对成年人的工程观点进行有效和可靠的评估

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Engineering Education Pub Date : 2023-04-29 DOI:10.1002/jee.20524
Erdogan Kaya, Hasan Deniz, Ezgi Yesilyurt
{"title":"对成年人的工程观点进行有效和可靠的评估","authors":"Erdogan Kaya,&nbsp;Hasan Deniz,&nbsp;Ezgi Yesilyurt","doi":"10.1002/jee.20524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Pre-college engineering education reform documents aim to help students develop engineering literacy. Helping students develop sophisticated epistemological views about engineering makes a significant contribution toward developing engineering-literate citizenry. Despite these widely recognized benefits, research on students' and teachers' epistemological views about engineering, commonly termed nature of engineering (NOE) views, has remained stagnant due to the absence of an open-ended questionnaire whose collected evidence of validity indicates its appropriateness for assessing students' and teachers' NOE understanding.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The purpose of this study is threefold: (a) describing the development of a new open-ended instrument, the Views of Nature of Engineering Questionnaire version B (VNOE-B), (b) providing evidence in support of the VNOE-B validity and reliability, and (c) discussing the implications of the newly developed instrument for future research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design/Method</h3>\n \n <p>We aimed to provide evidence for the content and face validity of the VNOE-B by seeking input from a panel of science/engineering educators. Evidence for the construct validity was determined by analyzing the open-ended questionnaire and semistructured interview responses provided by pre-service and in-service teachers (considered novices in this field) and experts (engineers and engineering educators).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Our findings indicate that the VNOE-B is consistently successful in differentiating between experts' and novices' NOE views. All engineering experts held sophisticated NOE views across all NOE views under study, whereas most novices held partially informed or uninformed NOE views.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Evidence of validity supports the appropriateness of the VNOE-B as an open-ended instrument for assessing adults' NOE views. Its application may guide teacher educators in determining the efficacy of teacher professional development in meeting the aim of improving in-service teachers' NOE understanding. Additionally, VNOE-B may potentially inform the success of pre-service teacher training.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20524","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward developing a valid and reliable assessment of adults' nature of engineering views\",\"authors\":\"Erdogan Kaya,&nbsp;Hasan Deniz,&nbsp;Ezgi Yesilyurt\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jee.20524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Pre-college engineering education reform documents aim to help students develop engineering literacy. Helping students develop sophisticated epistemological views about engineering makes a significant contribution toward developing engineering-literate citizenry. Despite these widely recognized benefits, research on students' and teachers' epistemological views about engineering, commonly termed nature of engineering (NOE) views, has remained stagnant due to the absence of an open-ended questionnaire whose collected evidence of validity indicates its appropriateness for assessing students' and teachers' NOE understanding.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The purpose of this study is threefold: (a) describing the development of a new open-ended instrument, the Views of Nature of Engineering Questionnaire version B (VNOE-B), (b) providing evidence in support of the VNOE-B validity and reliability, and (c) discussing the implications of the newly developed instrument for future research.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design/Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>We aimed to provide evidence for the content and face validity of the VNOE-B by seeking input from a panel of science/engineering educators. Evidence for the construct validity was determined by analyzing the open-ended questionnaire and semistructured interview responses provided by pre-service and in-service teachers (considered novices in this field) and experts (engineers and engineering educators).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our findings indicate that the VNOE-B is consistently successful in differentiating between experts' and novices' NOE views. All engineering experts held sophisticated NOE views across all NOE views under study, whereas most novices held partially informed or uninformed NOE views.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Evidence of validity supports the appropriateness of the VNOE-B as an open-ended instrument for assessing adults' NOE views. Its application may guide teacher educators in determining the efficacy of teacher professional development in meeting the aim of improving in-service teachers' NOE understanding. Additionally, VNOE-B may potentially inform the success of pre-service teacher training.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Engineering Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20524\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Engineering Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20524\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20524","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景大学预科工程教育改革文件旨在帮助学生培养工程素养。帮助学生发展关于工程的复杂认识论观点,对培养懂工程的公民做出了重大贡献。尽管有这些公认的好处,但对学生和教师关于工程的认识论观点的研究,通常称为工程本质(NOE)观点,由于缺乏一份开放式问卷,该问卷收集的有效性证据表明其适合评估学生和教师对NOE的理解,因此一直停滞不前。目的本研究的目的有三个:(a)描述一种新的开放式工具——工程性质观点问卷B版(VNOE-B)的开发,(B)提供证据支持VNOE-B的有效性和可靠性,以及(c)讨论新开发的仪器对未来研究的影响。设计/方法我们旨在通过寻求科学/工程教育工作者小组的意见,为VNOE-B的内容和面孔有效性提供证据。通过分析职前和在职教师(被认为是该领域的新手)和专家(工程师和工程教育工作者)提供的开放式问卷和半结构化访谈回答,确定了结构有效性的证据。结果我们的研究结果表明,VNOE-B在区分专家和新手的NOE观点方面始终是成功的。在所研究的所有NOE观点中,所有工程专家都持有复杂的NOE观点,而大多数新手持有部分知情或不知情的NOE看法。结论有效性证据支持VNOE-B作为评估成人NOE观点的开放式工具的适当性。它的应用可以指导教师教育工作者确定教师专业发展的有效性,以达到提高在职教师对NOE理解的目的。此外,VNOE-B可能会为职前教师培训的成功提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Toward developing a valid and reliable assessment of adults' nature of engineering views

Background

Pre-college engineering education reform documents aim to help students develop engineering literacy. Helping students develop sophisticated epistemological views about engineering makes a significant contribution toward developing engineering-literate citizenry. Despite these widely recognized benefits, research on students' and teachers' epistemological views about engineering, commonly termed nature of engineering (NOE) views, has remained stagnant due to the absence of an open-ended questionnaire whose collected evidence of validity indicates its appropriateness for assessing students' and teachers' NOE understanding.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is threefold: (a) describing the development of a new open-ended instrument, the Views of Nature of Engineering Questionnaire version B (VNOE-B), (b) providing evidence in support of the VNOE-B validity and reliability, and (c) discussing the implications of the newly developed instrument for future research.

Design/Method

We aimed to provide evidence for the content and face validity of the VNOE-B by seeking input from a panel of science/engineering educators. Evidence for the construct validity was determined by analyzing the open-ended questionnaire and semistructured interview responses provided by pre-service and in-service teachers (considered novices in this field) and experts (engineers and engineering educators).

Results

Our findings indicate that the VNOE-B is consistently successful in differentiating between experts' and novices' NOE views. All engineering experts held sophisticated NOE views across all NOE views under study, whereas most novices held partially informed or uninformed NOE views.

Conclusion

Evidence of validity supports the appropriateness of the VNOE-B as an open-ended instrument for assessing adults' NOE views. Its application may guide teacher educators in determining the efficacy of teacher professional development in meeting the aim of improving in-service teachers' NOE understanding. Additionally, VNOE-B may potentially inform the success of pre-service teacher training.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Undergraduate Engineering Mental Health Help-Seeking Instrument (UE-MH-HSI): Development and validity evidence How can I help move my manuscript smoothly through the review process? Reasons and root causes: Conventional characterizations of doctoral engineering attrition obscure underlying structural issues Special issue on systematic reviews and meta-analyses in engineering education: Highlights and future research directions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1