More Like this

1. Work in Progress: Designing a Survey Instrument to Assess Graduate Student Motivation Towards Degree Completion

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--44208  

   Rodriguez_Mejia, Eduardo; Bodnar, Cheryl (June 2023, ASEE Conferences)

   This work in progress paper describes the development of an instrument to assess graduate student motivation towards doctoral degree completion. Doctoral attrition rates in the United States have been estimated to be around 40% over a 10 year completion period [8]. King [8] also found that less than 20% of students complete their doctoral programs in the expected timeframe of between 3 and 4 years. These results indicate the need to better understand factors that affect graduate students' experience during their doctoral program, particularly their choice to persist, so we can ensure equal opportunities for Ph.D completion. Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw [12] talk about personal factors that contribute to doctoral students’ persistence. These factors include motivation, strategies for writing the dissertation, time management, and attributes such as credibility, commitment, and increased monetary compensation. As part of this research study, we have selected to focus upon student motivation as motivation theories have been found to provide explanations for factors that influence individuals choices and actions [3]. Specifically, we have selected the Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT) of motivation because it considers social, cultural, and psychological factors [1], making it beneficial for elements that could be relevant in a graduate studies program. This work seeks to create a motivational instrument specific to an engineering graduate studies program setting. Our instrument development process began with the Engineering Motivation Survey, developed by Brown & Matusovich [2]. This survey instrument was designed to measure motivation of undergraduate engineering students towards engineering education and career choices. Ultimately, the purpose was to measure motivational factors that contribute toward choices to pursue and complete engineering degrees. The 35 likert scale questions were rephrased to focus on a graduate student setting. After the rephrasing, the draft survey was used in a Think-aloud protocol with six engineering graduate students to determine what changes may be needed to better support its new area of implementation. Upon finalization of the graduate student engineering motivation survey we will apply it to measure civil and environmental engineering graduate students’ motivation towards their doctoral degree completion as part of their participation in a Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program. 

   more » « less
2. A Measure of Affect toward Key Elements of Engineering Professional Practice.

   Patrick, A D; Choe, N H; Martins, L L; Borrego, M J; Kendall, M R; Seepersad, C C (June 2017, ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings)

   Identity, or how people choose to define themselves, is emerging as an attractive explanation for who persists in engineering. Many studies of engineering identity build off of prior work in math and science identity, emphasizing the academic aspects of engineering. However, affect towards professional practice is also central to engineering identity development. This paper describes the methods used to create a new survey measure of individuals’ affect toward elements of engineering practice. We followed the item generation, refinement, and instrument validation steps required for psychometric validation of a new survey measure. We generated items deductively using the literature on engineering professional skills and practice and inductively based on interviews with practicing engineers, engineering graduate students, and engineering undergraduate students. We blended the inductively and deductively derived item lists to create a list of initial items for the measure. We circulated this list of items to a set of engineering and professional identity experts to establish face validity and made modifications based on their feedback. The final list included 34 items. These 34 items were administered in a questionnaire survey in the fall of 2016 to 1465 engineering undergraduates in three majors at two institutions. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and established internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha on a subset of the analytical sample data (n=384). The resulting factors fit our a priori assumption of the factors theorized to characterize affect towards engineering professional practice. Using the remaining data (n=904), we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on the reduced set of items resulting from EFA. The results indicate an emergent factor structure for affect towards elements of engineering practice. 

   more » « less
3. WIP: Research Identity among First-Year Engineering Latina Students at a Research- Intensive Hispanic Serving Institution

   Lizandra C. Godwin (June 2023, 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)

   This work in progress paper focuses on understanding what students in first- year engineering courses understand about who becomes a researcher and if they see themselves as a researcher, or someone who might become a researcher. Specifically, we compare Latinas to other students in this study to explore the origins of differences in later participation. This work has importance and necessity since it has been noted that the national graduation rate for Latinas with a Ph.D. in engineering is very low; only 91 (< 1%) of awardees in 2018- 2019 identified as Latina. Our research investigates the interest of first year engineering students in research, which might illuminate strategies for addressing the underrepresentation of Latinas in national Ph.D. engineering programs. The purpose of this quantitative study is to characterize early perspectives about research, graduate school, and becoming a researcher. A statistical analysis of the results from a cross-sectional survey was completed. A principal component analysis extracted the following constructs: (1) research self-efficacy, (2) engineering research identity, and (3) perceived cultural compatibility. Self-reported demographics (gender, race/ethnicity, college generation, first year on campus) were collected during the survey and used to group respondents during the analysis. The study population includes all students enrolled in a first-year engineering course for the Fall 2022 (n=215) at the University of New Mexico, a public R1, Hispanic- serving institution. The students were from the following engineering disciplines: Chemical & Biological, Civil, Computer Science, Electrical & Computer, Mechanical, and Nuclear. A regression analysis is used to compare Latinas' perceptions and intentions to students who are well-represented (Asian or White men) in engineering. We hypothesize that the constructs examined in this study explain variance in research persistence. This research has significance if we are to attain more diverse faculty for the emerging student population which requires an increase in the number of Latinas graduating with a doctoral degree and continuing into academia. 

   more » « less
4. Work in Progress: Motivational Differences Between Civil and Environmental Engineering Doctoral Students in the Pre-writing and Writing Phases

   Rodriguez_Mejia, Eduardo; Bodnar, Cheryl A (June 2024, ASEE Conferences)

   This work in progress paper describes the preliminary findings from the implementation of a graduate engineering student motivation survey with Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) doctoral students. In the doctoral process, two phases can be identified: pre-writing and writing. The first phase is generally where most of the coursework is taken, while the second phase is when the dissertation takes most of the time. These phases have been found to be of importance when seeking to address graduate students’ motivation because they present a transition between a more structured and guided process into an unstructured, self-directed, and isolated phase that is prescribed as challenging for students. The graduate student motivation survey, derived from the Expectancy-Value Theory constructs (i.e., interest, attainment, utility, cost, and self-efficacy), was developed by the authors in a prior study. The constructs of interest/intrinsic (how fun and interesting is a task), attainment (personal/identity importance of a task), utility (usefulness for present or future goals), and cost (resources to be invested in a task) are values that individuals consider when selecting and taking actions; Whereas, the self-efficacy construct explores an individual’s beliefs about how well their performance will be on an upcoming task. This motivation survey was distributed among 20 CEE doctoral students during the second week of the Fall 2023 semester. Out of the 20 participants, 3 were in the research phase of their dissertation (writing phase), 16 were still in the process of completing their coursework requirements (pre-writing phase), and 1 did not provide a response about their program phase. Measurement of Expectancy-Value Theory constructs on a scale from 1 to 7 was performed. Analysis of the mean values for each construct between students in the pre-writing phase and those in the writing phase of their doctoral program showed statistical significance with large effect size values for the constructs of attainment and utility. Values for students in the pre-writing phase were higher on the attainment and utility construct, with students in pre-writing phase having attainment and utility mean values of M = 6.29 and M = 5.69, respectively, and those in the writing phase having M = 5.50 and M = 4.17 respectively. These preliminary results can help to better understand students' motivations during their doctoral journey, especially as they make the transition from the pre-writing to the writing phase and may lead to identification of areas where additional support can be provided. 

   more » « less
5. Faculty Perspectives on Their Role in the Training of STEM Doctoral Students

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--47458  

   Pan, Zilong; Jagota, Anand; Dierolf, Volkmar; Jain, Himanshu (June 2024, ASEE Conferences)

   Traditional PhD training in STEM fields places a strong emphasis on developing doctoral students' academic skills, encompassing research, academic writing, as well as sharing of knowledge through publications and conference presentations, etc. However, with the ever evolving expectations of graduate training, particularly in applied fields, the demand for PhD has transcended the confines of academia. For instance, nearly 90% of engineering PhDs will not enter academia, which underscores the discrepancy between the current PhD training programs and the preparation of students for future careers. To better support doctoral students especially for those who intend to pursue positions in industry including corporate R&D labs, national labs, defense organizations, healthcare institutes, etc., Lehigh University launched an innovative program called Pasteur Partners PhD (P3) specifically for the training of such doctoral students. It is a student-centered doctoral training program based on use-inspired research in partnership with industry. A preliminary evaluation of the P3 program, which was developed with support from NSF’s IGE program, revealed that students benefited significantly from gaining practical skills through industry involvement such as co-advising, resulting in a clearer understanding of how the industry operates, which, in turn, enhanced their employability in the industry [1]. The University administration also provided significant support for the program. However, a broader implementation of P3 encountered challenges and hesitancy from faculty members. Mostly the senior faculty who already had preexisting connections with industry and junior faculty from certain departments were more receptive to joining the P3 program than others. Could this be a result of the prevailing emphasis of the graduate education system on research output (publications) rather than the training of students for their subsequent careers? What other reasons could there be for the faculty’s lack of enthusiasm for the training of their PhD students following P3 track? To answer above questions and examine the challenges and obstacles that the faculty members feel for student centered doctoral training from an institutional and system perspective, we are conducting a survey specifically targeting faculty members in STEM fields. It seeks to comprehensively understand faculty members’ perspective on the primary objectives of doctoral training within different STEM fields. By exploring these objectives, the survey aims to uncover how they vary across disciplines and what faculty members perceive as the most significant goals in their areas of expertise. Moreover, the survey is designed to shed light on the challenges and hurdles faced by faculty members in their pursuit of these training objectives. Faculty participants are encouraged to identify and articulate the specific obstacles they encounter, whether they pertain to institutional constraints, resource limitations, demands of perceived professional success or other factors that impede the realization of these goals. In addition, the survey takes a close look at the resources that faculty members believe would be beneficial in addressing these challenges and improving the effectiveness of doctoral training. This insight is essential for designing support systems that can empower faculty to contribute to the training of doctoral workforce for the benefit of society at large. The survey seeks to gain valuable perspectives on the qualities and skills considered essential for the success of PhD students. These insights will inform curriculum development and help prepare students better for a wider range of career paths. The results of the survey, currently underway, are presented. 

   more » « less