Search for: All records

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. 

As engineering students transition from their undergraduate education into their first full-time roles within industry, they are often facing a two year induction period as a result of a Theory-to-Practice gap (Gao & Rhinehart, 2004; Rhinehart, 2019, Rhinehart 2015). The gap between engineering students and industry practitioners can be the result of many different factors: students learning complex and fundamental concepts through simple problems, students having difficulty combining knowledge from different courses to solve realistic scenarios, or the lack of time students have to master these concepts (Rhinehart, 2015). This two year induction period causes problems for the company, the individuals, and for higher education, so it is important to identify areas where this gap exists and how it can potentially be mitigated. One area worthy of investigation related to the Theory to Practice gap is the field of process safety education due to its significant impact on professional practice. This pilot study sought to gain an initial understanding of what differences may exist between how experienced industry practitioners and undergraduate engineering students approach process safety judgments. We used this data as a means for determining if approaches to process safety judgments may be an area related to where this gap has been observed. As part of the pilot study, we conducted interviews with both students and practitioners where we provided them with a list of competing criteria that are relevant to process safety judgements such as time, production, and relationships, and then asked them to describe their approach to making process safety judgments given five specific scenarios. We found that industry practitioners and students were both relying on previous experience when describing their approaches to process safety judgments. Practitioners related the scenarios to prior work place events, while students connected them to problems they learned about in class, internships, or retail jobs. A noted difference between industry practitioners and students was that industry practitioners also described being heavily influenced by relationships with co-workers, superiors, and families when approaching these judgments, which seemed to be lacking in the student responses. Past process safety incidents, as documented by the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), have shown that the dynamics of relationships can have an impact on judgment processes which lead to detrimental results. The findings from this study provide additional support for the role of relationships in process safety judgments and the need for process safety instruction that addresses this role. Moving forward, it will be important to expose undergraduate students to the role of relationships in judgment-making processes so that we can better prepare them to navigate the complexities of process safety judgments. 

As engineering students transition from their undergraduate education into their first full-time roles within industry, they are often facing a two year induction period as a result of a Theory-to-Practice gap (Gao & Rhinehart, 2004; Rhinehart, 2019, Rhinehart 2015). The gap between engineering students and industry practitioners can be the result of many different factors: students learning complex and fundamental concepts through simple problems, students having difficulty combining knowledge from different courses to solve realistic scenarios, or the lack of time students have to master these concepts (Rhinehart, 2015). This two year induction period causes problems for the company, the individuals, and for higher education, so it is important to identify areas where this gap exists and how it can potentially be mitigated. One area worthy of investigation related to the Theory to Practice gap is the field of process safety education due to its significant impact on professional practice. This pilot study sought to gain an initial understanding of what differences may exist between how experienced industry practitioners and undergraduate engineering students approach process safety judgments. We used this data as a means for determining if approaches to process safety judgments may be an area related to where this gap has been observed. As part of the pilot study, we conducted interviews with both students and practitioners where we provided them with a list of competing criteria that are relevant to process safety judgements such as time, production, and relationships, and then asked them to describe their approach to making process safety judgments given five specific scenarios. We found that industry practitioners and students were both relying on previous experience when describing their approaches to process safety judgments. Practitioners related the scenarios to prior work place events, while students connected them to problems they learned about in class, internships, or retail jobs. A noted difference between industry practitioners and students was that industry practitioners also described being heavily influenced by relationships with co-workers, superiors, and families when approaching these judgments, which seemed to be lacking in the student responses. Past process safety incidents, as documented by the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), have shown that the dynamics of relationships can have an impact on judgment processes which lead to detrimental results. The findings from this study provide additional support for the role of relationships in process safety judgments and the need for process safety instruction that addresses this role. Moving forward, it will be important to expose undergraduate students to the role of relationships in judgment-making processes so that we can better prepare them to navigate the complexities of process safety judgments. 

As engineering students transition from their undergraduate education into their first full-time roles within industry, they are often facing a two year induction period as a result of a Theory-to-Practice gap (Gao & Rhinehart, 2004; Rhinehart, 2019, Rhinehart 2015). The gap between engineering students and industry practitioners can be the result of many different factors: students learning complex and fundamental concepts through simple problems, students having difficulty combining knowledge from different courses to solve realistic scenarios, or the lack of time students have to master these concepts (Rhinehart, 2015). This two year induction period causes problems for the company, the individuals, and for higher education, so it is important to identify areas where this gap exists and how it can potentially be mitigated. One area worthy of investigation related to the Theory to Practice gap is the field of process safety education due to its significant impact on professional practice. This pilot study sought to gain an initial understanding of what differences may exist between how experienced industry practitioners and undergraduate engineering students approach process safety judgments. We used this data as a means for determining if approaches to process safety judgments may be an area related to where this gap has been observed. As part of the pilot study, we conducted interviews with both students and practitioners where we provided them with a list of competing criteria that are relevant to process safety judgements such as time, production, and relationships, and then asked them to describe their approach to making process safety judgments given five specific scenarios. We found that industry practitioners and students were both relying on previous experience when describing their approaches to process safety judgments. Practitioners related the scenarios to prior work place events, while students connected them to problems they learned about in class, internships, or retail jobs. A noted difference between industry practitioners and students was that industry practitioners also described being heavily influenced by relationships with co-workers, superiors, and families when approaching these judgments, which seemed to be lacking in the student responses. Past process safety incidents, as documented by the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), have shown that the dynamics of relationships can have an impact on judgment processes which lead to detrimental results. The findings from this study provide additional support for the role of relationships in process safety judgments and the need for process safety instruction that addresses this role. Moving forward, it will be important to expose undergraduate students to the role of relationships in judgment-making processes so that we can better prepare them to navigate the complexities of process safety judgments. 

The existing curriculum and models for civil engineering graduate programs assume that graduating Ph.D. students will primarily pursue career opportunities in research or academia. However, the number of civil engineering Ph.D. graduate students continues to increase, while the number of opportunities in academia for civil engineers remains stagnant. As a result, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the civil engineering graduate programs must be reevaluated to assist students entering industry after graduation. As part of a larger research study funded through the NSF Innovations in Graduate Education (IGE), we aim to answer the following research questions: 1) How can a research-to-practice model assist students in preparing for a transportation engineering career outside of academia?, 2) What impacts does the research-to-practice graduate model have on the development of transportation engineering doctoral students’ professional identity?, 3) How does the cognitive apprenticeship framework prepare doctoral students for professional practice in transportation engineering?, and 4) What influences does the research-to-practice model have on doctoral students’ motivation toward degree completion? As part of the first phase for the project, two surveys were developed: a graduate engineering student motivation survey based on Expectancy-Value-Theory, and an instrument based on the Cognitive Apprenticeship framework. The motivation survey was based on an instrument designed and validated by Brown & Matusovich (2013) which aimed to measure undergraduate engineering students' motivation towards obtaining an engineering degree. The survey prompts were reviewed and rewritten to reflect the change in context from undergraduate to graduate school. Revised survey prompts were reviewed with a group of graduate engineering students through a think aloud protocol and changes to the instrument were made to ensure consistency in interpretation of the prompts (Rodriguez-Mejia and Bodnar, 2023). The cognitive apprenticeship instrument was derived from the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (MCTQ), originally designed to offer clinical educators feedback on their teaching abilities, as provided by medical students during their clerkship rotations (Stalmeijer et al., 2010). To tailor it to the context of engineering graduate students, the MCTQ's 24 items were carefully examined and rephrased. A think aloud was conducted with three civil engineering graduate students to determine the effectiveness and clarity of the cognitive apprenticeship instrument. Preliminary results show that minimal clarification is needed for some items, and suggestions to include items which address support from their mentors. The other part of the project assessment involves students completing monthly reflections to obtain their opinions on specific events such as seminars or classes, and identify their perceptions of their identity as professionals, scientists, or researchers. Preliminary results suggest that the students involved place an emphasis on developing critical thinking and planning skills to become an engineering professional, but de-emphasize passion and enjoyment. This paper will report on initial findings obtained through this first phase of the IGE project. 

Faculty members are instrumental in the delivery of process safety curriculum and key stakeholders in efforts to improve process safety education. This study evaluated faculty’s view of the relevance of specific criteria in process safety decisions and whether their criteria prioritization changed after exposure to a group play-through of a digital process safety game. Faculty found relevance in the proposed criteria and had relatively stable prioritization of these criteria both before and after game play. 

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. 

As the field continues to grow, engineering education is continually challenged with finding engineering education research (EER) positions that align with the broad abilities and interests of its members. EER positions exist in engineering education departments, traditional engineering departments (e.g., mechanical, civil), and in non-degree granting programs (e.g., centers for teaching and learning, engineering programs). These positions vary across their emphasis on research, teaching, and service and provide access to different resources and mechanisms to impact engineering education. Given the range of positions available in EER and the emergence of new EER programs, it can be challenging for graduate students and postdocs to navigate the job search process and identify a position that aligns with their professional goals. The purpose of this research was to better understand the EER job market as it relates to what applicants (i.e., graduates and post-docs) experience as they navigate the job-search and decision-making process. For this study, we conducted interviews with seven transitioning first-year EER faculty members. These individuals were transitioning into various EER faculty positions (e.g. Lecturer, Teaching Fellow, Assistant Professor, Research Assistant Professor) with different backgrounds in EER based on their graduate training experiences which included established EER programs as well as traditional engineering departments with EER advisor(s). We asked questions that focused on the individual’s new faculty position, their perception of the weekly time requirements, their job search process, and factors that influenced their final decision of which job to select. Each interview was conducted by two graduate students and was then transcribed and verified for accuracy. Three faculty members performed holistic coding of the transcripts focused on three areas: EER position types, job search process, and job decision making process. The Qualifying Qualitative research Quality framework (Q3) was used as a guide throughout our data collection and analysis process to ensure reliability and trustworthiness of the data collected. Through our analysis process, we developed a visual representation that provides a guide to assist EER graduate students and postdocs with their job search process. The first figure captures the diversity of positions along with the types of institutions where these positions exist to provide a starting point for individuals on their job search process. The second figure includes a timeline to help capture the average time frames for different phases of the job search process. Factors associated with final decisions based on the interviews conducted are also outlined to provide areas of consideration for individuals undergoing this process in the future. This work provides insight to aspiring academics about the range of opportunities available to those with a background in EER and how they can pursue finding alignment between their interests and positions that are available.