Search

Background: Despite well-documented benefits, instructor adoption of active learning has been limited in engineering education. Studies have identified barriers to instructors' adoption of active learning, but there is no well-tested instrument to measure instructors perceptions of these barriers. Purpose: We developed and tested an instrument to measure instructors' perceptions of barriers to adopting active learning and identify the constructs that coherently categorize those barriers. Method: We used a five-phase process to develop an instrument to measure instructors' perceived barriers to adopting active learning. In Phase 1, we built upon the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS) to create a draft instrument. In Phases 2 and 3, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on an initial 45-item instrument and a refined 21-item instrument, respectively. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Phases 4 and 5 to test the factor structure identified in Phases 2 and 3. Results: Our final instrument consists of 17 items and four factors: (1) student preparation and engagement; (2) instructional support; (3) instructor comfort and confidence; and (4) institutional environment/rewards. Instructor responses indicated that time considerations do not emerge as a standalone factor. Conclusions: Our 17-item instrument exhibits a sound factor structure and is reliable, enabling the assessment of perceived barriers to adopting active learning in different contexts. The four factors align with an existing model of instructional change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Although time is a substantial instructor concern that did not comprise a standalone factor, it is closely related to multiple constructs in our final model.

Background: Despite many initiatives to improve graduate student and faculty diversity in engineering, there has been little or no change in the percentage of people from racially minoritized backgrounds in either of these groups. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this paper is to counter the scarcity fallacy, in which institutions blame the "shortage" of qualified people from traditionally marginalized backgrounds for their own lack of representation, related to prospective PhD students and prospective faculty from traditionally marginalized groups. This study identifies the BS-to-PhD and PhD-to-tenure-track-faculty institutional pathways of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino engineering doctorate recipients. Design/Method: Using the US Survey of Earned Doctorates, we tracked the BS-to-PhD institutional pathways of 3952 Black/African American and 5732 Hispanic/Latino engineering PhD graduates. We also used the Survey of Doctorate Recipients to track the PhD-to-tenure-track faculty pathways of 104 Black/African American and 211 Hispanic/Latino faculty. Results: The majority of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino PhD graduates in this study did not earn their BS degrees from Top 25 institutions, but rather from Not Top 25, non-US, and minority-serving institutions. The results also show the relatively small proportion of PhD earners and faculty members who move into highly ranked institutions after earning a bachelor's degree from outside this set of institutions. Conclusions: The findings of this study have important implications for graduate student and faculty recruitment by illustrating that recruitment from a narrow range of institutions (i.e., Top 25 institutions) is unlikely to result in increased diversity among racially minoritized PhDs and faculty in engineering.

This paper reports on a new model for faculty hiring workshops involving three components. The first part (Part 1) of the work is an asynchronous, self-guided course that includes video reflections and commentaries from some of our own colleagues about inclusive excellence, hiring legalities, and departmental culture. The second part (Part 2) is a virtual 90-minute interactive session with breakout room discussions overseen by a facilitator. The last part (Part 3) is a monthly offering of optional one-hour discussion sessions to answer additional questions, support university-wide conversations and allow participants to probe more deeply into diversity hiring opportunities and challenges. To evaluate the workshops, we administered a survey immediately following Part 2 and later conducted interviews with participants at the conclusion of their faculty search. Survey results show that nearly all elements of the workshops were well-received and participants reported feeling confident in their understanding of inclusive excellence, legal issues associated with hiring, and the potential for unintended bias in reviewing candidate files. The paper also provides an analysis of the interview and survey data as well as some conclusions about the impact of these new efforts on inclusive hiring.

Despite numerous benefits, students do not always respond positively and engage in active learning in STEM courses. Understanding the factors that influence how students' respond to active learning is important to devising interventions that support their learning, especially for students from historically underrepresented groups. This study examines the influence of students' belongingness and self-efficacy on their affective and behavioural response to active learning and the moderating influence of students' gender-identity. We surveyed 579 students from 25 Science, Engineering, and Computer Science courses across 14 universities. Using a latent indirect-effect model, we found that belongingness and self-efficacy independently predicted students' affective response to active learning and evaluation of the class. Belongingness also predicted students' self-reports of their behavioural participation in active learning. Using measurement invariance, we also found that, despite mean differences in value, positivity, and distraction, there were no gender differences in the strength of relations between variables. These findings suggest that belongingness and self-efficacy play an important role in how all students respond to active learning and that fostering an atmosphere that supports both may reduce student's resistance to engaging in active learning.

Active learning increases student learning, engagement, and interest in STEM and subsequently, the number and diversity of graduates. Yet, its adoption has been slow, partially due to instructors' concerns about student resistance. Consequently, researchers proposed explanation and facilitation instructional strategies designed to reduce this resistance. Using surveys from 2-year and 4-year institutions including minority-serving institutions, we investigate the relationship between students' affective and behavioral responses to active learning, instructors' use of strategies, and active learning type. Analyses revealed low levels of student resistance and significant relationships between both explanation and facilitation strategy use and positive student responses.

Contribution: This article confirms the continued marginalization of undergraduate LGBTQ+ electrical and computer engineering (ECE) students and describes how they navigate their (non)visibility in engineering. Best practices to increase diversity and inclusion are discussed. Background: LGBTQ+ ECE undergraduate students experience a chilly, sometimes hostile climate in engineering. As a result, they experience lower sense of belonging, worse academic outcomes, and greater mental and emotional stress in their daily lives. Research Questions: How are LGBTQ+ ECE undergraduate students' perceptions of ECE culture, sense of belonging, perceptions of discrimination, and (non)visibility affected by their identities? How do they navigate their (non)visibility in engineering contexts? How do LGBTQ+ ECE undergraduate students perceive and navigate engineering culture and their (non)visibility in engineering spaces, potentially integrating LGBTQ+, race, ethnicity, gender, and other identities into their perceptions? Methodology: A mixed-methods study with a survey and focus groups was conducted at a large southern public university in the United States. Survey participants included 854 undergraduate ECE students, of which 9% were strongly LGBTQ+. Focus group participants included 9 self-selected LGBTQ+ ECE students from the survey sample. Findings: LGBTQ+ ECE undergraduate students face noninclusive environments, marginalizing experiences, and cis-heteronormativity in engineering as a result of their multiple marginalized identities that intersect with their LGBTQ+ identity.

This study explores STEM doctoral student agency with respect to funding as it relates to degree completion and career preparation. We interviewed 39 graduate students in chemistry, physics, and engineering at two large, public, research-intensive institutions in the USA. Although STEM doctoral students have a high expectation of full funding, instability of funding and unavailability of desired funding types limit the agency of some students. When several types of funding are available, advisors can encourage student agency in pursuing opportunities to gain skills or networking connections through teaching assistantships, research assistantships, or internships. However, students were not able to articulate specific ways that assistantships prepared them for nonacademic positions, which is an important direction for future work.

The benefits of undergraduate research include gains in research and communication skills, increased interest in graduate studies, and improvement in student persistence. Several studies have shown that undergraduate research can help promote career pathways into engineering by increasing enrollment and retention rates. The REU program described and evaluated in this paper aims to achieve similar goals, including providing students with basic research and professional skills to succeed in graduate school and beyond, increasing students' awareness of career opportunities in science and engineering fields and promoting graduate study as a future educational goal. These goals are achieved by engaging undergraduate science and engineering majors in cutting-edge nanotechnology and engineering research projects, allowing them to experience graduate level research. Moreover, the program offers research opportunities to students from backgrounds traditionally underrepresented in STEM (women and minorities), and students who might not otherwise have similar research opportunities. Program evaluation has been performed by analyzing responses from pre- and post-surveys of the 2016 to 2019 cohorts. The main focus of this analysis is investigating the impact of the program in increasing participants' self-confidence and awareness of opportunities in STEM career and graduate studies. The analysis of qualitative and quantitative data shows gains in scientific self-reported skills and a positive impact of the experience in promoting graduate school and STEM careers. This study represents an example of REU programs in the field of nanotechnologies designed for undergraduate students.

Background: Despite the evidence supporting the effectiveness of active learning in undergraduate STEM courses, the adoption of active learning has been slow. One barrier to adoption is instructors' concerns about students' affective and behavioral responses to active learning, especially student resistance. Numerous education researchers have documented their use of active learning in STEM classrooms. However, there is no research yet that systematically analyzes these studies for strategies to aid implementation of active learning and address students' affective and behavioral responses. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review and identify 29 journal articles and conference papers that researched active learning, affective and behavioral student responses, and recommended at least one strategy for implementing active learning. In this paper, we ask: (1) What are the characteristics of studies that examine affective and behavioral outcomes of active learning and provide instructor strategies?; and (2) What instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning do the authors of these studies provide? Results: In our review, we noted that most active learning activities involved in-class problem solving within a traditional lecture-based course (N = 21). We found mostly positive affective and behavioral outcomes for students' self-reports of learning, participation in the activities, and course satisfaction (N = 23). From our analysis of the 29 studies, we identified eight strategies to aid implementation of active learning based on three categories. Explanation strategies included providing students with clarifications and reasons for using active learning. Facilitation strategies entailed working with students and ensuring that the activity functions as intended. Planning strategies involved working outside of the class to improve the active learning experience. Conclusion: To increase the adoption of active learning and address students' responses to active learning, this study provides strategies to support instructors. The eight strategies are listed with evidence from numerous studies within our review on affective and behavioral responses to active learning. Future work should examine instructor strategies and their connection with other affective outcomes, such as identity, interests, and emotions.

Background: Students' attitudinal beliefs related to how they see themselves in STEM have been a focal point of recent research, given their well-documented links to retention and persistence. These beliefs are most often assessed cross-sectionally, and as such, we lack a thorough understanding of how they may fluctuate over time. Using matched survey responses from undergraduate engineering students (n = 278), we evaluate if, and to what extent, students' engineering attitudinal beliefs (attainment value, utility value, self-efficacy, interest, and identity) change over a 1-year period. Further, we examine whether there are differences based on gender and student division, and then compare results between cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses to illustrate weaknesses in our current understanding of these constructs. Results: Our study revealed inconsistencies between cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the same dataset. Cross-sectional analyses indicated a significant difference by student division for engineering utility value and engineering interest, but no significant differences by gender for any variable. However, longitudinal analyses revealed statistically significant decreases in engineering utility value, engineering self-efficacy, and engineering interest for lower division students and significant decreases in engineering attainment value for upper division students over a one-year period. Further, longitudinal analyses revealed a gender gap in engineering self-efficacy for upper division students, where men reported higher means than women. Conclusions: Our analyses make several contributions. First, we explore attitudinal differences by student division not previously documented. Second, by comparing across methodologies, we illustrate that different conclusions can be drawn from the same data. Since the literature around these variables is largely cross-sectional, our understanding of students' engineering attitudes is limited. Our longitudinal analyses show variation in engineering attitudinal beliefs that are obscured when data is only examined cross-sectionally. These analyses revealed an overall downward trend within students for all beliefs that changed significantly--losses which may foreshadow attrition out of engineering. These findings provide an opportunity to introduce targeted interventions to build engineering utility value, engineering self-efficacy, and engineering interest for student groups whose means were lower than average.

Background: In recent years, makerspaces have become increasingly common venues of STEM education and are rapidly being incorporated into undergraduate programs. These spaces give students and instructors access to advanced design technology and facilitate the incorporation of a wide variety of projects into the curriculum; however, their impacts on students are not yet fully understood. Using matched survey responses (i.e., repeated measures) from undergraduate students enrolled in engineering courses that assigned a makerspace-based project, we evaluate how the use of a university makerspace impacts students' attitudes towards design, engineering, and technology. Further, we examine whether there are differences based on students' year in program, gender, and race. Results: Paired t-tests were used to analyze whether and how nine factors changed within individual students over one semester. Analyses revealed that students who visited the facility showed significant gains in measures of innovation orientation, design self-efficacy, innovation self-efficacy, technology self-efficacy, belonging to the makerspace, and belonging to the engineering community. Subsequently, repeated measures analyses of variance (RMANOVAs) on the students who visited the makerspace revealed significant main effects of students' year in program, gender, and race, as well as interactional effects of both year in program and race with time. Conclusions: These results affirm the value of incorporating makerspace-based projects into STEM curricula, especially during early coursework. However, our analyses revealed consistent gender gaps in measures of self-efficacy before and after using the makerspace. Similarly, gains in belonging to the makerspace were not equal across racial groups. We conclude that while makerspaces are fulfilling some of their promise for educating innovative problem solvers, more attention needs to be paid to avoid reproducing disparities in STEM education that are already experienced by female students and racial minorities.

Used in higher education for many decades, seed grants are now beginning to be applied as a strategy to advance diversity, equity and inclusion goals, including rebuilding community post-pandemic. There is little research on the effectiveness of seed grants for such communal goals. This work is innovative in two key ways. First, these seed grants focus on promoting a strong sense of community at the institution rather than promoting individual investigators and research projects. Second, engaging students and staff as principal investigators (PIs) disrupts power structures in the academy. We present a systematic analysis of seed grant project reports (n = 45) and survey data (n = 56) from two seed grant programs implemented at the same institution. A diverse set of projects was proposed and funded. Projects had a positive impact on awardees and their departments and colleges. Seed grant program activities were successful at building community among awardees and recognizing individual efforts. Most noteworthy are the career development opportunities for graduate students, postdocs and staff, which are afforded by changes to PI eligibility. We conclude that seed grant programs have the potential for organizational learning and change around community building in higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One emerging approach to diversity and inclusion in engineering is to take an assets-based view of what students from nondominant communities bring to their education and work experiences. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this review is to understand how community cultural wealth (CCW), an assets-based framework, has been applied in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education research. We address research questions focused on (a) the characteristics of studies using CCW in STEM education, (b) examples of the six types of capital (aspirational, linguistic, familial, navigational, social, and resistant) in STEM educational settings, and (c) gaps and opportunities in how CCW is being applied in STEM education. Design/Method: We identified 33 dissertations, theses, journal articles, and conference papers using systematic review procedures. To qualify, each study must present empirical data and include at least one type of CCW capital in its results or discussion. We coded study characteristics, such as methods, participant populations, and research setting. We qualitatively analyzed each of the six types of CCW capital. Results: Studies tended to focus on higher education settings, engineering, and qualitative methods, particularly student interviews. We identified several specific engineering-relevant examples of assets for each type of capital. Future work should collect data from faculty, staff, and family members identified in several studies as important to CCW in addition to foregrounding student voices. Conclusions: In synthesizing existing studies, this review provides insight into how an assets-based framework is being interpreted and provides a foundation for more assets-based perspectives in future engineering education work.

Background: Graduate education literature tends to focus on faculty careers with little attention to industry careers. However, more than one-third of U.S. engineering doctorates enter industry. Purpose: Our purpose is to understand engineering graduate students' interest in industry, academia, and government careers as it relates to their graduate engineering identities. Design/Method: A total of 249 engineering thesis master's and doctoral students completed a survey about their graduate engineering identities and career preferences. We created regression models to predict students' likelihood of pursuing careers in industry, academia, and government. Then, we used cluster analysis to understand the extent to which students are considering multiple options and used chi-squared and ANOVA tests to compare the clusters. Results: In the regression model predicting an academic career, research recognition and research performance/competence were positive predictors and engineering performance/competence was a negative predictor. Regression models of industry and government described less than 10% of the variance. Four clusters emerged, which collectively demonstrate that engineering graduate students are considering careers in multiple sectors. Students with internships during graduate study were more likely to pursue industry careers. Master's students were underrepresented in the cluster with highest likelihood of an academic career. International students were keeping more options open than some domestic students. There were also differences by engineering discipline. Conclusions: Engineering graduate students are considering multiple career sectors. Advisors and education researchers should focus not only on academic career preparation but also on industry and government career preparation, particularly on preparing for multiple options simultaneously.

This systematic review identifies factors that prior studies have identified as supporting the academic success of Latinx transfer students, who matriculate at 2-year institutions with respect to earning a 4-year baccalaureate degree in a STEM field. Since the students matriculate at a 2-year institution, they must, at some point in their academic career, transfer to a 4-year institution to earn the baccalaureate degree. Search and screening procedures identified 59 qualifying studies describing factors supporting persistence, transfer, or graduation of Latinx students matriculating at 2-year institutions. To synthesize findings, we coded the 31 quantitative, 22 qualitative, and six mixed methods studies according to unified themes. Nearly half the quantitative studies explored student characteristics alone, while some qualitative studies explicitly sought to identify assets Latinx students bring to higher education. None of the quantitative students utilized assets-based frameworks such as Yosso (Race Ethn Educ 8:69-91, 2005) to guide their analysis. All types of studies contributed to the conclusion that quality interactions with peers and staff support success of Latinx STEM transfer students. Specific details and strategies for institutions and their staff to support these interactions are described.

Recent research has supported the use of student-centered teaching practices, such as active learning, because of its effectiveness in improving student learning and retention when compared with traditional, lecture-based teaching practices. Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of active learning in improving STEM undergraduate education, the adoption of active learning by instructors has been slow for reasons, including negative student response to active learning. In this systematic literature review, we examine students' negative responses to active learning and reasons for the negative responses noted in 57 published STEM studies. Our findings identify three types of negative responses: affect, engagement, and evaluation. The reasons behind negative response represented six overarching categories based on student feedback: limited value, lack of time, difficulty and increased workload, lack of guidance, logistical difficulties, unfamiliarity with active learning, lack of preparation, and confidence. We leverage different theoretical perspectives to explain the reasons behind negative responses and offer insights for lowering the barrier for instructors to adopt active learning in STEM classrooms.

Doctoral student recruitment is a dynamic, complex, and under-researched phenomenon. There is steep competition between programs for recruiting students with large amounts of resources at stake, especially within the STEM fields, and programs do not operate in isolation within such environments. In this paper, we explore how graduate programs position themselves relative to other programs as they recruit STEM doctoral students. Drawing from 47 interviews with graduate program leaders, 49 interviews with graduate students, and 63 questionnaire responses from graduate program staff and administrators, this research analyzes common recruitment practices of STEM doctoral programs alongside student perspectives about their decision processes. We reveal how competitive forces may lead programs to adopt non-evidence-based recruitment strategies that may not align with either program leaders' stated values or students' priorities. Although program leaders expressed the importance of students prioritizing academic factors in their decisions, our data revealed that programs commonly utilize financial resources as their main recruitment mechanism in practice. By demonstrating this incongruence, our paper aims to illuminate a potential blind spot so programs might choose to change seemingly institutionalized processes that may be out of alignment with their own stated values and those of the students they are seeking to recruit.

Contribution: This paper shows that identification with engineering for engineering graduate students is positively and significantly predicted by engineering interest, competence, recognition, and interpersonal skills competence. Background: Prior studies of engineering identity on undergraduates identified several factors (e.g., engineering interest and engineering recognition) as positive predictors of identification of engineering. Engineering competence, achieved by participating in design projects, is a crucial part of students' efforts to become more innovative engineers. Identity theory is used to understand undergraduates' persistence in engineering, as students with stronger engineering identification are more likely to persist. More work is needed focusing on graduate students. Research Questions: Do engineering identity measurement frameworks studied for undergraduate students also apply to graduate students? Do they correlate with intention to complete the degree? What predicts the engineering identity of engineering master's and doctoral students? Methodology: Interviews informed development and adaptation of a multi-scale survey instrument. Factor analyses identified four factors that relate to graduate engineering identity: 1) engineering interest; 2) engineering recognition; 3) engineering competence; and 4) interpersonal skills competence. Three sequential multiple linear regression models were used to predict engineering graduate students' engineering identity. Findings: The final regression model, which includes student characteristics and the four factors resulting from confirmatory factor analysis, predicts 60% of the variance in engineering identity--substantially more than similar undergraduate engineering identity models. All four factors were significant and positive predictors of graduate students' engineering identity. The engineering recognition factor in particular needed adaptation to emphasize peers and faculty members over family, although family remained important.

Contribution: This paper explores the factors contributing to the development of engineering identity in Latinx students at two institutions. A better understanding of these factors will support the development of more inclusive engineering education environments and experiences. Background: Persistence of Latinx engineering students is of particular interest due to their underrepresentation in the field. Identity is a lens for understanding student persistence, but Latinx students are underrepresented in prior engineering identity studies. This paper seeks to identify the unique factors, academic and professional, that contribute to engineering identity development, and potential means for supporting the persistence of Latinx engineers. Research Questions: 1) What academic and professional affect factors predict engineering identity development of Latinx students? and 2) What role does the institution play in Latinx students' engineering identity development? Methodology: A mixed-methods approach was used to measure engineering identity based on a framework incorporating both academic and professional affect elements. Regression analyses were conducted on 892 responses to an online survey from Latinx engineering students, with additional insight from interviews with ten Latinx engineering students. Findings: Six of the nine factors analyzed (performance/competence, interest, recognition, analysis, framing and solving problems, and tinkering) were significant predictors of Latinx students' engineering identity, as were institution, gender, and having a parent with an engineering degree. Engineering identity was higher for Latinx students at the Hispanic Serving Institution, but none of the interaction terms were significant, so the relationship between these factors and engineering identity is similar at each institution.

Numerous national reports have identified the importance of significantly improving pathways that begin with Latinx students enrolling in 2-year institutions and ultimately completing baccalaureate degrees in STEM fields at 4-year institutions. Many programs using multiple interventions have been designed, implemented, and studied to achieve this goal. To synthesize what has been learned from studies of these programs, this article presents a systematic review of published studies of programs designed to support Latinx student success in 2-year institutions and successful transfer to 4-year institutions, particularly for STEM majors. A total of 49 quantitative, 9 qualitative, and 16 mixed-methods studies published as reports, articles, or dissertations since 1980 were identified that met the criteria for the review. Studies covered a wide range of interventions, including mentoring, counseling, advising, study groups, tutoring, scholarships, orientations, career services, undergraduate research, articulation agreements, and transfer programs. Individually, these studies report positive influences on student success outcomes, including 2- and 4-year graduation, transfer to a 4-year institution, retention, and success in individual courses. However, the number of qualifying studies was surprisingly small, considering the importance of improving success of Latinx students and the length of time during which the problem has been repeatedly emphasized. Few interventions have been undertaken from explicitly assets-based perspectives or theoretical frameworks. The lack of explicit frameworks underlying interventions--combined with a sole/primary focus on students--suggests many interventions were approached from a deficit-based perspective. Further, the study found no pattern of replication studies that might confirm effectiveness of potentially promising interventions. Based on our analysis of evaluations presented in the studies, it does not appear that the research community has developed agreed-upon methods to evaluate commonly agreed-upon outcomes. Finally, no intervention has been sufficiently supported that widespread implementation could be recommended.

Background: In addition to the benefits of a diverse faculty, many institutions are under pressure from students and administrators to increase the number of faculty from historically excluded backgrounds. Despite increases in the numbers of engineering PhD earners from these groups, the percentages of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino tenure‐track faculty have not increased, and the percentage of women remains low. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify how experiences in graduate school encourage or deter PhD earners from historically excluded groups in pursuing an engineering academic career. Method: We conducted 20 semi‐structured interviews with engineering PhD students and recent graduates, with half of participants interested and half disinterested in pursuing an academic career after graduation. Results: Three key factors emerged as strongly influential on participants' desire to pursue an academic career: their relationship with their advisor, their perception of their advisor's work–life balance, and their perception of the culture of academia. Participants extrapolated their experiences in graduate school to their imagined lives as faculty. The results illuminate the reasons why engineering PhD earners from historically underrepresented groups remain in or leave the academic career pathway after graduate school. Conclusions: The findings of this study have important implications for how graduate students' and postdoc's relationships with their advisors as well as perceptions of their advisors' work–life balances and the culture of academia affect future faculty. We make recommendations on what students, faculty, and administrators can do to create a more inclusive environment to encourage students from historically excluded groups to consider academic careers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Science Foundation's Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program (NSF, 2012) supports partnerships between K-12 school districts and institutions of higher education (IHEs) and has been funding projects to improve STEM education in K-12 since 2002. As of 2011, a total of 178 MSP projects have received support as part of a STEM education investment of over $900 million. One important movement over the past decade has been increasing interest in incorporating engineering and design content in K-12 teaching and learning, a strategy validated in the National Research Council report, "A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts and Core Ideas" (NRC, 2011). The goals of K-12 engineering and design content traditionally have been to prepare students to think critically, creatively, and independently by solving problems with real-world applications. Additional benefits more recently identified are the potential for recruitment and better preparation of future engineering students. In an effort to explore how engineering and design are being implemented in MSP projects, the authors synthesize strategies and findings from the NSF MSP portfolio, including publicly available award information from nsf.gov and MSPnet.org. This descriptive analysis is supplemented by data from annual project surveys conducted by a contractor (Westat) on behalf of NSF. The authors report on the ways that engineering and design content are being implemented by MSP projects, along with associated challenges and opportunities. (Contains 4 tables and 1 figure.)

In this paper, we demonstrate how theory can inform the design of a program to prepare graduate students for faculty careers. Preparing Future Faculty programs within and beyond engineering are not new, but explicit application of Communities of Practice and related literature is novel. We describe a prestigious teaching fellowship program that spans three years of increasing instructional responsibility, and present assessment data to describe the role of faculty mentoring and peer networks in student identity development as a Steward of the Discipline. The results are interpreted in light of the literature, and we conclude with areas for future research.

Engineering education, like many fields, has started to explore the benefits of concept maps as an assessment technique for knowledge integration. Because they allow students to graphically link topics and represent complex interconnections among diverse concepts, we argue that concept maps are particularly appropriate for assessing interdisciplinary knowledge integration. The results from a year-long study of a design course in green engineering demonstrate the viability of this approach. However, this research also highlights important issues in faculty scoring of interdisciplinary concept maps that may not be present when maps are used in traditional single-discipline settings. The interdisciplinary setting revealed differences in (1) evaluation criteria, (2) expertise, and (3) investment. We conclude with suggestions for selecting and training scorers to address these issues.

In spite of considerable evidence of the effectiveness of active learning and other contemporary teaching methods, barriers to adoption of those methods, such as possible student resistance, continue to exist. This study addresses student resistance by analyzing data from 1,051 students who completed our Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) instrument in 18 introductory engineering courses where active learning was implemented. Through descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, and hierarchical linear regression modeling, we demonstrate that students' perceptions of their instructors' use of explanation and facilitation strategies can have a significant impact on student resistance. This study provides a more complete picture of the relative efficacy of these strategies to reduce resistance and confirms that students' perceptions of their instructors' use of these strategies can influence both how students engage with active learning and how students evaluate the course and instructor. We provide evidence-based advice for both new and experienced instructors to reduce student resistance to active learning and other contemporary teaching methods.

Although engineering education research has empirically validated the effectiveness of active learning in improving student learning over traditional lecture-based methods, the adoption of active learning in classrooms has been slow. One of the greatest reported barriers is student resistance towards engagement in active learning exercises. This paper argues that the level of student engagement in active learning classrooms is an interplay of social and physical classroom characteristics. Using classroom observations and instructor interviews, this study describes the influence of the interaction of student response systems and classroom layout on student engagement in two large active-learning-based engineering classrooms. The findings suggest that the use of different student response systems in combination with cluster-style seating arrangements can increase student engagement in large classrooms.

Background: Enrollment of US students in engineering graduate programs is declining, the proportion of underrepresented groups being even lower at the graduate level than it is at undergraduate levels. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore engineering undergraduate student perceptions about graduate study, how these perceptions impact their decisions to pursue graduate study, and whether or how these differ by sex and race/ethnicity. Design/Method: We administered a survey about graduate study to 1082 undergraduate engineering students from four US institutions. Student characteristics included sex, race/ethnicity, and year in college. Exploratory Factor Analysis identified factors related to Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). We created multinomial logistic regression models to predict intention to pursue a master's or PhD degree. Results: Identified factors were Self-efficacy, Outcome expectations, Supports, Barriers, and Choice actions. Model fit statistics indicate a strong model. Only Choice actions was not significant. Few sex and race/ethnicity differences held once factors were added to the models. Hispanic students were more than twice as likely to indicate they were planning on enrolling in a master's program relative to no graduate school. Conclusions: Self-efficacy most strongly influenced graduate school intention. For every one-unit increase in students' self-efficacy, they were over 8 times more likely to plan to enroll in a master's program and 13 times more likely to enroll in a PhD program, relative to not attending graduate school. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Background: Research has shown that active learning promotes student learning and increases retention rates of STEM undergraduates. Yet, instructors are reluctant to change their teaching approaches for several reasons, including a fear of student resistance to active learning. This paper addresses this issue by building on our prior work which demonstrates that certain instructor strategies can positively influence student responses to active learning. We present an analysis of interview data from 17 engineering professors across the USA about the ways they use strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning in their undergraduate engineering courses. Results: Our data reveal that instructor strategies for reducing student resistance generally fall within two broad types: explanation and facilitation strategies. Explanation strategies consist of the following: (a) explain the purpose, (b) explain course expectations, and (c) explain activity expectations. Facilitation strategies include the following: (a) approach non-participants, (b) assume an encouraging demeanor, (c) grade on participation, (d) walk around the room, (e) invite questions, (f) develop a routine, (g) design activities for participation, and (h) use incremental steps. Four of the strategies emerged from our analysis and were previously unstudied in the context of student resistance. Conclusions: The findings of this study have practical implications for instructors wishing to implement active learning. There is a variety of strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning, and there are multiple successful ways to implement the strategies. Importantly, effective use of strategies requires some degree of intentional course planning. These strategies should be considered as a starting point for instructors seeking to better incorporate the use of active learning strategies into their undergraduate engineering classrooms.

Background: Calls for the reform of education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have inspired many instructional innovations, some research based. Yet adoption of such instruction has been slow. Research has suggested that students' response may significantly affect an instructor's willingness to adopt different types of instruction. Purpose: We created the Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) instrument to measure the effects of several variables on student response to instructional practices. We discuss the step-by-step process for creating this instrument. Design/Method: The development process had six steps--item generation and construct development, validity testing, implementation, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and instrument modification and replication. We discuss pilot testing of the initial instrument, construct development, and validation using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Results: This process produced 47 items measuring three parts of our framework. Types of instruction separated into four factors (interactive, constructive, active, and passive); strategies for using in-class activities into two factors (explanation and facilitation); and student responses to instruction into five factors (value, positivity, participation, distraction, and evaluation). Conclusions: We describe the design process and final results for our instrument, a useful tool for understanding the relationship between type of instruction and students' response.