M. Bahnson, Monique Ross, Catherine G. P. Berdanier
Postdoctoral training holds an increasingly important place in preparation for leading academic and research positions. While little empirical research has described postdoctoral training beyond the sciences, across all fields, “misaligned expectations” are often touted as a key source of postdoctoral strife.This article describes mentorship competency beliefs within engineering and computer science fields, which increasingly engage in postdoctoral training.An embedded mixed‐methods design was used to quantitatively identify mentorship profiles from survey data using latent profile analysis (LPA) from a sample of n = 118 postdoctoral scholars and n = 165 postdoctoral supervisors. Qualitative thematic analysis of interviews with n = 29 postdoctoral scholars and n = 20 postdoctoral supervisors was used to identify meaning in the differences between quantitative profiles. The combination of LPA with thematic analysis enabled the triangulation of distinct postdoctoral mentorship profile definitions.LPA identified six postdoctoral fellow profiles and four supervisor profiles, which became clearly definable through thematic analysis. Postdoc profiles included Technical Manager, Autonomy Focused Advisor, Stretched Mentor, Well‐Rounded Mentor, Exemplar Mentor, and Leader‐Mentor, while supervisor profiles included Autonomous Mentor, Reflective Mentor, Research Lab Mentor, and Confident Leader‐Mentor. Some of these are aligned, but several are not, giving insight into the phenomenon of “misaligned expectations” in postdoctoral literature.The mentorship profiles illustrate the misalignment in expectations, which leads to negative mentorship experiences for many postdoctoral scholars.
博士后培训在准备担任学术和研究领导职务的过程中占据着越来越重要的地位。本文描述了工程和计算机科学领域的导师能力信念，这些领域越来越多地参与博士后培训。本文采用嵌入式混合方法设计，利用潜在特征分析（LPA）从 n = 118 名博士后学者和 n = 165 名博士后导师的调查数据中定量识别导师能力特征。对 n = 29 名博士后学者和 n = 20 名博士后导师的访谈进行了定性主题分析，以确定定量特征之间差异的意义。LPA 与专题分析相结合，对不同的博士后导师形象定义进行了三角测量。LPA 确定了六种博士后研究员形象和四种导师形象，通过专题分析，这些形象得到了明确定义。博士后简介包括技术经理人、自主型顾问、伸展型导师、全面型导师、模范型导师和领导型导师，而导师简介包括自主型导师、反思型导师、研究实验室导师和自信型领导型导师。其中一些是一致的，但也有一些是不一致的，这让我们对博士后文献中的 "期望错位 "现象有了深入的了解。
{"title":"(Mis)alignments between postdoctoral and supervisors' perceptions of mentorship competencies in engineering and computer science","authors":"M. Bahnson, Monique Ross, Catherine G. P. Berdanier","doi":"10.1002/jee.20611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20611","url":null,"abstract":"Postdoctoral training holds an increasingly important place in preparation for leading academic and research positions. While little empirical research has described postdoctoral training beyond the sciences, across all fields, “misaligned expectations” are often touted as a key source of postdoctoral strife.This article describes mentorship competency beliefs within engineering and computer science fields, which increasingly engage in postdoctoral training.An embedded mixed‐methods design was used to quantitatively identify mentorship profiles from survey data using latent profile analysis (LPA) from a sample of n = 118 postdoctoral scholars and n = 165 postdoctoral supervisors. Qualitative thematic analysis of interviews with n = 29 postdoctoral scholars and n = 20 postdoctoral supervisors was used to identify meaning in the differences between quantitative profiles. The combination of LPA with thematic analysis enabled the triangulation of distinct postdoctoral mentorship profile definitions.LPA identified six postdoctoral fellow profiles and four supervisor profiles, which became clearly definable through thematic analysis. Postdoc profiles included Technical Manager, Autonomy Focused Advisor, Stretched Mentor, Well‐Rounded Mentor, Exemplar Mentor, and Leader‐Mentor, while supervisor profiles included Autonomous Mentor, Reflective Mentor, Research Lab Mentor, and Confident Leader‐Mentor. Some of these are aligned, but several are not, giving insight into the phenomenon of “misaligned expectations” in postdoctoral literature.The mentorship profiles illustrate the misalignment in expectations, which leads to negative mentorship experiences for many postdoctoral scholars.","PeriodicalId":507669,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141643036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
B. McIntyre, Kelsey Scalaro, Allison Godwin, Adam Kirn, Dina Verdín
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.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.The data came from a survey distributed in Fall 2017 (n = 2316). Ten multiple regression models were used to understand the recognition experiences that influenced students' recognition beliefs by intersectional group.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.This article emphasizes the need to draw on multiple experiences to support the equitable development of early‐career engineers across race, ethnicity, and gender, and reveals patterns for recognition that may support future scholarship on effective classroom practices for recognition.
{"title":"Exploring experiences that foster recognition in engineering across race and gender","authors":"B. McIntyre, Kelsey Scalaro, Allison Godwin, Adam Kirn, Dina Verdín","doi":"10.1002/jee.20587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20587","url":null,"abstract":"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.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.The data came from a survey distributed in Fall 2017 (n = 2316). Ten multiple regression models were used to understand the recognition experiences that influenced students' recognition beliefs by intersectional group.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.This article emphasizes the need to draw on multiple experiences to support the equitable development of early‐career engineers across race, ethnicity, and gender, and reveals patterns for recognition that may support future scholarship on effective classroom practices for recognition.","PeriodicalId":507669,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140742655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. Doulougeri, J. Vermunt, G. Bombaerts, Michael Bots
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.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?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.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.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":"K. Doulougeri, J. Vermunt, G. Bombaerts, Michael Bots","doi":"10.1002/jee.20588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20588","url":null,"abstract":"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.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?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.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.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.","PeriodicalId":507669,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140394376","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
G. Fleming, Michelle Klopfer, Andrew Katz, David Knight
Engineering curricula are built around faculty and accreditors' perceptions of what knowledge, skills, and abilities graduates will need in engineering careers. However, the people making these decisions may not be fully aware of what industry employers require for engineering graduates.The purpose of this study is to determine how industry employer‐sought professional and technical skills vary among engineering disciplines and levels of education.Using a large sample (n = 26,103) of mined job advertisements, we use the O*NET skills database to determine the frequencies of different professional and technical skills for biomedical, civil, chemical, electrical, environmental, and mechanical engineers with bachelor's, master's, and PhD degrees.The most frequently sought professional skill is problem‐solving; the most frequently sought technical skills across disciplines are Microsoft Office software and computer‐aided design software. Although not the most frequently requested skills, job advertisements including the Python and MATLAB programming languages paid significantly higher salaries than those without.The findings of this study have important implications for engineering program leaders and curriculum designers choosing which skills to teach students so that they are best prepared to get and excel in engineering jobs. The results also show which skills students can prioritize investing their time in so that they receive the largest financial return on their investment.
{"title":"What engineering employers want: An analysis of technical and professional skills in engineering job advertisements","authors":"G. Fleming, Michelle Klopfer, Andrew Katz, David Knight","doi":"10.1002/jee.20581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20581","url":null,"abstract":"Engineering curricula are built around faculty and accreditors' perceptions of what knowledge, skills, and abilities graduates will need in engineering careers. However, the people making these decisions may not be fully aware of what industry employers require for engineering graduates.The purpose of this study is to determine how industry employer‐sought professional and technical skills vary among engineering disciplines and levels of education.Using a large sample (n = 26,103) of mined job advertisements, we use the O*NET skills database to determine the frequencies of different professional and technical skills for biomedical, civil, chemical, electrical, environmental, and mechanical engineers with bachelor's, master's, and PhD degrees.The most frequently sought professional skill is problem‐solving; the most frequently sought technical skills across disciplines are Microsoft Office software and computer‐aided design software. Although not the most frequently requested skills, job advertisements including the Python and MATLAB programming languages paid significantly higher salaries than those without.The findings of this study have important implications for engineering program leaders and curriculum designers choosing which skills to teach students so that they are best prepared to get and excel in engineering jobs. The results also show which skills students can prioritize investing their time in so that they receive the largest financial return on their investment.","PeriodicalId":507669,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139781053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alexander Vincent Struck Jannini, Z. Akdemir, Muhsin Menekse
Achievement goal theory is a popular motivational theory within education and psychology, with several review papers summarizing the extensive work done in these fields. Although reviews exist in these specific fields, none exists within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This is a considerable gap in our knowledge as STEM educators, especially engineering educators, where motivation is often ill‐defined.This paper highlights the findings of a systematic review of how STEM educators have used achievement goal theory within undergraduate STEM education.We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist for our search. A total of 50 studies (43 journal articles and 7 conference proceedings) were included in our review.Our review revealed five common themes: quantitative methodologies, sex, emotions, academic achievement, and culture. A majority of the papers reviewed used quantitative methods. Although there was inconclusive evidence of differences in motivational orientations based on biological sex, the most studied emotion (anxiety) was found to be inversely correlated with mastery orientations. Among the many ways to measure academic achievement, exam scores was the most popular method reported. Lastly, ethnic, institutional, and department cultures were significant factors in shaping a student's motivational orientation.Our review suggests that a motivational difference between students based on biological sex is inconclusive. We also recommend more studies that use qualitative or mixed methodologies to gain further insight into students' motivational processes and consider how cultural contexts may impact students' motivational orientations.
{"title":"Achievement goal theory in STEM education: A systematic review","authors":"Alexander Vincent Struck Jannini, Z. Akdemir, Muhsin Menekse","doi":"10.1002/jee.20585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20585","url":null,"abstract":"Achievement goal theory is a popular motivational theory within education and psychology, with several review papers summarizing the extensive work done in these fields. Although reviews exist in these specific fields, none exists within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This is a considerable gap in our knowledge as STEM educators, especially engineering educators, where motivation is often ill‐defined.This paper highlights the findings of a systematic review of how STEM educators have used achievement goal theory within undergraduate STEM education.We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist for our search. A total of 50 studies (43 journal articles and 7 conference proceedings) were included in our review.Our review revealed five common themes: quantitative methodologies, sex, emotions, academic achievement, and culture. A majority of the papers reviewed used quantitative methods. Although there was inconclusive evidence of differences in motivational orientations based on biological sex, the most studied emotion (anxiety) was found to be inversely correlated with mastery orientations. Among the many ways to measure academic achievement, exam scores was the most popular method reported. Lastly, ethnic, institutional, and department cultures were significant factors in shaping a student's motivational orientation.Our review suggests that a motivational difference between students based on biological sex is inconclusive. We also recommend more studies that use qualitative or mixed methodologies to gain further insight into students' motivational processes and consider how cultural contexts may impact students' motivational orientations.","PeriodicalId":507669,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139839807","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alexander Vincent Struck Jannini, Z. Akdemir, Muhsin Menekse
Achievement goal theory is a popular motivational theory within education and psychology, with several review papers summarizing the extensive work done in these fields. Although reviews exist in these specific fields, none exists within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This is a considerable gap in our knowledge as STEM educators, especially engineering educators, where motivation is often ill‐defined.This paper highlights the findings of a systematic review of how STEM educators have used achievement goal theory within undergraduate STEM education.We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist for our search. A total of 50 studies (43 journal articles and 7 conference proceedings) were included in our review.Our review revealed five common themes: quantitative methodologies, sex, emotions, academic achievement, and culture. A majority of the papers reviewed used quantitative methods. Although there was inconclusive evidence of differences in motivational orientations based on biological sex, the most studied emotion (anxiety) was found to be inversely correlated with mastery orientations. Among the many ways to measure academic achievement, exam scores was the most popular method reported. Lastly, ethnic, institutional, and department cultures were significant factors in shaping a student's motivational orientation.Our review suggests that a motivational difference between students based on biological sex is inconclusive. We also recommend more studies that use qualitative or mixed methodologies to gain further insight into students' motivational processes and consider how cultural contexts may impact students' motivational orientations.
{"title":"Achievement goal theory in STEM education: A systematic review","authors":"Alexander Vincent Struck Jannini, Z. Akdemir, Muhsin Menekse","doi":"10.1002/jee.20585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20585","url":null,"abstract":"Achievement goal theory is a popular motivational theory within education and psychology, with several review papers summarizing the extensive work done in these fields. Although reviews exist in these specific fields, none exists within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This is a considerable gap in our knowledge as STEM educators, especially engineering educators, where motivation is often ill‐defined.This paper highlights the findings of a systematic review of how STEM educators have used achievement goal theory within undergraduate STEM education.We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist for our search. A total of 50 studies (43 journal articles and 7 conference proceedings) were included in our review.Our review revealed five common themes: quantitative methodologies, sex, emotions, academic achievement, and culture. A majority of the papers reviewed used quantitative methods. Although there was inconclusive evidence of differences in motivational orientations based on biological sex, the most studied emotion (anxiety) was found to be inversely correlated with mastery orientations. Among the many ways to measure academic achievement, exam scores was the most popular method reported. Lastly, ethnic, institutional, and department cultures were significant factors in shaping a student's motivational orientation.Our review suggests that a motivational difference between students based on biological sex is inconclusive. We also recommend more studies that use qualitative or mixed methodologies to gain further insight into students' motivational processes and consider how cultural contexts may impact students' motivational orientations.","PeriodicalId":507669,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139780032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Koretsky, Susan Nolen, John Galisky, Harpreet Auby, Lorena S. Grundy
In taking up educational technology tools and student‐centered instructional practice, there is consensus that instructors consider the unique aspects of their instructional context. However, tool adoption success is often framed narrowly by numerical uptake rates or by conformity with non‐negotiable components.We pursue an alternative ecosystems framing which posits that variability among contexts is fundamental to understanding instructors' uptake of instructional tools and the ways their teaching trajectories develop over time.Through a multiple‐case study approach using interviews, usage data, surveys, and records of community meetings, we examine 12 instructors' trajectories to illustrate the dynamic uptake of a technology tool.Cross‐case analysis found that instructors' trajectories are tool‐mediated and community‐mediated. We present five cases in detail. Two foreground ways that instructors gained insight into student learning from student responses in the tool. Two illustrate the role played by the project's Community of Practice (CoP), an extra‐institutional support for deepening practice. The final case illustrates the complexity of an evolving instructional ecosystem and its role in instructors' satisfaction and continued use.Use of the educational technology tool perturbed ecosystems and supported instructors' evolving trajectories through mediation of instructor and student activity. Instructors' goals guided initial uptake, but both goals and practice were adapted using information from interactions with the tool and the CoP and changes in instructional contexts. The study confirms the need to understand the complexity of the uptake of innovations and illustrates opportunities for educators, developers, and administrators to enhance uptake and support diversity goals.
{"title":"Progression from the mean: Cultivating instructors' unique trajectories of practice using educational technology","authors":"M. Koretsky, Susan Nolen, John Galisky, Harpreet Auby, Lorena S. Grundy","doi":"10.1002/jee.20586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20586","url":null,"abstract":"In taking up educational technology tools and student‐centered instructional practice, there is consensus that instructors consider the unique aspects of their instructional context. However, tool adoption success is often framed narrowly by numerical uptake rates or by conformity with non‐negotiable components.We pursue an alternative ecosystems framing which posits that variability among contexts is fundamental to understanding instructors' uptake of instructional tools and the ways their teaching trajectories develop over time.Through a multiple‐case study approach using interviews, usage data, surveys, and records of community meetings, we examine 12 instructors' trajectories to illustrate the dynamic uptake of a technology tool.Cross‐case analysis found that instructors' trajectories are tool‐mediated and community‐mediated. We present five cases in detail. Two foreground ways that instructors gained insight into student learning from student responses in the tool. Two illustrate the role played by the project's Community of Practice (CoP), an extra‐institutional support for deepening practice. The final case illustrates the complexity of an evolving instructional ecosystem and its role in instructors' satisfaction and continued use.Use of the educational technology tool perturbed ecosystems and supported instructors' evolving trajectories through mediation of instructor and student activity. Instructors' goals guided initial uptake, but both goals and practice were adapted using information from interactions with the tool and the CoP and changes in instructional contexts. The study confirms the need to understand the complexity of the uptake of innovations and illustrates opportunities for educators, developers, and administrators to enhance uptake and support diversity goals.","PeriodicalId":507669,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139792152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hye Rin Lee, Nayssan Safavian, Anna-Lena Dicke, J. Eccles
A perceived fit between personal values and what a career offers is critical for college students pursuing and persisting in that career.We, therefore, investigated the career values of engineering undergraduates through language in two different studies. Study 1 (N = 35) examined students' written postgraduation plans for agentic and communal career value themes. Drawing on Study 1 themes, Study 2 (N = 918) examined the association of achievement‐related and interpersonal word categories in written narratives to surveyed career values.In Study 1, inductive and deductive approaches were used to identify agentic and communal career values. In Study 2, regressions were conducted using achievement‐related and interpersonal words as outcomes.Study 1 found agentic and communal value themes. Agentic value themes included career, personal development, and financial gains. Communal value themes included helping others and being family‐oriented. Results from Study 2 showed that students' language use in the discussion of their careers was associated with surveyed career values.Although engineering students hold more agentic than communal values, they hold both career values, which may have implications for supporting students from diverse backgrounds.
{"title":"Investigating engineering undergraduates' agentic and communal career values in writing responses","authors":"Hye Rin Lee, Nayssan Safavian, Anna-Lena Dicke, J. Eccles","doi":"10.1002/jee.20584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20584","url":null,"abstract":"A perceived fit between personal values and what a career offers is critical for college students pursuing and persisting in that career.We, therefore, investigated the career values of engineering undergraduates through language in two different studies. Study 1 (N = 35) examined students' written postgraduation plans for agentic and communal career value themes. Drawing on Study 1 themes, Study 2 (N = 918) examined the association of achievement‐related and interpersonal word categories in written narratives to surveyed career values.In Study 1, inductive and deductive approaches were used to identify agentic and communal career values. In Study 2, regressions were conducted using achievement‐related and interpersonal words as outcomes.Study 1 found agentic and communal value themes. Agentic value themes included career, personal development, and financial gains. Communal value themes included helping others and being family‐oriented. Results from Study 2 showed that students' language use in the discussion of their careers was associated with surveyed career values.Although engineering students hold more agentic than communal values, they hold both career values, which may have implications for supporting students from diverse backgrounds.","PeriodicalId":507669,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139874143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The importance of spatial abilities for individuals' success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) domains has been well established. Researchers have also emphasized the need to train engineering students in spatial ability. Although virtual reality (VR) offers prospects for training spatial abilities, research on the design of VR training environments remains incomplete.This review aimed to reveal the link between individuals' interactions in a VR environment and their spatial abilities and provide guidance for future research and the design of training settings. We also aimed to support students by aligning their interactions with individuals' spatial abilities or by using interactive VR to foster these abilities to create more equal opportunities in the field of engineering.A systematic review of existing literature was conducted to categorize and discuss recent findings.The study found that the reviewed literature (i) mainly considered mental rotation; (ii) showed advantages for high‐spatial‐ability learners and disadvantages for low‐spatial‐ability learners when they use interactive VR; (iii) indicated training possibilities, especially for low‐spatial‐ability learners, when they use interactive VR; and (iv) showed changes in not only interaction but also visualization parameters between experimental and control groups.Interactive VR can be used to develop spatial abilities, particularly in low‐ability learners. However, it can also hinder these learners and favor high‐ability learners. Further research focusing on the interactive part of VR and the role of spatial ability is required to support design choices.
{"title":"Systematic review of spatial abilities and virtual reality: The role of interaction","authors":"Micha Gittinger, David Wiesche","doi":"10.1002/jee.20568","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20568","url":null,"abstract":"The importance of spatial abilities for individuals' success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) domains has been well established. Researchers have also emphasized the need to train engineering students in spatial ability. Although virtual reality (VR) offers prospects for training spatial abilities, research on the design of VR training environments remains incomplete.This review aimed to reveal the link between individuals' interactions in a VR environment and their spatial abilities and provide guidance for future research and the design of training settings. We also aimed to support students by aligning their interactions with individuals' spatial abilities or by using interactive VR to foster these abilities to create more equal opportunities in the field of engineering.A systematic review of existing literature was conducted to categorize and discuss recent findings.The study found that the reviewed literature (i) mainly considered mental rotation; (ii) showed advantages for high‐spatial‐ability learners and disadvantages for low‐spatial‐ability learners when they use interactive VR; (iii) indicated training possibilities, especially for low‐spatial‐ability learners, when they use interactive VR; and (iv) showed changes in not only interaction but also visualization parameters between experimental and control groups.Interactive VR can be used to develop spatial abilities, particularly in low‐ability learners. However, it can also hinder these learners and favor high‐ability learners. Further research focusing on the interactive part of VR and the role of spatial ability is required to support design choices.","PeriodicalId":507669,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139173095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：