H. Perkins, M. Bahnson, Marissa A. Tsugawa-Nieves, Adam Kirn, C. Cass
{"title":"WIP: Influence of Laboratory Group Makeup on Recognition and Identity Development in the Engineering Graduate Student Population","authors":"H. Perkins, M. Bahnson, Marissa A. Tsugawa-Nieves, Adam Kirn, C. Cass","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2018.8658669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this research category work-in-progress paper is to explore the relationships between laboratory groups (specifically, the number and types of students) and the development of engineering, science, and researcher identity among engineering graduate students (EGS). We analyzed preliminary data collected as part of a national survey (current n = 826, 38% of sample target). Our sample aligns with student demographics nationally, with the majority of participants identifying as White (50%) or Asian (32%), male (63%), domestic (62%), and heterosexual (89%). A 3x3 MANOVA found a significant interaction between the type of recognition and the number of students in the lab, F(6,1166) = 2.29, p =.034, $\\eta_{p}^{2}$ =.012. Univariate analyses indicated that it was scientist recognition, F(2,584) = 3.52, p =.005, $\\eta_{p}^{2}$ =.018, that was significantly affected by the presence of undergraduate researchers. Specifically, participants with 2-3 and 4+ undergraduate lab mates had significantly higher scientist recognition ratings than participants with 0 or 1 undergraduate lab mates. There were no effects on engineer or researcher recognition, and no effects on scientist recognition related to graduate or postdoctoral students. These results suggest that EGS benefit from working with undergraduate students, but the relationship is complex and not always linear. Additionally, the lack of effect on engineer recognition has implications for how EGS identify and relate to fellow engineers in graduate school. Future analyses will identify trends in the overall lab composition and explore their impacts on recognition and engineering identity in more depth.","PeriodicalId":354904,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8658669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
The purpose of this research category work-in-progress paper is to explore the relationships between laboratory groups (specifically, the number and types of students) and the development of engineering, science, and researcher identity among engineering graduate students (EGS). We analyzed preliminary data collected as part of a national survey (current n = 826, 38% of sample target). Our sample aligns with student demographics nationally, with the majority of participants identifying as White (50%) or Asian (32%), male (63%), domestic (62%), and heterosexual (89%). A 3x3 MANOVA found a significant interaction between the type of recognition and the number of students in the lab, F(6,1166) = 2.29, p =.034, $\eta_{p}^{2}$ =.012. Univariate analyses indicated that it was scientist recognition, F(2,584) = 3.52, p =.005, $\eta_{p}^{2}$ =.018, that was significantly affected by the presence of undergraduate researchers. Specifically, participants with 2-3 and 4+ undergraduate lab mates had significantly higher scientist recognition ratings than participants with 0 or 1 undergraduate lab mates. There were no effects on engineer or researcher recognition, and no effects on scientist recognition related to graduate or postdoctoral students. These results suggest that EGS benefit from working with undergraduate students, but the relationship is complex and not always linear. Additionally, the lack of effect on engineer recognition has implications for how EGS identify and relate to fellow engineers in graduate school. Future analyses will identify trends in the overall lab composition and explore their impacts on recognition and engineering identity in more depth.