Search for: All records

This methods paper describes the application of and insights gained from using aspects of an emerging methodology, agile ethnography, to study engineers working in practice. Research has suggested that there is a misalignment between what is taught in engineering school and the types of work that engineers do in practice [1]. Little is known about the types of engineering work that are conducted in practice [2], [3]. In order to best prepare engineering graduates to meet the demands of the engineering workforce, students should be taught the types of knowledge and problem-solving strategies that are commonly used by practicing engineers. By teaching students the problem-solving strategies that are used by their professional counterparts, the gap between what students are taught in school and what is expected of them in the workplace may be lessened. The purpose of this paper is to describe how agile ethnography [4], [5] was successfully used in our research project to examine workplace literacy practices and habits of mind employed by eight engineers in their workplaces over a period of three years. The overarching purpose of the project was to develop models of disciplinary literacy instruction [6] and habits of mind [7] in engineering, both of which are potential methods for teaching students the knowledge, skills, and strategies that may prepare them for an engineering career. Disciplinary literacy instruction teaches students the ways that practitioners use literacy practices when reading, writing, interpreting, and evaluating discipline-specific information [8]. Habits of mind are the intelligent behaviors that guide how professionals respond when faced with situations of uncertainty [9]. By understanding how engineers use disciplinary literacy practices and habits of mind in the workplace, models for student instruction can be developed. These instructional practices can be used to support students’ use of authentic engineering practices and ways of thinking that will support them in the classroom and in their future workplaces. Findings about the disciplinary practices and habits of mind of the eight engineers are presented in previous publications by the authors (e.g., [10]–[12]). 

Despite efforts to diversify the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce, engineering remains a White, male-dominated profession. Often, women and underrepresented students do not identify with STEM careers and many opt out of STEM pathways prior to entering high school or college. In order to broaden participation in engineering, new methods of engaging and retaining those who are traditionally underrepresented in engineering are needed. This work is based on a promising approach for encouraging and supporting diverse participation in engineering: disciplinary literacy instruction (DLI). Generally, teachers use DLI to provide K-12 students with a framework for interpreting, evaluating, and generating discipline-specific texts. This instruction provides students with an understanding of how experts in the discipline read, engage, and generate texts used to solve problems or communicate information. While models of disciplinary literacy have been developed and disseminated in several humanities and science fields, there is a lack of empirical and theoretical research that examines the use of DLI within the engineering domain. It is thought that DLI can be used to foster diverse student interest in engineering from a young age by removing literacy-based barriers that often discourage underrepresented students from entering and pursuing careers in STEM fields. This work-in-progress paper describes a new study underway to develop and disseminate a model of disciplinary literacy in engineering. During this project, researchers will observe, interview, and collect written artifacts from engineers working across four sub-disciplines of engineering: aerospace/mechanical, biological, civil/environmental, and electrical/computer. Data that will be collected include interview transcripts, observation field notes, engineer logs of literacy practices, and photographs of texts that the engineers read and write. Data will be analyzed using constant comparative analytic (CCA) methods. CCA will be used to generate theoretical codes from the data that will form the basis for a model of disciplinary literacy in engineering. As a primary outcome of this research, the engineering DLI model will promote the use of DLI practices within K-12 engineering instruction in order to assist and encourage diverse, underrepresented students to engage in engineering courses of study and pursue STEM careers. Thus far, the research team has begun collecting and analyzing data from two electrical engineers. This work in progress paper will report on preliminary findings, as well as implications for K-12 classroom instruction. For instance, this study has shed insights on how engineers use texts as part of the process of conducting failure analysis, and the research team has begun to conceptualize how these types of texts might be used with K-12 students to help them conduct failure analyses during design testing. Ultimately, this project will result in a list of grade-appropriate texts, evaluative frameworks, and activities (e.g., failure analysis in testing) that K-12 engineering teachers can use to prepare their diverse students to think, act, read, and write like engineers. 

Across academic disciplines, researchers have found that argumentation‐based pedagogies increase learners' achievement and engagement. Engineering educational researchers and teachers of engineering may benefit from knowledge regarding how argumentation related to engineering has been practiced and studied.

Drawing from terms and concepts used in national standards for K‐12 education and accreditation requirements for undergraduate engineering education, this study was designed to identify how arguments and argumentation related to the engineering‐designed world were operationalized in relevant literature.

Specified search terms and inclusion criteria were used to identify 117 empirical studies related to engineering argumentation and educational research. A qualitative content analysis was used to identify trends across these studies.

Overall, engineering‐related argumentation was associated with a variety of positive learner outcomes. Across many studies, arguments were operationalized in practice as statements regarding whether an existing technology should be adopted in a given context, usually with a limited number of supports (e.g., costs and ethics) provided for each claim. Relatively few studies mentioned empirical practices, such as tests. Most studies did not name the race/ethnicity of participants nor report engineering‐specific outcomes.

Engineering educators in K‐12 and undergraduate settings can create learning environments in which learners use a range of epistemic practices, including empirical practices, to support a range of claims. Researchers can study engineering‐specific outcomes while specifying relevant demographics of their research participants.