COVID-19 has led to an unprecedented increase in the use of technology for teaching and learning in higher education institutions (HEIs), including in engineering, computing, and technology programs. Given the urgency of the situation, technologies were often implemented with a short-term rather than long-term view.
Purpose
In this study, we investigate students' perceptions of the use of video-based monitoring (VbM) for proctoring exams to better assess its impact on students. We leverage technological ambivalence as a framing lens to analyze students' experiences and perceptions of using VbM and draw implications for responsible use of educational technology.
Method
Qualitative data were collected from students using focus group interviews and discussion board assignments and analyzed inductively to understand students' experiences.
Findings
We present a framework of how a technological shift of existing practice triggered ambivalence that manifested itself as a sustained negative outlook among students regarding the use of VbM, as well as their institution and instructors. Students accepted the inevitability of the technology but were unconvinced that the benefits of VbM outweighed its risks.
Conclusions
As instructors use educational technologies that are inherently driven by user data and algorithms that are not transparent, it is imperative that they are attentive to the responsible use of technology. To educate future engineers who are ethically and morally responsible, engineering educators and engineering institutions need to exhibit that behavior in their own practices, starting with their use of educational technologies.
{"title":"Students' technological ambivalence toward online proctoring and the need for responsible use of educational technologies","authors":"Aditya Johri, Ashish Hingle","doi":"10.1002/jee.20504","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20504","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>COVID-19 has led to an unprecedented increase in the use of technology for teaching and learning in higher education institutions (HEIs), including in engineering, computing, and technology programs. Given the urgency of the situation, technologies were often implemented with a short-term rather than long-term view.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In this study, we investigate students' perceptions of the use of video-based monitoring (VbM) for proctoring exams to better assess its impact on students. We leverage technological ambivalence as a framing lens to analyze students' experiences and perceptions of using VbM and draw implications for responsible use of educational technology.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Qualitative data were collected from students using focus group interviews and discussion board assignments and analyzed inductively to understand students' experiences.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Findings</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We present a framework of how a technological shift of existing practice triggered ambivalence that manifested itself as a sustained negative outlook among students regarding the use of VbM, as well as their institution and instructors. Students accepted the inevitability of the technology but were unconvinced that the benefits of VbM outweighed its risks.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As instructors use educational technologies that are inherently driven by user data and algorithms that are not transparent, it is imperative that they are attentive to the responsible use of technology. To educate future engineers who are ethically and morally responsible, engineering educators and engineering institutions need to exhibit that behavior in their own practices, starting with their use of educational technologies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20504","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50125909","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}
Xiao-Yin Chen, Ellen L. Usher, Madelyn Roeder, Alecia R. Johnson, Marian S. Kennedy, Natasha A. Mamaril
Background
Engineering self-efficacy, or the belief in one's own capabilities to complete engineering tasks, has been shown to predict greater motivation, academic performance, and retention of engineering students. Investigating the types of experiences that influence engineering students' self-efficacy can reveal ways to support students in their undergraduate engineering programs.
Purpose/Hypothesis(es)
The purpose of this study was to qualitatively examine how undergraduate engineering students describe the sources of their engineering self-efficacy and whether patterns in students' responses differed by gender.
Design/Method
Participants (N = 654) were undergraduate engineering students attending two public, land-grant universities in the U.S. Open-ended survey questions were used to identify the events, social experiences, and emotions that students described as relevant to their engineering self-efficacy. Chi-square analyses were used to investigate whether response patterns varied by gender.
Results
Students described enactive performances as their most salient source of self-efficacy, but interesting insights also emerged about how engineering students draw from social and emotional experiences when developing their self-efficacy. Women more often referred to social sources of self-efficacy and reported fewer positive emotions than did men.
Conclusion
Findings suggest ways that educators can provide more targeted opportunities for students to develop their self-efficacy in engineering.
{"title":"Mastery, models, messengers, and mixed emotions: Examining the development of engineering self-efficacy by gender","authors":"Xiao-Yin Chen, Ellen L. Usher, Madelyn Roeder, Alecia R. Johnson, Marian S. Kennedy, Natasha A. Mamaril","doi":"10.1002/jee.20494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20494","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Engineering self-efficacy, or the belief in one's own capabilities to complete engineering tasks, has been shown to predict greater motivation, academic performance, and retention of engineering students. Investigating the types of experiences that influence engineering students' self-efficacy can reveal ways to support students in their undergraduate engineering programs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis(es)</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The purpose of this study was to qualitatively examine how undergraduate engineering students describe the sources of their engineering self-efficacy and whether patterns in students' responses differed by gender.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Participants (<i>N</i> = 654) were undergraduate engineering students attending two public, land-grant universities in the U.S. Open-ended survey questions were used to identify the events, social experiences, and emotions that students described as relevant to their engineering self-efficacy. Chi-square analyses were used to investigate whether response patterns varied by gender.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Students described enactive performances as their most salient source of self-efficacy, but interesting insights also emerged about how engineering students draw from social and emotional experiences when developing their self-efficacy. Women more often referred to social sources of self-efficacy and reported fewer positive emotions than did men.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Findings suggest ways that educators can provide more targeted opportunities for students to develop their self-efficacy in engineering.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20494","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50130377","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}
Malle Schilling, Sophia Vicente, Taylor Johnson, Nicole Jefferson, Holly Matusovich
With the rapid growth of the engineering education research community in recent years, there has been a great need for individuals willing to lead in a variety of different capacities. For example, in recent years, the increase in the number of programs that grant doctoral degrees in engineering education has likewise increased demands for administrators. We argue that the intentional preparation of leaders who are ready to create inclusive environments for graduate and, in some cases, undergraduate engineering students has not kept pace. With the rapid and continued growth of the field, more emphasis on research and practice related to leadership in engineering education is needed, and thus we make a call to action. As the number of engineering education programs, faculty, and graduates expand, the number of leaders will only continue to grow. It is our goal that readers of this editorial take the opportunity to look critically toward the context, systems, and structures of our own field and consider the ways in which leadership research and practice can contribute to the advancement of engineering education.
Our call to action is a result of scoped, intentional conversations on leadership within engineering education over the course of an academic term. An ambiguity in how leadership qualities are acquired led to a conversation between four engineering education PhD students and a faculty member/administrator. Individually, we were interested in the intersection of leadership and our own research in engineering education. From these conversations, we collectively scoped a Leadership in Engineering Education graduate level course with the goal of investigating literature, including both the current status of leadership research in engineering education and leadership research broadly across other disciplines, as well as interviewing a small sample of leaders in local engineering education contexts. The purpose of this course was to bridge leadership theories, research, and practice with application to engineering education. The aim was to engage the next generation of engineering education leaders in conversation about contexts, considerations, and characteristics of leaders in the engineering education field. From these conversations, we set forth to identify significant themes and challenges facing leadership in engineering education. Additionally, we used informational interviews with leaders situated in diverse contexts to better understand relationships between sociocultural influences and leadership in engineering education.
As a result of this process, we propose leveraging leadership theory and existing research, considering organizational context, structures, and systems, and engaging in critical reflection as crucial actions to advance leadership research and practice in the field.
Based on our experiences, informational interviews, and thematic analysis, we determined that three important considerations for the fu
{"title":"Considering leadership in engineering education: A call to action for research and practice","authors":"Malle Schilling, Sophia Vicente, Taylor Johnson, Nicole Jefferson, Holly Matusovich","doi":"10.1002/jee.20502","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20502","url":null,"abstract":"<p>With the rapid growth of the engineering education research community in recent years, there has been a great need for individuals willing to lead in a variety of different capacities. For example, in recent years, the increase in the number of programs that grant doctoral degrees in engineering education has likewise increased demands for administrators. We argue that the intentional preparation of leaders who are ready to create inclusive environments for graduate and, in some cases, undergraduate engineering students has not kept pace. With the rapid and continued growth of the field, more emphasis on research and practice related to leadership in engineering education is needed, and thus we make a call to action. As the number of engineering education programs, faculty, and graduates expand, the number of leaders will only continue to grow. It is our goal that readers of this editorial take the opportunity to look critically toward the context, systems, and structures of our own field and consider the ways in which leadership research and practice can contribute to the advancement of engineering education.</p><p>Our call to action is a result of scoped, intentional conversations on leadership within engineering education over the course of an academic term. An ambiguity in how leadership qualities are acquired led to a conversation between four engineering education PhD students and a faculty member/administrator. Individually, we were interested in the intersection of leadership and our own research in engineering education. From these conversations, we collectively scoped a Leadership in Engineering Education graduate level course with the goal of investigating literature, including both the current status of leadership research in engineering education and leadership research broadly across other disciplines, as well as interviewing a small sample of leaders in local engineering education contexts. The purpose of this course was to bridge leadership theories, research, and practice with application to engineering education. The aim was to engage the next generation of engineering education leaders in conversation about contexts, considerations, and characteristics of leaders in the engineering education field. From these conversations, we set forth to identify significant themes and challenges facing leadership in engineering education. Additionally, we used informational interviews with leaders situated in diverse contexts to better understand relationships between sociocultural influences and leadership in engineering education.</p><p>As a result of this process, we propose leveraging leadership theory and existing research, considering organizational context, structures, and systems, and engaging in critical reflection as crucial actions to advance leadership research and practice in the field.</p><p>Based on our experiences, informational interviews, and thematic analysis, we determined that three important considerations for the fu","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20502","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50125274","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}
Yun Dai, Ang Liu, Jianjun Qin, Yanmei Guo, Morris Siu-Yung Jong, Ching-Sing Chai, Ziyan Lin
The recent discussion of introducing artificial intelligence (AI) knowledge to K–12 students, like many engineering and technology education topics, has attracted a wide range of stakeholders and resources for school curriculum development. While teachers often have to directly interact with external stakeholders out of the public schooling system, few studies have scrutinized their negotiation process, especially teachers' responses to external influences, in such complex environments.
{"title":"Collaborative construction of artificial intelligence curriculum in primary schools","authors":"Yun Dai, Ang Liu, Jianjun Qin, Yanmei Guo, Morris Siu-Yung Jong, Ching-Sing Chai, Ziyan Lin","doi":"10.1002/jee.20503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20503","url":null,"abstract":"The recent discussion of introducing artificial intelligence (AI) knowledge to K–12 students, like many engineering and technology education topics, has attracted a wide range of stakeholders and resources for school curriculum development. While teachers often have to directly interact with external stakeholders out of the public schooling system, few studies have scrutinized their negotiation process, especially teachers' responses to external influences, in such complex environments.","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20503","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50147817","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}
Ellen Zerbe, Gabriella Sallai, Catherine G. P. Berdanier
Background
While researchers in graduate engineering education are beginning to study facets of student experiences as they relate to attrition and persistence, theoretical applications of thriving theory have not been applied to graduate education contexts. Literature addresses students who persist and those who depart, inherently making assumptions that students who persist are doing well.
Purpose/Hypothesis
The purpose of this article was to understand graduate student well-being within students that persist and depart from the engineering PhD through an adapted model of the Spreitzer et al.'s Socially Embedded Model for Thriving at Work.
Design/Method
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 64 current and former engineering PhD students, representing various stages of the PhD, status of persistence, questioning departure, or having left a PhD program. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an abductive analysis approach.
Results
An expanded model for thriving in graduate school was developed. While this study contextualizes the core elements of thriving theory (context features, agentic behaviors, and produced resources), we propose that the mechanisms for thriving in graduate school lie in interactions across these themes in processes we call Adapting, Internalizing, and Cultivating. We also reveal the presence of hidden competencies (from the point of view of the graduate student participants) that facilitate these transitions.
Conclusion
Thriving in graduate school is an interconnected process which has not been explored in the context of engineering. This study shows how even students who persist in their degree may only be surviving, rather than thriving.
{"title":"Surviving, thriving, departing, and the hidden competencies of engineering graduate school","authors":"Ellen Zerbe, Gabriella Sallai, Catherine G. P. Berdanier","doi":"10.1002/jee.20498","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20498","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>While researchers in graduate engineering education are beginning to study facets of student experiences as they relate to attrition and persistence, theoretical applications of thriving theory have not been applied to graduate education contexts. Literature addresses students who persist and those who depart, inherently making assumptions that students who persist are doing well.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The purpose of this article was to understand graduate student well-being within students that persist and depart from the engineering PhD through an adapted model of the Spreitzer et al.'s Socially Embedded Model for Thriving at Work.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 64 current and former engineering PhD students, representing various stages of the PhD, status of persistence, questioning departure, or having left a PhD program. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an abductive analysis approach.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An expanded model for thriving in graduate school was developed. While this study contextualizes the core elements of thriving theory (context features, agentic behaviors, and produced resources), we propose that the mechanisms for thriving in graduate school lie in interactions across these themes in processes we call Adapting, Internalizing, and Cultivating. We also reveal the presence of hidden competencies (from the point of view of the graduate student participants) that facilitate these transitions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Thriving in graduate school is an interconnected process which has not been explored in the context of engineering. This study shows how even students who persist in their degree may only be surviving, rather than thriving.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50147259","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}
Mindsets are based on two basic assumptions: some people think that their intellectual abilities can be developed through hard work and instruction (i.e., a growth mindset), whereas others believe that nothing can change their level of intellectual ability (i.e., a fixed mindset). The association between mindsets and academic achievement has been examined in different academic subjects, such as biology and math. However, no previous study has examined the effects of language learning mindsets (LLMs) and math mindsets (MMs) on academic success in an English medium instruction (EMI) setting in which English, rather than the first language of the students, is used for teaching content (e.g., mechatronics engineering).
Purpose/Hypothesis
This study explores the relationship between Turkish mechatronics engineering undergraduate students' domain-specific mindsets, LLMs and MMs, and their academic success.
Design/Method
Student test scores for English medium and first-language medium courses were collected from fourth-year students studying mechatronics engineering (n = 68) at a public university in Turkey. Students also completed the LLM and MM inventories.
Results
Regression analyses revealed that growth LLM and MM were positive predictors of EMI and Turkish medium of instruction (TMI) academic success, whereas fixed LLM and MM were negative predictors of EMI and TMI academic success.
Conclusions
In both EMI and TMI courses, a growth mindset in math and language learning can profoundly predict students' academic achievement in a mechatronics engineering program. We argue that domain-specific mindsets can effectively explain the self-theories of intelligence and achievement.
{"title":"The effects of language learning and math mindsets on academic success in an engineering program","authors":"Sibel Kaya, Dogan Yuksel, Samantha Curle","doi":"10.1002/jee.20499","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20499","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Mindsets are based on two basic assumptions: some people think that their intellectual abilities can be developed through hard work and instruction (i.e., a growth mindset), whereas others believe that nothing can change their level of intellectual ability (i.e., a fixed mindset). The association between mindsets and academic achievement has been examined in different academic subjects, such as biology and math. However, no previous study has examined the effects of language learning mindsets (LLMs) and math mindsets (MMs) on academic success in an English medium instruction (EMI) setting in which English, rather than the first language of the students, is used for teaching content (e.g., mechatronics engineering).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study explores the relationship between Turkish mechatronics engineering undergraduate students' domain-specific mindsets, LLMs and MMs, and their academic success.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Student test scores for English medium and first-language medium courses were collected from fourth-year students studying mechatronics engineering (<i>n</i> = 68) at a public university in Turkey. Students also completed the LLM and MM inventories.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Regression analyses revealed that growth LLM and MM were positive predictors of EMI and Turkish medium of instruction (TMI) academic success, whereas fixed LLM and MM were negative predictors of EMI and TMI academic success.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In both EMI and TMI courses, a growth mindset in math and language learning can profoundly predict students' academic achievement in a mechatronics engineering program. We argue that domain-specific mindsets can effectively explain the self-theories of intelligence and achievement.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20499","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50147260","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}
In the words of civil rights activist, Fannie Lou Hamer, “I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.” Hamer made this declaration at the 1964 Democratic National Convention when she described the discrimination, violence, and injustices against Black people, including herself, in Mississippi (Hamlet, 1996). Just like Hamer, we, critical Black science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education scholar-activists, are sick and tired of being sick and tired. We are sick and tired of existing university and college approaches to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in engineering, specifically regarding how these practices perceive and treat Black women. There exists a body of research that specifically calls out the racist and sexist culture of engineering and its implications for the success and well-being of Black women (Blosser, 2020; Charleston et al., 2014; DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2013; Roby et al., 2022). This body of research specifically attends to structural and cultural change efforts that must occur to ensure Black women can thrive and peacefully exist within engineering. Despite this work, the overall practices and strategies implemented within undergraduate engineering programs tend to be additive, engaging efforts that support recruitment of Black women and allows their development of coping mechanisms to persist. Few practical efforts focus on transforming the environment and culture of engineering in ways that ensure that Black women can flourish and exist within oppression-free learning spaces. In efforts to redress the injustices that continue to happen to Black women in undergraduate engineering, or at least mitigate the impact of oppression, we offer practical solutions that work toward transformative, cultural change. These recommendations are twofold. First, they offer tangible practices that engineering programs can implement to ensure that Black women are being provided with relevant and meaningful support specific to their needs. Second, these recommendations provide tangible practices that engineering programs can put in place as steps toward a radical STEM overhaul (McGee, 2020).
{"title":"“Sick and tired of being sick and tired”","authors":"H. Paige Brown, Terrell R. Morton","doi":"10.1002/jee.20501","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20501","url":null,"abstract":"In the words of civil rights activist, Fannie Lou Hamer, “I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.” Hamer made this declaration at the 1964 Democratic National Convention when she described the discrimination, violence, and injustices against Black people, including herself, in Mississippi (Hamlet, 1996). Just like Hamer, we, critical Black science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education scholar-activists, are sick and tired of being sick and tired. We are sick and tired of existing university and college approaches to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in engineering, specifically regarding how these practices perceive and treat Black women. There exists a body of research that specifically calls out the racist and sexist culture of engineering and its implications for the success and well-being of Black women (Blosser, 2020; Charleston et al., 2014; DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2013; Roby et al., 2022). This body of research specifically attends to structural and cultural change efforts that must occur to ensure Black women can thrive and peacefully exist within engineering. Despite this work, the overall practices and strategies implemented within undergraduate engineering programs tend to be additive, engaging efforts that support recruitment of Black women and allows their development of coping mechanisms to persist. Few practical efforts focus on transforming the environment and culture of engineering in ways that ensure that Black women can flourish and exist within oppression-free learning spaces. In efforts to redress the injustices that continue to happen to Black women in undergraduate engineering, or at least mitigate the impact of oppression, we offer practical solutions that work toward transformative, cultural change. These recommendations are twofold. First, they offer tangible practices that engineering programs can implement to ensure that Black women are being provided with relevant and meaningful support specific to their needs. Second, these recommendations provide tangible practices that engineering programs can put in place as steps toward a radical STEM overhaul (McGee, 2020).","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50124461","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}
{"title":"Stepping into some big shoes","authors":"David B. Knight, Joyce B. Main","doi":"10.1002/jee.20492","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20492","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50141816","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}
Gerald Tembrevilla, Susan Nesbit, Naoko Ellis, Peter Ostafichuk
Background
For engineers who aim to address sustainability challenges, participating in transdisciplinary teams is key. Yet developing transdisciplinary knowledge, including systems thinking, metacognition, and empathic thinking, is not well supported in traditional engineering programs.
Purpose
The extent to which selected learning activities in the introduction to engineering courses support student development of systems thinking, metacognition, and empathic thinking is investigated.
Design/Method
Focus group discussions with instructional teams and student interviews are examined to elucidate how course activities improved student transdisciplinary knowledge. Threshold concepts frame the qualitative analysis of the collected data. Implications for teaching and learning are discussed.
Findings
Results suggest the investigated learning activities support student development of transdisciplinary knowledge as indicated by changes in systems thinking, metacognition, and empathic thinking. Where prior quantitative exploratory studies revealed little change in transdisciplinary knowledge indicators pre- and post-course, deeper qualitative analysis uncovers students manifested improvements in transdisciplinary knowledge indicators as narrated by the students themselves and as observed by instructors and teaching assistants.
Conclusions
Integrating transdisciplinary knowledge development into engineering programs, starting with appropriate learning activities in first-year engineering courses, may provide new pathways for transforming curricula aimed at educating the 21st-century engineer.
{"title":"Developing transdisciplinarity in first-year engineering","authors":"Gerald Tembrevilla, Susan Nesbit, Naoko Ellis, Peter Ostafichuk","doi":"10.1002/jee.20497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20497","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>For engineers who aim to address sustainability challenges, participating in transdisciplinary teams is key. Yet developing transdisciplinary knowledge, including systems thinking, metacognition, and empathic thinking, is not well supported in traditional engineering programs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The extent to which selected learning activities in the introduction to engineering courses support student development of systems thinking, metacognition, and empathic thinking is investigated.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Focus group discussions with instructional teams and student interviews are examined to elucidate how course activities improved student transdisciplinary knowledge. Threshold concepts frame the qualitative analysis of the collected data. Implications for teaching and learning are discussed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Findings</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Results suggest the investigated learning activities support student development of transdisciplinary knowledge as indicated by changes in systems thinking, metacognition, and empathic thinking. Where prior quantitative exploratory studies revealed little change in transdisciplinary knowledge indicators pre- and post-course, deeper qualitative analysis uncovers students manifested improvements in transdisciplinary knowledge indicators as narrated by the students themselves and as observed by instructors and teaching assistants.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Integrating transdisciplinary knowledge development into engineering programs, starting with appropriate learning activities in first-year engineering courses, may provide new pathways for transforming curricula aimed at educating the 21st-century engineer.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50141549","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}
“Mental Health.” Throughout the 20th century, these familiar words have been quietly commandeered by a physiological model of health (Greenspoon & Saklofske, 2001). Unknowingly, society conspired to use these words—colloquially, academically, and scientifically—for the sole purpose of depicting (or implying) negative states of the human mind. Since the origins of psychological research over 100 years ago, our understanding of what mental health is has been conflated with notions of mental illness. Resultantly, we have tacitly agreed that the presence or absence of suffering is the sole implication of our mental health (Horwitz & Scheid, 1999). In essence, we have failed to recognize both sides of the human psyche—one negative and one positive—and that the multi-faceted nature of bodily health, comprised of physical states of intermingled structures and systems of human anatomy, extends to the human mind. Just as an ultradistance athlete may suffer a broken ankle while performing at peak cardiovascular condition, so too many attributes of negative mental health, such as stress, anxiety, and depression, co-exist with positive mental health strengths, such as hope, resilience, and optimism. Beyond co-existence, in fact, positive mental health attributes can alter our overall mental health by preventing, alleviating, or lessening the experience of mental health problems (Ben-Shahar, 2007; M. E. Seligman, 2006). To promote human flourishing in engineering, we argue that attributes of positive mental health are as vital for our understanding of students' experiences as are those related to negative mental health. According to our ongoing research, currently, scientific tools from traditional psychology are increasingly employed to measure (e.g., behaviorally, cognitively) and examine mental health problems and illnesses experienced by engineering students; explorations of positive aspects of mental health are rarer. In this editorial, we advocate for taking a more balanced approach to “mental health” research in engineering education, one that considers both positive and negative mental health attributes. To that end, we share this editorial as a proposal and a call: a proposal for a new, more holistic “mental health” terminology and a call for integrating tools, models, and techniques from positive psychology within the research in our field. We contend that positive psychology, a 21st-century branch of traditional psychology focused on the positive side of the human psyche, offers novel approaches and fresh opportunities for understanding and improving engineering students' mental health.
{"title":"Two sides to every psyche: Implications of positive psychology for “mental health” research in engineering education","authors":"Muhammad Asghar, Angela Minichiello","doi":"10.1002/jee.20493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20493","url":null,"abstract":"“Mental Health.” Throughout the 20th century, these familiar words have been quietly commandeered by a physiological model of health (Greenspoon & Saklofske, 2001). Unknowingly, society conspired to use these words—colloquially, academically, and scientifically—for the sole purpose of depicting (or implying) negative states of the human mind. Since the origins of psychological research over 100 years ago, our understanding of what mental health is has been conflated with notions of mental illness. Resultantly, we have tacitly agreed that the presence or absence of suffering is the sole implication of our mental health (Horwitz & Scheid, 1999). In essence, we have failed to recognize both sides of the human psyche—one negative and one positive—and that the multi-faceted nature of bodily health, comprised of physical states of intermingled structures and systems of human anatomy, extends to the human mind. Just as an ultradistance athlete may suffer a broken ankle while performing at peak cardiovascular condition, so too many attributes of negative mental health, such as stress, anxiety, and depression, co-exist with positive mental health strengths, such as hope, resilience, and optimism. Beyond co-existence, in fact, positive mental health attributes can alter our overall mental health by preventing, alleviating, or lessening the experience of mental health problems (Ben-Shahar, 2007; M. E. Seligman, 2006). To promote human flourishing in engineering, we argue that attributes of positive mental health are as vital for our understanding of students' experiences as are those related to negative mental health. According to our ongoing research, currently, scientific tools from traditional psychology are increasingly employed to measure (e.g., behaviorally, cognitively) and examine mental health problems and illnesses experienced by engineering students; explorations of positive aspects of mental health are rarer. In this editorial, we advocate for taking a more balanced approach to “mental health” research in engineering education, one that considers both positive and negative mental health attributes. To that end, we share this editorial as a proposal and a call: a proposal for a new, more holistic “mental health” terminology and a call for integrating tools, models, and techniques from positive psychology within the research in our field. We contend that positive psychology, a 21st-century branch of traditional psychology focused on the positive side of the human psyche, offers novel approaches and fresh opportunities for understanding and improving engineering students' mental health.","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50141550","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}
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