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":"105 7","pages":""},"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":"11 3","pages":""},"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":" 1","pages":""},"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":"37 5","pages":""},"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}
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：