Oskar Hagvall Svensson, Anders Johansson, Tom Adawi
Background
Group norms in engineering education groupwork are usually negotiated in an implicit and often unequal manner. Although it is regularly suggested that student groups can function better if norm negotiations are, instead, made explicit, the social dynamics of group norm exercises have remained underexplored.
Purpose
We investigate how students negotiate group norms in group norm exercises, including the different understandings of groupwork that they construct and draw from to facilitate their negotiations.
Method
We recorded and analyzed a sequence of three group norm exercises focused on developing a team charter, with seven participating student groups. Drawing on framing theory, we study negotiation sequences in terms of framing practices, and understandings of groupwork in terms of activity frames.
Results
Our findings suggest that group norm exercises can help students to coordinate their expectations and transform previously established norms. However, they may also be approached in such a way that students are discouraged from questioning established group norms, instead resolving disagreement by simply rejecting alternative perspectives. We introduce the term “group development norms” to explain these dynamics, showing that the question of how to develop group norms is in itself a subject for negotiation.
Conclusions
Providing a forum and process is neither enough to ensure reflective and equitable negotiations nor transparent and inclusive group norms. To avoid that group norm exercises simply reaffirm dominant norms, students should be provided with explicit negotiation strategies and, ideally, direct facilitation.
{"title":"How do students negotiate groupwork? The influence of group norm exercises and group development norms","authors":"Oskar Hagvall Svensson, Anders Johansson, Tom Adawi","doi":"10.1002/jee.20596","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jee.20596","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Group norms in engineering education groupwork are usually negotiated in an implicit and often unequal manner. Although it is regularly suggested that student groups can function better if norm negotiations are, instead, made explicit, the social dynamics of group norm exercises have remained underexplored.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We investigate how students negotiate group norms in group norm exercises, including the different understandings of groupwork that they construct and draw from to facilitate their negotiations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We recorded and analyzed a sequence of three group norm exercises focused on developing a team charter, with seven participating student groups. Drawing on framing theory, we study negotiation sequences in terms of framing practices, and understandings of groupwork in terms of activity frames.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our findings suggest that group norm exercises can help students to coordinate their expectations and transform previously established norms. However, they may also be approached in such a way that students are discouraged from questioning established group norms, instead resolving disagreement by simply rejecting alternative perspectives. We introduce the term “group development norms” to explain these dynamics, showing that the question of how to develop group norms is in itself a subject for negotiation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Providing a forum and process is neither enough to ensure reflective and equitable negotiations nor transparent and inclusive group norms. To avoid that group norm exercises simply reaffirm dominant norms, students should be provided with explicit negotiation strategies and, ideally, direct facilitation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 3","pages":"533-554"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20596","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140692246","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}
{"title":"Reviewing: A skill we can continuously develop","authors":"David B. Knight, Joyce B. Main","doi":"10.1002/jee.20592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20592","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 2","pages":"222-224"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140552922","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}
Erica B. Sausner, Cassandra Wentzel, James Pitarresi
Background
The community cultural wealth (CCW) theoretical framework recognizes the assets of oppressed communities. Within the framework, aspirational capital refers to the hope to achieve in the face of systemic barriers, while navigational capital includes tactics engaged to progress within institutions that were not designed for equitable achievement. This study explores where aspirational capital and navigational capital overlap (a frequent and theoretically relevant occurrence) for marginalized-identity (MI) STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) students.
Purpose
This study provides insight into the experiences of higher education for MI students. Understanding students' deployment of navigational and aspirational capitals can direct change within institutions.
Design/Method
This analysis draws on 51 semi-structured interviews with 26 participants. Multiple rounds of qualitative coding and shared meaning-making among authors support the present findings.
Results
When aspirational capital and navigational capital overlap in student experience, three themes emerge. First, MI students use individualized actions to meet their goals; their extreme self-reliance and engagement of priorities and milestones are key. Second, intrinsic motivators echoing meritocratic narratives encourage students. These narratives emphasize the value of hard work and taking advantage of opportunities. Finally, external forces, including institutionally based experts and culture, reflect aspirational and navigational capital engagement that support the individual's approaches and mindsets. Each finding includes nuance based on demographic categories.
Conclusions
MI students draw on aspirational and navigational capital for support in postsecondary education. Recognition of CCW components and strategies shifts the responsibility of equitable student experiences and academic success to institutions and stakeholders in STEM higher education.
{"title":"“I know what I need to learn”: The intersection of aspirational and navigational capitals for marginalized-identity STEM students","authors":"Erica B. Sausner, Cassandra Wentzel, James Pitarresi","doi":"10.1002/jee.20595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20595","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The community cultural wealth (CCW) theoretical framework recognizes the assets of oppressed communities. Within the framework, aspirational capital refers to the hope to achieve in the face of systemic barriers, while navigational capital includes tactics engaged to progress within institutions that were not designed for equitable achievement. This study explores where aspirational capital and navigational capital overlap (a frequent and theoretically relevant occurrence) for marginalized-identity (MI) STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) students.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study provides insight into the experiences of higher education for MI students. Understanding students' deployment of navigational and aspirational capitals can direct change within institutions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This analysis draws on 51 semi-structured interviews with 26 participants. Multiple rounds of qualitative coding and shared meaning-making among authors support the present findings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>When aspirational capital and navigational capital overlap in student experience, three themes emerge. First, MI students use individualized actions to meet their goals; their extreme self-reliance and engagement of priorities and milestones are key. Second, intrinsic motivators echoing meritocratic narratives encourage students. These narratives emphasize the value of hard work and taking advantage of opportunities. Finally, external forces, including institutionally based experts and culture, reflect aspirational and navigational capital engagement that support the individual's approaches and mindsets. Each finding includes nuance based on demographic categories.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>MI students draw on aspirational and navigational capital for support in postsecondary education. Recognition of CCW components and strategies shifts the responsibility of equitable student experiences and academic success to institutions and stakeholders in STEM higher education.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 2","pages":"488-508"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20595","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140552945","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}
Brianna Benedict McIntyre, Kelsey Scalaro, Allison Godwin, Adam Kirn, Dina Verdín
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Students' recognition beliefs have emerged as one of the most important components of engineering role identity development for early-career undergraduate students. Recognition beliefs are students' perceptions of how meaningful others, such as peers, instructors, and family, see them as engineers. However, little work has investigated the experiences that facilitate recognition beliefs, particularly across the intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender. Investigation of these experiences provides ways to understand how recognition may be supported in engineering environments and how White and masculine norms in engineering can shape marginalized students' experiences.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Purpose</h3> <p>We examined how specific experiences theorized to promote recognition are related to recognition beliefs for students at the intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender. Based on self-reported demographics, we created 10 groups, including Asian, Black, Latino and Hispanic, Indigenous, and White cisgender men and Asian, Black, Latinè/x/a/o and Hispanic, Indigenous, and White ciswomen, trans, and non-binary individuals. This article describes the patterns within each intersectional group rather than drawing comparisons across the groups, which can perpetuate raced and gendered stereotypes.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>The data came from a survey distributed in Fall 2017 (<i>n</i> = 2316). Ten multiple regression models were used to understand the recognition experiences that influenced students' recognition beliefs by intersectional group.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>There is no one-size-fits-all approach to developing students' recognition beliefs. For example, family members referring to the student as an engineer are positively related to recognition beliefs for Asian, Black, Latino and Hispanic, and White cisgender men. Friends seeing Asian and White marginalized gender students as an engineer is predictive of recognition beliefs. Other recognition experiences, such as receiving compliments from an engineering instructor or peer about their engineering design and contributions to the team, do not influence the recognition beliefs of these early-career engineering students.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusion</h3> <p>This article emphasizes the need to draw on multiple experiences to support the equitable development of early-career engineers across race,
{"title":"Exploring experiences that foster recognition in engineering across race and gender","authors":"Brianna Benedict McIntyre, Kelsey Scalaro, Allison Godwin, Adam Kirn, Dina Verdín","doi":"10.1002/jee.20587","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jee.20587","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Students' recognition beliefs have emerged as one of the most important components of engineering role identity development for early-career undergraduate students. Recognition beliefs are students' perceptions of how meaningful others, such as peers, instructors, and family, see them as engineers. However, little work has investigated the experiences that facilitate recognition beliefs, particularly across the intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender. Investigation of these experiences provides ways to understand how recognition may be supported in engineering environments and how White and masculine norms in engineering can shape marginalized students' experiences.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We examined how specific experiences theorized to promote recognition are related to recognition beliefs for students at the intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender. Based on self-reported demographics, we created 10 groups, including Asian, Black, Latino and Hispanic, Indigenous, and White cisgender men and Asian, Black, Latinè/x/a/o and Hispanic, Indigenous, and White ciswomen, trans, and non-binary individuals. This article describes the patterns within each intersectional group rather than drawing comparisons across the groups, which can perpetuate raced and gendered stereotypes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The data came from a survey distributed in Fall 2017 (<i>n</i> = 2316). Ten multiple regression models were used to understand the recognition experiences that influenced students' recognition beliefs by intersectional group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There is no one-size-fits-all approach to developing students' recognition beliefs. For example, family members referring to the student as an engineer are positively related to recognition beliefs for Asian, Black, Latino and Hispanic, and White cisgender men. Friends seeing Asian and White marginalized gender students as an engineer is predictive of recognition beliefs. Other recognition experiences, such as receiving compliments from an engineering instructor or peer about their engineering design and contributions to the team, do not influence the recognition beliefs of these early-career engineering students.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This article emphasizes the need to draw on multiple experiences to support the equitable development of early-career engineers across race, ","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"1265-1286"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20587","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140742655","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}
Jessica R. Deters, Jon A. Leydens, Jennifer Case, Margaret Cowell
Background
Engineering culture research to date has described the culture as rigid, chilly, and posing many barriers to entry. However, the COVID-19 pandemic provided an important opportunity to explore how engineering culture responds to a major disruption.
Purpose
The purposes of this study are to understand how elements of engineering culture emerged in mechanical engineering students' perceptions of their classroom experiences during the pandemic and how their experiences varied across two national contexts.
Method
This qualitative comparative case study examines undergraduate mechanical engineering students' perceptions of their experiences taking courses during the pandemic at two universities—one in the United States and one in South Africa. Semistructured interviews were conducted across both sites with 21 students and contextualized with 3 faculty member interviews. Student interviews were analyzed using an iterative process of deductive coding, inductive coding, and pattern coding.
Results
We identified two key themes that characterized participants' experiences during the pandemic: hardness and access to resources. We found that students at both sites experienced two types of hardness—intrinsic and constructed—and were more critical of constructed forms of hardness. We found that the South African university's response to facilitating student access to resources was viewed by students as more effective when compared with the US university.
Conclusions
We found that hardness remained a central feature of engineering culture, based on student perceptions, and found that students expressed awareness of resource-related differences. A key distinction emerged between intrinsic and constructed hardness.
{"title":"Engineering culture under stress: A comparative case study of undergraduate mechanical engineering student experiences","authors":"Jessica R. Deters, Jon A. Leydens, Jennifer Case, Margaret Cowell","doi":"10.1002/jee.20594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20594","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Engineering culture research to date has described the culture as rigid, chilly, and posing many barriers to entry. However, the COVID-19 pandemic provided an important opportunity to explore how engineering culture responds to a major disruption.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The purposes of this study are to understand how elements of engineering culture emerged in mechanical engineering students' perceptions of their classroom experiences during the pandemic and how their experiences varied across two national contexts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This qualitative comparative case study examines undergraduate mechanical engineering students' perceptions of their experiences taking courses during the pandemic at two universities—one in the United States and one in South Africa. Semistructured interviews were conducted across both sites with 21 students and contextualized with 3 faculty member interviews. Student interviews were analyzed using an iterative process of deductive coding, inductive coding, and pattern coding.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified two key themes that characterized participants' experiences during the pandemic: hardness and access to resources. We found that students at both sites experienced two types of hardness—intrinsic and constructed—and were more critical of constructed forms of hardness. We found that the South African university's response to facilitating student access to resources was viewed by students as more effective when compared with the US university.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found that hardness remained a central feature of engineering culture, based on student perceptions, and found that students expressed awareness of resource-related differences. A key distinction emerged between intrinsic and constructed hardness.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 2","pages":"468-487"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20594","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140552114","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}
Identifying as an engineer is essential for belonging and student success, yet the social context and professional norms make it more difficult for some students to establish an identity as an engineer.
Purpose/Hypothesis
This study investigated whether first-generation college students' funds of knowledge supported their engineering role identity.
Design/Methods
Data came from a survey administered across the United States western, southern, and mountain regions in the fall semester of 2018. Only the sample of students who indicated they were the first in their families to attend college was used in the analysis (n = 378). Structural equation modeling was used to understand how first-generation college students' funds of knowledge supported their engineering role identity; measurement invariance was examined to ensure that the model was valid for women and men alike.
Results
First-generation college students' funds of knowledge individually supported the components of the engineering role identity development process. Tinkering knowledge from home and perspective-taking helped inform interest and performance/competence beliefs. First-generation college students' bids for external recognition were supported through their mediational skills, their connecting experiences, and their local network of college friends. The bundle of advice, resources, and emotional support from family members was the only fund of knowledge that directly supported students' perceptions of themselves as engineers.
Conclusions
The relationships we established between first-generation college students' funds of knowledge and emerging engineering role identities call for engineering educators to integrate students' funds of knowledge into engineering learning and to broaden disciplinary norms of what counts as engineering-relevant knowledge.
{"title":"First-generation college students' funds of knowledge support the development of an engineering role identity","authors":"Dina Verdín, Jessica M. Smith, Juan C. Lucena","doi":"10.1002/jee.20591","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jee.20591","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Identifying as an engineer is essential for belonging and student success, yet the social context and professional norms make it more difficult for some students to establish an identity as an engineer.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study investigated whether first-generation college students' funds of knowledge supported their engineering role identity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Data came from a survey administered across the United States western, southern, and mountain regions in the fall semester of 2018. Only the sample of students who indicated they were the first in their families to attend college was used in the analysis (<i>n</i> = 378). Structural equation modeling was used to understand how first-generation college students' funds of knowledge supported their engineering role identity; measurement invariance was examined to ensure that the model was valid for women and men alike.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>First-generation college students' funds of knowledge individually supported the components of the engineering role identity development process. Tinkering knowledge from home and perspective-taking helped inform interest and performance/competence beliefs. First-generation college students' bids for external recognition were supported through their mediational skills, their connecting experiences, and their local network of college friends. The bundle of advice, resources, and emotional support from family members was the only fund of knowledge that directly supported students' perceptions of themselves as engineers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The relationships we established between first-generation college students' funds of knowledge and emerging engineering role identities call for engineering educators to integrate students' funds of knowledge into engineering learning and to broaden disciplinary norms of what counts as engineering-relevant knowledge.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 2","pages":"383-406"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20591","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140373180","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}
Existing research points to the role of Eurocentric epistemic values—scientific objectivity, value-neutrality, depoliticization, and technical rationality—as a cornerstone of engineering ways of thinking, knowing, and doing. However, less is known about the role of Eurocentric epistemologies in team communication and decision making.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine how dominant Eurocentric epistemologies shape individual- and team-level design thinking and, by extension, students' learning in engineering design education.
Method
This work draws on a critical ethnography in which I observed three focal design teams during a semester-long design project in a cornerstone design course. Following the conclusion of the design project, I conducted semi-structured interviews with each member of the focal teams, asking students to reflect on incidents, their thinking, and team dynamics during the individual and team design processes.
Findings
At the individual level, students' concerns about adhering to Eurocentric epistemic values made them hesitant to pursue design ideas. These concerns also shaped their design thinking, communication, and decision making at the team level, leading students to withhold or not advocate for ideas. Finally, students appeared to leverage the normative supremacy of Eurocentric epistemologies in engineering rhetorically to exert influence over their team's design decisions.
Conclusions
If engineering education is to create a more just and inclusive learning environment for engineering students, we must construct learning environments that allow students to draw on all their epistemic resources during the learning process. This study suggests the dominance of Eurocentric epistemologies is a barrier to that end.
{"title":"Eurocentric epistemologies in engineering: Manifestations in first-year student design teams and consequences for student learning","authors":"Trevion S. Henderson","doi":"10.1002/jee.20589","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jee.20589","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Existing research points to the role of Eurocentric epistemic values—scientific objectivity, value-neutrality, depoliticization, and technical rationality—as a cornerstone of engineering ways of thinking, knowing, and doing. However, less is known about the role of Eurocentric epistemologies in team communication and decision making.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The purpose of this study was to examine how dominant Eurocentric epistemologies shape individual- and team-level design thinking and, by extension, students' learning in engineering design education.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This work draws on a critical ethnography in which I observed three focal design teams during a semester-long design project in a cornerstone design course. Following the conclusion of the design project, I conducted semi-structured interviews with each member of the focal teams, asking students to reflect on incidents, their thinking, and team dynamics during the individual and team design processes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Findings</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>At the individual level, students' concerns about adhering to Eurocentric epistemic values made them hesitant to pursue design ideas. These concerns also shaped their design thinking, communication, and decision making at the team level, leading students to withhold or not advocate for ideas. Finally, students appeared to leverage the normative supremacy of Eurocentric epistemologies in engineering rhetorically to exert influence over their team's design decisions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>If engineering education is to create a more just and inclusive learning environment for engineering students, we must construct learning environments that allow students to draw on all their epistemic resources during the learning process. This study suggests the dominance of Eurocentric epistemologies is a barrier to that end.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 2","pages":"360-382"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140379307","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}
Since the advent of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), there has been an increasing focus on engineering in K–12 education. As educators and researchers have gained a better understanding of the nature of engineering in the decade following the release of the NGSS, there are new opportunities for growth and complexity.
Purpose
This study used an epistemological approach to seek insights from experts in the science and engineering communities about the prominent aspects of engineering for K–12 education.
Design/Method
This mixed-methods study employed a three-round Delphi study and a focus group meeting to elicit experts' opinions on the epistemic aspects of engineering that could shed light on the nature of engineering knowledge and practices. Constructivist grounded theory methodology was used to identify preliminary themes concerning the epistemic aspects of engineering and then to develop main themes by combining relevant themes together.
Results
The analysis process yielded 21 preliminary themes that reflect key ideas about the engineering knowledge base, engineering design activities, and values and norms of the engineering community. Additionally, the current study identified eight main themes that captured the broader patterns in the data.
Conclusions
The outcome of this study, including the preliminary themes and main themes concerning the epistemic aspects of engineering, could serve as a conceptual tool for establishing and improving students' conceptions of engineering and as a guide for designing and implementing engineering design activities in K–12 education settings.
{"title":"Exploring epistemic aspects of engineering for K–12 science and engineering education","authors":"Ezgi Yesilyurt, Hasan Deniz, Erdogan Kaya","doi":"10.1002/jee.20593","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jee.20593","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Since the advent of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), there has been an increasing focus on engineering in K–12 education. As educators and researchers have gained a better understanding of the nature of engineering in the decade following the release of the NGSS, there are new opportunities for growth and complexity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study used an epistemological approach to seek insights from experts in the science and engineering communities about the prominent aspects of engineering for K–12 education.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This mixed-methods study employed a three-round Delphi study and a focus group meeting to elicit experts' opinions on the epistemic aspects of engineering that could shed light on the nature of engineering knowledge and practices. Constructivist grounded theory methodology was used to identify preliminary themes concerning the epistemic aspects of engineering and then to develop main themes by combining relevant themes together.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The analysis process yielded 21 preliminary themes that reflect key ideas about the engineering knowledge base, engineering design activities, and values and norms of the engineering community. Additionally, the current study identified eight main themes that captured the broader patterns in the data.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The outcome of this study, including the preliminary themes and main themes concerning the epistemic aspects of engineering, could serve as a conceptual tool for establishing and improving students' conceptions of engineering and as a guide for designing and implementing engineering design activities in K–12 education settings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 2","pages":"439-467"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140380529","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}
Engineers are professionally obligated to protect the safety and well-being of the public impacted by the technologies they design and maintain. In an increasingly complex sociotechnical world, engineering educators and professional institutions have a duty to train engineers in these responsibilities.
Purpose/Hypothesis
This article asks, where are engineers trained in their public welfare responsibilities, and how effective is this training? We argue that engineers trained in public welfare responsibilities, especially within engineering education, will demonstrate greater understanding of their duty to recognize and respond to public welfare concerns. We expect training in formal engineering classes to be more broadly impactful than training in contexts like work or professional societies.
Data/Methods
We analyze unique survey data from a representative sample of US practicing engineers using descriptive and regression techniques.
Results
Consistent with expectations, engineers who received public welfare responsibility training in engineering classes are more likely than other engineers to understand their responsibilities to protect public health and safety and problem-solve collectively, to recognize the importance of social consequences and ethical responsibilities in their own jobs, to have noticed ethical issues in their workplace, and to have taken action about an issue that concerned them. Training through other parts of college, workplaces, or professional societies has comparatively little impact. Concerningly, nearly a third of engineers reported never being trained in public welfare responsibilities.
Conclusion
These results suggest that training in engineering education can shape engineers' long-term understanding of their public welfare responsibilities. They underscore the need for these responsibilities to be taught as a core, non-negotiable part of engineering education.
{"title":"Learning to prioritize the public good: Does training in classes, workplaces, and professional societies shape engineers' understanding of their public welfare responsibilities?","authors":"Erin A. Cech, Cynthia J. Finelli","doi":"10.1002/jee.20590","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jee.20590","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Engineers are professionally obligated to protect the safety and well-being of the public impacted by the technologies they design and maintain. In an increasingly complex sociotechnical world, engineering educators and professional institutions have a duty to train engineers in these responsibilities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This article asks, where are engineers trained in their public welfare responsibilities, and how effective is this training? We argue that engineers trained in public welfare responsibilities, especially within engineering education, will demonstrate greater understanding of their duty to recognize and respond to public welfare concerns. We expect training in formal engineering classes to be more broadly impactful than training in contexts like work or professional societies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data/Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We analyze unique survey data from a representative sample of US practicing engineers using descriptive and regression techniques.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Consistent with expectations, engineers who received public welfare responsibility training in engineering classes are more likely than other engineers to understand their responsibilities to protect public health and safety and problem-solve collectively, to recognize the importance of social consequences and ethical responsibilities in their own jobs, to have noticed ethical issues in their workplace, and to have taken action about an issue that concerned them. Training through other parts of college, workplaces, or professional societies has comparatively little impact. Concerningly, nearly a third of engineers reported never being trained in public welfare responsibilities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>These results suggest that training in engineering education can shape engineers' long-term understanding of their public welfare responsibilities. They underscore the need for these responsibilities to be taught as a core, non-negotiable part of engineering education.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 2","pages":"407-438"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20590","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140224447","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}
Karolina Doulougeri, Jan D. Vermunt, Gunter Bombaerts, Michael Bots
Background
Challenge-based learning (CBL) is a pedagogical approach increasingly adopted in engineering education. Despite its growing practice, there is little consensus in the literature about how CBL is implemented in engineering curricula and what experiences teachers and students have in relation to it.
Purpose
To address this gap, the following research questions guided the study: How is CBL currently implemented in engineering education? What difficulties and lessons learned are associated with the implementation of CBL?
Methods
We systematically reviewed the empirical literature published between 2010 and 2021. Forty-eight empirical studies describing CBL implementation were analyzed using the curricular spider-web framework.
Results
The review shows the variation in CBL implementation at the course and project levels. CBL courses and projects shared the use of open-ended, real-world challenges as a starting point for student learning. However, they differed in the embeddedness of a challenge in specific courses and the focus of the learning, which ranged across knowledge acquisition, knowledge application, and development of transversal skills. CBL experiences also varied in terms of challenge characteristics, such as the link with global societal challenges, stakeholders' involvement, and multidisciplinarity. Similar difficulties and lessons learned were reported by teachers and students across the different examples of CBL implementation.
Conclusions
CBL as a pedagogical approach in engineering education can promote student engagement with complex societal challenges within a real-world context. However, there are limitations to the review and implications of the findings for educational research and practice.
{"title":"Challenge-based learning implementation in engineering education: A systematic literature review","authors":"Karolina Doulougeri, Jan D. Vermunt, Gunter Bombaerts, Michael Bots","doi":"10.1002/jee.20588","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jee.20588","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Challenge-based learning (CBL) is a pedagogical approach increasingly adopted in engineering education. Despite its growing practice, there is little consensus in the literature about how CBL is implemented in engineering curricula and what experiences teachers and students have in relation to it.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To address this gap, the following research questions guided the study: How is CBL currently implemented in engineering education? What difficulties and lessons learned are associated with the implementation of CBL?</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We systematically reviewed the empirical literature published between 2010 and 2021. Forty-eight empirical studies describing CBL implementation were analyzed using the curricular spider-web framework.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The review shows the variation in CBL implementation at the course and project levels. CBL courses and projects shared the use of open-ended, real-world challenges as a starting point for student learning. However, they differed in the embeddedness of a challenge in specific courses and the focus of the learning, which ranged across knowledge acquisition, knowledge application, and development of transversal skills. CBL experiences also varied in terms of challenge characteristics, such as the link with global societal challenges, stakeholders' involvement, and multidisciplinarity. Similar difficulties and lessons learned were reported by teachers and students across the different examples of CBL implementation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>CBL as a pedagogical approach in engineering education can promote student engagement with complex societal challenges within a real-world context. However, there are limitations to the review and implications of the findings for educational research and practice.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"1076-1106"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20588","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140394376","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