Pub Date : 2023-06-21DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2217042
A. Litvinov, A. Gardner, Sojen Pradhan, Jeri Childers
{"title":"The role and understanding of empathy in entrepreneurial engineering: a systematic literature review","authors":"A. Litvinov, A. Gardner, Sojen Pradhan, Jeri Childers","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2217042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2217042","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83305718","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}
Pub Date : 2023-06-08DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2220265
Sean O’Connor, Jason Power, Nicolaas Blom
The Conceiving – Designing – Implementing – Operating (CDIO) Initiative identifies itself as a global educational framework for producing the next generation of engineers. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an overview of trends and to consider how these may be optimised for the continued evolution of the initiative. This systematic review follows PRISMA guidelines and is preregistered on The Open Science Framework (OSF). The review includes all publications within the CDIO knowledge library between 2010 and 2020 (N = 898). Each of the publications was categorised as Advances in CDIO, CDIO Implementation and Engineering Educational Research. The initial screening identified the popularity of publishing articles discussing CDIO implementation and the notable decline in CDIO publications. A second screening took place that included all the publications in the Engineering Educational Research category. Some of the findings include: 1) 43% of publications have links with Nordic institutions. 2) Sweden is the most active country. 3) 81% of the publications are completed collaboratively; however, only 22% are cross institutional collaborations. The paper concludes with three main suggestions for future research: 1) Enhancing evidence-based practice 2) Support of blended learning research and 3) Further development of collaboration & replication efforts.
{"title":"A systematic review of CDIO knowledge library publications (2010 – 2020): An Overview of trends and recommendations for future research","authors":"Sean O’Connor, Jason Power, Nicolaas Blom","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2220265","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2220265","url":null,"abstract":"The Conceiving – Designing – Implementing – Operating (CDIO) Initiative identifies itself as a global educational framework for producing the next generation of engineers. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an overview of trends and to consider how these may be optimised for the continued evolution of the initiative. This systematic review follows PRISMA guidelines and is preregistered on The Open Science Framework (OSF). The review includes all publications within the CDIO knowledge library between 2010 and 2020 (N = 898). Each of the publications was categorised as Advances in CDIO, CDIO Implementation and Engineering Educational Research. The initial screening identified the popularity of publishing articles discussing CDIO implementation and the notable decline in CDIO publications. A second screening took place that included all the publications in the Engineering Educational Research category. Some of the findings include: 1) 43% of publications have links with Nordic institutions. 2) Sweden is the most active country. 3) 81% of the publications are completed collaboratively; however, only 22% are cross institutional collaborations. The paper concludes with three main suggestions for future research: 1) Enhancing evidence-based practice 2) Support of blended learning research and 3) Further development of collaboration & replication efforts.","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135269659","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}
Pub Date : 2023-05-27DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2214454
E. Crossin, Jessica I. Richards, S. Dart, K. Naswall
{"title":"A taxonomy of common engineering activities and competencies","authors":"E. Crossin, Jessica I. Richards, S. Dart, K. Naswall","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2214454","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2214454","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84476751","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2214461
S. Dart, Sam Cunningham, Alexander Gregg, A. Young
ABSTRACT Professional engineering practice is being transformed by technological developments, globalisation, and changes in societal expectations. In response, approaches to engineering education must advance to better prepare graduates for the demands of industry. However, the criteria currently used by universities to appoint and promote academics do not appropriately prioritise teaching quality, which impedes educational quality enhancement. This study sought to refine the categories of teaching capability proposed in the Engineering 2035 Project (which reviewed the state of Australian engineering education), given these categories lacked the detail necessary to inform policy. Transcripts of interviews with 21 engineering educators were thematically analysed to identify the key skills required of engineering educators. Mapping of interview themes to the seven capabilities proposed in the Engineering 2035 Project revealed gaps in three pedagogically-driven areas related to communicating complex engineering concepts to actively engage students, creating empathetic learning environments, and subject management. New extended descriptors for ten teaching capabilities were developed. We argue that these capabilities must be valued within universities to drive improvement in engineering education quality. Thus, the proposed capability descriptors should be used to inform criteria for recruiting and promoting academics, guide professional development strategy, and evidence educator quality during accreditation processes.
{"title":"Defining the capabilities required to teach engineering: Insights for achieving the Australian sector’s future vision","authors":"S. Dart, Sam Cunningham, Alexander Gregg, A. Young","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2214461","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2214461","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Professional engineering practice is being transformed by technological developments, globalisation, and changes in societal expectations. In response, approaches to engineering education must advance to better prepare graduates for the demands of industry. However, the criteria currently used by universities to appoint and promote academics do not appropriately prioritise teaching quality, which impedes educational quality enhancement. This study sought to refine the categories of teaching capability proposed in the Engineering 2035 Project (which reviewed the state of Australian engineering education), given these categories lacked the detail necessary to inform policy. Transcripts of interviews with 21 engineering educators were thematically analysed to identify the key skills required of engineering educators. Mapping of interview themes to the seven capabilities proposed in the Engineering 2035 Project revealed gaps in three pedagogically-driven areas related to communicating complex engineering concepts to actively engage students, creating empathetic learning environments, and subject management. New extended descriptors for ten teaching capabilities were developed. We argue that these capabilities must be valued within universities to drive improvement in engineering education quality. Thus, the proposed capability descriptors should be used to inform criteria for recruiting and promoting academics, guide professional development strategy, and evidence educator quality during accreditation processes.","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77731521","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2240583
Sally A. Male
{"title":"Special Issue Engineering Education Research Capability Development","authors":"Sally A. Male","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2240583","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2240583","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135799425","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2214462
M. Paretti, J. Case, Lisa Benson, D. Delaine, Shawn S. Jordan, R. Kajfez, S. Lord, H. Matusovich, E. Young, Y. Zastavker
ABSTRACT This paper proposes the use of collaborative secondary data analysis (SDA) as a tool for building capacity in engineering education research. We first characterise the value of collaborative SDA as a tool to help emerging researchers develop skills in qualitative data analysis. We then describe an ongoing collaboration that involves a series of workshops as well as two pilot projects that seek to develop and test frameworks and practices for SDA in engineering education research. We identify emerging benefits and practical challenges associated with implementing SDA as a capacity building tool, and conclude with a discussion of future work.
{"title":"Building capacity in engineering education research through collaborative secondary data analysis","authors":"M. Paretti, J. Case, Lisa Benson, D. Delaine, Shawn S. Jordan, R. Kajfez, S. Lord, H. Matusovich, E. Young, Y. Zastavker","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2214462","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2214462","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper proposes the use of collaborative secondary data analysis (SDA) as a tool for building capacity in engineering education research. We first characterise the value of collaborative SDA as a tool to help emerging researchers develop skills in qualitative data analysis. We then describe an ongoing collaboration that involves a series of workshops as well as two pilot projects that seek to develop and test frameworks and practices for SDA in engineering education research. We identify emerging benefits and practical challenges associated with implementing SDA as a capacity building tool, and conclude with a discussion of future work.","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86295615","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2214456
R. Goldsmith, Guien Miao, S. Daniel, P. Briozzo, Hua Chai, A. Gardner
ABSTRACT There is a considerable body of literature on the challenges that are encountered in the transition from technical engineering research to engineering education research. These challenges include conceptual difficulties, shifts in identities and in paradigms, and changes of cultural and social capital. Many of the studies in this area emphasise the importance of having a network of engineering education researchers, but there is little research on what such a network would look like. Our research builds on this by investigating how the Centre for Research in Engineering & IT Education (CREITE) has established conditions which enable the development of engineering education research capabilities across several universities in NSW. Our novel research approach views six case studies of CREITE members through the lens of three practice theories: community of practice; Bourdieu’s theory of practice; and the theory of practice architecture. The findings reveal a kaleidoscopic understanding of what constrains and enables engineering educators to engage with the field of EER, and the pivotal role played by a research group such as CREITE.
{"title":"Becoming an engineering education researcher through a kaleidoscope of practice theory perspectives","authors":"R. Goldsmith, Guien Miao, S. Daniel, P. Briozzo, Hua Chai, A. Gardner","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2214456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2214456","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There is a considerable body of literature on the challenges that are encountered in the transition from technical engineering research to engineering education research. These challenges include conceptual difficulties, shifts in identities and in paradigms, and changes of cultural and social capital. Many of the studies in this area emphasise the importance of having a network of engineering education researchers, but there is little research on what such a network would look like. Our research builds on this by investigating how the Centre for Research in Engineering & IT Education (CREITE) has established conditions which enable the development of engineering education research capabilities across several universities in NSW. Our novel research approach views six case studies of CREITE members through the lens of three practice theories: community of practice; Bourdieu’s theory of practice; and the theory of practice architecture. The findings reveal a kaleidoscopic understanding of what constrains and enables engineering educators to engage with the field of EER, and the pivotal role played by a research group such as CREITE.","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74676656","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2217046
Joseph F. Mirabelli, A. Barlow, Jeanne L. Sanders, Evan Ko, Karin J. Jensen, K. Cross
ABSTRACT Recent international calls have been made to build capacity in engineering by increasing the number of scholars using research-based instructional practices in engineering classrooms. Training traditional engineering professors to conduct engineering education research (EER) supports this goal. Previous work suggests that engineering professors interested in performing social sciences or educational research require structured support when making this transition. We interviewed 18 professors engaged with a grant opportunity in the United States that supports professors conducting EER for the first time through structured mentorship. Thematic analysis of interview data resulted in four findings describing common perceptions and experiences of traditional engineering professors as they begin to conduct formalised EER: motivation to conduct EER, institutional support and barriers, growth in knowledge, and integrating with EER culture. Within these findings, barriers to entering EER were uncovered with implications for professors interested in EER, funding agencies, and prospective mentors, resulting in suggestions for improving access to EER for professors developing as teaching scholars.
{"title":"Mid-career transitions into engineering education research via structured mentorship opportunities: Barriers and perceptions","authors":"Joseph F. Mirabelli, A. Barlow, Jeanne L. Sanders, Evan Ko, Karin J. Jensen, K. Cross","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2217046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2217046","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent international calls have been made to build capacity in engineering by increasing the number of scholars using research-based instructional practices in engineering classrooms. Training traditional engineering professors to conduct engineering education research (EER) supports this goal. Previous work suggests that engineering professors interested in performing social sciences or educational research require structured support when making this transition. We interviewed 18 professors engaged with a grant opportunity in the United States that supports professors conducting EER for the first time through structured mentorship. Thematic analysis of interview data resulted in four findings describing common perceptions and experiences of traditional engineering professors as they begin to conduct formalised EER: motivation to conduct EER, institutional support and barriers, growth in knowledge, and integrating with EER culture. Within these findings, barriers to entering EER were uncovered with implications for professors interested in EER, funding agencies, and prospective mentors, resulting in suggestions for improving access to EER for professors developing as teaching scholars.","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88814649","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2184911
Jessica R. Deters, Teirra K. Holloman, Ashlee Pearson, David B. Knight
Engineering education research (EER) is a growing and increasingly globally connected field. Understanding cultural and contextual factors is fundamental to EER and further is critical to enabling fruitful international collaborations. The purpose of this research is to understand how engineering education researchers experience and understand EER in Australia and the United States to better facilitate future international collaborations. This research draws on eight interviews conducted with participants who had significant experience carrying out EER in both the United States and Australia and ranged in their career status. Two key domains of comparison emerged from the data: 1) The landscape: Structure and resources of EER in each context, and 2) How the landscape plays out: Implications on EER studies and collaborations. Our analysis finds extremely different research environments for EER in Australia and the United States, the implications of which can be explained in par by resource dependency theory and institutional isomorphism. Our results can inform and enhance future collaborations across these national contexts and help researchers identify opportunities for symbiotic research relationships.
{"title":"Understanding Australian and United States Engineering Education Research (EER) contexts","authors":"Jessica R. Deters, Teirra K. Holloman, Ashlee Pearson, David B. Knight","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2184911","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2184911","url":null,"abstract":"Engineering education research (EER) is a growing and increasingly globally connected field. Understanding cultural and contextual factors is fundamental to EER and further is critical to enabling fruitful international collaborations. The purpose of this research is to understand how engineering education researchers experience and understand EER in Australia and the United States to better facilitate future international collaborations. This research draws on eight interviews conducted with participants who had significant experience carrying out EER in both the United States and Australia and ranged in their career status. Two key domains of comparison emerged from the data: 1) The landscape: Structure and resources of EER in each context, and 2) How the landscape plays out: Implications on EER studies and collaborations. Our analysis finds extremely different research environments for EER in Australia and the United States, the implications of which can be explained in par by resource dependency theory and institutional isomorphism. Our results can inform and enhance future collaborations across these national contexts and help researchers identify opportunities for symbiotic research relationships.","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135653908","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2231768
S. Dart, Jillian Seniuk Cicek, S. Sohoni
ABSTRACT Since the late 20th century, Engineering Education Research (EER) has been expanding globally as a field, although its identity varies across institutions and countries around the world. This diversity in how EER is experienced across contexts impacts how capability is developed, including identities, knowledge, practices, agendas, funding, and pathways. The theme of ‘Engineering Education Research Capability Development’ was explored in papers, presentations, and workshops throughout the jointly held 2021 Research in Engineering Education Symposium and Australasian Association for Engineering Education conference. This special issue presents a continuation of that theme. The papers collectively contribute to expanding global understanding of the field, with implications for future capacity building efforts in engineering education practice and research.
{"title":"REES AAEE special issue on engineering education research capability development: introduction by guest editors","authors":"S. Dart, Jillian Seniuk Cicek, S. Sohoni","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2231768","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2231768","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since the late 20th century, Engineering Education Research (EER) has been expanding globally as a field, although its identity varies across institutions and countries around the world. This diversity in how EER is experienced across contexts impacts how capability is developed, including identities, knowledge, practices, agendas, funding, and pathways. The theme of ‘Engineering Education Research Capability Development’ was explored in papers, presentations, and workshops throughout the jointly held 2021 Research in Engineering Education Symposium and Australasian Association for Engineering Education conference. This special issue presents a continuation of that theme. The papers collectively contribute to expanding global understanding of the field, with implications for future capacity building efforts in engineering education practice and research.","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90730763","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：