Search

Although advising relationships are key for doctoral student success, little research has addressed how they form. Understanding the formation of advising relationships can help contextualize their later development and ultimately support a student's decision to persist in the doctorate. To understand relationship formation, the purpose of this qualitative study is to identify and describe the types of advisor-advisee selection processes that exist in engineering, science, and math doctoral programs and examine patterns across disciplines within those fields. We conducted interviews with doctoral program directors and engaged in document analysis of graduate student handbooks from 55 doctoral programs in the aforementioned fields in high research institutions across the United States. Using principal-agent theory as a theoretical lens, our findings showed that engineering programs tend to decentralize the advisor selection process by funding students across different funding sources upon enrollment. Contrariwise, science and math programs tended to fund all students in a cohort from a common funding source, which allowed students to have more time to gather information, meet, and select an advisor. These findings also show important nuances when comparing graduate education in these programs that directly impact the doctoral student experience and reiterates the necessity to study these fields separately.

Background: Calls to improve learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and particularly engineering, present significant challenges for school systems. Partnerships among engineering industry, universities, and school systems to support learning appear promising, but current work is limited in its conclusions because it lacks a strong connection to theoretical work in interorganizational collaboration. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study aims to reflect more critically on the process of how organizations build relationships to address the following research question: In a public-private partnership to integrate engineering into middle school science curriculum, how do stakeholder characterizations of the collaborative process align with existing frameworks of interorganizational collaboration? Design/Method: This qualitative, embedded multiple case study considered in-depth pre- and post-year interviews with teachers, administrators, industry, and university personnel during the first year of the Partnering with Educators and Engineers in Rural Schools (PEERS) program. Transcripts were analyzed using a framework of interorganizational collaboration operationalized for our context. Results: Results provide insights into stakeholder perceptions of collaborative processes in the first year of the PEERS program across dimensions of collaboration. These dimensions mapped to three central discussion points with relevance for school-university-industry partnerships: school collaboration as an emergent and negotiated process, tension in collaborating across organizations, and fair share in collaborating toward a social goal. Conclusions: Taking a macro-level look at the collaborative processes involved enabled us to develop implications for collaborative stakeholders to be intentional about designing for future success. By systematically applying a framework of collaboration and capitalizing on the rich situational findings possible through a qualitative approach, we shift our understanding of collaborative processes in school-university-industry partnerships for engineering education and contribute to the development of collaboration theory.

Background Purpose/Hypothesis Design/Method Results Conclusions Tests are commonly and heavily used in fundamental engineering courses (FECs) to assess student learning of concepts. With existing literature presenting mixed benefits and disadvantages of testing to students' motivation to learn and documenting widely alternative assessments, the lack of questioning of heavy and common test usage must be addressed to diversify classroom assessment and promote intentionality in test usage.This study begins to address the lack of questioning by exploring and uncovering test usage beliefs and behaviors of seven FEC instructors from two engineering departments in a land‐grant, public, Research 1 universityGrounded in the Situated Expectancy–Value Theory (SEVT), we conducted a multicase study. Data include two interviews, course syllabi, and sample tests provided by the participants, and public documents from the institution and departments. We conducted a priori and emergent coding and thematic analysis to identify the beliefs and behaviors before developing individual case summaries for cross‐case analysis to identify groupings.Three test usage groups emerged: enthusiastic, default, and questioning. All test usage groups featured tests heavily in their FECs, resulting in varying alignment between these participants' test usage beliefs and behaviors.Our findings reveal the various factors that can shape FEC instructors' test usage beliefs and behaviors, and the complexity in terms of alignment. This work lays important implications, including laying the foundations for future scholarship on testing in engineering education research and leveraging findings to begin efforts in diversifying assessment approaches and promoting intentional test usage in FECs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To help students become better learners, educators need to be able to provide feedback to students on their learning processes. However, this can be challenging for educators due to the customized nature of such feedback. To that end, we have created and evaluated the Acknowledge, Affirm, Challenge, and Encourage (A2CE) framework as a practical and scalable way to provide formative feedback for engineering students. The A2CE framework was: 1) developed through a research project focused on developing metacognitive skills in engineering students, and 2) evaluated for functionality in a workshop setting where we taught educators how to use the A2CE framework. Within the workshop, we collected participants' feedback on the framework in the form of open-ended surveys. Analysis of responses revealed that workshop participants believed the A2CE framework was useful as a method for having caring conversations with students about their learning, while giving constructive feedback that students can use to improve their learning in and out of the classroom; prior to the workshop, participants indicated a need for more support in having meaningful conversations with their students about learning processes. We conclude that the A2CE framework is an accessible tool educators can leverage to help students improve as learners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of metacognition is critical to learning, especially in fields such as engineering that involve problem-solving and difficult conceptual material. Due to limitations with current methodological approaches, new methods are needed to investigate engineering students' metacognitive engagement in learning situations that are self-directed, such as study groups. Purpose: Our purpose was to develop an approach to investigate the metacognitive engagement of undergraduate engineering students in self-directed learning environments. The Naturalistic Observations of Metacognition in Engineering (NOME) Observational Protocol and Coding Strategy is a qualitative data collection method that allows researchers to observe the behaviors of students who are studying in groups to determine the student's engagement in different metacognitive practices. The NOME is intended to be used by researchers interested in studying online metacognitive behaviors without the direct interference of a methodological approach. Design/Method: We observed three study groups where students were working on an engineering problem-solving homework assignment. Using a taxonomic definition of metacognition, we coded episodes of observation transcripts to identify behaviors that represented key definitions in the taxonomy. Results: We combined subcodes and descriptions of behaviors with key definitions to develop a coding strategy useful for future observational studies. Evidence of intercoder agreement and agreement in unitizing indicates that the coding strategy can reliably be used by multiple trained coders to identify metacognitive engagement. Conclusions: The reliability evidence shows that the NOME may be a useful tool for researchers in engineering education interested in studying the metacognitive habits of engineering students in self-directed study.

To explore the ways context may shape career choices, we used a qualitative approach to analyze interviews with college-oriented high school students from the rural Central Appalachia region of Virginia. Using social cognitive career theory, we analyzed pathways to career choices and relevant contextual factors, using data from 24 interviews. Results revealed that participants' pathways partially matched the model, though we also found variant pathways triggered by significant environmental influences and incomplete pathways due to variations in possible career plans. Explanatory factors included status as prospective first-generation college student, outcome expectations that included remaining local and having job stability, and an emergent factor of continuing generation Appalachian. The patterns that emerged with respect to contextual factors and career choice pathways highlight the importance of culture and context when examining how students make career choices. This research extends prior research by examining career pathways using student's own words as data. Moreover, the patterns offer insights career coaches, counselors, and educators can use in supporting students' post--high school career planning.

Background: Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) play critical roles in undergraduate education. Past studies have examined various programs developed for GTAs, but little work exists that examines GTAs' personal experiences and perceptions in engineering education. To develop teaching environments and training programs that foster positive motivation in GTAs for teaching and improve the quality of their teaching, we need to better understand the factors that motivate them. Purpose: Situated in self-determination theory (SDT), the purpose of our study was to examine graduate students' motivation to teach by answering the research question, "What factors contribute to GTAs' competence, autonomy, and relatedness with regard to teaching?" We scoped the study broadly to include perceptions of events, occurrences, people, institutional structures, and demographics as potential factors. Design/Method: We employed exploratory interview methods influenced by critical realism to understand GTAs' experiences. Our sample contained 12 participants from five different universities. We used a combination of a priori codes and open coding to determine the factors. Results: We identified five factors that affect the needs posited by SDT: training, previous experience, appointment structure, students, and teaching colleagues. Each factor uniquely contributed to a GTA's teaching motivation. Conclusions: GTAs are teachers, but they are also students. We recommend that faculty and administrators consider the five factors we identified and their unique individualized effects on GTAs as students and teachers when designing teaching experiences. This focus will lead to increased motivation in teaching and, with time, increases in the quality of teaching in engineering.

The experiences and strategies of women faculty serving in leadership roles is understudied in the field of engineering education. This study begins to document how women leaders in engineering education engage in leadership using the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network's (KEEN) Entrepreneurial Mindset (EM) as a lens. We conducted a thematic analysis of a series of artifacts associated with a workshop that aimed to generate conversation on leadership among a group of 14 women holding a variety of leadership positions in engineering education exploring how women leaders discussed their leadership roles. We also conducted in-depth interviews with 10 of the participants. We found that the women leaders in our study emphasized the importance of people in regard to connections. Within connections people were information sources to obtain insight and were considered when managing and assessing risks. The findings expand upon the current conception of connections as described iii the EM framework. As we increase our knowledge of women's experiences and strategies in leadership in engineering education. it will improve our ability to recommend methods for establishing, growing, and using connections within the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Engineering student support centers (ESSCs) are common providers of assistance for undergraduate students, especially those from underrepresented groups. However, ESSCs are relatively recent, and there are gaps in our knowledge about how they are intentionally designed to function alongside engineering curricula. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual model that graphically represents the practices of and intentions behind ESSCs. Design/Method: A multi-case study design was used to examine the efforts of six ESSCs housed at four institutions. Using qualitative methods, we collected data from student-support practitioners (those who provide support) and students (those who receive support). The data were analyzed through the development of a logic model. Results: The primary result of this study is an empirically based conceptual model, the model of co-curricular support (MCCS), for constructing and evaluating support systems and individual student interventions. The MCCS builds on Tinto's model of institutional departure and demonstrates the breadth of assistance required to comprehensively support undergraduate students at the college level. Conclusions: The MCCS indicates how a student's interactions with the academic, social, and professional systems in a college and the larger university system can influence a student's success in an undergraduate degree program. The model combines student-retention theory with student-support practice in a way that can facilitate future collaborations between educational researchers and student-support practitioners.

Motivation is frequently studied in the context of engineering education. However, the use of the term motivation can be inconsistent, both in how clearly it is defined and in how it is implemented in research designs and practice. This systematic literature review investigates the use of motivation across recent engineering education publications. Results show that the majority of engineering education publications referencing motivation as a concept do not provide a clear definition for the term, nor do they draw upon the existing body of literature surrounding motivation. Within the publications that do draw upon motivation literature, we found that a small number of frameworks were most prominent. We believe that both of these factors potentially inhibit the understanding of motivation in engineering education. Therefore, we provide a number of suggestions for how researchers and practitioners can work to rectify these trends.

Background: Transformative change in higher education requires a continuous interplay between educational research and educational practice. In considering how to engage researchers and practitioners in "cycles of educational practice and research" (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009), we focus on individuals and what motivates them to create and sustain innovations within the engineering education system. Purpose: Through this study, we seek to better understand why faculty do or do not engage in the research-practice cycle. Specifically, we employ expectancy value theory and examine the success and value beliefs motivating individuals' choices. Design/Method: We used mixed methods assessment data from two engineering education conferences that focused on promoting transformational change. Data included observational notes, open-ended written responses submitted after conference sessions, open-ended survey questions, and quantitative survey questions. For data analysis. we used descriptive statistics and open coding techniques. Results: We identified expectancy of success and cost value and utility value as important to participants. Notably, the same motivation constructs generally matter for research, practice, and research-informed practice, although practice-informed research was nearly absent from the data. Participants cited strategies that are currently working to improve only some of the success and value categories. Conclusions: Expectancy value theory provides a useful framework for understanding faculty choices in the research-practice cycles required for change and innovation in engineering education. Our findings indicate that in addition to improving individuals' competence with critical research and teaching practices, our field should also support collective efficacy and value beliefs.

Choosing a doctoral advisor is the most critical decision students will make in their doctoral journey. The relationship between doctoral students and their advisors can determine if students will complete the doctorate. Yet, little is known about how students experience this decision process and whether students are supported in this selection. The purpose of this study was to explore how students experience the satisfaction oftheir basic needs in the advisor selection process of one Chemical Engineering program. Using case study methodology, we interviewed 14 doctoral students about their experience in selecting an advisor. Self-Determination Theory guided evaluative and theoretical coding. The findings revealed that most doctoral students who participated in research experiences prior to the doctorate are more satisfied with their choice and practiced a better-informed selection. They had a clearer understanding ofwhat they needed to look for in an advisor when compared to students who had not participated in such research experiences. This study shows that the process offinding an advisor in the Chemical Engineering Program studied may not provide sufficient competence support for students who have not participated in research, limiting their ability to make a decision when selecting an advisor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]