Undergraduate students' espoused beliefs about different approaches to engineering design decisions

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Engineering Education Pub Date : 2023-07-13 DOI:10.1002/jee.20544
Giselle Guanes, Alexia Leonard, Emily Dringenberg
{"title":"Undergraduate students' espoused beliefs about different approaches to engineering design decisions","authors":"Giselle Guanes,&nbsp;Alexia Leonard,&nbsp;Emily Dringenberg","doi":"10.1002/jee.20544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Engineers are socialized to value rational approaches to problem solving. A lack of awareness of how engineers use different decision-making approaches is problematic because it perpetuates the ongoing development of inequitable engineering designs and contributes to a lack of inclusion in the field. Although researchers have explored how engineering students are socialized, further work is needed to understand students' beliefs about different decision-making approaches.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\n \n <p>We explored the espoused beliefs of undergraduate students about technical, empathic, experience-based, and guess-based approaches to engineering design decisions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design/Method</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted semistructured one-on-one interviews with 20 senior engineering students at the conclusion of their capstone design experience. We used a combination of deductive and inductive data condensation approaches to generate categories of beliefs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We identified a total of nine categories of beliefs, organized by approach. Although students' espoused beliefs did reflect the emphasis on technical approaches present in their socialization, they also described technical approaches as limited and overvalued.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The landscape of beliefs presented make explicit both the challenges and the opportunities that students' beliefs play as the backdrop for any efforts of engineering educators to develop engineers as effective and equitable engineering designers.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20544","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20544","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Engineers are socialized to value rational approaches to problem solving. A lack of awareness of how engineers use different decision-making approaches is problematic because it perpetuates the ongoing development of inequitable engineering designs and contributes to a lack of inclusion in the field. Although researchers have explored how engineering students are socialized, further work is needed to understand students' beliefs about different decision-making approaches.

Purpose/Hypothesis

We explored the espoused beliefs of undergraduate students about technical, empathic, experience-based, and guess-based approaches to engineering design decisions.

Design/Method

We conducted semistructured one-on-one interviews with 20 senior engineering students at the conclusion of their capstone design experience. We used a combination of deductive and inductive data condensation approaches to generate categories of beliefs.

Results

We identified a total of nine categories of beliefs, organized by approach. Although students' espoused beliefs did reflect the emphasis on technical approaches present in their socialization, they also described technical approaches as limited and overvalued.

Conclusion

The landscape of beliefs presented make explicit both the challenges and the opportunities that students' beliefs play as the backdrop for any efforts of engineering educators to develop engineers as effective and equitable engineering designers.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
本科生对工程设计决策的不同方法的信奉
背景工程师被社会化,重视解决问题的合理方法。缺乏对工程师如何使用不同决策方法的认识是有问题的,因为这会使不公平工程设计的持续发展永久化,并导致该领域缺乏包容性。尽管研究人员已经探索了工科学生是如何被社会化的,但还需要进一步的工作来了解学生对不同决策方法的看法。目的/假设我们探讨了本科生对工程设计决策的技术、移情、经验和猜测方法的支持信念。设计/方法我们对20名高年级工程系学生进行了半结构化的一对一访谈,以总结他们的顶尖设计经验。我们使用了演绎和归纳数据浓缩方法的组合来生成信念类别。结果我们共确定了九类信念,按方法进行组织。尽管学生所信奉的信仰确实反映了他们在社会化过程中对技术方法的重视,但他们也认为技术方法是有限的,被高估了。结论所呈现的信念景观明确了学生的信念所带来的挑战和机遇,作为工程教育工作者努力培养工程师成为有效和公平的工程设计师的背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Celebrating outstanding publications and reviewers from the 2023 volume Professorial intentions of engineering PhDs from historically excluded groups: The influence of graduate school experiences Through their eyes: Understanding institutional factors that impact the transfer processes of Black engineering students An exploration of psychological safety and conflict in first-year engineering student teams
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1