Background: Social community is a framework for understanding the importance of social interactions within STEM mentoring programs. This study empirically examined the relationships described in the framework to explore how program elements and social support influenced student involvement. Purpose: Specifically, the study described how two engineering scholar programs that serve underrepresented and underserved students facilitated involvement in communities of practice, a proposed outcome of the social community model. Design: A survey (n = 256) was conducted with participants in both scholar programs and compared to responses of non-participants to learn whether the scholar programs led to greater involvement in communities of practice. Furthermore, interviews (n = 16) with scholar program participants were conducted to learn more about how they became involved in communities of practice. Results: We found that program participants were more likely to be involved in the three communities of practice (student diversity organizations, peer leadership roles, and undergraduate research) than demographically similar non-program participants. Furthermore, we found that mentors (peer leaders, program coordinators, and faculty) provided the necessary social support to encourage participants’ involvement. In particular, the essential role of peer leaders initiated community building and inspired subsequent participation in communities of practice. Conclusions: The social community framework for STEM mentoring programs provides a useful guide for understanding mentoring programs and benefits from examination of case studies to expand discussion of the theory and practices that promote student involvement in communities of practice.
{"title":"Social Community in Action: How Two Undergraduate Engineering Scholar Programs Facilitated Involvement in Communities of Practice","authors":"Lisa Trahan, Dean Rockwell, Darren Lipomi","doi":"10.21061/see.133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.133","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Social community is a framework for understanding the importance of social interactions within STEM mentoring programs. This study empirically examined the relationships described in the framework to explore how program elements and social support influenced student involvement.\u0000Purpose: Specifically, the study described how two engineering scholar programs that serve underrepresented and underserved students facilitated involvement in communities of practice, a proposed outcome of the social community model.\u0000Design: A survey (n = 256) was conducted with participants in both scholar programs and compared to responses of non-participants to learn whether the scholar programs led to greater involvement in communities of practice. Furthermore, interviews (n = 16) with scholar program participants were conducted to learn more about how they became involved in communities of practice.\u0000Results: We found that program participants were more likely to be involved in the three communities of practice (student diversity organizations, peer leadership roles, and undergraduate research) than demographically similar non-program participants. Furthermore, we found that mentors (peer leaders, program coordinators, and faculty) provided the necessary social support to encourage participants’ involvement. In particular, the essential role of peer leaders initiated community building and inspired subsequent participation in communities of practice.\u0000Conclusions: The social community framework for STEM mentoring programs provides a useful guide for understanding mentoring programs and benefits from examination of case studies to expand discussion of the theory and practices that promote student involvement in communities of practice.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"237 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140247381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: Co-curricular student outcomes research has focused on connecting outcomes to activities based on the co-curricular type. Less work has explored what aspects of those co-curricular activities could lead to student outcomes. Purpose: Our research aimed to identify common elements of co-curricular activities that connected to students’ development of professional, career, or personal outcomes and can inform how we study and design co-curricular activities in engineering. Design: We recruited participants from one biomedical engineering (BME) program. We used a one-year series of four semi-structured interviews with fourteen upper-level BME students to explore students’ perceptions of their co-curricular learning. Using a qualitative, causal analysis approach, we identified elements of students’ co-curricular experiences in research or a multi-disciplinary design team, as well as other co-curricular experiences (e.g., internships, professional societies), that linked to professional, career, or personal learning outcomes that have been previously identified as important in engineering education. Findings: We identified patterns of connections between unique “experience elements” and a variety of “outcome categories” through participant activities we called “participant actions.” The most prevalent connections—those experience elements and participant actions that connected to multiple outcome categories—included the experience elements Independent Project Work, Project Work That Engages Multiple Disciplines, STEM Education Opportunities, and Mentorship from a Skilled Other as well as a participant action Reflecting on Experience. We found connections to the outcome categories of Leadership, Design, Business, Interdisciplinary Competence, Disciplinary Competence, Communication, and Career Direction Outcomes. Conclusions: Based on our findings, educators and mentors should consider the value of supporting students’ decision-making autonomy and multidisciplinary interactions in projects to support learning. They could also incorporate opportunities for students to teach each other technical content, receive structured mentorship, and reflect on their experiences as they are happening. Further, this work demonstrates a need to explore co-curricular learning processes in new ways that can lead to better understandings of students’ learning processes.
{"title":"Biomedical Engineering Students’ Perceived Learning Through Co-Curriculars","authors":"C. Jamison, L.R. Lattuca, S. Daly, A. Huang-Saad","doi":"10.21061/see.94","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.94","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Co-curricular student outcomes research has focused on connecting outcomes to activities based on the co-curricular type. Less work has explored what aspects of those co-curricular activities could lead to student outcomes. Purpose: Our research aimed to identify common elements of co-curricular activities that connected to students’ development of professional, career, or personal outcomes and can inform how we study and design co-curricular activities in engineering. Design: We recruited participants from one biomedical engineering (BME) program. We used a one-year series of four semi-structured interviews with fourteen upper-level BME students to explore students’ perceptions of their co-curricular learning. Using a qualitative, causal analysis approach, we identified elements of students’ co-curricular experiences in research or a multi-disciplinary design team, as well as other co-curricular experiences (e.g., internships, professional societies), that linked to professional, career, or personal learning outcomes that have been previously identified as important in engineering education. Findings: We identified patterns of connections between unique “experience elements” and a variety of “outcome categories” through participant activities we called “participant actions.” The most prevalent connections—those experience elements and participant actions that connected to multiple outcome categories—included the experience elements Independent Project Work, Project Work That Engages Multiple Disciplines, STEM Education Opportunities, and Mentorship from a Skilled Other as well as a participant action Reflecting on Experience. We found connections to the outcome categories of Leadership, Design, Business, Interdisciplinary Competence, Disciplinary Competence, Communication, and Career Direction Outcomes. Conclusions: Based on our findings, educators and mentors should consider the value of supporting students’ decision-making autonomy and multidisciplinary interactions in projects to support learning. They could also incorporate opportunities for students to teach each other technical content, receive structured mentorship, and reflect on their experiences as they are happening. Further, this work demonstrates a need to explore co-curricular learning processes in new ways that can lead to better understandings of students’ learning processes.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129729651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: Ethics is a required outcome for engineering education programs, but few studies focus on how workforce experiences lead to changes in how engineers experience ethics in practice. By identifying what incidents influence the ways that engineers come to experience ethical engineering practice, we can more effectively design post-secondary pedagogy based on these experiences. Purpose: We address the research question, “What types of critical incidents influence engineers’ ways of experiencing ethical engineering practice?” By identifying and categorizing critical incidents, we aim to provide the engineering education community with strategies and stories that they can embed in post-secondary engineering ethics curriculums. Design/Method: We employed a semi-structured interview protocol to solicit experiences with ethical engineering practice among 43 engineers from a variety of engineering disciplines and who were all currently working in the health products industry. While the interviews focused on ways of experiencing ethical engineering practice, many participants discussed critical change-inducing incidents therein. Thus, we used critical incident technique to identify and synthesize influential workforce experiences in their ethical practice. Results We identified 106 critical incidents, or workforce experiences that led to a change in how engineers viewed or practiced ethical engineering. We grouped incidents into 17 critical incident types, which represent patterns of events or behaviors that led to a change or reinforcement in ethical practice. We grouped incident types into five categories: (1) Cultural Immersions, (2) Interpersonal Encounters; (3) Ethical Actions, (4) Ethical Failures, and (5) Mentorship Events. Conclusion: This study can inform educational change efforts by ensuring that such efforts are grounded in and based on the lived experiences of practicing engineers. We found that Cultural Immersions was the most prominent type of critical incident among participants, and thus we emphasize the import of supporting student awareness of organizational culture, including how it informs one’s ethical views and practices. Based on the range of incident types, we also emphasize how instructors might consider and build the multitude of incident types and categories to implement pedagogy aligned with workforce experiences.
{"title":"<p>Critical Incidents in Ways&nbsp;of Experiencing Ethical&nbsp;Engineering Practice</p>","authors":"Justin L. Hess, Dayoung Kim, Nicholas D. Fila","doi":"10.21061/see.80","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.80","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Ethics is a required outcome for engineering education programs, but few studies focus on how workforce experiences lead to changes in how engineers experience ethics in practice. By identifying what incidents influence the ways that engineers come to experience ethical engineering practice, we can more effectively design post-secondary pedagogy based on these experiences. Purpose: We address the research question, “What types of critical incidents influence engineers’ ways of experiencing ethical engineering practice?” By identifying and categorizing critical incidents, we aim to provide the engineering education community with strategies and stories that they can embed in post-secondary engineering ethics curriculums. Design/Method: We employed a semi-structured interview protocol to solicit experiences with ethical engineering practice among 43 engineers from a variety of engineering disciplines and who were all currently working in the health products industry. While the interviews focused on ways of experiencing ethical engineering practice, many participants discussed critical change-inducing incidents therein. Thus, we used critical incident technique to identify and synthesize influential workforce experiences in their ethical practice. Results We identified 106 critical incidents, or workforce experiences that led to a change in how engineers viewed or practiced ethical engineering. We grouped incidents into 17 critical incident types, which represent patterns of events or behaviors that led to a change or reinforcement in ethical practice. We grouped incident types into five categories: (1) Cultural Immersions, (2) Interpersonal Encounters; (3) Ethical Actions, (4) Ethical Failures, and (5) Mentorship Events. Conclusion: This study can inform educational change efforts by ensuring that such efforts are grounded in and based on the lived experiences of practicing engineers. We found that Cultural Immersions was the most prominent type of critical incident among participants, and thus we emphasize the import of supporting student awareness of organizational culture, including how it informs one’s ethical views and practices. Based on the range of incident types, we also emphasize how instructors might consider and build the multitude of incident types and categories to implement pedagogy aligned with workforce experiences.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136179618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Vanessa Svihla, Susannah C. Davis, Nadia N. Kellam
Background: Despite many calls for change, and especially change aligned to diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) goals, engineering continues to show disparities in the opportunities, experiences, and outcomes of women and people from groups historically marginalized in these fields. In response, institutions have traditionally used change frameworks to both understand and create reform at program, department, or college levels. However, when aiming at DEIJ goals, change frameworks alone do not lead to the desired transformations of systems. Purpose: In this theoretical paper, we develop an integrated framework that draws from three theoretical domains to guide systemic, equity-focused transformation in engineering education. We argue knowledge from three domains—intersectional power, learning, and change—is necessary to account for and address the complexity of DEIJ change projects. This complexity requires a framework that sheds light on interrelated embodiments of power relations, guidance on how to change, including how and why people learn and engage in new practices. Scope: To illustrate the need for and value of such integration, we examine how prior researchers have used theories of power, change, and learning. In doing so, we present a framework for how integration across these domains can occur. In the domain of change, we identified papers on diffusion of innovations and communities of practice. In learning, we identified papers on distributed practice and legitimate peripheral participation. We examined how these papers utilized critical theories of intersectional power, the third domain, in tandem with these theories. We also explored how the choice of a theory (within the domains) can help or hinder the attainment of systematic, equity-focused transformation. Discussion/Conclusion: We drew the three domains together to consider how these, when integrated in the Theories and Research on Intersectional Power, Learning, and Evolutionary Change (TRIPLE Change) Framework, provide a more comprehensive means to envision, guide, and characterize DEIJ change efforts. By integrating learning, change, and intersectional power theories, we increase the capacity of our analyses of systems and open new possibilities for creating more equitable and just systems.
{"title":"The TRIPLE Change Framework: Merging Theories of Intersectional Power, Learning, and Change to Enable Just, Equitable, Diverse, and Inclusive Engineering Education","authors":"Vanessa Svihla, Susannah C. Davis, Nadia N. Kellam","doi":"10.21061/see.87","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.87","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite many calls for change, and especially change aligned to diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) goals, engineering continues to show disparities in the opportunities, experiences, and outcomes of women and people from groups historically marginalized in these fields. In response, institutions have traditionally used change frameworks to both understand and create reform at program, department, or college levels. However, when aiming at DEIJ goals, change frameworks alone do not lead to the desired transformations of systems. Purpose: In this theoretical paper, we develop an integrated framework that draws from three theoretical domains to guide systemic, equity-focused transformation in engineering education. We argue knowledge from three domains—intersectional power, learning, and change—is necessary to account for and address the complexity of DEIJ change projects. This complexity requires a framework that sheds light on interrelated embodiments of power relations, guidance on how to change, including how and why people learn and engage in new practices. Scope: To illustrate the need for and value of such integration, we examine how prior researchers have used theories of power, change, and learning. In doing so, we present a framework for how integration across these domains can occur. In the domain of change, we identified papers on diffusion of innovations and communities of practice. In learning, we identified papers on distributed practice and legitimate peripheral participation. We examined how these papers utilized critical theories of intersectional power, the third domain, in tandem with these theories. We also explored how the choice of a theory (within the domains) can help or hinder the attainment of systematic, equity-focused transformation. Discussion/Conclusion: We drew the three domains together to consider how these, when integrated in the Theories and Research on Intersectional Power, Learning, and Evolutionary Change (TRIPLE Change) Framework, provide a more comprehensive means to envision, guide, and characterize DEIJ change efforts. By integrating learning, change, and intersectional power theories, we increase the capacity of our analyses of systems and open new possibilities for creating more equitable and just systems.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135361719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: Introductory design projects are an influential and important time to introduce students to engineering in authentic and engaging ways in order to prepare students for their future academic and professional careers. Instructors must be able to scaffold their students to reach more advanced design skills. However, the most effective ways to do this, specifically how instructors use their talk with students, are not well understood. Purpose: We aim to address the research question: How do instructors interact with students and use their talk as a tool to scaffold undergraduate students’ learning during their work on engineering design projects in introductory engineering courses? Design: We employed a multiple case study approach to examine the content of three professors’ talk during introductory engineering design projects, guided by a theoretical framework based on the components of scaffolding. Results: The professors took on a role as a guide or mentor to students during their projects, with differing goals for their mentoring. In light of the introductory nature of the design projects, the professors focused primarily on non-technical content, including iteration in design, teaming, and communication, but pointed to technical applications of their ideas in future projects. They supported some challenges for beginning designers but were not comprehensive in their support of others. Conclusions: The professors in this study are experienced engineers and teachers with valuable experience. They used their experience to act as more knowledgeable others to mentor students and excite them about their engineering careers. However, there were some disconnects between the professors’ values in design and their talk with students, such as in learning from failure and problem scoping. These findings support the need for support for instructors, specifically in how to more closely align their talk with their teaching goals.
{"title":"Professor Talk in Undergraduate, Introductory Design: A Multiple Case Study from Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering","authors":"Amanda C. Emberley, Tamara J. Moore","doi":"10.21061/see.74","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.74","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Introductory design projects are an influential and important time to introduce students to engineering in authentic and engaging ways in order to prepare students for their future academic and professional careers. Instructors must be able to scaffold their students to reach more advanced design skills. However, the most effective ways to do this, specifically how instructors use their talk with students, are not well understood. Purpose: We aim to address the research question: How do instructors interact with students and use their talk as a tool to scaffold undergraduate students’ learning during their work on engineering design projects in introductory engineering courses? Design: We employed a multiple case study approach to examine the content of three professors’ talk during introductory engineering design projects, guided by a theoretical framework based on the components of scaffolding. Results: The professors took on a role as a guide or mentor to students during their projects, with differing goals for their mentoring. In light of the introductory nature of the design projects, the professors focused primarily on non-technical content, including iteration in design, teaming, and communication, but pointed to technical applications of their ideas in future projects. They supported some challenges for beginning designers but were not comprehensive in their support of others. Conclusions: The professors in this study are experienced engineers and teachers with valuable experience. They used their experience to act as more knowledgeable others to mentor students and excite them about their engineering careers. However, there were some disconnects between the professors’ values in design and their talk with students, such as in learning from failure and problem scoping. These findings support the need for support for instructors, specifically in how to more closely align their talk with their teaching goals.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135701046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stephanie A. Claussen, Janet Y. Tsai, Kathryn Johnson, Jenifer Blacklock, Jon A. Leydens
Background: Prior work has shown the importance of engineering identity formation for student success and persistence in engineering. While research has explored how engineering identity is formed, less attention has been given to liminal engineering identities—identities that exist between two commonly identified ones, such as the identity of being an engineering student and that of being an engineering professional— and the qualities of liminality that might impact this identity formation. Purpose/Hypothesis: This paper addresses the research question, “How do engineering students talk about their liminal engineering identities?” Design/Method: Through eleven focus groups held with engineering students at two U.S. universities, evidence of liminal engineering identities emerged. Focus group data was analyzed iteratively using an inductive analysis process due to the emergent nature of this study. Results: Our analysis found six categories for the reasons and justifications students gave for their liminal engineering identities: Mindsets and Related Personal Characteristics; Knowledge; Experience; Engineering Coursework and Degrees; the “Real World”; and Other People. We found that these categories sat on a continuum between an internal or self-driven sense of identity and an external or other-driven sense of identity. Conclusions: This work applies the concept of liminal identity to engineering education, emphasizing that engineering identity is more than an either/or prospect. It makes evident the intricate and intersecting ways in which students construct and justify their emerging engineering identities, and illuminates the reasons students
{"title":"“Not an Engineer Yet”: Manifestations of Liminal Engineering Identities","authors":"Stephanie A. Claussen, Janet Y. Tsai, Kathryn Johnson, Jenifer Blacklock, Jon A. Leydens","doi":"10.21061/see.89","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.89","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Prior work has shown the importance of engineering identity formation for student success and persistence in engineering. While research has explored how engineering identity is formed, less attention has been given to liminal engineering identities—identities that exist between two commonly identified ones, such as the identity of being an engineering student and that of being an engineering professional— and the qualities of liminality that might impact this identity formation. Purpose/Hypothesis: This paper addresses the research question, “How do engineering students talk about their liminal engineering identities?” Design/Method: Through eleven focus groups held with engineering students at two U.S. universities, evidence of liminal engineering identities emerged. Focus group data was analyzed iteratively using an inductive analysis process due to the emergent nature of this study. Results: Our analysis found six categories for the reasons and justifications students gave for their liminal engineering identities: Mindsets and Related Personal Characteristics; Knowledge; Experience; Engineering Coursework and Degrees; the “Real World”; and Other People. We found that these categories sat on a continuum between an internal or self-driven sense of identity and an external or other-driven sense of identity. Conclusions: This work applies the concept of liminal identity to engineering education, emphasizing that engineering identity is more than an either/or prospect. It makes evident the intricate and intersecting ways in which students construct and justify their emerging engineering identities, and illuminates the reasons students","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135613719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Theorizing Engineering Judgment at the Intersection of Decision-Making\u0000 and Identity","authors":"R. Francis, M. Paretti, Rachel Riedner","doi":"10.21061/see.90","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.90","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"530 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116200079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Interacting with Ruling Relations: Engineering Graduate Student\u0000 Experiences of Discrimination","authors":"M. Bahnson, D. Satterfield, M. Wyer, Adam Kirn","doi":"10.21061/see.76","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.76","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"17 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120991532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Applying Concepts from Political Science and Economics to Advance the\u0000 Study of Engineering Education","authors":"Andrew Z. Katz, Joyce B. Main","doi":"10.21061/see.75","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.75","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"151 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134050858","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Megan E. Tomko, Melissa W. Alemán, W. Newstetter, J. Linsey, R. Nagel
{"title":"A Methodological Roadmap for Phenomenologically Based Interviewing in\u0000 Engineering Education: Identifying Types of Learning in Makerspaces","authors":"Megan E. Tomko, Melissa W. Alemán, W. Newstetter, J. Linsey, R. Nagel","doi":"10.21061/see.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.32","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125558897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：