More Like this

1. Exploring graduate students’ collaborative problem-solving in engineering design tasks

   https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2021.1922616  

   Herro, Danielle; McNeese, Nathan; O’Hara, Robert; Frady, Kristin; Switzer, Debi (May 2021, Journal of Engineering Design)

   null (Ed.)

   This study explored seven engineering graduate students’ collaborative problem-solving (CPS) skills while working in interdisciplinary teams. Students worked in two different teams, in face-to-face and online environments, to solve complex manufacturing design challenges posed by their instructor. The students were assessed using an observational rubric with four dimensions: peer interactions, positive communication, tools and methods and iteration and adaption, and scored via each dimension’s associated attributes, and subsequently interviewed. Six students scored emergent or proficient in CPS and had slightly higher CPS scores during the second observation. One student demonstrated a limited ability for CPS and the observable CPS skills decreased during the project. Interviews revealed the importance of (1) relying on instructor and student chosen technologies for collaborative tasks, (2) recognising and drawing on peer expertise early in the project, (3) building trust during and outside of team meetings and (4) valuing off-site and online collaborative work. Findings advance the understanding of how graduate students working in interdisciplinary teams rely on particular features of collaboration to solve engineering design challenges, which may assist in developing future skills and fostering productive teamwork. 

   more » « less
2. The Impact of a Multidisciplinary Service-Learning Project on Engineering Knowledge and Professional Skills in Engineering and Education Students.

   Ringleb, S. I. (June 2023, ASEE New England annual conference)

   A multidisciplinary service-learning project that involved teaching engineering to fourth and fifth graders was implemented in three sets of engineering and education classes to determine if there was an impact on engineering knowledge and teamwork skills in both the engineering and education students as well as persistence in the engineering students. Collaboration 1 paired a 100-level engineering Information Literacy class in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering with a 300-level Educational Foundation class. Collaboration 2 combined a 300-level Electromechanical Systems class in Mechanical Engineering with a 400-level Educational Technology class. Collaboration 3 paired a 300-level Fluid Mechanics class in Mechanical Engineering Technology with a 400-level Elementary Science Methods class. Collaborations 1 and 3 interacted with fourth or fifth graders by developing and delivering lessons to the elementary students. Students in collaboration 2 worked with fifth graders in an after-school technology club. While each collaboration had its unique elements, all collaborations included the engineering design process both in classroom instruction and during the service learning project. Quantitative data were collected from both engineering and education students in a pretest/posttest design. Teamwork skills were measured in engineering students using a validated teamwork skills assessment based on peer evaluation. Each class had a comparison class taught by the same instructor that included a team project, and the same quantitative measures. Engineering students who participated in collaboration 1 were evaluated for retention, which was defined as students who were still enrolled in the college of engineering and technology two semesters after completion of the course. Engineering students also completed an evaluation of academic and professional persistence. For the engineering students, none of the assessments involving technical skills had significant differences, although the design process knowledge tests trended upward in the treatment classes. The preservice teachers in the treatment group scored significantly higher in the design process knowledge test, and preservice teachers in collaborations 1 and 3 had higher scores in the engineering knowledge test than the comparison group. Teamwork skills in the treatment group were significantly higher than in the comparison group for both engineering and education students. Thus, engineering and education students in the treatment groups saw gains in teamwork skills, while education students saw more gains in engineering knowledge. Finally, all engineering students had significantly higher professional persistence. 

   more » « less
3. Developing two-year college student engineering technology career profiles

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--36945  

   Frady, K.; Brown, C.; High, K.; Hughes, C.; O’Hara, R.; & Huang, S. (July 2021, Annual American Society for Engineering Education Conference)

   There is little research or understanding of curricular differences between two- and four-year programs, career development of engineering technology (ET) students, and professional preparation for ET early career professionals [1]. Yet, ET credentials (including certificates, two-, and four-year degrees) represent over half of all engineering credentials awarded in the U.S [2]. ET professionals are important hands-on members of engineering teams who have specialized knowledge of components and engineering systems. This research study focuses on how career orientations affect engineering formation of ET students educated at two-year colleges. The theoretical framework guiding this study is Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). SCCT is a theory which situates attitudes, interests, and experiences and links self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and personal goals to educational and career decisions and outcomes [3]. Student knowledge of attitudes toward and motivation to pursue STEM and engineering education can impact academic performance and indicate future career interest and participation in the STEM workforce [4]. This knowledge may be measured through career orientations or career anchors. A career anchor is a combination of self-concept characteristics which includes talents, skills, abilities, motives, needs, attitudes, and values. Career anchors can develop over time and aid in shaping personal and career identity [6]. The purpose of this quantitative research study is to identify dimensions of career orientations and anchors at various educational stages to map to ET career pathways. The research question this study aims to answer is: For students educated in two-year college ET programs, how do the different dimensions of career orientations, at various phases of professional preparation, impact experiences and development of professional profiles and pathways? The participants (n=308) in this study represent three different groups: (1) students in engineering technology related programs from a medium rural-serving technical college (n=136), (2) students in engineering technology related programs from a large urban-serving technical college (n=52), and (3) engineering students at a medium Research 1 university who have transferred from a two-year college (n=120). All participants completed Schein’s Career Anchor Inventory [5]. This instrument contains 40 six-point Likert-scale items with eight subscales which correlate to the eight different career anchors. Additional demographic questions were also included. The data analysis includes graphical displays for data visualization and exploration, descriptive statistics for summarizing trends in the sample data, and then inferential statistics for determining statistical significance. This analysis examines career anchor results across groups by institution, major, demographics, types of educational experiences, types of work experiences, and career influences. This cross-group analysis aids in the development of profiles of values, talents, abilities, and motives to support customized career development tailored specifically for ET students. These findings contribute research to a gap in ET and two-year college engineering education research. Practical implications include use of findings to create career pathways mapped to career anchors, integration of career development tools into two-year college curricula and programs, greater support for career counselors, and creation of alternate and more diverse pathways into engineering. Words: 489 References [1] National Academy of Engineering. (2016). Engineering technology education in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [2] The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, (IPEDS). (2014). Data on engineering technology degrees. [3] Lent, R.W., & Brown, S.B. (1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An overivew. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 310-321. [4] Unfried, A., Faber, M., Stanhope, D.S., Wiebe, E. (2015). The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineeirng, and math (S-STEM). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 622-639. [5] Schein, E. (1996). Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 80-88. [6] Schein, E.H., & Van Maanen, J. (2013). Career Anchors, 4th ed. San Francisco: Wiley. 

   more » « less
4. Operationalizing team commitment in a project-based learning environment

   https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962577  

   Jaiswal, Aparajita; Karabiyik, Tugba; Thomas, Paul; Magana, Alejandra J. (October 2022, Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE))

   Commitment is a multi-dimensional construct that has been extensively researched in the context of organizations. Organizational and professional commitment have been positively associated with technical performance, client service, attention to detail, and degree of involvement with one’s job. However, there is a relative dearth of research in terms of team commitment, especially in educational settings. Teamwork is considered a 21stcentury skill and higher education institutions are focusing on helping students to develop teamwork skills by applied projects in the coursework. But studies have demonstrated that creating a team is not enough to help students build teamwork skills. Literature supports the use of team contracts to bolster commitment, among team members. However, the relationship between team contracts and team commitment has not been formally operationalized.This research category study presents a mixed-methods approach towards characterizing and operationalizing team commitment exhibited by students enrolled in a sophomore-level systems analysis and design course by analyzing team contracts and team retrospective reflections. The course covers concepts pertaining to information systems development and includes a semester-long team project where the students work together in four or five member teams to develop the project deliverables. The students have prior software development experiences through an introductory systems development course as well as multiple programming courses. The data for this study was collected through the team contracts signed by students belonging to one of the 23 teams of this course. The study aims to answer the following research question: How can team commitment be characterized in a sophomore-level system analysis and design course among the student teams?A rubric was developed to quantify the team commitment levels of students based on their responses on the team contracts. Students were classified as high or low commitment based on the rubric scores. The emergent themes of high and low commitment teams were also presented. The results indicated that the high commitment teams were focused on setting goals, effective communication, and having mechanisms in place for timely feedback and improvement. On the other hand, low commitment teams did not articulate the goals of the project, they demonstrated a lack of dedication for attending team meetings regularly, working as a team, and had a lack of proper coordination while working together. 

   more » « less
5. Riding the Wave of Change in Electrical and Computer Engineering

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28807  

   Rover, Diane; Zambreno, Joseph; Mina, Mani; Jones, Phillip; Jacobson, Douglas; McKilligan, Seda; Khokhar, Ashfaq (June 2017, 2017 ASEE Annual Conference)

   Electrical and computer engineering technologies have evolved into dynamic, complex systems that profoundly change the world we live in. Designing these systems requires not only technical knowledge and skills but also new ways of thinking and the development of social, professional and ethical responsibility. A large electrical and computer engineering department at a Midwestern public university is transforming to a more agile, less traditional organization to better respond to student, industry and society needs. This is being done through new structures for faculty collaboration and facilitated through departmental change processes. Ironically, an impetus behind this effort was a failed attempt at department-wide curricular reform. This failure led to the recognition of the need for more systemic change, and a project emerged from over two years of efforts. The project uses a cross-functional, collaborative instructional model for course design and professional formation, called X-teams. X-teams are reshaping the core technical ECE curricula in the sophomore and junior years through pedagogical approaches that (a) promote design thinking, systems thinking, professional skills such as leadership, and inclusion; (b) contextualize course concepts; and (c) stimulate creative, socio-technical-minded development of ECE technologies. An X-team is comprised of ECE faculty members including the primary instructor, an engineering education and/or design faculty member, an industry practitioner, context experts, instructional specialists (as needed to support the process of teaching, including effective inquiry and inclusive teaching) and student teaching assistants. X-teams use an iterative design thinking process and reflection to explore pedagogical strategies. X-teams are also serving as change agents for the rest of the department through communities of practice referred to as Y-circles. Y-circles, comprised of X-team members, faculty, staff, and students, engage in a process of discovery and inquiry to bridge the engineering education research-to-practice gap. Research studies are being conducted to answer questions to understand (1) how educators involved in X-teams use design thinking to create new pedagogical solutions; (2) how the middle years affect student professional ECE identity development as design thinkers; (3) how ECE students overcome barriers, make choices, and persist along their educational and career paths; and (4) the effects of department structures, policies, and procedures on faculty attitudes, motivation and actions. This paper will present the efforts that led up to the project, including failures and opportunities. It will summarize the project, describe related work, and present early progress implementing new approaches. 

   more » « less