundInterdisciplinary approaches are critical to solving the most pressing technological challenges. Despite the proliferation of graduate programs to fill this need, there is little archival literature identifying learning outcomes, learning experiences, or benchmarks for evaluating interdisciplinary graduate student learning.Purpose (Hypothesis)The purpose of this study is to understand how engineering and science academics conceptualize interdisciplinary graduate education in order to identify common practices and recommend improvements. Questions generated by an instructional design framework guided the analysis: what desired outcomes, evidence, and learning experiences are currently associated with interdisciplinary graduate education? To what extent are these components constructively aligned with each other?Design/MethodContent analysis was performed on 130 funded proposals from the U.S. National Science Foundation's Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program.ResultsFour desired student learning outcomes were identified: contributions to the technical area, broad perspective, teamwork, and interdisciplinary communication skills. Student requirements (educational plans) addressed these outcomes to some extent, but assessment/evidence sections generally targeted program level goals—as opposed to student learning. This lack of constructive alignment between components is a major weakness of graduate curriculum.ConclusionsCurrent practices are promising. Further clarification of interdisciplinary learning outcomes, coupled with closer alignment of outcomes, evidence, and learning experiences will continue to improve interdisciplinary graduate education in engineering and science. Specific recommendations for engineering and science faculty members are: define clear learning objectives, enlist assessment/evaluation expertise, and constructively align all aspects of the curriculum.
Outcomes of a Longitudinal Administration of the Persistence in Engineering Survey
Authors: Eris Ozgur , Chachra Debbie , Chen Helen L. , Sheppard Sheri , Ludlow Larry , Rosca Camelia , Bailey Tori , Toye George 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundUnderstanding more about student decisions to leave engineering may lead to higher retention. This study builds on the literature and focuses on the experiences of a cohort of students who aimed to complete their undergraduate work in 2007.Purpose (Hypothesis)This paper presents the outcomes of the longitudinal administration of the Persistence in Engineering survey. The goal was to identify correlates of persistence in undergraduate engineering education and professional engineering practice.Design/MethodThe survey was administered seven times over four years to a cohort of students who had expressed interest in studying engineering. At the end of the study, the participants were categorized as persisters or non‐persisters. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used, in conjunction with other approaches, to test for differences between the groups.ResultsPersisters and non‐persisters did not differ significantly according to the majority of the constructs. Nevertheless, parental and high school mentor influences as a motivation to study engineering, as well as confidence in math and science skills, were identified as correlates of persistence. Intention to complete an engineering major was also a correlate of persistence; it appears to decline sharply at least two semesters prior to students leaving engineering. The findings also suggest that there might be differences among non‐persisters when they are further grouped by when they leave engineering.ConclusionsFacilitating higher levels of mentor involvement before college might increase student motivation to study engineering, and also constitute a mechanism for fostering confidence in math and science skills. Since the intention to complete an engineering degree decreases well before students act, there may be opportunities for institutions to develop targeted interventions for students, and help them make informed decisions.
Challenges to Informed Peer Review Matching Algorithms
Authors: Verleger Matthew , Diefes‐Dux Heidi , Ohland Matthew W. , Besterfield‐Sacre Mary , Brophy Sean 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundPeer review is a beneficial pedagogical tool. Despite the abundance of data instructors often have about their students, most peer review matching is by simple random assignment. In fall 2008, a study was conducted to investigate the impact of an informed algorithmic assignment method, called Un‐weighted Overall Need (UON), in a course involving Model‐Eliciting Activities (MEAs). The algorithm showed no statistically significant impact on the MEA Final Response scores. A study was then conducted to examine the assumptions underlying the algorithm.Purpose (Hypothesis)This research addressed the question: To what extent do the assumptions used in making informed peer review matches (using the Un‐weighted Overall Need algorithim) for the peer review of solutions to Model‐Eliciting Activities decay?Design/methodAn expert rater evaluated the solutions of 147 teams' responses to a particular implementation of MEAs in a first‐year engineering course at a large mid‐west research university. The evaluation was then used to analyze the UON algorithm's assumptions when compared to a randomly assigned control group.ResultsWeak correlation was found in the five UON algorithm's assumptions: students complete assigned work, teaching assistants can grade MEAs accurately, accurate feedback in peer review is perceived by the reviewed team as being more helpful than inaccurate feedback, teaching assistant scores on the first draft of an MEA can be used to accurately predict where teams will need assistance on their second draft, and the error a peer review has in evaluating a sample MEA solution is an accurate indicator of the error they will have while subsequently evaluating a real team's MEA solution.ConclusionsConducting informed peer review matching requires significant alignment between evaluators and experts to minimize deviations from the algorithm's designed purpose.
Students' Conceptions of Tutor and Automated Feedback in Professional Writing
Authors: Calvo Rafael A. , Ellis Robert A. 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundProfessional writing is an essential outcome for engineering graduates and hence a vital part of engineering education. To provide a successful learning experience for students engaged in writing activities, timely feedback is necessary. Providing this feedback to increasing numbers of students poses a major challenge for instructors. New automated systems work towards providing both timely and appropriate writing feedback, but students' views on automated feedback, and feedback in general, are not well understood.Purpose (Hypothesis)To contribute to a deeper understanding of students' conceptions of feedback from tutors and an automated system called Glosser, and how these conceptions are related to achievement.Design/MethodStudents in an engineering course worked in pairs to write an engineering report on e‐business. The design of the study involves in‐depth interviews and the analysis employs an approach in which student conceptions of automated feedback are investigated in relation to related feedback from their tutor, perceptions of automated feedback in general, and their academic achievement.ResultsStudents' conceptions of feedback vary and can be grouped into cohesive and fragmented, which is consistent with other theoretical models. Close associations were found between more cohesive conceptions of feedback and better academic performance.ConclusionsA student's conception of traditional and automated feedback is similar, being either cohesive or fragmented. Changing one may change the other. Deep learners see feedback as a way of learning about the topic whereas shallow learners see them as a way to improve the communication aspects of writing. Design considerations based on these results are discussed.
What is an Engineer? Implications of Elementary School Student Conceptions for Engineering Education
Authors: Capobianco Brenda M. , Diefes‐dux Heidi A. , Mena Irene , Weller Jessica 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundResearch in engineering education tends to focus on students' factual knowledge about engineering, their interests and attitudes, and on students' conceptions of the engineer and the relation to curriculum development. Thus, it is essential to expand our understanding of students' conceptions about the engineer phenomenon as the foundation for informing STEM education standards and curriculum.Purpose(Hypothesis)The purpose of this study was to investigate students' conceptions about engineers specifically: (1) What are elementary school students' conceptions of an engineer? (2) How might students' conceptions vary by grade level, gender, and community setting? (3) What are implications of students' conceptions for engineering education?Design/MethodThis study was descriptive in nature and reflected a cross‐age design involving the collection of qualitative data from about 400 Grade 1 through 5 students from urban and suburban schools located in the Midwest, United States. Data were analyzed using content analysis and statistical testing.ResultsStudents conceptualized an engineer as a mechanic, laborer, and technician. Students' conceptions entailed the engineer fixing, building, or making and using vehicles, engines, and tools. Students' conceptions were relatively consistent across urban and suburban school communities with the exceptions that laborer was more common among urban students and technician was more common among suburban students. More than half of the students who drew a person drew male engineers.ConclusionA framework for organizing and interpreting students' conceptions is presented. Curricular recommendations and implications are made that build on students' conceptions and reinforce connections between national standards and the engineer concept.
Student and Faculty Interdisciplinary Identities in Self‐Managed Teams
Authors: Mcnair Lisa D. , Newswander Chad , Boden Daniel , Borrego Maura 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundInterdisciplinary teamwork is increasingly important for engineering graduates. Yet, the reality of teaching interdisciplinarity requires faculty and students to navigate structures of engineering pro grams that do not accommodate interdisciplinary work.Purpose (Hypothesis)The purpose of this study is to understand how students and faculty negotiate interdisciplinary identities and how self‐managed work teams can be used as a pedagogical strategy for promoting interdisciplinarity. Gee's concepts of affinity identity and institutional identity are used to theorize interdisciplinary teaming.Design/MethodMultiple data sets from observations and interviews are used to present a case study of one interdisciplinary design course from the points of view of faculty and students. This approach, combined with research literature, is used to propose a pedagogical model for interdisciplinary teaming.ResultsA pedagogical approach of self‐managed teaming can promote interdisciplinary identities if (a) faculty model institutional identities as interdisciplinary researchers and instructors, (b) students are encouraged to perform as decision‐makers in groups constructed through affinity identities, and (c) faculty provide scaffolding for self‐managed teams and encourage valuing of different disciplinary perspectives.ConclusionIn the midst of an international shift toward interdisciplinarity, structural boundaries within academia present challenges to interdisciplinary collaborations. Gee's identity theory can facilitate our understanding of academic structures, especially in examining how overlapping affinity and institutional identities are at the center of newly formed interdisciplinary spaces. Issues critical to aiding interdisciplinary teaming include conflict management, scaffolding by instructors, and realistic appraisal of disciplinary grounding.
Professional Development Through Engineering Academies: An Examination of Elementary Teachers' Recognition and Understanding of Engineering
Authors: Duncan Daphne , Diefes‐dux Heidi , Gentry Marcia 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundK‐12 teachers typically lack formal instruction on engineering. To address this issue, the Institute for P‐12 Engineering Research and Learning (INSPIRE) developed engineering academies for elementary teachers. During 2006 and 2007, 40 teachers participating in the academies each completed an engineering photo journal.Purpose(Hypothesis)The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of week‐long engineering summer academies on elementary teachers' recognition and understanding of engineering in the world around them.Design/MethodThe change in teachers' recognition and understanding of engineering in the world around them was measured by analyzing pre/post academy engineering photo journal entries using the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy as a framework to code the journal responses. Paired t‐tests were conducted and effect sizes calculated to determine change from pre to post academy for each academy year, and for each Revised Bloom's Taxonomy Cognitive Level.ResultsResults showed teachers demonstrated change in understanding after participation in the engineering academies. Further, 2007 teachers showed greater change than did 2006 teachers. Overall, teachers demonstrated significant changes in the Cognitive Levels of Remember, Analyze, and Evaluate during the academies.ConclusionThe photo journal and corresponding coding scheme were used successfully to measure teachers' change in recognition and understanding of engineering. These tools helped INSPIRE researchers to better understand teachers' abilities to communicate engineering ideas. These tools will be useful in classroom settings to assess teacher and student ideas and understanding about engineering.
Pre‐Collegiate Factors Influencing the Self‐Efficacy of Engineering Students
Authors: Fantz Todd D. , Siller Thomas J. , Demiranda Michael A. 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundMany engineering colleges have the goal of increasing the quality and number of students choosing to pursue engineering and therefore are heavily invested in programs that expose pre‐collegiate students to engineering. Most commonly, these institutions are involved with summer outreach programs and weekend or fieldtrip opportunities for students to visit engineering campuses, and some curriculum development. A lesser, often untapped resource for engineering colleges is through K‐12 technology and pre‐engineering teacher training.Purpose(Hypothesis)This study addresses the long term effects of pre‐collegiate engineering experiences on student selfefficacy. It is hypothesized that the greater the rigor of a pre‐colligate experience, the more it will contribute to a student's self‐efficacy related to engineering studies. The pre‐collegiate experiences examined in this study include pre‐engineering classes, multi‐day programs, engineering hobbies, working in an engineering environment, extra‐curricular engineering programs, and single‐day field trips.Design/MethodThe long term effects of pre‐collegiate experiences were evaluated by comparing the self‐efficacy of firstyear students who had the experiences to first‐year students who did not have the experiences.ResultsSignificant differences in self‐efficacy were only found between groups of students who had pre‐engineering classes and engineering hobbies versus students who did not have these experiences.ConclusionBased on the findings, engineering colleges with the goal of increasing the self‐efficacy of engineering students should consider focusing resources on developing K‐12 technology and pre‐engineering teachers. Additional recommendations for practice, pedagogical implications, and areas for further research are offered.
Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important in their Work?
Authors: Passow Honor J. 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundABET‐accredited engineering programs must help students develop specific outcomes (i.e., competencies). Faculty must determine the relative emphasis among the competencies. Yet, information is sparse about the relative importance of each competency for professional practice.Purpose (Hypothesis)This study synthesizes opinions of engineering graduates about which competencies are important for professional practice.Design/MethodA survey asked undergraduate alumni of a large public university in the Midwest to rate the importance of the ABET competencies in their professional experience. Responses included descriptions of education, post‐graduate work environment, and demographics. Protected, post‐hoc, all‐pairwise multiple comparisons determined patterns in the importance ratings, for the aggregate, and for descriptive subgroups.ResultsThe lowest‐rated competency's mean rating was 3.3 out of 5. Graduates of 11 engineering majors rated a top cluster of competencies (teamwork, communication, data analysis, and problem solving) significantly higher than a bottom cluster (contemporary issues, design of experiments, and understanding the impact of one's work). Importance ratings of five other competencies fell in an intermediate cluster in which importance was statistically tied to either the top or bottom cluster, depending on work environment or academic discipline‐not demographics. The clusters were stable over time, that is, over seven survey administrations (1999–2005), years since graduation (0, 2, 6 & 10), and graduation year (1989–2003).ConclusionsGraduates across engineering disciplines share a pattern of importance for professional practice among the ABET competencies that is statistically significant, consistent across demographic variables, and stable over time. This pattern can inform faculty decisions about curriculum emphasis within and across engineering disciplines.
Framing Faculty and Student Discrepancies in Engineering Ethics Education Delivery
Authors: Holsapple Matthew A. , Carpenter Donald D. , Sutkus Janel A. , Finelli Cynthia J. , Harding Trevor S. 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundThe importance of ethics education in professional engineering preparation programs is well established, yet student outcomes remain mixed despite the efforts of engineering educators.Purpose (Hypothesis)A long line of research has suggested that students and faculty often have different perceptions of educational efforts and practices. In this study, we consider this as a potential reason for the continued mixed results of engineering ethics education by examining differing perceptions of faculty and students about ethics education and identifying contributing factors to those differences.Design/MethodWe conducted focus groups and interviews with engineering undergraduate students, faculty, and administrators on 18 campuses. Transcripts were analyzed using both deductive and inductive analyses and constant comparison. We identified both themes of discrepancies between faculty/administrator and student perceptions and factors in the educational environment that contributed to those discrepancies.ResultsDiscrepancies between the perceptions of faculty/administrators were seen in two forms. Faculty/administrators believed that ethics education encompasses teaching about laws, ethical codes, and other black‐and‐white solutions while also addressing more nuanced ethical dilemmas; students reported only experiencing the laws‐and‐rules approach. Students also did not see faculty as the positive ethical role models that faculty believed they are. Factors that contribute to both types of discrepancies are identified and reported.ConclusionsThis approach can be effective in examining difficulties in teaching engineering ethics. Educators should take steps to understand the different ways faculty/administrators and students perceive ethics education, and how factors in the educational environment contribute to differences in those perceptions.