Search for: All records

This work in progress paper we explain our process of co-sharing secondary qualitative data from separate projects funded by the National Science Foundation to better understand factors which influence faculty technology adoption in engineering education and provide a high-level presentation of preliminary results. Study A conducted 21 interviews of engineering faculty at a Midwestern US, STEM-centered university. These faculty were interviewed about the factors influencing their adoption and teaching of new engineering technologies, with a focus on programming languages, software, and instrumentation. Technology adoption models were applied as a theoretical lens for results analysis. Study B conducted 9 interviews with faculty in the College of Engineering at a Southern US university on the adoption of online laboratories in their instructional settings. The interviews focused on how faculty make use of online laboratories in electrical engineering as an essential resource. Innovation and propagation theories were applied as a theoretical lens for data analysis. The two data sets were co-shared for secondary analysis by each research group, using their own theoretical approaches. Preliminary findings lead us to believe that co-sharing of secondary data can expand qualitative data sets while providing a means for theoretical triangulation, improving data analysis. 

The COVID-19 pandemic forced universities to suspend face-to-face instruction, prompting a rapid transition to online education. As many lab courses transitioned online, this provided a rare window of opportunity to learn about the challenges and affordances that the online lab experiences created for students and instructors. We present results from exploratory educational research that investigated student motivation and self-regulated learning in the online lab environment. We consider two student factors: motivation and self-regulation. The instrument is administered to students (n = 121) at the beginning of the semester and statistically analysed for comparisons between different demographic groups. The results indicated students' major was the only distinguishing factor for their motivation and self-regulation. Students' unfamiliarity with online labs or uncertainty about what to expect in the course contributed to the lower levels of self-regulation. The lack of significant differences between various subgroups was not surprising, as we posit many students entered the virtual lab environment with the same level of online lab experience. We conducted interviews among these respondents to explore the factors in greater detail. Using latent Dirichlet allocation, three main topics that emerged: (1) Learning Compatibility, (2) Questions and Inquiry, and (3) Planning and Coordination. 

In this paper, we report on the impacts of the ProQual Institute—a $1M award via the NSF ECREHR Core Research program in 2019—as it nears the end of its funding period. The ProQual Institute’s goal is to build national capacity for STEM education research by engaging technical STEM from across the U.S. in cohorts that participate in an 8-week course on qualitative and mixed methods educational research techniques, followed by engagement in several communities of practice to continue supporting participant research projects and building participants’ confidence as educational researchers. This project was funded based on impact rather than knowledge generation; thus, this paper will report on the impacts of the ProQual Institute in terms of participants served and evaluated outcomes and project team observations. The key evaluation questions we answered were: (1) To what extent did the project design and implement a high-quality and culturally responsive training program? (2) What knowledge and skills did participants gain because of participation in the ProQual Institute? (3) How could the ProQual Institute be built upon to improve participant outcomes? 

This panel will discuss the role of different knowledge artifacts in creating, maintaining, and circulating knowledge within the engineering education community. The past decade has seen a significant increase in the venues available for sharing engineering education research and as the field grows and builds more knowledge, it is equally important to also take stock of prior work and of strategies to create novelty. Within this context, what is the role of different knowledge encapsulating artifacts and why do those who engage with creating these artifacts do so? In this panel we touch upon these issues while taking stock of the knowledge base in the field. We will also discuss what the future of knowledge creation in the field might look like given the move towards open access online publications as the primary form of knowledge circulation. Finally, in the post-COVID context, what will and should be the role of in-person events in this process. In terms of equity of participation, what potential avenues are available?