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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2230068
Karin J. Jensen, Isabel M. Miller, Deepthi E. Suresh, Julie P. Martin
ABSTRACT International calls for building capacity in engineering education research (EER) as a discipline have led to the development of workshops, training programs, and resources for scholars to learn and practice EER. Building capacity in EER as a discipline depends not only on the research skills of scholars, but also their sustained engagement in the discipline through the development of strong social networks. Understanding how scholars develop robust social networks through mentorship will support building research capacity in the field. This study was designed to answer the research question: How do established engineering education researchers help new engineering education researchers build social capital for EER through mentoring relationships? It draws on semi-structured interviews leveraging critical incident technique conducted with nine participants: two mentors and seven mentees. The findings suggest that mentors serve critical roles in the professional development of engineering faculty (academics) in EER as a discipline, providing training in methods and theories, developing mentees’ social networks, and providing moral support for entering a new field. Building capacity efforts and related structured mentoring programs (and mentoring training) should emphasise the importance of developing mentees’ social networks to support sustained engagement in EER.
{"title":"Beyond skills: building research capacity through cognitive apprenticeship and social capital","authors":"Karin J. Jensen, Isabel M. Miller, Deepthi E. Suresh, Julie P. Martin","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2230068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2230068","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT International calls for building capacity in engineering education research (EER) as a discipline have led to the development of workshops, training programs, and resources for scholars to learn and practice EER. Building capacity in EER as a discipline depends not only on the research skills of scholars, but also their sustained engagement in the discipline through the development of strong social networks. Understanding how scholars develop robust social networks through mentorship will support building research capacity in the field. This study was designed to answer the research question: How do established engineering education researchers help new engineering education researchers build social capital for EER through mentoring relationships? It draws on semi-structured interviews leveraging critical incident technique conducted with nine participants: two mentors and seven mentees. The findings suggest that mentors serve critical roles in the professional development of engineering faculty (academics) in EER as a discipline, providing training in methods and theories, developing mentees’ social networks, and providing moral support for entering a new field. Building capacity efforts and related structured mentoring programs (and mentoring training) should emphasise the importance of developing mentees’ social networks to support sustained engagement in EER.","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":"87077362","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: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2233340
E. Matemba, Lelanie Smith, K. Wolff, Helen Inglis, D. Mogashana, Lauren Jansen, Alison Gwynne-Evans, A. Campbell, Cedrick Kwuimy, Shamim Nassar, Irene Magara, Bruce Kloot, T. Hattingh, A. Raji, Tagwa A. Musa, A. Nyamapfene
ABSTRACT The Engineering Education Research Network in Africa (EERN-Africa) was created to enable connections between practitioners and researchers with a shared interest in African engineering education contexts. Recognising the importance of developing an African voice in the engineering education research space, the EERN-Africa community has interacted in a dynamic and dialogic way with our own teaching and research practices across diverse African contexts, with an ethical commitment to democratic and inclusive community-building. The objective of this paper is to reflect on the current status of the Community of Practice (CoP), and the challenges and opportunities in sustaining and growing the CoP. A collaborative analysis of perspectives on this emerging identity is presented, using an Appreciative Inquiry (AI) methodology and drawing on collective written reflections and discussions. Six broad themes on the value that the CoP has for both individuals and the group were identified: networking, capacity development, emotional support, impact on professional identity, social and environmental impact, and breaking borders. This paper contributes an approach for collaborative capacity-building in EER through a virtual CoP, underpinned by the spirit of ubuntu.
{"title":"Reflecting on a community of practice for engineering education research capacity in Africa: who are we and where are we going?","authors":"E. Matemba, Lelanie Smith, K. Wolff, Helen Inglis, D. Mogashana, Lauren Jansen, Alison Gwynne-Evans, A. Campbell, Cedrick Kwuimy, Shamim Nassar, Irene Magara, Bruce Kloot, T. Hattingh, A. Raji, Tagwa A. Musa, A. Nyamapfene","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2233340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2233340","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Engineering Education Research Network in Africa (EERN-Africa) was created to enable connections between practitioners and researchers with a shared interest in African engineering education contexts. Recognising the importance of developing an African voice in the engineering education research space, the EERN-Africa community has interacted in a dynamic and dialogic way with our own teaching and research practices across diverse African contexts, with an ethical commitment to democratic and inclusive community-building. The objective of this paper is to reflect on the current status of the Community of Practice (CoP), and the challenges and opportunities in sustaining and growing the CoP. A collaborative analysis of perspectives on this emerging identity is presented, using an Appreciative Inquiry (AI) methodology and drawing on collective written reflections and discussions. Six broad themes on the value that the CoP has for both individuals and the group were identified: networking, capacity development, emotional support, impact on professional identity, social and environmental impact, and breaking borders. This paper contributes an approach for collaborative capacity-building in EER through a virtual CoP, underpinned by the spirit of ubuntu.","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":"75295413","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: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2214459
K. Watts, R. Sims, Evan Ko, Karin J. Jensen, R. Bates, Gary Lichtenstein, Lisa Benson
ABSTRACT The Engineering Education Research (EER) Peer Review Training (PERT) project aimed to develop EER scholars’ peer review skills through mentored experiences reviewing journal manuscripts. Concurrently, the project explored how EER scholars develop capabilities for evaluating and conducting EER scholarship through peer reviewing. PERT used a mentoring structure in which two researchers with little reviewing experience were paired with an experienced mentor to complete three manuscript reviews collaboratively. Using a variety of techniques including think aloud protocols, structured peer reviews, and exit surveys, the PERT research team addressed the following research questions: (1) To what extent are the ways in which reviewers evaluate manuscripts influenced by reviewers’ varied levels of expertise? and (2) To what extent does participation in a mentored peer reviewer programme influence reviewers’ EER manuscript evaluations? Data were collected from three cohorts of the mentored review programme over 18 months. Findings indicate that experience influenced reviewers’ evaluation of EER manuscripts at the start of the programme, and that participation can improve reviewers’ understanding of EER disciplinary conventions and their connection to the EER community. Deeper understanding of the epistemological basis for manuscript reviews may reveal ways to strengthen professional preparation in engineering education as well as other disciplines.
{"title":"Peer reviewer training to build capacity in engineering education research","authors":"K. Watts, R. Sims, Evan Ko, Karin J. Jensen, R. Bates, Gary Lichtenstein, Lisa Benson","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2214459","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2214459","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Engineering Education Research (EER) Peer Review Training (PERT) project aimed to develop EER scholars’ peer review skills through mentored experiences reviewing journal manuscripts. Concurrently, the project explored how EER scholars develop capabilities for evaluating and conducting EER scholarship through peer reviewing. PERT used a mentoring structure in which two researchers with little reviewing experience were paired with an experienced mentor to complete three manuscript reviews collaboratively. Using a variety of techniques including think aloud protocols, structured peer reviews, and exit surveys, the PERT research team addressed the following research questions: (1) To what extent are the ways in which reviewers evaluate manuscripts influenced by reviewers’ varied levels of expertise? and (2) To what extent does participation in a mentored peer reviewer programme influence reviewers’ EER manuscript evaluations? Data were collected from three cohorts of the mentored review programme over 18 months. Findings indicate that experience influenced reviewers’ evaluation of EER manuscripts at the start of the programme, and that participation can improve reviewers’ understanding of EER disciplinary conventions and their connection to the EER community. Deeper understanding of the epistemological basis for manuscript reviews may reveal ways to strengthen professional preparation in engineering education as well as other disciplines.","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":"76351640","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: 10.1080/22054952.2023.2219576
Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Jeffrey W. Paul, Renato Bezerra Rodrigues, P. Sheridan, R. Paul
ABSTRACT Researchers face tensions as they journey into the field of Engineering Education Research (EER). Central to these tensions is the spectrum between the philosophical foundations of STEM-based engineering and Social Science-based education, which create internal and external challenges in the field. EER researchers must traverse the epistemological tension and the boundaries between disparate disciplines. As such, they may find themselves working on the fringes of EER’s parent disciplines (Engineering and Education) and not fully belonging to any community. This theoretical article draws on EER literature, several theoretical frameworks, and the research and lived experiences of the authors, two academics and three doctoral students who have journeyed into EER in Canada. It provides insights to new researchers to help them understand the nature of some of the struggles they may experience journeying into EER, awareness for more established researchers who may be already acquainted with the tensions, and critical context for universities and organisations wishing to build EER capability to inform the supports that new and existing EER researchers could use to thrive in EER communities.
{"title":"Journeying into Engineering Education Research","authors":"Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Jeffrey W. Paul, Renato Bezerra Rodrigues, P. Sheridan, R. Paul","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2023.2219576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2219576","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Researchers face tensions as they journey into the field of Engineering Education Research (EER). Central to these tensions is the spectrum between the philosophical foundations of STEM-based engineering and Social Science-based education, which create internal and external challenges in the field. EER researchers must traverse the epistemological tension and the boundaries between disparate disciplines. As such, they may find themselves working on the fringes of EER’s parent disciplines (Engineering and Education) and not fully belonging to any community. This theoretical article draws on EER literature, several theoretical frameworks, and the research and lived experiences of the authors, two academics and three doctoral students who have journeyed into EER in Canada. It provides insights to new researchers to help them understand the nature of some of the struggles they may experience journeying into EER, awareness for more established researchers who may be already acquainted with the tensions, and critical context for universities and organisations wishing to build EER capability to inform the supports that new and existing EER researchers could use to thrive in EER communities.","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":"82737944","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2022.2154009
S. J. Howland, Stephanie A. Claussen, B. Jesiek, C. Zoltowski
ABSTRACT Engineering students’ views of ethics and social responsibility can be complex, multi-faceted, and influenced by participation in diverse experiences. To explore these influences, we surveyed engineering undergraduates at four U.S. universities to understand how their perceptions of ethics and social responsibility changed over time and whether changes were related to participation in curricular and co-curricular experiences. Students were surveyed three times: during the first, fifth, and eighth semesters of their undergraduate studies. We analyse the responses of students (n = 226) who responded to all three surveys. We report results from five measures used in the survey: Fundamentals of Engineering/Situational Judgement, Ethical Climate Index, Justice Beliefs, Political and Social Involvement Scale, and Moral Disengagement. Analysis used two-way mixed ANOVA to identify changes over time on these measures, including whether changes were influenced by self-reported participation in certain experiences (internships, service-learning, ethics instruction, etc.). When we compared groups of students – those who did and did not participate in various experiences – we saw no interaction effects for most measures. We hypothesise this reflects a pattern of self-selection into experiences. Our findings suggest the difficulty of developing impactful ethics interventions, given that students arrive at university with pre-existing knowledge and perceptions about ethics and morality.
{"title":"Influences on U.S. undergraduate engineering students’ perceptions of ethics and social responsibility: findings from a longitudinal study","authors":"S. J. Howland, Stephanie A. Claussen, B. Jesiek, C. Zoltowski","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2022.2154009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2022.2154009","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Engineering students’ views of ethics and social responsibility can be complex, multi-faceted, and influenced by participation in diverse experiences. To explore these influences, we surveyed engineering undergraduates at four U.S. universities to understand how their perceptions of ethics and social responsibility changed over time and whether changes were related to participation in curricular and co-curricular experiences. Students were surveyed three times: during the first, fifth, and eighth semesters of their undergraduate studies. We analyse the responses of students (n = 226) who responded to all three surveys. We report results from five measures used in the survey: Fundamentals of Engineering/Situational Judgement, Ethical Climate Index, Justice Beliefs, Political and Social Involvement Scale, and Moral Disengagement. Analysis used two-way mixed ANOVA to identify changes over time on these measures, including whether changes were influenced by self-reported participation in certain experiences (internships, service-learning, ethics instruction, etc.). When we compared groups of students – those who did and did not participate in various experiences – we saw no interaction effects for most measures. We hypothesise this reflects a pattern of self-selection into experiences. Our findings suggest the difficulty of developing impactful ethics interventions, given that students arrive at university with pre-existing knowledge and perceptions about ethics and morality.","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87763222","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2022.2131097
Doug Hargreaves
Robin was the first person to be awarded a YODA by the Australasian Association for Engineering Education in recognition of his outstanding service to engineering education. It was a joint award with Emeritus Professor Elizabeth Taylor AO. YODA stands for Ye Olde Distinguished Academic. This award in itself is testament to the enormous contribution that Robin made to engineering education over many years, indeed a pioneer in this field. Robin’s professional life began with an Electrical Engineering degree from Sheffield University (UK) in 1967 followed by a Doctorate from Imperial College London. He then worked at the BBC Research Laboratories, the University of Technology Lae (PNG), the University of Southampton, the University of New South Wales, the University of Sydney, the University of South Australia and finally in his ‘retirement’ at University of Technology Sydney. It could be argued that Robin’s early research laid foundations for technological innovations that have improved the lives of persons with deaf and blind challenges. Whilst employed in these positions, Robin’s passion for engineering education was evident in his work for Engineers Australia’s (EA) Accreditation Board. Indeed, he was the Chair and chose to be a visit manager. Robin also was the Chair of the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Sydney Accord. He was the Executive Officer for the Australian Council of Engineering Deans (ACED) for many years before becoming an office bearer for the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) (in education). He was member of the Royal Society of New South Wales. He was also an avid follower of the research being done by the Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering and many other organisations. In 2007–2008, Robin led a team that produced a seminal document reviewing engineering education for the Australian Council of Engineering Deans (ACED) (King, 2008). Among several recommendations, it included a very strong diversity message particularly related to getting more women into engineering. In more recent times, he was on the steering committee for the ACED reports exploring the Future of Engineering towards 2035 [www. aced.edu.au/index.php/examples]. Robin was a passionate believer in developing a much stronger link between industry and academia and together with several others published several papers and reports in this topic, for example ‘Drivers and Barriers to Industry Engaging in Engineering Education’ (Male et al., 2016). In his role as a consultant to ACED, Robin collaborated with several other organisations such as the Chief Scientist Office, Engineers Australia, the Australian Council of Deans of Science, the Australian Council of Deans of ICT, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority and various government departments. Probably the three most important research activities related to the production of very detailed annual statistics of engineering students at all Australian universities
罗宾是第一个被澳大利亚工程教育协会授予尤达奖的人，以表彰他对工程教育的杰出贡献。该奖项是与名誉教授伊丽莎白·泰勒(Elizabeth Taylor)共同颁发的。尤达代表“杰出学者”。这个奖项本身就证明了罗宾多年来对工程教育做出的巨大贡献，他确实是这个领域的先驱。Robin的职业生涯始于1967年在谢菲尔德大学(英国)获得电子工程学位，随后在伦敦帝国理工学院获得博士学位。之后，他先后在BBC研究实验室、澳科技大学、南安普顿大学、新南威尔士大学、悉尼大学、南澳大利亚大学工作，最后在悉尼科技大学“退休”。可以说，罗宾的早期研究为技术创新奠定了基础，这些技术创新改善了聋哑人和盲人的生活。在这些职位上，罗宾对工程教育的热情在他为澳大利亚工程师协会(EA)认证委员会的工作中表现得很明显。事实上，他是主席，并选择成为一名访问经理。Robin也是国际工程联盟(IEA)悉尼协议的主席。在成为技术科学与工程学院(ATSE)(教育)的办公室主任之前，他曾担任澳大利亚工程学院院长委员会(ced)的执行官多年。他是新南威尔士州皇家学会的成员。他也是沃伦高级工程中心和许多其他组织正在进行的研究的狂热追随者。2007-2008年，Robin领导的团队为澳大利亚工程学院院长委员会(ACED)撰写了一份开创性的工程教育综述文件(King, 2008)。在几项建议中，它包含了一个非常强烈的多元化信息，特别是与让更多女性进入工程领域有关。在最近的一段时间里，他是《面向2035年探索工程的未来》报告的指导委员会成员。aced.edu.au / index . php /例子)。Robin热衷于在产业界和学术界之间建立更紧密的联系，并与其他几人一起就这一主题发表了几篇论文和报告，例如“行业参与工程教育的驱动因素和障碍”(Male et al.， 2016)。作为一名顾问，Robin与其他几个组织合作，如首席科学家办公室、澳大利亚工程师协会、澳大利亚科学学院院长委员会、澳大利亚信息通信技术学院院长委员会、澳大利亚课程、评估和报告局以及各个政府部门。可能三个最重要的研究活动与制作非常详细的澳大利亚所有大学工程专业学生的年度统计数据有关[www.aced.edu.au/index.php/features/statistics]，进入大学教育的学生管道和进入澳大利亚劳动力的移民工程师数量，后者与全国工程师的供需密切相关[www.aced.edu.au/index.php/features/workingpapers]。罗宾在他广泛的国内和国际同事和熟人网络中受到所有人的尊敬。罗宾是一位杰出的工程师和学者，在过去的几十年里，他为这个行业做出了广泛的贡献。我们非常感谢他的慷慨和对我们职业的巨大贡献。他的洞察力和影响力受到最高的尊重。有几个人用言语和想法描述了罗宾对他们的意义。我感谢你们所有人，因为我试图将他们融入到这次反思中。罗宾当然是一个有影响力的人，通过他的指导，他慷慨和谦虚的态度来帮助别人，他令人难以置信的谦逊，他的承诺，奉献和勤奋手头的任务，再加上他对工程专业的深入了解和他多年来建立的广泛网络。虽然我对Penny的了解不如Robin，但我知道她和Robin性格非常相似，在当地社区的各种团体中都非常活跃。他们的区长为他们的生命庆典(葬礼)写了一封非常支持他们的信，详细介绍了他们在社区中的影响。这对极其谦虚、慷慨和谦逊的夫妇彼此相爱，热爱彼此和他们的家庭，致力于、支持和影响许多社区团体和专业人士，并通过徒步旅行和其他活动积极锻炼身体。在很多方面都是典范。澳大拉西亚工程教育学报，2022，第27卷，第2期。2,115 - 116 https://doi.org/10。 1080/22054952.2022.2131097
{"title":"In memorium for Emeritus Professor Robin King HonFIEAust CPEng(Ret) FRSN FTSE","authors":"Doug Hargreaves","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2022.2131097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2022.2131097","url":null,"abstract":"Robin was the first person to be awarded a YODA by the Australasian Association for Engineering Education in recognition of his outstanding service to engineering education. It was a joint award with Emeritus Professor Elizabeth Taylor AO. YODA stands for Ye Olde Distinguished Academic. This award in itself is testament to the enormous contribution that Robin made to engineering education over many years, indeed a pioneer in this field. Robin’s professional life began with an Electrical Engineering degree from Sheffield University (UK) in 1967 followed by a Doctorate from Imperial College London. He then worked at the BBC Research Laboratories, the University of Technology Lae (PNG), the University of Southampton, the University of New South Wales, the University of Sydney, the University of South Australia and finally in his ‘retirement’ at University of Technology Sydney. It could be argued that Robin’s early research laid foundations for technological innovations that have improved the lives of persons with deaf and blind challenges. Whilst employed in these positions, Robin’s passion for engineering education was evident in his work for Engineers Australia’s (EA) Accreditation Board. Indeed, he was the Chair and chose to be a visit manager. Robin also was the Chair of the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Sydney Accord. He was the Executive Officer for the Australian Council of Engineering Deans (ACED) for many years before becoming an office bearer for the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) (in education). He was member of the Royal Society of New South Wales. He was also an avid follower of the research being done by the Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering and many other organisations. In 2007–2008, Robin led a team that produced a seminal document reviewing engineering education for the Australian Council of Engineering Deans (ACED) (King, 2008). Among several recommendations, it included a very strong diversity message particularly related to getting more women into engineering. In more recent times, he was on the steering committee for the ACED reports exploring the Future of Engineering towards 2035 [www. aced.edu.au/index.php/examples]. Robin was a passionate believer in developing a much stronger link between industry and academia and together with several others published several papers and reports in this topic, for example ‘Drivers and Barriers to Industry Engaging in Engineering Education’ (Male et al., 2016). In his role as a consultant to ACED, Robin collaborated with several other organisations such as the Chief Scientist Office, Engineers Australia, the Australian Council of Deans of Science, the Australian Council of Deans of ICT, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority and various government departments. Probably the three most important research activities related to the production of very detailed annual statistics of engineering students at all Australian universities ","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75364805","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：