Search

This research paper illuminates the different contexts elicited by seven instructors who taught fundamental engineering courses (FECs) when discussing their test usage beliefs and behaviors, beginning to address a gap in engineering education research on instructors' beliefs and behaviors and test usage in engineering courses. Tests and exams are typically heavily used in FECs like statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, and other courses in various engineering disciplines. Understanding why engineering instructors heavily rely on tests to assess student learning in these courses can be crucial in promoting the use of more diverse types of assessments, such as portfolios, concept inventory, reflection-based practices, project-based practices, and intentionality in terms of designing, administering, and interpreting tests, but research has been scarce on documenting research on this topic. Conversations around why instructors make certain course decisions typically involve the contexts these instructors are situated in, emphasizing how important contexts are in terms of influencing decision-making in these courses. Illuminating some of these contexts can be helpful to further understand instructors' beliefs and behaviors in course decision-making, specifically on heavily using tests in fundamental courses. We answered the research question: What are some of the contexts that seven instructors of fundamental engineering courses raise when discussing their test usage in their courses? The data are collected as part of a larger multi-case study that explores test usage beliefs and behaviors of seven individual engineering instructors (seven cases). Multiple sources of data and evidence triangulate to shape the case profiles for these seven instructors, with contexts emerging as an important element of these profiles. Our findings show several key contexts discussed substantially by some of these seven instructors, though not all instructors discussed the same contexts. These contexts include the influence of inertia to continue using tests, course context that includes large enrollment, and the limited autonomy for some instructors to make changes to assessment in the courses. These contexts show some intertwining characteristics to influence test usage among the participants. In addition, our findings support existing literature on inertia and course context and prominent contexts to influence course decision-making, and this paper focuses on the test usage as a form of course design decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tests tend to be the default assessment in fundamental engineering courses. Tests can be useful for learning such as retaining information, but not for all learning outcomes like conceptual change. In addition, tests can decrease student motivation to learn. Therefore, complementing tests with alternative assessments and being intentional in using and designing tests should be considered to address the problem test being the go-to form of assessments in fundamental courses. Instructor resistance to adopting teaching practices informed by research poses as another barrier toward addressing the problem. Thus, understanding engineering instructors' beliefs about why they use tests in their courses is an important first step toward addressing the problem. This research study begins addressing the gap by analyzing one case out of a larger multi-case study to provide hermeneutic insights for future analysis and studies on the beliefs of engineering instructors about using tests. Grounded in Situated Expectancy Value Theory (SEVT), this research paper analyzed one thermodynamics instructor, Charlie, who was a mechanical engineering associate professor in an R1 public, land-grant institution, and had taught for more than ten years. Analysis methods were inspired by the case study research methodology. Findings show slight conflicting beliefs within Charlie as they demonstrated strong beliefs in test benefits in helping students learn, but apologetic about using tests because of factors like inertia and peer pressure that compelled them to continue using tests in the course. Charlie was also apologetic about using tests due to their lack of ability to predict future student success. Charlie also expressed a lack of experience and knowledge in designing assessments in their courses. Future work will focus on understanding test usage beliefs at a broader scale and informing research to design alternative assessments that can be adapted to complement tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was inspired by the restructuring of a mid-sized private research university's mechanical engineering undergraduate major. This restructuring consists of offering major "concentrations" in several different areas which were developed based on student and alumni feedback, and redesigning academic advising for mechanical engineering majors. This time of change is being utilized as a chance to assess the undergraduate student climate in the department more generally. Climate is operationalized around the following factors: sense of community, perceptions of diversity of both faculty and students, and perceptions of inclusivity. This study is guided by the following evaluation questions: 1. What can be learned about our students' self-beliefs and perceptions of supports? How do they differ by gender and major? 2. How might self-beliefs and perceptions of supports be related? To answer these questions, data were collected via surveys administered to current students who have declared a major in mechanical, biomechanical, or design engineering. The data gathered included students' study skills and habits, their thoughts on program diversity and inclusivity, experiences with faculty, the sense of community of the program, and demographic information including parents' education levels and careers, high school classes and exposure to engineering, and engineering activities outside of school. We found that there were significant differences between men and women, and mechanical engineering and design students. For men and women, these differences were present in the areas of certain engineering skills, engineering identity, innovation task self-efficacy, engineering task self-efficacy, engineering identity, major fit, and major perception. For mechanical engineering and design students, these differences were present in innovation and engineering task selfefficacy, sense of engineering community, engineering identity, and major perception. Lastly, we found strong positive correlations between the three supports considered in this work (support of diversity, engineering community support, and faculty support) and a student's sense of fitting into their major. In addition, a strong sense of engineering community support is correlated with greater engineering task self-efficacy, whereas a stronger sense of faculty support is correlated with greater skill beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Complete Paper - Research describes a pilot study among post-secondary students involved in their first engineering-specific class and explores the concept of classroom belonging. The hypothetical premise of this research is that grade performance is, in part, determined by a student's sense of belonging in a classroom. Further, "classroom belonging" is a function of several factors including social belonging, engineering self-efficacy, engineering identity and closeness to others in the classroom. This study revealed that a student's sense of classroom belonging has a significant, positive impact on grade performance. The most important components of classroom belonging are the student's sense of social belonging in the classroom and their engineering identity. The survey-based quantitative data were complemented with qualitative interviews with underrepresented minority engineering students. These allowed us to explore their classroom belonging experiences and showed that classroom belonging is a familiar concept and a function of two separate sources of belonging: academic belonging and social belonging. Academic selfefficacy, curriculum content motivation and an ability to share academic struggles with others were important contributors to academic belonging. Social similarity, successful team experiences and a general sense of caring were also considered helpful to building social belonging in the classroom. Implications and ideas to build engineering classroom belonging from this research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]