Search for: All records

Sophomore level engineering mechanics classes typically have high rates of failure or withdrawal. Some explanations posited for this phenomenon include lack of student preparation, the difficulty of the material, ineffective instructional methods, and lack of context. Instructors and textbook authors attempt to overcome these issues with a range of pedagogical approaches such as math reviews, worked examples focused on problem solving processes, “real-world” problems, and active learning focused on physical understanding. However, the first step in the problem-solving process, abstracting the problem, is very often missing. At a fundamental level, engineers follow a four-step design process: (1) Describing or abstracting the physical world with diagrams, words, numbers, and equations (2) Analyzing their model (3) Designing something based on that analysis, and (4) Constructing the designed system. Sophomore mechanics classes traditionally focus on step (2) largely bypassing step (1), instead presenting students with drawings, numbers, and text and teaching them to apply appropriate equations. The goals of this research are (1) to develop a sophomore-level mechanics class that flips the traditional approach by starting with the physical world application and focusing on developing students’ ability to abstract as a precursor to analysis; and (2) to assess if this new approach improves student self-efficacy in basic mechanics. The hypothesis of the proposed research is that, by starting with abstraction, students will build a stronger connection between the physical world and the mechanics modeling. In turn, this will improve student’s perceptions about their ability to solve engineering mechanics problems and their motivation to pursue careers as engineers in the future. The specific research questions we seek to answer are: (1) In what ways does teaching students how to abstract the physical world affect their self-efficacy to solve problems in a basic mechanics class? and (2) In what ways does showing students how to abstract the physical world into tractable engineering science problems affect their future-oriented motivation? We are employing a mixed methods approach that combines quantitative survey data with observations, interviews, and course artifacts to address our research questions. The first phase of our research will establish baseline survey data from statics classes taught in a traditional lecture style that will be compared in future iterations of the course in which students engage in problem abstraction as the first step in the problem-solving process. Results will be presented on the baseline survey data assessing students’ problem-solving self-efficacy and future oriented motivation. In addition to the baseline survey results, we will present example lesson plans, worksheets, class assessments, and an example physical model to illustrate how abstraction will be used in the classroom. Future directions for this project will also be discussed. 

Peer review of grant proposals is critical to the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding process for STEM disciplinary and education research. Despite this, scholars receive little training in effective and constructive review of proposals beyond definitions of review criteria and an overview of strategies to avoid bias and communicate clearly. Senior researchers often find that their reviewing skills improve and develop over time, but variations in reviewer starting points can have a negative impact on the value of reviews for their intended audiences of program officers, who make funding recommendations, and principal investigators, who drive the research or want to improve their proposals. Building on the journal review component of the Engineering Education Research Peer Review Training (EER PERT) project, which is designed to develop EER scholars’ peer review skills through mentored reviewing experiences, this paper describes a program designed to provide professional development for proposal reviewing and provides initial evaluation results. 

Peer review of grant proposals is critical to the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding process for STEM disciplinary and education research. Despite this, scholars receive little training in effective and constructive review of proposals beyond definitions of review criteria and an overview of strategies to avoid bias and communicate clearly. Senior researchers often find that their reviewing skills improve and develop over time, but variations in reviewer starting points can have a negative impact on the value of reviews for their intended audiences of program officers, who make funding recommendations, and principal investigators, who drive the research or want to improve their proposals. Building on the journal review component of the Engineering Education Research Peer Review Training (EER PERT) project, which is designed to develop EER scholars’ peer review skills through mentored reviewing experiences, this paper describes a program designed to provide professional development for proposal reviewing and provides initial evaluation results. 

This research paper study was situated within a peer review mentoring program in which novice reviewers were paired with mentors who are former National Science Foundation (NSF) program directors with experience running discipline-based education research (DBER) panels. Whether it be a manuscript or grant proposal, the outcome of peer review can greatly influence academic careers and the impact of research on a field. Yet the criteria upon which reviewers base their recommendations and the processes they follow as they review are poorly understood. Mentees reviewed three previously submitted proposals to the NSF and drafted pre-panel reviews regarding the proposals’ intellectual merit and broader impacts, strengths, and weaknesses relative to solicitation-specific criteria. After participation in one mock review panel, mentees could then revise their pre-review evaluations based on the panel discussion. Using a lens of transformative learning theory, this study sought to answer the following research questions: 1) What are the tacit criteria used to inform recommendations for grant proposal reviews among scholars new to the review process? 2) To what extent are there changes in these tacit criteria and subsequent recommendations for grant proposal reviews after participation in a mock panel review? Using a single case study approach to explore one mock review panel, we conducted document analyses of six mentees’ reviews completed before and after their participation in the mock review panel. Findings from this study suggest that reviewers primarily focus on the positive broader impacts proposed by a study and the level of detail within a submitted proposal. Although mentees made few changes to their reviews after the mock panel discussion, changes which were present illustrate that reviewers more deeply considered the broader impacts of the proposed studies. These results can inform review panel practices as well as approaches to training to support new reviewers in DBER fields. 

This research paper study was situated within a peer review mentoring program in which novice reviewers were paired with mentors who are former National Science Foundation (NSF) program directors with experience running discipline-based education research (DBER) panels. Whether it be a manuscript or grant proposal, the outcome of peer review can greatly influence academic careers and the impact of research on a field. Yet the criteria upon which reviewers base their recommendations and the processes they follow as they review are poorly understood. Mentees reviewed three previously submitted proposals to the NSF and drafted pre-panel reviews regarding the proposals’ intellectual merit and broader impacts, strengths, and weaknesses relative to solicitation-specific criteria. After participation in one mock review panel, mentees could then revise their pre-review evaluations based on the panel discussion. Using a lens of transformative learning theory, this study sought to answer the following research questions: 1) What are the tacit criteria used to inform recommendations for grant proposal reviews among scholars new to the review process? 2) To what extent are there changes in these tacit criteria and subsequent recommendations for grant proposal reviews after participation in a mock panel review? Using a single case study approach to explore one mock review panel, we conducted document analyses of six mentees’ reviews completed before and after their participation in the mock review panel. Findings from this study suggest that reviewers primarily focus on the positive broader impacts proposed by a study and the level of detail within a submitted proposal. Although mentees made few changes to their reviews after the mock panel discussion, changes which were present illustrate that reviewers more deeply considered the broader impacts of the proposed studies. These results can inform review panel practices as well as approaches to training to support new reviewers in DBER fields. 

There are significant disparities between the conferring of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) bachelor’s degrees to minoritized groups and the number of STEM faculty that represent minoritized groups at four-year predominantly White institutions (PWIs). Studies show that as of 2019, African American faculty at PWIs have increased by only 2.3% in the last 20 years. This study explores the ways in which this imbalance affects minoritized students in engineering majors. Our research objective is to describe the ways in which African American students navigate their way to success in an engineering program at a PWI where the minoritized faculty representation is less than 10%. In this study, we define success as completion of an undergraduate degree and matriculation into a Ph.D. program. Research shows that African American students struggle with feeling like the “outsider within” in graduate programs and that the engineering culture can permeate from undergraduate to graduate programs. We address our research objective by conducting interviews using navigational capital as our theoretical framework, which can be defined as resilience, academic invulnerability, and skills. These three concepts come together to denote the journey of an individual as they achieve success in an environment not created with them in mind. Navigational capital has been applied in education contexts to study minoritized groups, and specifically in engineering education to study the persistence of students of color. Research on navigational capital often focuses on how participants acquire resources from others. There is a limited focus on the experience of the student as the individual agent exercising their own navigational capital. Drawing from and adapting the framework of navigational capital, this study provides rich descriptions of the lived experiences of African American students in an engineering program at a PWI as they navigated their way to academic success in a system that was not designed with them in mind. This pilot study took place at a research-intensive, land grant PWI in the southeastern United States. We recruited two students who identify as African American and are in the first year of their Ph.D. program in an engineering major. Our interview protocol was adapted from a related study about student motivation, identity, and sense of belonging in engineering. After transcribing interviews with these participants, we began our qualitative analysis with a priori coding, drawing from the framework of navigational capital, to identify the experiences, connections, involvement, and resources the participants tapped into as they maneuvered their way to success in an undergraduate engineering program at a PWI. To identify other aspects of the participants’ experiences that were not reflected in that framework, we also used open coding. The results showed that the participants tapped into their navigational capital when they used experiences, connections, involvement, and resources to be resilient, academically invulnerable, and skillful. They learned from experiences (theirs or others’), capitalized on their connections, positioned themselves through involvement, and used their resources to achieve success in their engineering program. The participants identified their experiences, connections, and involvement. For example, one participant who came from a blended family (African American and White) drew from the experiences she had with her blended family. Her experiences helped her to understand the cultures of Black and White people. She was able to turn that into a skill to connect with others at her PWI. The point at which she took her familial experiences to use as a skill to maneuver her way to success at a PWI was an example of her navigational capital. Another participant capitalized on his connections to develop academic invulnerability. He was able to build his connections by making meaningful relationships with his classmates. He knew the importance of having reliable people to be there for him when he encountered a topic he did not understand. He cultivated an environment through relationships with classmates that set him up to achieve academic invulnerability in his classes. The participants spoke least about how they used their resources. The few mentions of resources were not distinct enough to make any substantial connection to the factors that denote navigational capital. The participants spoke explicitly about the PWI culture in their engineering department. From open coding, we identified the theme that participants did not expect to have role models in their major that looked like them and went into their undergraduate experience with the understanding that they will be the distinct minority in their classes. They did not make notable mention of how a lack of minority faculty affected their success. Upon acceptance, they took on the challenge of being a racial minority in exchange for a well-recognized degree they felt would have more value compared to engineering programs at other universities. They identified ways they maneuvered around their expectation that they would not have representative role models through their use of navigational capital. Integrating knowledge from the framework of navigational capital and its existing applications in engineering and education allows us the opportunity to learn from African American students that have succeeded in engineering programs with low minority faculty representation. The future directions of this work are to outline strategies that could enhance the path of minoritized engineering students towards success and to lay a foundation for understanding the use of navigational capital by minoritized students in engineering at PWIs. Students at PWIs can benefit from understanding their own navigational capital to help them identify ways to successfully navigate educational institutions. Students’ awareness of their capacity to maintain high levels of achievement, their connections to networks that facilitate navigation, and their ability to draw from experiences to enhance resilience provide them with the agency to unleash the invisible factors of their potential to be innovators in their collegiate and work environments. 

This is the first of a series of studies that explore the relationship between disciplinary background and the weighting of various elements of a manuscript in peer reviewers’ determination of publication recommendations. Research questions include: (1) To what extent are tacit criteria for determining quality or value of EER manuscripts influenced by reviewers’ varied disciplinary backgrounds and levels of expertise? and (2) To what extent does mentored peer review professional development influence reviewers’ EER manuscript evaluations? Data were collected from 27 mentors and mentees in a peer review professional development program. Participants reviewed the same two manuscripts, using a form to identify strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Responses were coded by two researchers (70% IRR). Our findings suggest that disciplinary background influences reviewers’ evaluation of EER manuscripts. We also found evidence that professional development can improve reviewers’ understanding of EER disciplinary conventions. Deeper understanding of the epistemological basis for manuscript reviews may reveal ways to strengthen professional preparation in engineering education as well as other disciplines.