{"title":"JEE Strategic Plan, 2023–2028: A new era for the Journal of Engineering Education","authors":"Joyce B. Main, David B. Knight","doi":"10.1002/jee.20562","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20562","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"845-847"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50136438","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}
Andrew Katz, Joyce B. Main, Alexander Struck Jannini, David Knight
{"title":"Special report: The research topics addressed and research methods applied in the Journal of Engineering Education (1993–2022)","authors":"Andrew Katz, Joyce B. Main, Alexander Struck Jannini, David Knight","doi":"10.1002/jee.20559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20559","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"852-860"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50128327","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}
Globalization and socially complex problems will greatly affect the way engineers work in the future. Therefore, efforts to transform engineering education must focus on professional skills and engagement of faculty as key change agents.
Purpose/Hypotheses
For engineering programs to address the needs of society, graduates must have the skills to tackle future challenges. Transformation will only be successful if faculty fully engage in all curriculum design aspects; however, little is known about how faculty view professional skills. This understanding is critical if we wish to support and encourage their participation in the transformation effort. This novel study reveals the qualitatively different ways faculty conceptualize professional skills.
Design/Method
Phenomenography was selected as the most appropriate method to showcase the variations in faculty conceptions. The study selected 19 interview participants from 273 responses to an online survey.
Results
Faculty revealed their conceptions of professional skills in six ways: communication skills, technical skills, enabling skills, a combination of skills, interpersonal behaviors, and acting professionally.
Conclusions
Findings revealed a tension between technical and nontechnical skills. The study highlights that engineering education must focus on behaviors and interactions between people rather than technical skills alone. Further, there was a gendered difference in conceptions between women and men with women more likely to consider professional skills to be inclusive of behavioral aspects. The findings can help create future strategies for engineering education and can be used as a reflective tool for engineering faculty in efforts to transform engineering education.
{"title":"Understanding professional skills in engineering education: A phenomenographic study of faculty conceptions","authors":"Una Beagon, Brian Bowe","doi":"10.1002/jee.20556","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20556","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Globalization and socially complex problems will greatly affect the way engineers work in the future. Therefore, efforts to transform engineering education must focus on professional skills and engagement of faculty as key change agents.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypotheses</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>For engineering programs to address the needs of society, graduates must have the skills to tackle future challenges. Transformation will only be successful if faculty fully engage in all curriculum design aspects; however, little is known about how faculty view professional skills. This understanding is critical if we wish to support and encourage their participation in the transformation effort. This novel study reveals the qualitatively different ways faculty conceptualize professional skills.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Phenomenography was selected as the most appropriate method to showcase the variations in faculty conceptions. The study selected 19 interview participants from 273 responses to an online survey.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Faculty revealed their conceptions of professional skills in six ways: communication skills, technical skills, enabling skills, a combination of skills, interpersonal behaviors, and acting professionally.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Findings revealed a tension between technical and nontechnical skills. The study highlights that engineering education must focus on behaviors and interactions between people rather than technical skills alone. Further, there was a gendered difference in conceptions between women and men with women more likely to consider professional skills to be inclusive of behavioral aspects. The findings can help create future strategies for engineering education and can be used as a reflective tool for engineering faculty in efforts to transform engineering education.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1109-1144"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20556","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50123217","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}
Laura J. Carroll, David Reeping, Cynthia J. Finelli, Michael J. Prince, Jenefer Husman, Matthew Graham, Maura J. Borrego
Background
Despite well-documented benefits, instructor adoption of active learning has been limited in engineering education. Studies have identified barriers to instructors’ adoption of active learning, but there is no well-tested instrument to measure instructors perceptions of these barriers.
Purpose
We developed and tested an instrument to measure instructors’ perceptions of barriers to adopting active learning and identify the constructs that coherently categorize those barriers.
Method
We used a five-phase process to develop an instrument to measure instructors’ perceived barriers to adopting active learning. In Phase 1, we built upon the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS) to create a draft instrument. In Phases 2 and 3, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on an initial 45-item instrument and a refined 21-item instrument, respectively. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Phases 4 and 5 to test the factor structure identified in Phases 2 and 3.
Results
Our final instrument consists of 17 items and four factors: (1) student preparation and engagement; (2) instructional support; (3) instructor comfort and confidence; and (4) institutional environment/rewards. Instructor responses indicated that time considerations do not emerge as a standalone factor.
Conclusions
Our 17-item instrument exhibits a sound factor structure and is reliable, enabling the assessment of perceived barriers to adopting active learning in different contexts. The four factors align with an existing model of instructional change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Although time is a substantial instructor concern that did not comprise a standalone factor, it is closely related to multiple constructs in our final model.
{"title":"Barriers instructors experience in adopting active learning: Instrument development","authors":"Laura J. Carroll, David Reeping, Cynthia J. Finelli, Michael J. Prince, Jenefer Husman, Matthew Graham, Maura J. Borrego","doi":"10.1002/jee.20557","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20557","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Despite well-documented benefits, instructor adoption of active learning has been limited in engineering education. Studies have identified barriers to instructors’ adoption of active learning, but there is no well-tested instrument to measure instructors perceptions of these barriers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We developed and tested an instrument to measure instructors’ perceptions of barriers to adopting active learning and identify the constructs that coherently categorize those barriers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We used a five-phase process to develop an instrument to measure instructors’ perceived barriers to adopting active learning. In Phase 1, we built upon the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS) to create a draft instrument. In Phases 2 and 3, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on an initial 45-item instrument and a refined 21-item instrument, respectively. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Phases 4 and 5 to test the factor structure identified in Phases 2 and 3.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our final instrument consists of 17 items and four factors: (1) student preparation and engagement; (2) instructional support; (3) instructor comfort and confidence; and (4) institutional environment/rewards. Instructor responses indicated that time considerations do not emerge as a standalone factor.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our 17-item instrument exhibits a sound factor structure and is reliable, enabling the assessment of perceived barriers to adopting active learning in different contexts. The four factors align with an existing model of instructional change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Although time is a substantial instructor concern that did not comprise a standalone factor, it is closely related to multiple constructs in our final model.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1079-1108"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20557","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50123216","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}
Bill Williams, Alexander Vincent Struck Jannini, Joyce B. Main, David Knight
As we celebrate American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)'s 125th anniversary and the adoption of a new co-editor-in-chief model for the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), we look back at the history of JEE and the experiences of its past three editors: Jack Lohmann, Michael Loui, and Lisa Benson. By revisiting our past, we can more aptly envision the possibilities for the future of JEE. In our conversations with the past editors, we discussed the challenges each identified when they took on the position, the changes noted during their tenure as editor-in-chief, and the developments that gave them the most satisfaction. This retrospective provides a brief history of JEE and the editors' perspectives and experiences at the helm of the journal. The beginnings of ASEE can be traced back to the 1893 Chicago World's Fair and Exposition. At the time, it was named the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. In 1910, the society began a monthly periodical “devoted to technical education” called the Bulletin of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. The periodical changed names twice over the next 81 years, first to Journal of Engineering Education (1925–1969) and then to Engineering Education (1969–1992). During this time, the periodical served a dual mission for ASEE—the dissemination of society communications and the publication of ideas and innovations in engineering education. The name reverted to Journal of Engineering Education in January 1993. With each passing year, articles appearing in the journal reflected increasing sophistication in the use of scientific and pedagogical protocols and principles in educational innovations. In response to the rising expectations of its reviewers and the increasing scholarly quality of the articles submitted, the journal was repositioned again in January 2003, introducing a more focused mission: “to serve as an archival record of scholarly research in engineering education.” Since then, the JEE has rapidly advanced to become a premier education research journal in engineering. Now published in partnership with a growing community of international engineering education societies and associations, its readership has grown to nearly 200,000 readers per year in 80 countries. These advances were made possible by the stewardship of past editors and the authors and reviewers who have contributed to the journal.
{"title":"JEE in the 21st century: A brief history of the journal and retrospective of three past editors","authors":"Bill Williams, Alexander Vincent Struck Jannini, Joyce B. Main, David Knight","doi":"10.1002/jee.20558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20558","url":null,"abstract":"As we celebrate American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)'s 125th anniversary and the adoption of a new co-editor-in-chief model for the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), we look back at the history of JEE and the experiences of its past three editors: Jack Lohmann, Michael Loui, and Lisa Benson. By revisiting our past, we can more aptly envision the possibilities for the future of JEE. In our conversations with the past editors, we discussed the challenges each identified when they took on the position, the changes noted during their tenure as editor-in-chief, and the developments that gave them the most satisfaction. This retrospective provides a brief history of JEE and the editors' perspectives and experiences at the helm of the journal. The beginnings of ASEE can be traced back to the 1893 Chicago World's Fair and Exposition. At the time, it was named the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. In 1910, the society began a monthly periodical “devoted to technical education” called the Bulletin of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. The periodical changed names twice over the next 81 years, first to Journal of Engineering Education (1925–1969) and then to Engineering Education (1969–1992). During this time, the periodical served a dual mission for ASEE—the dissemination of society communications and the publication of ideas and innovations in engineering education. The name reverted to Journal of Engineering Education in January 1993. With each passing year, articles appearing in the journal reflected increasing sophistication in the use of scientific and pedagogical protocols and principles in educational innovations. In response to the rising expectations of its reviewers and the increasing scholarly quality of the articles submitted, the journal was repositioned again in January 2003, introducing a more focused mission: “to serve as an archival record of scholarly research in engineering education.” Since then, the JEE has rapidly advanced to become a premier education research journal in engineering. Now published in partnership with a growing community of international engineering education societies and associations, its readership has grown to nearly 200,000 readers per year in 80 countries. These advances were made possible by the stewardship of past editors and the authors and reviewers who have contributed to the journal.","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"848-851"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50145825","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}
Jerrod A. Henderson, Brian L. McGowan, Joan Wawire, Le Shorn S. Benjamin, Kristin L. Schaefer, Jeannette D. Alarcón
Background
Researchers have shown that students leave undergraduate engineering programs during the first 2 years. Justifiably, many studies have tried to tackle engineering student persistence and attrition, especially during the first year, and then developed interventions to address the challenges. Although those interventions have improved freshmen retention in some institutions, less has been published on the impacts of these interventions on the sophomore student experience.
Purpose
To contribute to the knowledge base about all engineering students, we examined the experiences of sophomore engineering students and explored how these experiences might be related to their identities as engineers.
Design/Method
We conducted this study using photovoice, a methodology in which participants submit photographs to describe their experiences and give recommendations on improving their experiences and resolving their concerns. Participants submitted three sets of pictures (at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester) and participated in focus groups to aid in illuminating their experiences. We analyzed data using thematic analysis.
Results
We inductively determined three themes: on the frame, out of focus, and prefigures. These themes illustrate the experiences of sophomore engineering students, enabling us to see what interest, competence, and recognition as engineers looked like from their perspectives.
Conclusions
Participants grappled with the tension between their personal, social, and engineering identities. Photovoice empowered them to author and illustrate that they could exist beyond the murky middle.
{"title":"Photovoice: Visualizing the engineering identity experiences of sophomore students","authors":"Jerrod A. Henderson, Brian L. McGowan, Joan Wawire, Le Shorn S. Benjamin, Kristin L. Schaefer, Jeannette D. Alarcón","doi":"10.1002/jee.20555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20555","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Researchers have shown that students leave undergraduate engineering programs during the first 2 years. Justifiably, many studies have tried to tackle engineering student persistence and attrition, especially during the first year, and then developed interventions to address the challenges. Although those interventions have improved freshmen retention in some institutions, less has been published on the impacts of these interventions on the sophomore student experience.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To contribute to the knowledge base about all engineering students, we examined the experiences of sophomore engineering students and explored how these experiences might be related to their identities as engineers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted this study using photovoice, a methodology in which participants submit photographs to describe their experiences and give recommendations on improving their experiences and resolving their concerns. Participants submitted three sets of pictures (at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester) and participated in focus groups to aid in illuminating their experiences. We analyzed data using thematic analysis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We inductively determined three themes: on the frame, out of focus, and prefigures. These themes illustrate the experiences of sophomore engineering students, enabling us to see what interest, competence, and recognition as engineers looked like from their perspectives.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Participants grappled with the tension between their personal, social, and engineering identities. Photovoice empowered them to author and illustrate that they could exist beyond the murky middle.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1145-1166"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20555","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50134479","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}
Daniel G. Rees Lewis, Spencer E. Carlson, Christopher K. Riesbeck, Elizabeth M. Gerber, Matthew W. Easterday
Background
To create design solutions experienced engineering designers engage in expert iterative practice. Researchers find that students struggle to learn this critical engineering design practice, particularly when tackling real-world engineering design problems.
Purpose/Hypothesis
To improve our ability to teach iteration, this study contributes (i) a new teaching approach to improve student teams' expert iterative practices, and (ii) provides support to existing frameworks—chiefly the Design Risk Framework—that predict the key metacognitive processes we should support to help students to engage in expert iterative practices in real-world engineering design.
Design/Method
In a 3-year design-based research study, we developed a novel approach to teaching students to take on real-world engineering design projects with real clients, users, and contexts to engage in expert iterative practices.
Results
Study 1 confirms that student teams struggle to engage in expert iterative practices, even when supported by problem-based learning (PBL) coaching. Study 2 tests our novel approach, Planning-to-Iterate, which uses (i) templates, (ii) guiding questions to help students to define problem and solution elements, and (iii) risk checklists to help student teams to identify risks. We found that student teams using Planning-to-Iterate engaged in more expert iterative practices while receiving less PBL coaching.
Conclusions
This work empirically tests a design argument—a theory for a novel teaching approach—that augments PBL coaching and helps students to identify risks and engage in expert iterative practices in engineering design projects.
{"title":"Encouraging engineering design teams to engage in expert iterative practices with tools to support coaching in problem-based learning","authors":"Daniel G. Rees Lewis, Spencer E. Carlson, Christopher K. Riesbeck, Elizabeth M. Gerber, Matthew W. Easterday","doi":"10.1002/jee.20554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20554","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To create design solutions experienced engineering designers engage in expert iterative practice. Researchers find that students struggle to learn this critical engineering design practice, particularly when tackling real-world engineering design problems.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To improve our ability to teach iteration, this study contributes (i) a new teaching approach to improve student teams' expert iterative practices, and (ii) provides support to existing frameworks—chiefly the Design Risk Framework—that predict the key metacognitive processes we should support to help students to engage in expert iterative practices in real-world engineering design.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In a 3-year design-based research study, we developed a novel approach to teaching students to take on real-world engineering design projects with real clients, users, and contexts to engage in expert iterative practices.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Study 1 confirms that student teams struggle to engage in expert iterative practices, even when supported by problem-based learning (PBL) coaching. Study 2 tests our novel approach, Planning-to-Iterate, which uses (i) templates, (ii) guiding questions to help students to define problem and solution elements, and (iii) risk checklists to help student teams to identify risks. We found that student teams using Planning-to-Iterate engaged in more expert iterative practices while receiving less PBL coaching.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This work empirically tests a design argument—a theory for a novel teaching approach—that augments PBL coaching and helps students to identify risks and engage in expert iterative practices in engineering design projects.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1012-1031"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50132607","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}
Kirsten A. Davis, Brent K. Jesiek, David B. Knight
Background
Engineers operate in an increasingly global environment, making it important that engineering students develop global engineering competency to prepare them for success in the workplace. To understand this learning, we need assessment approaches that go beyond traditional self-report surveys. A previous study (Jesiek et al., Journal of Engineering Education 2020; 109(3):1–21) began this process by developing a situational judgment test (SJT) to assess global engineering competency based in the Chinese context and administering it to practicing engineers.
Purpose
We built on this previous study by administering the SJT to engineering students to explore what prior experiences related to their SJT performance and how their SJT performance compared with practicing engineers' performance on the SJT.
Method
Engineering students completed a survey including the SJT and related self-report survey instruments. We collected data from three groups of students: those who had studied abroad in China; those who had studied abroad elsewhere; and those who had not studied abroad.
Results
We found that students' SJT performance did not relate to their scores on the self-report instruments, but did relate to their participation in study abroad programs. The students also performed better on the SJT when compared to the practicing engineers.
Conclusions
Our results highlight the need to use multiple forms of assessment for global engineering competence. Although building evidence for the validity of the Global Engineering Competency China SJT is an ongoing process, this data collection technique may provide new insights on global engineering competency compared to traditionally used assessments.
背景工程师在日益全球化的环境中工作，这使得工程专业学生培养全球工程能力为他们在工作场所取得成功做好准备变得非常重要。为了理解这种学习，我们需要超越传统自我报告调查的评估方法。先前的一项研究（Jesiek et al.，Journal of Engineering Education 2020；109（3）:1-21）通过开发情景判断测试（SJT）来评估基于中国背景的全球工程能力，并将其应用于执业工程师，从而开始了这一过程。目的：我们在之前的研究基础上，通过对工程专业学生进行SJT管理，探讨他们之前的经验与SJT表现有关，以及他们的SJT表现与执业工程师在SJT上的表现相比如何。方法工程专业学生完成了一项包括SJT和相关自我报告调查工具的调查。我们收集了三组学生的数据：在中国留学的学生；那些曾在其他地方留学的人；以及那些没有出国留学的人。结果我们发现，学生的SJT成绩与他们在自我报告工具上的得分无关，但与他们参加留学项目有关。与实习工程师相比，学生在SJT上的表现也更好。结论我们的研究结果强调了使用多种形式的全球工程能力评估的必要性。尽管建立全球工程能力中国SJT有效性的证据是一个持续的过程，但与传统评估相比，这种数据收集技术可能会为全球工程能力提供新的见解。
{"title":"Exploring scenario-based assessment of students' global engineering competency: Building evidence of validity of a China-based situational judgment test","authors":"Kirsten A. Davis, Brent K. Jesiek, David B. Knight","doi":"10.1002/jee.20552","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20552","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Engineers operate in an increasingly global environment, making it important that engineering students develop global engineering competency to prepare them for success in the workplace. To understand this learning, we need assessment approaches that go beyond traditional self-report surveys. A previous study (Jesiek et al., <i>Journal of Engineering Education</i> 2020; 109(3):1–21) began this process by developing a situational judgment test (SJT) to assess global engineering competency based in the Chinese context and administering it to practicing engineers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We built on this previous study by administering the SJT to engineering students to explore what prior experiences related to their SJT performance and how their SJT performance compared with practicing engineers' performance on the SJT.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Engineering students completed a survey including the SJT and related self-report survey instruments. We collected data from three groups of students: those who had studied abroad in China; those who had studied abroad elsewhere; and those who had not studied abroad.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found that students' SJT performance did not relate to their scores on the self-report instruments, but did relate to their participation in study abroad programs. The students also performed better on the SJT when compared to the practicing engineers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our results highlight the need to use multiple forms of assessment for global engineering competence. Although building evidence for the validity of the Global Engineering Competency China SJT is an ongoing process, this data collection technique may provide new insights on global engineering competency compared to traditionally used assessments.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1032-1055"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20552","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50121919","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}
Research points to family talk and interactions involving STEM concepts as one of the most influential informal learning experiences that shape an individual's STEM identity development and encourage their pursuit of a STEM career. However, a recent literature review uncovers limited research regarding the development of engineering identity in young children.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to add to this scant literature by exploring how children position themselves as engineers and how children are positioned as engineers through interactions with parents and other adults within a program focused on family engagement within an engineering design process.
Methods
This study includes two parent–child dyads. We collected and analyzed approximately 19.5 h of video data of the two child–parent dyads interacting with one another throughout an engineering design process as part of an out-of-school program.
Results
Results highlight three ways in which the two children enacted various engineering identities through their positioning, negotiation, and acceptance and/or rejection of positionalities as they engaged in an engineering design process with a parent. These identity enactments included (a) possessing knowledge and authority to make decisions regarding the development of their self-identified engineering problem and prototype; (b) questioning and challenging adult ideas, solutions, and construction of prototypes; and (c) documenting and communicating their thinking regarding the engineering design through sketches and notes.
Conclusions
The significance of this study lies in its potential to change the landscape of those who pursue an engineering career and to contribute to the limited research and ongoing conversations about how to foster environments that support families in creative and collaborative learning specific to the engineering discipline.
{"title":"Children's engineering identities-in-practice: An exploration of child–adult interactions in an out-of-school context","authors":"Amber Simpson, Peter N. Knox, Jing Yang","doi":"10.1002/jee.20553","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20553","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Research points to family talk and interactions involving STEM concepts as one of the most influential informal learning experiences that shape an individual's STEM identity development and encourage their pursuit of a STEM career. However, a recent literature review uncovers limited research regarding the development of engineering identity in young children.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The purpose of this study was to add to this scant literature by exploring how children position themselves as engineers and how children are positioned as engineers through interactions with parents and other adults within a program focused on family engagement within an engineering design process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study includes two parent–child dyads. We collected and analyzed approximately 19.5 h of video data of the two child–parent dyads interacting with one another throughout an engineering design process as part of an out-of-school program.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Results highlight three ways in which the two children enacted various engineering identities through their positioning, negotiation, and acceptance and/or rejection of positionalities as they engaged in an engineering design process with a parent. These identity enactments included (a) possessing knowledge and authority to make decisions regarding the development of their self-identified engineering problem and prototype; (b) questioning and challenging adult ideas, solutions, and construction of prototypes; and (c) documenting and communicating their thinking regarding the engineering design through sketches and notes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The significance of this study lies in its potential to change the landscape of those who pursue an engineering career and to contribute to the limited research and ongoing conversations about how to foster environments that support families in creative and collaborative learning specific to the engineering discipline.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1056-1078"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50134467","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}
Courtney J. Wright, Sarah A. Wilson, Joseph H. Hammer, Lucy E. Hargis, Melanie E. Miller, Ellen L. Usher
Background
Engineering students encounter high levels of stress, which may negatively impact their mental health. Nevertheless, engineering students who experience mental health distress are less likely than their peers to seek professional help, even when controlling for gender and race/ethnicity.
Purpose
We examined beliefs that undergraduate engineering students have about barriers and facilitators to seeking professional help for their mental health. We also sought to identify cultural and systemic factors within and beyond engineering that might affect help-seeking. Together, these beliefs influence students' sense of personal agency around seeking mental health care.
Method
We implemented a pragmatic qualitative design that incorporated the integrated behavioral model to investigate engineering students' (N = 33) professional mental health help-seeking beliefs. We used thematic analysis to analyze help-seeking beliefs and perceived barriers and facilitators that students described during interviews.
Results
We identified four themes: Navigating the system impacts personal agency; sacrifices associated with help-seeking act as a barrier; engineering culture acts as a barrier to help-seeking; and student confidence in help-seeking varies significantly. These themes portray the effect of perceived barriers and facilitators on students' personal agency for accessing mental health care. Our findings have implications for engineering departments and university counseling centers that want to minimize barriers to help-seeking.
Conclusions
Engineering stakeholders must improve access to professional help for engineering students. Implementing changes to normalize help-seeking behaviors, enhance personal agency, and facilitate engagement with mental health resources will create better conditions for engineers. Further research is necessary to understand how other beliefs (e.g., attitudes, perceived norms) inform the relationships between student mental health, professional help seeking, and engineering culture.
{"title":"Mental health in undergraduate engineering students: Identifying facilitators and barriers to seeking help","authors":"Courtney J. Wright, Sarah A. Wilson, Joseph H. Hammer, Lucy E. Hargis, Melanie E. Miller, Ellen L. Usher","doi":"10.1002/jee.20551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20551","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Engineering students encounter high levels of stress, which may negatively impact their mental health. Nevertheless, engineering students who experience mental health distress are less likely than their peers to seek professional help, even when controlling for gender and race/ethnicity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We examined beliefs that undergraduate engineering students have about barriers and facilitators to seeking professional help for their mental health. We also sought to identify cultural and systemic factors within and beyond engineering that might affect help-seeking. Together, these beliefs influence students' sense of personal agency around seeking mental health care.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We implemented a pragmatic qualitative design that incorporated the integrated behavioral model to investigate engineering students' (<i>N</i> = 33) professional mental health help-seeking beliefs. We used thematic analysis to analyze help-seeking beliefs and perceived barriers and facilitators that students described during interviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified four themes: Navigating the system impacts personal agency; sacrifices associated with help-seeking act as a barrier; engineering culture acts as a barrier to help-seeking; and student confidence in help-seeking varies significantly. These themes portray the effect of perceived barriers and facilitators on students' personal agency for accessing mental health care. Our findings have implications for engineering departments and university counseling centers that want to minimize barriers to help-seeking.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Engineering stakeholders must improve access to professional help for engineering students. Implementing changes to normalize help-seeking behaviors, enhance personal agency, and facilitate engagement with mental health resources will create better conditions for engineers. Further research is necessary to understand how other beliefs (e.g., attitudes, perceived norms) inform the relationships between student mental health, professional help seeking, and engineering culture.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"963-986"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20551","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50123868","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