Search

The development of systems thinking is considered a critical skill set for addressing interdisciplinary problems. This skill set is particularly important in the field of engineering, where engineers are often tasked with solving socio-technical problems that often require knowledge beyond their original discipline and practice in unfamiliar contexts. However, existing assessments often fail to accurately measure teachable knowledge or skills that constitute systems thinking. To investigate this issue, we compared students' performance on two previously and independently peer-reviewed scenario-based assessments for systems thinking: The Village of Abeesee and the Lake Urmia Vignette. Twenty undergraduate engineering students participated in a multi-phase case study utilizing think aloud protocols and semi-structured interview methods to elicit the approaches students took thinking across the two instruments and past experiences that they felt prepared them to solve these ill-structured problems. We found that the way a scenario is presented to students impacts their subsequent problem-solving approach, which complicates assessment of systems thinking. Additionally, students identified only limited opportunities for the development of ill-structured problem-solving skills necessary for systems thinking. Our findings inform future work on improving systems thinking assessments and emphasize the importance of more intentionally supplying opportunities for students to practice solving ill-structured problems throughout the curriculum. Published version

Additional file 1. The online supplemental material.

Enrollment in engineering and computer science postsecondary degree programs and careers (note: hereafter encapsulated by “engineering”) is not equally distributed across all segments of the population, despite continued investments and efforts to address this gap. This study aimed to better understand the transition from high school into enrollment in postsecondary engineering and computer science bachelor’s programs. Although our original goal was to examine enrollments across all Virginia public high schools for students attending a four-year university, either directly from high school or transferring from community college, we broadened the analysis to consider enrollments in engineering programs at community colleges as well based on early findings. We tracked (anonymous) individual students from Virginia public high schools into postsecondary enrollment (N=685,429 students, high school graduating years 2007-2014) using data from the Virginia Longitudinal Data System (VLDS). The VLDS connects student-level administrative data from the Department of Education (PK-12) to postsecondary records from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. To better understand or “unpack” why certain schools and divisions yield different engineering enrollment rates, we explored student data in VLDS, such as high school course taking, and also interviewed administrators, school counselors, and teachers from five purposefully sampled regional sites across the state. It is important to note that these data are based on cohorts that completed high school and enrolled in postsecondary institutions prior to the existence of COVID-19. It is too early to understand the effects of COVID-19 on pathways into engineering and computer science postsecondary institutions, but we would anticipate that observed inequities would likely deepen. Our results shed light on demographic and school-based patterns that could be used to (a) guide conversations around local and state policy; and (b) increase and broaden enrollment in engineering in Virginia. In addition to this summary report, we include: 1) analyses specific to your high school/division, and 2) a reflective tool aimed to help guide conversations with local stakeholders to think through these reports and analyses.

Engineering education is increasingly becoming considered an important component of STEM integration in formal pre-college settings. Professional development programs take a significant role in helping teachers develop necessary classroom practices to integrate engineering into their curriculum. The COVID pandemic has further complicated instructional conditions, necessitating emergency remote learning methods to continue instruction amidst safety concerns. Combined with a general struggle to scaffold integration of engineering in K-12 classrooms, emergent conditions that restrict instructional choices such as pandemics threaten to repeatedly aggravate future efforts and make it prudent to consider the pedagogical choices teachers are able to make for STEM integration and what future professional development programs should try to do with teachers to enable them. This research aims to describe and explain the conditions and dynamics related to teacher pedagogical choice to employ engineering design activities in their classes both within the context of a partnership program and during the COVID pandemic. Using end-of-program semi-structured interviews with participant teachers in the VT PEERS (Virginia Tech Partnering with Educators and Engineers in Rural Schools) program collected in the midst of the pandemic, data was coded with a focus upon identifying connections with a dynamic framework for pedagogical choice as well as identifying and explaining the expansion of practices in the two contexts. The coding process yielded a set of themes for conditions and developments teachers experienced in the process of conducting classes with changes induced by the program and by measures in response to COVID. Findings from the study show that teachers with supports that overcome or nullify inhibitive factors for pedagogical choice will be able to adopt and develop innovative practices. Teachers balance proposed changes with their own sense of professional expectations influenced by internalized, structural, and cultural conceptions of their work. Remote learning modalities and COVID-induced safety measures constrained the ability to teach according to familiar principles of instruction, harming teachers' beliefs and development in the practice of the modalities. Based on these findings, the framework for teacher pedagogical choice showed VT PEERS' effectiveness in its opening presentation and execution to set the stage for teachers to make innovative choices to employ engineering activities, yet it was not as useful in describing how the remote learning measures taken during COVID would not lead to expanded practices for that modality. Thus, there is a need for a model that includes complex interactions between the teachers and their environment that promote or inhibit teacher agency. Such a model would inform a more empowering design and execution of professional development initiatives than feature-dependent frameworks. COVID also demonstrates that preparation will be necessary to equip teachers with more efficacious and flexible practices for remote learning to prevent further damage to student outcomes given that the potential for recurring pandemic conditions in the future makes remote learning more of an expectation than an emergency. Doctor of Philosophy Engineering education, the E in STEM, continues to gain attention as a needed subject in pre-college schooling. To do this, teachers primarily receive help from professional development programs to learn how to use engineering in their classrooms. The COVID pandemic created a new condition for instruction that may complicate the process of using engineering, and the restrictions to how teachers teach may adversely affect their choices when it comes to engineering. Understanding the process of teachers making the innovative choices and how they come to do so is an important topic for research. This research aims to describe and explain the choices teachers make for the practices they use in the classroom to employ engineering design activities within the context of a partnership program and during the COVID pandemic. Using end-of-program semi-structured interviews with teachers as part of their involvement in VT PEERS (Virginia Tech Partnering with Educators and Engineers in Rural Schools), I looked at teachers' perspectives on their experiences and struggles using a theory of choice-making to inform analysis. Findings from the study show that teachers that receive appropriate support and feel free to choose what they do are able to make innovative choices and become more skillful. Teachers are influenced to make choices by what they believe their job requires of them; the way schools work and how others view the role of schools affects this belief as much as the teachers themselves do. However, when choice is restricted and teachers cannot teach the way they would choose to, such as during COVID with distant and computer-based classes, they are neither growing nor thriving in their job. The theory for teacher choice used to analyze these interviews helped understand the role of the partnership in helping teachers choose to use engineering activities in classrooms, but helped less to understand how teachers struggled during COVID. It appears that when teachers actually have choices, they can be innovative; therefore, professional development programs should consider that promoting teacher choice is a necessary initial step to bring about change in schools, including for engineering education. Furthermore, COVID may not be the last pandemic within this generation, and education reforms (including for engineering education) may need to account for future instances of remote schooling as an expectation rather than considering it to be an unfortunate, one-off issue of education.

To diversify the engineering workplace, we need to broaden participation in engineering. One way to broaden participation is through encouraging integration of engineering activities at home where parents, or more broadly caregivers, facilitate or support engineering activities for their children. This idea is reinforced by previous literature that identifies that (1) elementary-aged children can and should do engineering activities, (2) parents have a longstanding and significant impact on their children in many different ways, (3) parent-child relationships are unique and offer great potential for positive outcomes, and (4) parents can be effective in teaching engineering. While at-home engineering activities are already prevalent, the support resources attached to them are currently lacking for parents. This research is motivated by a desire to understand how parents think about and engage in engineering activities with their children to inform the most effective ways to support parents. This research is scoped to specifically look at the knowledge that 12 parents utilize in engineering activities and identify or perceive as being important in these activities. Given that there are many different types of engineering activities that exist, three different engineering activities that varied by level of structure were included in this study. The well-structured, semi-structured, and ill-structured activities all included a Marble Run toy and a storybook about Mars Rovers that was meant to support an authentic context for the activities. A multiple case study approach was used, where each case represented one of the activities with four parent participants in each case. Data collected for each parent participant included a pre-survey, observed activity engagement, reflection, and pre- and post-interviews. All of this data was coded with a priori codes from the Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework and emergent codes. The findings of this research highlight the role of the following on parent-child engagement in an engineering activity: the rhythm and routine of the parent-child dyad, external influences and independent individual experiences of the parent and the child, parents' ideas about engineering, and the structure of the activity. While the Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework was a useful tool for classification of knowledge, the research findings highlight the role of past experiences and external resources in shaping parents' views on the best way to support their children which is not well documented in this framework. These findings suggest that Frames of Practice may be a better theory to use in thinking about and studying parent-child engagement. Parents utilize existing frames of practice for engaging with their children to dictate the general teaching strategies to utilize. Within specific activities, they also refer to similar neighboring experiences and external resources to refine their frames of practice and modify their strategies used. While parents implement engineering knowledge and strategies, they do not recognize that what they are doing is engineering. There is also variation in the quantity and quality of strategies that are needed for engagement in the different activities, with less structure indicating more skills required of the facilitator and more positive outcomes for the child. For stakeholders invested in parent engagement, this research suggests that we need to (1) validate parents' existing and effective ideas about teaching and engineering by giving parents language that will help them refine their frames of practice through reflection, (2) encourage the use of more advanced pedagogical strategies or engineering strategies, (3) explicitly explain the value of them using the word engineering with their child and the value of continuing to use and talk about the engineering strategies they already implement (brainstorming, planning) with their child, and (4) ensure that parents see the potential engineering connections in the activity. Doctor of Philosophy Society needs more qualified engineers and one way to encourage a more diverse workforce is to support greater engagement in engineering at a young age in an effort to support interest development. One way to have more children engaging with engineering is to have parents, or more broadly caregivers, incorporate these activities at home with their children. Previous research has already shown that (1) elementary-aged children can and should do engineering activities, (2) parents have a longstanding and significant impact on their children in many different ways, (3) parent-child relationships are unique and offer great potential for positive outcomes, and (4) parents can be effective in teaching engineering. At-home learning is already prevalent and many engineering activities that parents can implement at home already exist, but the resources and information that come with these activities fall short of providing adequate support for parents. This research is motivated by a desire to understand how parents think about and engage in engineering activities with their children to inform the most effective ways to support parents. This research study describes how 12 parents think about and utilize information when engaging with their children in engineering activities. Many different types of engineering activities exist, and one of the ways in which they can be classified is by their level of structure. A well-structured, semi-structured, and ill-structured activity was included in this research where all activities included a Marble Run toy and a storybook about Mars Rovers that provided a realistic way to think about the activity in real-life terms. Each parent participant completed a pre-survey, observed activity engagement, reflection, and pre- and post-interviews as part of this research. To analyze this data, parent data was analyzed and contextualized prior to building cases formed around the different engineering activities. The findings of this research highlight the role of the following on parent-child engagement in an engineering activity: the rhythm and routine of the parent-child dyad, external influences and independent individual experiences of the parent and the child, parents' ideas about engineering, and the structure of the activity. Parents utilize existing ideas for engaging with their children to dictate the general teaching strategies they use, but they also refer to neighboring experiences and external resources to refine these ideas and modify their strategies used for the specific activity. While parents implement engineering knowledge and strategies, they do not recognize that what they are doing is engineering. There is also variation in the quantity and quality of strategies that are needed for engagement in the different activities, with less structure indicating more skills required of the facilitator and more positive outcomes for the child. For those invested in parent engagement, this research suggests that we need to (1) validate parents' existing and effective ideas about teaching and engineering by giving parents language that will help them refine their ideas about teaching engineering through reflection, (2) encourage the use of more advanced teaching strategies or engineering ideas, (3) explicitly explain the value of using the word engineering with their child and the value of continuing to use and talk about the engineering strategies they already implement (brainstorming, planning) with their child, and (4) ensure that parents see the potential for engineering connections in the activity.

Despite the significant growth of inter-institutional research collaboration, there has been a disparity of partnerships between universities with different history, missions and identities. In competition for limited resources, inter-institutional collaborations among Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) and research-intensive universities appear more frequent and better supported than between PWIs and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) or other minority-serving institutions (MSIs). Developing grant funding strategies is one way to enhance collaboration between faculty at HBCUs/MSIs and faculty at PWIs and improve pathways for success among traditionally underrepresented groups. The Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science (ICTAS) at Virginia Tech, a research-intensive PWI, launched a unique seed funding program, the ICTAS Diversity and Inclusion Seed Investment (ICTAS DandI Investment), in 2016 to build direct faculty-to-faculty research partnerships between faculty at Virginia Tech and faculty at various HBCUs/MSIs. With the rarity of such initiatives and recognizing the primacy of the topic, this doctoral study was defined in the context of the ICTAS DandI Investment to investigate the little-understood phenomenon of research collaboration between faculty at HBCUs/MSIs and faculty at PWIs. The study informed by several bodies of literature including social psychology, inter-organizational relationships, and ethics and moral philosophy. A qualitative multiple case study approach was employed to explore factors that influence the sustainability of collaboration considering the perspectives of faculty in the context of the ICTAS DandI Investment. The ICTAS DandI Investment-related reports as well as survey and interview data were collected from 15 faculty members representing eight collaborative teams, across Virginia Tech and six different HBCUs. The findings indicate that potential collaboration and sustainability of partnerships rely on dynamic interactions between three dimensions in temporal context: Structure, broader institutional and contextual elements, Diversity, similarities and differences between team members' characteristics, abilities, and identities, and Relation, interactions and exchanges between collaborators and their outputs in doing collaboration. The study shows ICTAS has been successful in facilitating fruitful collaborations among faculty participants at different institutions. Based on the findings in this study I recommend that forging and maintaining long-term relationships of collaborative teams across HBCUs and PWIs need attention to the importance of capacity building over time and broader organizational and administrative factors such as support structure and credit allocation. Further, I recommend that administrators and policymakers to develop similar programs as a strategy for broadening participation and enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion, not merely as a means for enhancing research productivity. Doctor of Philosophy Research collaborations between faculty members have become a common practice in higher education. The number of research collaborations across institutions, inter-institutional research collaborations, has increased significantly over the last few decades. However, there has been a disparity of partnerships between universities with different history, missions and identities. Collaborations among elite universities and Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) appear better supported and far more common than collaborations between Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) or other minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and PWIs. Considering the rarity of faculty collaboration across HBCUs/MSIs and PWIs and the lack of research studies on the process and dynamics of faculty collaboration, this dissertation study aimed to enhance the understanding of research collaboration between faculty at HBCUs/MSIs and PWIs. The study was defined in the context of a seed funding program, the ICTAS Diversity and Inclusion Seed Investment Program (ICTAS DandI Investment) at Virginia Tech. The program aims to facilitate research partnerships between faculty at Virginia Tech, a PWI, and faculty at HBCUs/MSIs. The general phenomenon of interest was faculty research collaboration across HBCUs/MSIs and PWIs. The dissertation specifically investigated factors that facilitate sustainable collaboration between faculty at HBCUs/MSIs and a PWI, primarily through understating faculty experiences with collaboration. In this study, sustainability has been characterized as continued working relationship between faculty at Virginia Tech and faculty at HBCUs/MSIs beyond the funding period, when they first received support through the ICTAS DandI Investment. Fifteen faculty members representing eight collaborative teams, across Virginia Tech and six different HBCUs, participated in this study. The primary sources of data were individual interviews and survey questionnaires. The data analysis and comparison across different teams indicated several factors essential to sustainable inter-institutional faculty collaboration. The factors were further aggregated to three broader dimensions: Structure, broader institutional and contextual elements; Diversity, similarities and differences between team members' characteristics, abilities, and identities; and Relation, interactions and exchanges between collaborators and their outputs in doing collaboration. In addition, the findings indicated that time plays an essential role in team processes. Based on the findings in this study, I recommend that forging and maintaining long-term relationships of collaborative teams across HBCUs and PWIs need attention to the importance of capacity building over time and broader organizational and administrative factors such as support structure and credit allocation. Further, I recommend that administrators and policymakers to develop similar programs as a strategy for broadening participation and enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion, not merely as a means for enhancing research productivity.

Education research has investigated teaching practices and uncovered a potential disconnect between instructors' knowledge and beliefs about teaching and their actual teaching practices. While experts of the subject matter, their understanding of teaching and their awareness of their own teaching capability significantly impact their enacted practices. However, there is a dearth of research in engineering on this aspect, particularly in electrical engineering (EE) education. EE as an applied science comprises many abstract concepts among other engineering disciplines that require strategic teaching practices to facilitate student learning. The intangible nature of these concepts, such as the foundational circuits concepts, raises the likelihood of acquiring issues in teaching among engineering instructors that can impact the construction of contextual knowledge and skills among engineering students. In this qualitative case study, the primary aim was to study the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) faculty who taught the first and second-year ECE courses at Virginia Tech. Answers were sought through the overarching research question how do engineering instructors' knowledge and beliefs about engineering teaching influence their enacted practice in teaching introductory electric circuits? using a synthesized framework of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), instructor beliefs and Watkins and Marsick's Continuous Learning Model (WMCLM). The significant findings from the analysis of interviews, class recordings, and Canvas course materials suggested that the ECE instructors' formed PCK and held beliefs can have an affirmative influence on enacted practice, meaning, their knowledge and beliefs about engineering teaching reinforced their enacted practice. This influence was apparent in their various student-centric approaches to contextualizing the ECE concepts using their combined experiences. In contrast, constructive influence captured the potential causes of "disconnect" between their formed "knowledge and beliefs" and their enacted practice. This influence was rooted in how the abstract fundamental ECE concepts, in most cases, required contexts outside of the instructors' core experiences. The attempt to use multiple strategies to attain the course goals had created oversight tendencies on their implementation magnified by the online and hybrid modality, especially with the team-teaching design of the base ECE courses. Such relevant issues needed time-constraining solutions from the course instructor to the administrative level. This work can further advance the instructional methods in EE education after understanding the influences of instructors' beliefs and knowledge on their enacted practices to teach foundational concepts in ECE. More broadly, this work will have implications for educators, curriculum designers, and researchers who seek to improve engineering instruction and address the current issues in teaching engineering. The outcomes provide research opportunities to interrogate how we can use instructional practices to design methodologies that can elucidate and solve issues on instructors' enacted practices constructively. More importantly, the results of this study can be utilized to design professional development programs for engineering teaching faculty by having a framework to continuously examine instructors' beliefs and knowledge to support their teaching practice. Doctor of Philosophy In the past years, research has been done in uncovering why there have been issues in teaching practices. While instructors are assumed experts of the content they are teaching, research suggests they must develop an awareness of their ability to teach to improve their enacted practice. However, there is a need for further research in electrical engineering (EE) education in this aspect because of the challenges associated with the abstract nature of its fundamental content for which engineering students' learning can be heavily impacted by engineering instructors teaching practices. In this case study, the primary aim was to study the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) faculty who taught the first and second-year ECE courses at Virginia Tech. Answers were sought through the overarching research question how do engineering instructors' knowledge and beliefs about engineering teaching influence their enacted practice in teaching introductory electric circuits? using a synthesized model of instructor knowledge, beliefs, and practices. The significant findings from the analysis of interviews, class recordings, and Canvas course materials suggested that the ECE instructors' knowledge and beliefs can have an affirmative influence on enacted practice, meaning, their knowledge and beliefs about engineering teaching reinforced their enacted practice. This influence was seen in their various use of real-world examples around the ECE concepts using their own experiences to provide context. In contrast, constructive influence captured how the abstract fundamental ECE concepts, in most cases, required contexts outside of the instructors' core experiences. The attempt to use many different strategies to achieve the course goals had created issues on their implementation. This has been magnified by the online and hybrid modality, especially with the team-teaching setup for which the resolution relies on administrative-level decisions. This work can further advance the instructional methods in EE education after understanding the influences of instructors' beliefs and knowledge on their enacted practices to teach foundational concepts in ECE.