Engineering students have an array of career opportunities they can pursue. Some of these opportunities will place them in different sectors of the economy. Whereas many may want to pursue careers in the private/corporate sector, there are important roles for engineers to play in the nonprofit/NGO sector and the public policy/government sector.
Purpose/Hypothesis
The aim of this research was to use a data-driven approach to understanding factors associated with engineering students' likelihood of pursuing careers in the nonprofit/NGO and public policy/government sectors.
Methods
We analyzed data from a national survey of final-year engineering students. We used a data-driven approach combining an ordinal random forest, projection predictive variable selection, and ordinal logistic regression analysis.
Results
The importance of certain factors in the students' career satisfaction (e.g., helping others, volunteering with a charity group) was the most predictive item for students pursuing careers in the nonprofit/NGO sector. The importance of making money was negatively associated with students pursuing careers in the nonprofit/NGO sector. Conversely, the students' interest in working on certain topics (e.g., terrorism and war, climate change) was the most predictive for those pursuing careers in the public policy/government sector. Certain academic majors were also positively associated with students' likelihood of joining the public policy/government sector. Job security was also an influential factor for pursuing careers in both sectors.
Conclusion
This study highlights important but understudied areas for workforce development in alternative career paths beyond the private sector, which could potentially contribute to broadening participation in engineering.
{"title":"Engineering students' interests in nonprofit and public policy careers: Applying a data-driven approach to identifying contributing factors","authors":"Dayoung Kim, Andrew Katz","doi":"10.1002/jee.20620","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20620","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Engineering students have an array of career opportunities they can pursue. Some of these opportunities will place them in different sectors of the economy. Whereas many may want to pursue careers in the private/corporate sector, there are important roles for engineers to play in the nonprofit/NGO sector and the public policy/government sector.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The aim of this research was to use a data-driven approach to understanding factors associated with engineering students' likelihood of pursuing careers in the nonprofit/NGO and public policy/government sectors.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We analyzed data from a national survey of final-year engineering students. We used a data-driven approach combining an ordinal random forest, projection predictive variable selection, and ordinal logistic regression analysis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The importance of certain factors in the students' career satisfaction (e.g., helping others, volunteering with a charity group) was the most predictive item for students pursuing careers in the nonprofit/NGO sector. The importance of making money was negatively associated with students pursuing careers in the nonprofit/NGO sector. Conversely, the students' interest in working on certain topics (e.g., terrorism and war, climate change) was the most predictive for those pursuing careers in the public policy/government sector. Certain academic majors were also positively associated with students' likelihood of joining the public policy/government sector. Job security was also an influential factor for pursuing careers in both sectors.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study highlights important but understudied areas for workforce development in alternative career paths beyond the private sector, which could potentially contribute to broadening participation in engineering.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"114 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20620","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joseph H. Hammer, Courtney J. Wright, Melanie E. Miller, Sarah A. Wilson
Background
Undergraduate engineering students experiencing distress are less likely than peers to ask for professional help. A population-specific instrument to facilitate the identification of factors that influence mental healthcare utilization could guide development and testing of interventions to increase help seeking.
Purpose
We used mixed methods guided by the Integrated Behavioral Model (IBM) to develop and evaluate the Undergraduate Engineering Mental Health Help-Seeking Instrument (UE-MH-HSI).
Method
First, we adapted existing measures of mental health help-seeking intention and mechanisms (i.e., attitudes, perceived norm: injunctive, perceived norm: descriptive, personal agency: autonomy, personal agency: capacity). Second, we coded qualitative interviews (N = 33) to create population-specific mental health help-seeking belief measures (i.e., outcome beliefs, experiential beliefs, beliefs about others' expectations, beliefs about others' behavior, beliefs about barriers and facilitators). Third, we tested the psychometric properties using data from 596 undergraduate engineering students at a historically White, research-focused institution in southern United States.
Results
Psychometric analyses indicated that (1) help-seeking mechanism and intention measures demonstrated unidimensionality, internal consistency, construct replicability, and sufficient variability; (2) mechanism measures demonstrated criterion evidence of validity; and (3) most items within the belief measures demonstrated sufficient variability and convergent evidence of validity.
Conclusions
The UE-MH-HSI is an evidence-based tool for investigating mental health help-seeking factors and their relationship to help-seeking behavior, well-being, academic success, and engineering identity formation. Guidelines for use are provided.
{"title":"The Undergraduate Engineering Mental Health Help-Seeking Instrument (UE-MH-HSI): Development and validity evidence","authors":"Joseph H. Hammer, Courtney J. Wright, Melanie E. Miller, Sarah A. Wilson","doi":"10.1002/jee.20615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20615","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Undergraduate engineering students experiencing distress are less likely than peers to ask for professional help. A population-specific instrument to facilitate the identification of factors that influence mental healthcare utilization could guide development and testing of interventions to increase help seeking.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We used mixed methods guided by the Integrated Behavioral Model (IBM) to develop and evaluate the Undergraduate Engineering Mental Health Help-Seeking Instrument (UE-MH-HSI).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>First, we adapted existing measures of mental health help-seeking intention and mechanisms (i.e., attitudes, perceived norm: injunctive, perceived norm: descriptive, personal agency: autonomy, personal agency: capacity). Second, we coded qualitative interviews (<i>N</i> = 33) to create population-specific mental health help-seeking belief measures (i.e., outcome beliefs, experiential beliefs, beliefs about others' expectations, beliefs about others' behavior, beliefs about barriers and facilitators). Third, we tested the psychometric properties using data from 596 undergraduate engineering students at a historically White, research-focused institution in southern United States.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Psychometric analyses indicated that (1) help-seeking mechanism and intention measures demonstrated unidimensionality, internal consistency, construct replicability, and sufficient variability; (2) mechanism measures demonstrated criterion evidence of validity; and (3) most items within the belief measures demonstrated sufficient variability and convergent evidence of validity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The UE-MH-HSI is an evidence-based tool for investigating mental health help-seeking factors and their relationship to help-seeking behavior, well-being, academic success, and engineering identity formation. Guidelines for use are provided.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"1198-1225"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20615","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142540908","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We hope that these questions to consider will be helpful as you prepare your next manuscript for submission to JEE. Perhaps another avenue to maximize the success of the papers you author that is often overlooked is to serve as a reviewer. Indeed, reviewing is an important aspect of being a part of a research community. In our March 2024 editorial, we highlighted some tips for reviewers (Knight & Main, 2024). Through reviewing and authoring scholarly works, we engage with our engineering education and larger communities in the exchange of ideas and dissemination of high-quality research that has potential for change and transformation.
{"title":"How can I help move my manuscript smoothly through the review process?","authors":"Joyce B. Main, David B. Knight","doi":"10.1002/jee.20618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20618","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We hope that these questions to consider will be helpful as you prepare your next manuscript for submission to JEE. Perhaps another avenue to maximize the success of the papers you author that is often overlooked is to serve as a reviewer. Indeed, reviewing is an important aspect of being a part of a research community. In our March 2024 editorial, we highlighted some tips for reviewers (Knight & Main, <span>2024</span>). Through reviewing and authoring scholarly works, we engage with our engineering education and larger communities in the exchange of ideas and dissemination of high-quality research that has potential for change and transformation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"1107-1109"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20618","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142540820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although most engineering graduate students are funded and usually complete their degrees faster than other disciplines, attrition remains a problem in engineering. Existing research has explored the psychological and sociological factors contributing to attrition but not the structural factors impacting attrition.
Purpose/Hypothesis
Using systems theory, this study seeks to understand nuance in how underlying structural causes affect engineering graduate students' attrition experiences in ways that may differ from their official reasons for departure.
Design/Methods
Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with seven departing or already departed engineering doctoral students from R1 graduate programs across the United States. Using thematic analysis, root cause analyses were conducted to understand participants' attrition experiences to explore how structures influence causes of departure.
Results
The ways participants discuss root causes of their departure indicate differences in formal reasons for departure and underlying causes of departure. We highlight the role of informal and formal policy as root causes of a different attrition rationale often passed off as interpersonal issues. When interpreted as evidence of structural issues, the causes of departure show ways in which action–inaction, policy–“null” policy serve as structural features governing student attrition decision processes. We also highlight a form of benign neglect toward struggling graduate students.
Conclusion
This study reveals important nuances underlying face-value reasons of attrition indicating foundational structural issues contributing to engineering graduate student attrition. Coaching faculty in team management and encouraging close revision of departmental policies could help mitigate students' negative graduate experiences and decrease unnecessary attrition.
{"title":"Reasons and root causes: Conventional characterizations of doctoral engineering attrition obscure underlying structural issues","authors":"Gabriella M. Sallai, Catherine G. P. Berdanier","doi":"10.1002/jee.20619","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20619","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Although most engineering graduate students are funded and usually complete their degrees faster than other disciplines, attrition remains a problem in engineering. Existing research has explored the psychological and sociological factors contributing to attrition but not the structural factors impacting attrition.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using systems theory, this study seeks to understand nuance in how underlying structural causes affect engineering graduate students' attrition experiences in ways that may differ from their official reasons for departure.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with seven departing or already departed engineering doctoral students from R1 graduate programs across the United States. Using thematic analysis, root cause analyses were conducted to understand participants' attrition experiences to explore how structures influence causes of departure.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The ways participants discuss root causes of their departure indicate differences in formal reasons for departure and underlying causes of departure. We highlight the role of informal and formal policy as root causes of a different attrition rationale often passed off as interpersonal issues. When interpreted as evidence of structural issues, the causes of departure show ways in which action–inaction, policy–“null” policy serve as structural features governing student attrition decision processes. We also highlight a form of benign neglect toward struggling graduate students.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study reveals important nuances underlying face-value reasons of attrition indicating foundational structural issues contributing to engineering graduate student attrition. Coaching faculty in team management and encouraging close revision of departmental policies could help mitigate students' negative graduate experiences and decrease unnecessary attrition.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"1245-1264"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20619","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142540895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It gives me great pleasure to explore and synthesize the unique and synergistic contributions of 14 articles for this important special issue, as well as to set future directions for the field of engineering education. Given that evidence-based syntheses help shape key research advances in the medical, psychological, and educational fields, we sought papers that used state-of-the-art methods for systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explore fundamental topics in engineering education. We received many excellent manuscripts, and eventually accepted 14 for this special issue. They cover a range of topics, including reading and writing in engineering, the use of concept maps for assessment in engineering, and other key topics. Most papers used systematic review methods, while three used scoping reviews and bibliometric methods. However, none used meta-analysis. Although this is surprising, it presents an opportunity to call for more rigorous experimental and quantitative research on key topics in engineering education. Experimental studies can uncover cause and effect relationships and enable researchers to draw inferences more easily. While I advocate for all traditions of rigorous research, the collection of reviews in this special issue points to a pressing need for more experimental studies in the field of engineering education.
{"title":"Special issue on systematic reviews and meta-analyses in engineering education: Highlights and future research directions","authors":"Olusola O. Adesope","doi":"10.1002/jee.20613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20613","url":null,"abstract":"<p>It gives me great pleasure to explore and synthesize the unique and synergistic contributions of 14 articles for this important special issue, as well as to set future directions for the field of engineering education. Given that evidence-based syntheses help shape key research advances in the medical, psychological, and educational fields, we sought papers that used state-of-the-art methods for systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explore fundamental topics in engineering education. We received many excellent manuscripts, and eventually accepted 14 for this special issue. They cover a range of topics, including reading and writing in engineering, the use of concept maps for assessment in engineering, and other key topics. Most papers used systematic review methods, while three used scoping reviews and bibliometric methods. However, none used meta-analysis. Although this is surprising, it presents an opportunity to call for more rigorous experimental and quantitative research on key topics in engineering education. Experimental studies can uncover cause and effect relationships and enable researchers to draw inferences more easily. While I advocate for all traditions of rigorous research, the collection of reviews in this special issue points to a pressing need for more experimental studies in the field of engineering education.</p>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"747-751"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20613","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142540927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Harpreet Auby, Lorena S. Grundy, Sandra Huffman, Kaylla Cantilina, Samuel B. Gavitte, Sarah E. Kaczynski, Melissa Penyai, Milo D. Koretsky
<p>Peer review, an established part of research practice, is intended to ensure quality and engender trust among researchers. Reviewers with appropriate expertise evaluate a manuscript to ensure scholarly practices and engage in productive dialogue with the authors. However, significant concerns with peer review (Ware, <span>2008</span>) have sparked proposals to improve the process. Biases can manifest through prestige, nationality, gender, and content (Lee et al., <span>2013</span>). Because the peer review process is primarily maintained by unpaid labor, it burdens overworked scholars, leading to fewer and fewer willing peer reviewers and, at times, rushed reviews (Dance, <span>2023</span>; Flaherty, <span>2022</span>). Delays in peer review are an issue for junior faculty seeking promotion and graduate students entering the job market (Dance, <span>2023</span>). Rushed peer reviews have been shown to miss errors, leading to erroneous publications that erode trust in the scientific community (Campbell, <span>2024</span>; Lowe, <span>2010</span>).</p><p>Previous <i>JEE</i> editorials have addressed the challenges of establishing a new peer review culture in STEM (Benson, <span>2019</span>; Knight & Main, <span>2024</span>) and the positive influences of the <i>JEE</i> Mentored Review Program on the identity of mentees (Jensen et al., <span>2021</span>). Other solutions have been proposed to promote more equitable and efficient peer review. Some claim that crowdsourcing peer reviews using discipline-specific online forums has been fast and effective (List, <span>2017</span>); however, this approach has yet to be widely explored. Artificial intelligence has also been used to aid the review process by potentially improving the quality of reviews and addressing the lack of reviewers; however, this remedy raises substantial concerns about bias, reliability, and appropriate use of data (Hosseini & Horbach, <span>2023</span>).</p><p>Here, we provide reflections from a mentored peer review process within a single engineering education research group. We assert that engaging in this process offers a shared learning experience where emerging scholars can learn about an essential research practice. Furthermore, it has the potential to grow the number of qualified reviewers, improve paper quality, and increase reviewers' academic reading and writing confidence—all while providing quality feedback in a specific review.</p><p>This mentored review process can be viewed through a community of practice lens (Wenger, <span>1998</span>) where novices (e.g., graduate students new to manuscript writing and reviewing) engage as legitimate peripheral participants (Lave & Wenger, <span>1991</span>) in authentic practice to interact with more central participants and learn the sociotechnical practices of the community. The designers of the <i>JEE</i> Mentored Peer Review Program take this approach, giving junior faculty members experience by matching them w
在讨论过程中，指导教师也会在场，回答有关评审过程的问题，并/或提出与论文评审无关的其他想法。小组会议结束后，主持人撰写了评审草案。在吸收了其他参与者的反馈意见并经过教师顾问的质量检查后，主持人提交了评审稿。通过与经验丰富的审稿人进行富有成效的对话，新手认为他们对审稿过程的理解以及对批判性阅读和学术写作的信心都有所增强。具体来说，一些新手在讨论他们审阅的稿件中的困惑点时，从小组的肯定中受益匪浅；最初对自己批评的合理性犹豫不决的新手，对自己发现论点中潜在的差距或缺陷的能力产生了信心。有经验的审稿人获得了一个有组织的机会，来练习他们审阅期刊稿件的技能，并指导新手审稿人。经验丰富的审稿人认为，这种情境可以为今后的指导互动提供参考。无论是新手审稿人还是有经验的审稿人，都非常欣赏从其他角度对稿件提出的见解。这不仅能让他们接触到不同的观点，还能提出同行评审员在评审论文时可能会采取的视角，这将对小组成员今后的写作有所启发。指导小组的同行评审过程支持了指导教师的目标，即培养被指导者与同行评审和出版流程相关的技能。此外，指导教师还认为，参与这一过程加强了重视感性认识、尊重和合作的共同小组文化。最后，由于这一过程的灵活性，被指导者的个人优势和经验得到了凸显。对期刊而言，这一过程提供了一个投资培养合格同行评审员的机会。此外，这一过程的参与者很可能会成为更好的写作者，从而在未来向期刊提交更高质量的稿件，因为同行评审被认为可以促进写作技巧的提高（Finkenstaedt-Quinn et al.参与这项活动为新手和经验丰富的审稿人提供了培养成为成功学者必备技能的机会。我们相信，通过参与真实的实践，这一过程作为研究生和博士后的专业发展工具，为各学科提供了价值。在下面的章节中，我们将介绍我们对有意开展小组同行评审的研究小组的建议。
{"title":"Reflections on a mentored group peer review process","authors":"Harpreet Auby, Lorena S. Grundy, Sandra Huffman, Kaylla Cantilina, Samuel B. Gavitte, Sarah E. Kaczynski, Melissa Penyai, Milo D. Koretsky","doi":"10.1002/jee.20616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20616","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Peer review, an established part of research practice, is intended to ensure quality and engender trust among researchers. Reviewers with appropriate expertise evaluate a manuscript to ensure scholarly practices and engage in productive dialogue with the authors. However, significant concerns with peer review (Ware, <span>2008</span>) have sparked proposals to improve the process. Biases can manifest through prestige, nationality, gender, and content (Lee et al., <span>2013</span>). Because the peer review process is primarily maintained by unpaid labor, it burdens overworked scholars, leading to fewer and fewer willing peer reviewers and, at times, rushed reviews (Dance, <span>2023</span>; Flaherty, <span>2022</span>). Delays in peer review are an issue for junior faculty seeking promotion and graduate students entering the job market (Dance, <span>2023</span>). Rushed peer reviews have been shown to miss errors, leading to erroneous publications that erode trust in the scientific community (Campbell, <span>2024</span>; Lowe, <span>2010</span>).</p><p>Previous <i>JEE</i> editorials have addressed the challenges of establishing a new peer review culture in STEM (Benson, <span>2019</span>; Knight & Main, <span>2024</span>) and the positive influences of the <i>JEE</i> Mentored Review Program on the identity of mentees (Jensen et al., <span>2021</span>). Other solutions have been proposed to promote more equitable and efficient peer review. Some claim that crowdsourcing peer reviews using discipline-specific online forums has been fast and effective (List, <span>2017</span>); however, this approach has yet to be widely explored. Artificial intelligence has also been used to aid the review process by potentially improving the quality of reviews and addressing the lack of reviewers; however, this remedy raises substantial concerns about bias, reliability, and appropriate use of data (Hosseini & Horbach, <span>2023</span>).</p><p>Here, we provide reflections from a mentored peer review process within a single engineering education research group. We assert that engaging in this process offers a shared learning experience where emerging scholars can learn about an essential research practice. Furthermore, it has the potential to grow the number of qualified reviewers, improve paper quality, and increase reviewers' academic reading and writing confidence—all while providing quality feedback in a specific review.</p><p>This mentored review process can be viewed through a community of practice lens (Wenger, <span>1998</span>) where novices (e.g., graduate students new to manuscript writing and reviewing) engage as legitimate peripheral participants (Lave & Wenger, <span>1991</span>) in authentic practice to interact with more central participants and learn the sociotechnical practices of the community. The designers of the <i>JEE</i> Mentored Peer Review Program take this approach, giving junior faculty members experience by matching them w","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"1110-1114"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20616","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142540940","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The gender gap in engineering presents a critical barrier to achieving a diverse and innovative engineering workforce. This gap is influenced by gender stereotypes, socialization processes, masculine culture, and insufficient early experiences with engineering. These contribute to diminished STEM self-concept, interest, and participation among women.
Purpose/Hypothesis
This study assessed an engineering outreach program's impact on children's understanding of and interest in engineering and beliefs about who can be an engineer. It compared whether discussions of gender bias differentially influenced these outcomes for girls and boys.
Design/Method
The study was a short-term sequential quasi-experimental design with boys and girls in grades 4–5. Six classroom groups attended a half-day engineering field trip and were randomly assigned to two conditions: Gender Presentation or No Gender Presentation. Pre- and post-program surveys measured changes in understanding of and interest in engineering and beliefs about who can be an engineer.
Results
All children, regardless of gender or condition, had higher understanding of and interest in engineering after the program, but also demonstrated a bias in selecting men over women as engineers. Participants reported that both girls and boys like and are good at engineering and these ratings increased from the pre-program to the post-program survey.
Conclusion
This research affirms the effectiveness of immersive and inclusive programming in enhancing children's understanding of and interest in engineering. No substantial gender-specific differences emerged regarding the impact of discussions on gender biases. The program underscores the value of early inclusive educational interventions in fostering equitable interest in engineering among young students.
{"title":"Impact of an immersive engineering program on children's understanding of and interest in engineering: Addressing gender stereotypes","authors":"Alexandra Schonning, Susan M. Perez","doi":"10.1002/jee.20617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20617","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The gender gap in engineering presents a critical barrier to achieving a diverse and innovative engineering workforce. This gap is influenced by gender stereotypes, socialization processes, masculine culture, and insufficient early experiences with engineering. These contribute to diminished STEM self-concept, interest, and participation among women.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study assessed an engineering outreach program's impact on children's understanding of and interest in engineering and beliefs about who can be an engineer. It compared whether discussions of gender bias differentially influenced these outcomes for girls and boys.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The study was a short-term sequential quasi-experimental design with boys and girls in grades 4–5. Six classroom groups attended a half-day engineering field trip and were randomly assigned to two conditions: Gender Presentation or No Gender Presentation. Pre- and post-program surveys measured changes in understanding of and interest in engineering and beliefs about who can be an engineer.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>All children, regardless of gender or condition, had higher understanding of and interest in engineering after the program, but also demonstrated a bias in selecting men over women as engineers. Participants reported that both girls and boys like and are good at engineering and these ratings increased from the pre-program to the post-program survey.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This research affirms the effectiveness of immersive and inclusive programming in enhancing children's understanding of and interest in engineering. No substantial gender-specific differences emerged regarding the impact of discussions on gender biases. The program underscores the value of early inclusive educational interventions in fostering equitable interest in engineering among young students.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"1226-1244"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142540939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tests are commonly and heavily used in fundamental engineering courses (FECs) to assess student learning of concepts. With existing literature presenting mixed benefits and disadvantages of testing to students' motivation to learn and documenting widely alternative assessments, the lack of questioning of heavy and common test usage must be addressed to diversify classroom assessment and promote intentionality in test usage.
Purpose/Hypothesis
This study begins to address the lack of questioning by exploring and uncovering test usage beliefs and behaviors of seven FEC instructors from two engineering departments in a land-grant, public, Research 1 university
Design/Method
Grounded in the Situated Expectancy–Value Theory (SEVT), we conducted a multicase study. Data include two interviews, course syllabi, and sample tests provided by the participants, and public documents from the institution and departments. We conducted a priori and emergent coding and thematic analysis to identify the beliefs and behaviors before developing individual case summaries for cross-case analysis to identify groupings.
Results
Three test usage groups emerged: enthusiastic, default, and questioning. All test usage groups featured tests heavily in their FECs, resulting in varying alignment between these participants' test usage beliefs and behaviors.
Conclusions
Our findings reveal the various factors that can shape FEC instructors' test usage beliefs and behaviors, and the complexity in terms of alignment. This work lays important implications, including laying the foundations for future scholarship on testing in engineering education research and leveraging findings to begin efforts in diversifying assessment approaches and promoting intentional test usage in FECs.
{"title":"Exploring fundamental engineering course instructors' test usage beliefs and behaviors: A multicase study","authors":"Kai Jun Chew, Holly M. Matusovich","doi":"10.1002/jee.20614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20614","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Tests are commonly and heavily used in fundamental engineering courses (FECs) to assess student learning of concepts. With existing literature presenting mixed benefits and disadvantages of testing to students' motivation to learn and documenting widely alternative assessments, the lack of questioning of heavy and common test usage must be addressed to diversify classroom assessment and promote intentionality in test usage.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study begins to address the lack of questioning by exploring and uncovering test usage beliefs and behaviors of seven FEC instructors from two engineering departments in a land-grant, public, Research 1 university</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Grounded in the Situated Expectancy–Value Theory (SEVT), we conducted a multicase study. Data include two interviews, course syllabi, and sample tests provided by the participants, and public documents from the institution and departments. We conducted a priori and emergent coding and thematic analysis to identify the beliefs and behaviors before developing individual case summaries for cross-case analysis to identify groupings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Three test usage groups emerged: enthusiastic, default, and questioning. All test usage groups featured tests heavily in their FECs, resulting in varying alignment between these participants' test usage beliefs and behaviors.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our findings reveal the various factors that can shape FEC instructors' test usage beliefs and behaviors, and the complexity in terms of alignment. This work lays important implications, including laying the foundations for future scholarship on testing in engineering education research and leveraging findings to begin efforts in diversifying assessment approaches and promoting intentional test usage in FECs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"1146-1176"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20614","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142541058","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cristhian Fallas Escobar, Joel Alejandro Mejia, Tess Perez
Background
Latinos/as/xs continue to face many barriers as they pursue engineering degrees, including remedial placement, lack of access to well-funded schools, and high poverty rates. We use the concept of arrebatos to describe the internal reckoning that Latino/a/x engineering students experience through their journeys, particularly focusing on the impact of socioeconomic inequalities.
Purpose
To bring counternarratives in engineering education research focusing on the experiences and lived realities of low-income Latino/a/x engineering students. These counternarratives are an important step in interrogating systemic biases and exclusionary cultures, practices, and policies at HSIs and emerging HSIs and within engineering programs.
Methods
Pláticas were conducted with 22 Latino/a/x engineering undergraduates from four different universities in the US Southwest. These pláticas were coded and analyzed drawing from Anzaldúa's theoretical concept of el arrebato. Special attention was given to participants' arrebatos triggered by their college experiences as low-income individuals.
Results
Analysis indicates that Latino/a/x engineering students' arrebatos arise from events that shake up the foundation of their own identity, including an institutional lack of sociopolitical consciousness. This lack of consciousness becomes evident not only in individuals' attitudes toward these students but also in institutional policies that put them at a further disadvantage.
Conclusions
Findings have implications for engineering programs, particularly at HSIs and emerging HSIs regarding the creation of policies and practices that aim to secure the retention of low-income Latino/a/x engineering students and alleviate the systemic barrier they face by affirming the practice of servingness.
{"title":"Arrebatos and institutionalized barriers encountered by low-income Latino/a/x engineering students at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and emerging HSIs","authors":"Cristhian Fallas Escobar, Joel Alejandro Mejia, Tess Perez","doi":"10.1002/jee.20612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20612","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Latinos/as/xs continue to face many barriers as they pursue engineering degrees, including remedial placement, lack of access to well-funded schools, and high poverty rates. We use the concept of <i>arrebatos</i> to describe the internal reckoning that Latino/a/x engineering students experience through their journeys, particularly focusing on the impact of socioeconomic inequalities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To bring counternarratives in engineering education research focusing on the experiences and lived realities of low-income Latino/a/x engineering students. These counternarratives are an important step in interrogating systemic biases and exclusionary cultures, practices, and policies at HSIs and emerging HSIs and within engineering programs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p><i>Pláticas</i> were conducted with 22 Latino/a/x engineering undergraduates from four different universities in the US Southwest. These <i>pláticas</i> were coded and analyzed drawing from Anzaldúa's theoretical concept of <i>el arrebato</i>. Special attention was given to participants' <i>arrebatos</i> triggered by their college experiences as low-income individuals.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Analysis indicates that Latino/a/x engineering students' a<i>rrebatos</i> arise from events that shake up the foundation of their own identity, including an institutional lack of sociopolitical consciousness. This lack of consciousness becomes evident not only in individuals' attitudes toward these students but also in institutional policies that put them at a further disadvantage.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Findings have implications for engineering programs, particularly at HSIs and emerging HSIs regarding the creation of policies and practices that aim to secure the retention of low-income Latino/a/x engineering students and alleviate the systemic barrier they face by affirming the practice of servingness.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"1177-1197"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142540909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) publishes outstanding contributions that span a wide variety of topics and methods (Katz et al., 2023). As we laid out in the journal's strategic plan (Main & Knight, 2023), JEE is more than a place to publish papers—it is a vital partner in the global community of stakeholders dedicated to advancing research in engineering education from pre-college contexts to post-graduate professional contexts. We appreciate that authors from around the globe choose to share their work in JEE and keep it a top destination for high-quality engineering education research.
William Elgin Wickenden Award (2023)
All articles in a volume are automatically considered for the award.
Congratulations to Brooke Coley and Katreena Thomas for their article “‘The lab isn't life’: Black engineering graduate students reprioritize values at the intersection of two pandemics,” which was published in the April 2023 issue (https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20518) (Coley & Thomas, 2023). The article has been selected to receive the 2023 William Elgin Wickenden Award!
Many thanks to Senior Associate Editor Bill Williams and Deputy Editor Adam Carberry for co-chairing the selection process and the Wickenden Award committee members Jiabin Zhu, Stephen Secules, Alex Mejia, Brian McSkimming, and Madeline Polmear. We also appreciate the entire JEE editorial board for participating in this challenging task of identifying one paper to recognize out of an entire volume of excellent research contributions.
JEE Star Reviewers (2023)
Our annual recognition of a few members of the JEE community is always an important activity to highlight some of our outstanding contributions from the past year. We would be remiss, however, not to acknowledge everyone in the community for helping continue to make JEE a top destination globally for sharing engineering education research. All of our authors, reviewers, editorial board members, and readers play critical roles, and we appreciate you.
Farewell from the JEE Editorial Board
We are saying a fond farewell to Assistant Editor Matilde Sánchez-Peña. Matilde has been on the JEE Editorial Board since 2021 and has been a wonderful member of our team. We wish her well in her continued role as a faculty member. It has been a pleasure to work with you, Matilde!
{"title":"Celebrating outstanding publications and reviewers from the 2023 volume","authors":"David B. Knight, Joyce B. Main","doi":"10.1002/jee.20610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20610","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The <i>Journal of Engineering Education</i> (JEE) publishes outstanding contributions that span a wide variety of topics and methods (Katz et al., <span>2023</span>). As we laid out in the journal's strategic plan (Main & Knight, <span>2023</span>), JEE is more than a place to publish papers—it is a vital partner in the global community of stakeholders dedicated to advancing research in engineering education from pre-college contexts to post-graduate professional contexts. We appreciate that authors from around the globe choose to share their work in JEE and keep it a top destination for high-quality engineering education research.</p><p><b><i>William Elgin Wickenden Award (2023)</i></b></p><p>All articles in a volume are automatically considered for the award.</p><p>Congratulations to Brooke Coley and Katreena Thomas for their article “‘The lab isn't life’: Black engineering graduate students reprioritize values at the intersection of two pandemics,” which was published in the April 2023 issue (https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20518) (Coley & Thomas, <span>2023</span>). The article has been selected to receive the 2023 William Elgin Wickenden Award!</p><p>Many thanks to Senior Associate Editor Bill Williams and Deputy Editor Adam Carberry for co-chairing the selection process and the Wickenden Award committee members Jiabin Zhu, Stephen Secules, Alex Mejia, Brian McSkimming, and Madeline Polmear. We also appreciate the entire JEE editorial board for participating in this challenging task of identifying one paper to recognize out of an entire volume of excellent research contributions.</p><p><b><i>JEE Star Reviewers (2023)</i></b></p><p>Our annual recognition of a few members of the JEE community is always an important activity to highlight some of our outstanding contributions from the past year. We would be remiss, however, not to acknowledge everyone in the community for helping continue to make JEE a top destination globally for sharing engineering education research. All of our authors, reviewers, editorial board members, and readers play critical roles, and we appreciate you.</p><p><b>Farewell from the JEE Editorial Board</b></p><p>We are saying a fond farewell to Assistant Editor Matilde Sánchez-Peña. Matilde has been on the JEE Editorial Board since 2021 and has been a wonderful member of our team. We wish her well in her continued role as a faculty member. It has been a pleasure to work with you, Matilde!</p>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 3","pages":"512-514"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20610","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141730087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号