bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Situated Engineering Learning: Bridging Engineering Education Research and the Learning Sciences
Authors: Johri Aditya , Olds Barbara M. 
Published: January 2013

ContributorsIndigo Esmonde, University of Toronto; Krishna Madhavan, Purdue University; Wolff‐Michael Roth, University of Victoria; Dan L. Schwartz and Jessica Tsang, Stanford University; Estrid Sørensen, Humboldt University and Aarhus University; Iris Tabak, Ben Gurion University of the NegevBackgroundThe field of engineering education research has seen substantial growth in the last five years but it often lacks theoretical and empirical work on engineering learning that could be supplied by the learning sciences. In addition, the learning sciences have focused very little on engineering learning to date.PurposeThis article summarizes prior work in the learning sciences and discusses one perspective—situative learning— in depth. Situativity refers to the central role of context, including the physical and social aspects of the environment, on learning. Furthermore, it emphasizes the socially and culturally negotiated nature of thought and action of persons in interaction. The aim of the article is to provide a foundation for future work on engineering learning and to suggest ways in which the learning sciences and engineering education research communities might work to their mutual benefit.Scope/MethodThe article begins with a brief discussion of recent developments in engineering education research. After an initial overview of the field of learning sciences, situative learning is discussed and three analytical aspects of the perspective are outlined: social and material context, activities and interactions, and participation and identity. Relevant expert commentaries are interspersed throughout the article. The article concludes with an exploration of the potential for contributions from the learning sciences to understanding engineering learning.ConclusionThere are many areas of mutual benefit for engineering education and the learning sciences and many potential areas of collaborative research that can contribute not only to engineering learning but to the learning sciences.
Problem‐based Learning: Influence on Students' Learning in an Electrical Engineering Course
Authors: Yadav Aman , Subedi Dipendra , Lundeberg Mary A. , Bunting Charles F. 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundRecently, there has been a shift from using lecture‐based teaching methods in undergraduate engineering courses to using more learner‐centered teaching approaches, such as problem‐based learning. However, research on the impact of these approaches has mainly involved student perceptions of the teaching method and anecdotal and opinion pieces by faculty on their use of the teaching method, rather than empirically collected data on students' learning outcomes.Purpose (Hypothesis)This paper describes an investigation of the impact of problem‐based learning (PBL) on undergraduate electrical engineering students' conceptual understanding and their perceptions of learning using PBL as compared to lecture.Design/MethodFifty‐five students enrolled in an electrical engineering course at a Midwestern university participated in this research. The study utilized a within‐subjects A‐B‐A‐B research design with traditional lecture as the baseline phase and problem‐based learning as the experimental phase of the study. Participants completed pre‐ and post‐tests surrounding the four topics covered in the study and also completed a Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) survey.ResultResults suggested participants' learning gains from PBL were twice their gains from traditional lecture. Even though students learned more from PBL, students thought they learned more from traditional lecture. We discuss these findings and offer implications for faculty interested in implementing PBL.ConclusionGiven the limited research on the beneficial effects of PBL on student learning, this study provides empirical support for PBL. We discuss findings from this study and provide specific implications for faculty and researchers interested in problem‐based learning in engineering.
Feminist Theory in Three Engineering Education Journals: 1995–2008
Authors: Beddoes Kacey , Borrego Maura 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundWomen remain underrepresented in engineering despite decades of effort. Feminist theory may explain why some well‐intentioned efforts actually reinforce the very conditions they seek to change.Purpose(Hypothesis)Our purpose is to understand and advance the use of feminist theory in engineering education research towards the goals of increasing gender diversity and equity in engineering. Specifically, we seek to address the following questions: How has feminist theory been engaged within engineering education scholar ship? And what opportunities exist for further engagement?Design/MethodWe analyzed articles fromJournal of Engineering Education (JEE),European Journal of Engineering (EJEE), andInternational Journal of Engineering Education (IJEE)that had women or gender as a central part of their studies. Titles, keywords, and abstracts for every article in the journals were reviewed for the years 1995–2008. The 88 articles directly addressing gender or women in engineering were analyzed to determine their level of engagement with feminist theory.ResultFeminist theory is not widely engaged or systematically developed in this scholarship. Most work rests upon implicitly liberal and standpoint feminist theories, but a minority of articles point to intersectional, interactional, and masculinity studies approaches. We identified several ways in which deeper engagement with a wider range of feminist theories can benefit engineering education scholarship.ConclusionFeminist theory is underutilized within engineering education scholarship. Further engagement with, and systematic development of, feminist theory could be one beneficial way to move the field forward.
Nonparametric Survival Analysis of the Loss Rate of Undergraduate Engineering Students
Authors: Min Youngkyoung , Zhang Guili , Long Russell A. , Anderson Timothy J. , Ohland Matthew W. 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundAs presented by Willet and Singer (1991), survival analysis can sensitively reveal rich information about when students leave their majors. Although survival analysis has been used to investigate student and faculty retention, it has not been applied to undergraduate engineering student retention.Purpose (Hypothesis)The impact of cohort, gender, ethnicity, and SAT math and verbal scores on the loss rate of undergraduate engineering students was investigated to answer the questions: Does the profile of risk of dropout differ among groups with different backgrounds? When are students most likely to leave engineering? Which SAT scores better predict the risk of dropout?Design/MethodUsing a large longitudinal database that includes 100,179 engineering students from nine universities and spans 19 years, nonparametric survival analysis was adopted to obtain nonparametric estimates of survival and associated hazard functions, and complete rank tests for the association of variables.ResultsThere are significant differences for early semesters: White or female students tend to leave engineering earlier than other populations. Engineering students leave engineering during the third semester the most, although students who have an SAT math score less than 550 tend to leave engineering during the second semester. SAT math score better predicts the risk of dropout than SAT verbal score.ConclusionThe results of this study support using survival analysis to better understand factors that determine student success since student retention is a dynamic problem. Survival analysis allows characteristics such as risk to be evaluated by semester, giving insight to when interventions might be most effective.
Information Fluency Growth Through Engineering Curricula: Analysis of Students' Text‐Processing Skills and Beliefs
Authors: Taraban Roman 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundBased on ABET engineering criteria and goals for engineering education, students must learn to actively process information and critically evaluate written and electronic sources of information in order to achieve professional skill levels.Purpose (Hypothesis)Two hypotheses were tested: during the freshman through senior years, (i) engineering students increase their use of cognitive strategies to process written forms of information; (ii) the ways in which students respond to written information become more interpretive, analytic, and critical.Design/MethodTwo validated scales were administered to engineering majors in their freshman through senior years. One scale measured use of reading strategies; the other measured attitudes about interpreting and critiquing written information. Additional questions concerning school‐related academic and reading activities and were used to interpret the scale scores in the context of the engineering curriculum.ResultsFirst‐year students had significantly higher analytic skills upon entry into the university, compared to a general university sample. There was a significant increase in the use of reading strategies from freshman through senior years, particularly practical reading strategies. There was also an increase in using written information as a resource, and a decline in critical analysis of written sources. Data about texts that students read linked these patterns to an emphasis in the curriculum on reading textbooks, solving textbook problems, and taking tests.ConclusionThese cross‐sectional data suggest that engineering curricula are a significant influence in shaping the development of information fluency. A major implication is that engineering students have analytic and intellectual skills that can be developed further through adjustments to curricula.
Fostering Argumentation While Solving Engineering Ethics Problems
Authors: Jonassen David H. , Cho Young Hoan 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundEthical issues pervade engineering practice. Ethical problems are ill‐structured with alternative solutions, perspectives, and rationales for justifying solutions to ethical problems. We describe studies examining argumentation as a pedagogical strategy for engaging engineering students in ethical problem solving.Purpose (Hypothesis)Previous studies by the authors showed that arguing for solutions to ethical problems is an effective strategy for helping students to learn how to address multiple perspectives in support of ethical problems. However, from an argumentative perspective, a significant weakness in student solutions to ethical problems is conceiving and rebutting counterarguments.Design/MscethodIn two experiments, engineering students constructed argumentative solutions to everyday engineering ethics problems in a complex hypertext representing multiple perspectives. Experiment 1 compared the effects of arguing against one's own solution versus solutions recommended by others. Experiment 2 evaluated the effects of providing examples of counterarguments on justifications for students' solutions.ResultsIn two experiments, engineering students constructed argumentative solutions to everyday engineering ethics problems in a complex hypertext representing multiple perspectives. Experiment 1 compared the effects of arguing against one's own solution versus solutions recommended by others. Experiment 2 evaluated the effects of providing examples of counterarguments on justifications for students' solutions.ConclusionsEngineering students can learn to meaningfully address ethical issues; however, more sustained treatments are necessary to help students to transfer those skills more broadly.
Modeling Engineering Degree Attainment Using High School and College Physics and Calculus Coursetaking and Achievement
Authors: Tyson Will 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundModels of engineering retention use high school GPA and mathematics standardized test scores to measure pre‐college characteristics and first year of college GPA to measure academic integration in college. This study uses high school and college physics and calculus coursetaking and achievement to predict engineering degree attainment among students on‐track for an engineering degree.Purpose (Hypothesis)This study predicts that high school accelerated physics and calculus coursetaking and grades influences grades earned in college physics and calculus and both sets of factors influence engineering degree attainment.Design/MscethodMultinomial logistic regression analyses determine the effects of high or low achievement in high school on high and low achievement in college physics and calculus courses and the effects of both on earning an engineering degree.ResultsPre‐college characteristics and academic integration were not consistently related to the destination of engineering migrants. Community college enrollment was not related to attrition. High school calculus achievement is the strongest predictor of grades in college physics and calculus courses, accounting for the positive effects of accelerated physics and calculus coursetaking.ConclusionsEngineering degree attainment models should include coursetaking and particularly achievement in high school and college physics and calculus courses. Attrition outcomes should include the destination major in order to capture achievement effects on migration to business and non‐STEM fields compared to migration to other STEM fields that require quantitative skills acquired in physics and calculus courses.
Assessing Creativity Specific to Engineering with the Revised Creative Engineering Design Assessment
Authors: Charyton Christine , Jagacinski Richard J. , Merrill John A. , Clifton William , DeDios Samantha 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundIn engineering, creativity is vital for innovation. The revised Creative Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA) also assesses Usefulness, unlike existing tools.Purpose (Hypothesis)The primary purpose was to test for convergent validity of the CEDA with other engineering creativity and engineering specific measures. The CEDA was administered with the Purdue Creativity Test (PCT), the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test‐Rotations (PSVT‐R), and a Systems Test that assessed rollercoaster design functionality. We hypothesized that the CEDA would be moderately related to the PCT and anticipated a slight relationship with the PSVT‐R and Systems Test. We also investigated gender differences to follow up on previous research.Design/MscethodParticipants were 259 engineering students (221 males and 38 females) in an introductory engineering design two‐course sequence who completed the CEDA and PCT (in a cross sectional design). We analyzed PVST‐R scores for Fundamentals of Engineering I and Systems Test scores for Fundamentals of Engineering II.ResultsThe CEDA showed high inter‐rater reliability. The CEDA and the PCT were significantly related to each other and the CEDA was modestly related to the PSVT‐R, both demonstrating convergent validity. Male and female engineering students did not significantly differ on the CEDA, PCT, PSVT‐R or Systems Test.ConclusionsThe CEDA showed high inter‐rater reliability. The CEDA and the PCT were significantly related to each other and the CEDA was modestly related to the PSVT‐R, both demonstrating convergent validity. Male and female engineering students did not significantly differ on the CEDA, PCT, PSVT‐R or Systems Test.
A Psychometric Re‐Evaluation of the Design, Engineering and Technology (DET) Survey
Authors: Hong Tao , Purzer ŞEnay , Cardella Monica E. 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundInstrument development is an iterative process that requires continuous efforts to ensure the psychometric soundness of the assessment tools. Previous research has provided validity evidence for the design, engineering, and technology (DET) survey in assessing K‐12 teachers' familiarity with and perceptions of engineering.Purpose (Hypothesis)The purpose of this study was to re‐examine the psychometric soundness of the DET survey with a new data set collected from elementary teachers representing a national population. In addition, details regarding how to appropriately conduct confirmatory (CFA) and exploratory (EFA) factor analyses and item analysis were presented.Design/MscethodThe DET survey was administered to 405 elementary teachers (second through sixth grades) between 2006 and 2010. First, a CFA was conducted to test the factor structure based on a theoretical model. Second, an EFA was used to explore and refine the factor structure. Finally, item analysis was used to evaluate individual item performance and estimate internal reliability.ResultsWhile the CFA conducted using the new sample reported unsatisfactory fit indices to the previous DET model, the EFA proposed a refined four‐factor solution explaining 74% of the total variance. The item analysis revealed problems with several items that possibly contributed to the CFA results.ConclusionsThe DET is a useful instrument with sufficient reliability and moderate validity evidence. However, we recommend revisions of its scale and several items. We also recommend future research with middle and high school teachers as well as with teachers in different cultural contexts and countries.
Leaving Engineering: A Multi‐Year Single Institution Study
Authors: Marra Rose M. , Rodgers Kelly A. , Shen Demei , Bogue Barbara 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundAs estimates continue to indicate a growing demand for engineering professionals, retention in engineering remains an issue. Thus, the engineering education community remains concerned about students who leave engineering and must work to identify the factors that influence those students’ decisions.Purpose (Hypothesis)Our purpose was to identify a set of factors describing the experiences of students’ in a college of engineering that are strong influences on decisions to leave and study how those factors are related to both predictor variables (e.g., high school preparation) and future behaviors (e.g., new major chosen).Design/MethodWe solicited survey data from students who had recently transferred out of a large engineering college. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to determine the main factors for leaving engineering and then used these factors to answer the research questions.ResultsResults indicate that both academic (e.g., curriculum difficulty and poor teaching and advising) and a non‐academic factor (lack of belonging in engineering) contribute to students’ decisions to leave engineering. We did find differences for some factors between majority and non‐majority students; however, there were no gender differences.ConclusionsBoth academic and non‐academic factors contribute to students’ decisions to leave engineering; however, our sample indicated the non‐academic factors may be a stronger influence. Implications for educators focus on addressing both academic and the belonging factor and include examining pedagogical activities that may be less welcoming to a wide variety of student groups, providing opportunities for meaningful faculty interaction and other activities designed to support students pursuing engineering degrees.
Students' Ways of Experiencing Human‐Centered Design
Authors: Zoltowski Carla B. , Oakes William C. , Cardella Monica E. 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundDesign is a central and distinguishing activity of engineering and one of the core criteria for evaluating and accrediting engineering programs. Design is also a subject area that poses many challenges for faculty, and incorporating human‐centered design approaches—approaches in which designers have as a focus the people they are designing for—poses additional challenges. Human‐centered approaches to design contribute to innovations in engineering design and have been shown to increase productivity, improve quality, reduce errors, improve acceptance of new products, and reduce development costs. In today's globally competitive economy, it is more important than ever to develop effective design skills within the undergraduate years.Purpose (Hypothesis)Before effective design learning experiences to develop the skills needed for human‐centered design can be created, an understanding of the ways in which students understand and experience human‐centered design is needed. This study addresses this need by investigating the qualitatively different ways in which students experience human‐centered design.Design/MethodA phenomenographic framework was used to guide the methodology of the study while the literature and research on human‐centered design informed the construction of the study and provided ways to interpret the data and situate the findings. Thirty‐three student designers from a variety of academic contexts were interviewed using a semi‐structured, open‐ended approach in which they discussed concrete experiences “designing for others,” and reflections and meanings associated with those experiences.ResultsAnalysis of the data yielded seven qualitatively different ways in which the students experienced humancentered design; these seven categories of description formed a two‐dimensional outcome space. Five of the categories were nested hierarchically. From less comprehensive to more comprehensive, those categories included: Human‐centered design as “User as Information Source Input to Linear Process,” “Keep Users' Needs in Mind,” “Design in Context,” “Commitment” and “Empathic Design.” Two categories represented ways of experiencing human‐centered design that were distinct: design was not humancentered, but “Technology‐Centered” and human‐centered design was not design, but “Service.”ConclusionThis study found that i) students' understanding of the user and ii) their ability to integrate that into their designs are related in the development of more comprehensive ways of experiencing human‐centered design, and a conception of both aspects is needed. Furthermore, critical or immersive experiences involving real clients and users were important in allowing the students to experience human‐centered design in more comprehensive ways.
An Experimental Investigation of the Innovation Capabilities of Undergraduate Engineering Students
Authors: Genco Nicole , Hölttä‐Otto Katja , Seepersad Carolyn Conner 
Published: January 2013

BackgroundOne of the goals of most undergraduate engineering curricula is to prepare students to solve openended design problems. Solving design problems requires applying technical knowledge to create original ideas and turn those into practical applications. However, the impact of engineering curricula on the innovation capabilities of undergraduate engineers is not well understood.Purpose (Hypothesis)This study seeks to provide insights into the research question of whether freshman undergraduate engineering students can be more innovative than seniors. Innovation is measured in terms of the originality of the solutions they propose for an open‐ended design problem, as well as the technical feasibility of those solutions for practical application.Design/MethodFreshman‐ and senior‐level undergraduate engineering students were tasked with developing solutions to a specific design problem (a next‐generation alarm clock). Both levels of students used a modified 6‐3‐5/C‐sketch method for generating concepts. A fraction of both the freshman and the senior students also received innovation enhancement. Resulting concepts were analyzed for originality and technical feasibility.ResultsFreshman students generated concepts that were significantly more original than those of seniors, with no significant difference in quality or technical feasibility of the concepts generated by the two levels of students.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of the study, the findings suggest that freshman engineering students can be more innovative than their senior‐level counterparts. This motivates the need for additional studies to investigate the effect of factors such as skill acquisition and design curricula on the innovation capabilities of students.