Search for: All records

Prior research indicates that empathy can help engineers achieve better outcomes in team-based, design, entrepreneurial, and humanitarian environments. We describe an educational innovation designed to teach engineering students empathic communication skills. Written in the spirit of a propagation (versus dissemination) paradigm, we focus on how the original innovation was adapted to fit into two instructional settings that differed from the first implementation context. We use first person instructor accounts to describe these adaptation processes, including interactions between the developers and the adopters of the innovation, what modifications were necessary to “fit” the innovation into the new settings, and adopter experiences. We conclude with a brief discussion of particularly salient propagation considerations that emerged for the two adopters including, for example, the amount of instructional time available for implementing the empathic communication exercises, and how to achieve student buy-in in different course settings. The two main contributions of this paper are, first, the rich descriptions of how features of the original educational innovation had to be modified to meet the two other settings’ pedagogical goals and, second, an example of how to advance scholarship that supports the propagation of engineering education teaching and learning innovations. 

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the production of engineering education research. Worldwide, this increase is reflected in the growing number of papers that are submitted to engineering education-focused conferences; engineering education-focused journal outlets; and the increasing number of new schools and departments of engineering education, and tenure-track faculty positions opening up in the United States. In spite of these developments, it is often argued that there remains a gap between engineering education research and educational practice. Some studies attribute this gap to a focus on the dissemination of evidence-based practices, as opposed to working with instructors to adapt evidence-based practices to “fit” into new contexts (Froyd et al., 2017). Other research points to the need for broader cultural change, for example at the level of the school or department, in order to create the conditions that enable and encourage instructors to sustainably engage with scholarly teaching and learning practices (Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011). In this paper, we describe a novel institutional model, currently embodied in the Engineering Education Transformations Institute (EETI) at the University of Georgia (UGA), which is designed to create such conditions (Morelock, Walther, & Sochacka, 2019). Philosophically, our model is based on a propagation (versus a dissemination) paradigm (Froyd et al., 2017), grounded in a strengths (Saleebey, 2012) (versus a deficit) approach to existing instructional capacity, and broadly informed by complex systems theory (Laszlo, 1996; Meadows & Wright, 2008). Practically, the model leverages ecological design principles (Hemenway, 2009) to inform the day-to-day operations of the effort. This paper describes these philosophical and practical underpinnings and investigates the following research question: How can ecological design principles be operationalized to cultivate a culture of innovative and scholarly teaching and learning in a college of engineering? 

This work in progress study examines the structural validation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Resilience, an ability to respond positively to challenging situations, is an essential psychological attribute in responding to stressors. Students often encounter stressful situations that could influence their motivation to remain and succeed in an engineering degree. Developing and strengthening resiliency among engineering students is essential for their academic success in engineering. Participants included 150 undergraduate students enrolled in a foundational engineering course who completed an online survey of the resilience measure. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine the structural validity evidence of the CDRISC. Model fitness statistics based on CFI, TLI, RMSEA indicated that a five-factor model of the CD-RISC is acceptable. Convergent validity and discriminant evidence were examined using the AVE and MSV estimates. The analysis indicated some concerns with the validity evidence of the instrument. Implications of findings and future directions are discussed. 

Prior studies have identified the importance of resilience to success both in life and in the workplace. Resilience is also a valued professional skill for academic achievement and student retention in cognitively demanding disciplines such as engineering. However, only limited efforts have been made to characterize how resilience impacts the academic engagement, performance, and retention of engineering students. This study is the first in a program of studies that will map academic resilience, through the measurement of “protective factors” such as optimism and adaptability, with academic performance, as well as identify students at risk of dropping out of their engineering major. In this exploratory study, we examined differences in a group of engineering students on four resilience measures. Participants included 111 engineering students enrolled in six sections of statics taught by one instructor. Participants completed the Psychometric Project Resilience Scale (PPRS) survey online as well as the academic performance requirements for the course. The 50-item instrument surveyed students on five constructs indicative of resilience: adaptability; self-sufficiency; self-control; optimism; and persistence. Learning performance was based on three mid-examinations intended to assess students’ knowledge of the course. The psychometric properties of the instrument used to assess resilience factors were examined and student groups were compared on resilience and performance measures. Results of the study showed that transfer students seemed to struggle more with resilience and academic performance. Differences between gender and race groups in terms of resilience and academic performance were insignificant. Implications of study findings and direction for future studies of resilience among engineering students are discussed.