Search for: All records

This paper examined the role of climate (e.g., interactions with others) in the skill development of engineering and physical science doctoral students. Skill development in graduate school often is connected to students’ primary funding mechanism, which enables students to interact with a research group or teaching team. Advisors also play a pivotal role in the engineering doctoral student experience; however, less is known about how positive mentoring influences specific skill development for engineering doctoral students. Analyzing data from the Graduate Student Funding Survey (n = 615), we focused analyses on three climate Factors (Advising climate; Faculty and staff climate; Peer climate) and specific skill development variables (research, teamwork and project management, peer training and mentoring, and communication). We found that advising climate was statistically significant for all four career-related skills, faculty and staff climate for peer training and mentoring skills only, and peer climate for both peer training and mentoring and communication skills. Our findings highlight the importance of climate from a variety of sources within engineering doctoral programs for the development of career-related skills. 

Graduate education in engineering is an extremely challenging, complex entity that is difficult to change. The purpose of this exploratory research paper was to investigate the applicability of the Collective Impact framework, which has been used within community organizing contexts, to organize the change efforts of a center focused on advancing equitable graduate education within engineering. We sought to understand how the conditions of Collective Impact (i.e., common agenda, backbone organization, mutually reinforcing activities, shared measurement system, and continuous communication) could facilitate the organization of equity-focused change efforts across a college of engineering at a single institution. To achieve this, we took an action research approach. We found the Collective Impact framework to be a useful tool for organizing cross-sectional partnerships to facilitate equity-focused change in graduate education; we also found the five conditions of Collective Impact to be applicable to the higher education context, with some intentional considerations and modifications. Through coordinated efforts, the Collective Impact framework can support the goal of reorienting existing decentralized structures, resource flows, and decision processes to foster bottom-up and top-down change processes to advance equitable support for graduate students.

 

Although advising relationships are key for doctoral student success, little research has addressed how they form. Understanding the formation of advising relationships can help contextualize their later development and ultimately support a student’s decision to persist in the doctorate. To understand relationship formation, the purpose of this qualitative study is to identify and describe the types of advisor–advisee selection processes that exist in engineering, science, and math doctoral programs and examine patterns across disciplines within those fields. We conducted interviews with doctoral program directors and engaged in document analysis of graduate student handbooks from 55 doctoral programs in the aforementioned fields in high research institutions across the United States. Using principal–agent theory as a theoretical lens, our findings showed that engineering programs tend to decentralize the advisor selection process by funding students across different funding sources upon enrollment. Contrariwise, science and math programs tended to fund all students in a cohort from a common funding source, which allowed students to have more time to gather information, meet, and select an advisor. These findings also show important nuances when comparing graduate education in these programs that directly impact the doctoral student experience and reiterates the necessity to study these fields separately.

 

Self-report assessments are used frequently in higher education to assess a variety of constructs, including attitudes, opinions, knowledge, and competence. Systems thinking is an example of one competence often measured using self-report assessments where individuals answer several questions about their perceptions of their own skills, habits, or daily decisions. In this study, we define systems thinking as the ability to see the world as a complex interconnected system where different parts can influence each other, and the interrelationships determine system outcomes. An alternative, less-common, assessment approach is to measure skills directly by providing a scenario about an unstructured problem and evaluating respondents’ judgment or analysis of the scenario (scenario-based assessment). This study explored the relationships between engineering students’ performance on self-report assessments and scenario-based assessments of systems thinking, finding that there were no significant relationships between the two assessment techniques. These results suggest that there may be limitations to using self-report assessments as a method to assess systems thinking and other competencies in educational research and evaluation, which could be addressed by incorporating alternative formats for assessing competence. Future work should explore these findings further and support the development of alternative assessment approaches.

 

Engineers operate in an increasingly global environment, making it important that engineering students develop global engineering competency to prepare them for success in the workplace. To understand this learning, we need assessment approaches that go beyond traditional self‐report surveys. A previous study (Jesiek et al.,Journal of Engineering Education2020; 109(3):1–21) began this process by developing a situational judgment test (SJT) to assess global engineering competency based in the Chinese context and administering it to practicing engineers.

We built on this previous study by administering the SJT to engineering students to explore what prior experiences related to their SJT performance and how their SJT performance compared with practicing engineers' performance on the SJT.

Engineering students completed a survey including the SJT and related self‐report survey instruments. We collected data from three groups of students: those who had studied abroad in China; those who had studied abroad elsewhere; and those who had not studied abroad.

We found that students' SJT performance did not relate to their scores on the self‐report instruments, but did relate to their participation in study abroad programs. The students also performed better on the SJT when compared to the practicing engineers.

Our results highlight the need to use multiple forms of assessment for global engineering competence. Although building evidence for the validity of the Global Engineering Competency China SJT is an ongoing process, this data collection technique may provide new insights on global engineering competency compared to traditionally used assessments.

 

There is an increasing emphasis on assessing student learning outcomes from study abroad experiences, but this assessment often focuses on a limited range of outcomes and assessment methods. We argue for shifting to assessing student learningprocessesin study abroad and present the critical incident technique as one approach to achieve this goal. We demonstrate this approach in interviews with 79 students across a range of global engineering programs, through which we identified 173 incidents which were analyzed to identify common themes. This analysis revealed that students described a wide range of experiences and outcomes from their time abroad. Students’ experiences were messy and complex, making them challenging to understand through typical assessment approaches. Our findings emphasize the importance of using a range of assessment approaches and suggest that exploring students’ learning processes in addition to learning outcomes could provide new insights to inform the design of study abroad programs.

 

Objective: Transfer student capital (TSC) helps community college students realize the potential for the transfer pathway to serve as a lower-cost option to a bachelor’s degree. However, students’ accrual of TSC depends on the quality and quantity of information networks and infrastructure; information asymmetry in these networks can impede students’ transfer progress. Methods: Using interview data from stakeholders who support engineering transfer students at one research university and two community college partners, we apply a methodology that combines qualitative coding techniques (i.e., descriptive, process, and evaluative coding) with network and pathway analyses to explore an information network for coursework transfer in engineering. Results: Our findings illustrate the disjointed and complex web of information sources that transfer students may use to accrue TSC. We highlight pathways fraught with information asymmetry as well as information sources and processes that give promise to students’ ability to accrue TSC and successfully navigate transfer of coursework vertically. Conclusions: An abundance of information sources and paths does not equate to a better transfer system. Utilizing network analysis to visualize and evaluate information sources and processes provides an additional method for evaluating information systems for transfer. Consolidating information sources or improving processes linking information sources could improve inefficiencies in transfer students’ transitions.

 

International research programs for students offer an important opportunity to support students in developing skills in both research and intercultural competence. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many of these programs made the shift to operating virtually, with likely impacts on program outcomes. The purpose of this study was to identify the approaches that program leaders used in adapting international research programs to the virtual environment and explore how these innovations could inform the design of these programs going forward. We conducted eight focus groups with over 40 U.S.-based faculty who had experience running these programs to understand the benefits, challenges, and future potential of incorporating virtual elements into international research programs for students. This paper reports the results of these focus groups and provides suggestions for future program design based on best practices and innovations identified through the development of virtual programs. 

Transfer students in engineering must navigate a myriad of information sources to obtain accurate information on how to matriculate into a 4‐year institution. Although some institutional and state‐level initiatives attempt to streamline the transfer process, students still report difficulties.

This article explores the extent to which web‐based transfer information is fragmented across institutional websites and written using communicative strategies that could limit comprehension. Accordingly, this study characterizes information asymmetries—gaps in information—that affect transfer students in terms of two constructs: fragmentation and language.

We employed a convergent fully integrated mixed‐methods design with a stratified random sample of 38 US engineering degree‐granting institutions. The connections between the webpages were transformed into networks and clustered usingk‐means and partitioning around medoids with measures of dispersion and centrality. A purposeful nested sample of 16 institutions was taken based on the clusters and explored using a two‐cycle mixed‐methods coding protocol to understand how fragmentation and language interact to create information asymmetries. The resulting themes from each construct were integrated to develop narratives across the sampled institutions.

We found the web‐based information for transfer students to be a messy web of loosely connected structures with language that complicates understanding. We identified four fragmentation themes illustrating how transfer information is organized and six language themes capturing linguistic patterns across the webpages. We offer strategies for researchers and practitioners based on the narratives we developed.