Search for: All records

In this research paper, we investigate the structure and validity of survey data related to students’ framing agency. In order to promote increased opportunities for students to engage in and learn to frame design problems that are innovative and empathetic, there is a need for instruments that can provide information about student progress and the quality of learning experiences. This is a complex problem because, compared to problem solving, design problem framing is less studied and harder to predict due to the higher levels of student agency involved. To address this issue, we developed a survey to measure framing agency, which is defined as opportunities to frame and reframe design problems and learn in the process. This study extends past research which focused on the construct of framing agency and developing an instrument to measure it following best practices in survey design, including using exploratory factor analysis of pilot data, which recovered six factors related to shared and individual consequentiality, problem structure and constrainedness, and learning. However, as a pilot, the sample limited generalizability; the current study addresses this limitation. We used a national cohort that included multiple engineering disciplines (biomedical, mechanical, chemical, electrical, computer, aerospace), types of formal design projects (e.g., first-year, design-spine, senior capstone) and institution types, including private religious; Hispanic-serving; public land-grant; and research flagship institutions (N=449). We report sample characteristics and used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to provide validity evidence, reporting the chi-square and standardized root mean square residual as estimates of fit. We report Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency. We found that overall, the CFA aligned with the prior exploratory results, in this case, recovering four factors, measured on a seven-point scale: shared consequentiality (the extent to which the student identifies that their understanding of the problem changed as result of a teammate’s decision, M = 6.15; SD = 1.13); learning as consequentiality (the extent to which the student identifies learning as the result of decisions, M = 5.88; SD = 0.98); constrainedness (the extent to which the student reports the ability to make decisions despite design constraints, M = 4.95; SD = 1.49); and shared tentativeness (the extent to which the student identifies uncertainty about the problem and solution, M = 4.02; SD = 1.76). This suggests the survey can provide valid data for instructional decisions and further research into how students learn to frame engineering design problems and what role framing plays in their professional formation. 

In this poster, we report results related to an NSF EEC CAREER project that characterizes framing agency, defined as making decisions and learning in the process of framing design problems. Our past studies of framing agency have relied on discourse analysis to characterize agency in talk [1-3]. However, this analytical approach, with its focus on talk, misses much about the materials in the design process, and given that design is commonly cast as a conversation with materials [4], a fuller understanding of framing agency could come from attention to material interactions. This study aimed to investigate a design setting in which materials played a consequential role, and to incorporate another analytic method to attend to the roles of materials in framing agency. Specifically, we examined ways learners negotiated their agency with materials in the context of an informal STEM camp focused on learning about the past, present, and future of radio frequency communications. 

Laboratory experimentation is a key component of the development of professional engineers. However, experiments conducted in chemical engineering laboratory classes are commonly more prescriptive than the problems faced by practicing engineers, who have agency to make consequential decisions across the experiment and communication of results. Thus, understanding how experiments in laboratory courses vary in offering students opportunities to make such decisions, and how students navigate higher agency learning experiences is important for preparing graduates ready to direct these practices. In this study, we sought to answer the following research question: What factors are measured by the Consequential Agency in Laboratory Experiments survey? To better understand student perceptions of their agency in relation to laboratory experiments, developed an initial version of the Consequential Agency in Laboratory Experiments survey, following research-based survey development guidelines. We implemented it in six upper-division laboratory courses across two universities. We used exploratory factor analysis to investigate the validity of the data from the survey for measuring relevant constructs of authenticity, agency in specific domains, responsibility, and opportunity to make decisions. We found strong support for items measuring agency as responsibility, authenticity, agency in the communication domain, agency in the experimental design domain, and opportunity to make decisions. These findings provide a foundation for developing a more precise survey capable of measuring agency across various laboratory experiment practices. Such a survey will enable future studies that investigate the impacts of increasing agency in just one domain versus in several. In turn, this can aid faculty in developing higher agency learning experiences that are more feasible to implement, compared to authentic research experiences. 

Laboratory experimentation is a key component of the development of professional engineers. However, experiments conducted in chemical engineering laboratory classes are commonly more prescriptive than the problems faced by practicing engineers, who have agency to make consequential decisions across the experiment and communication of results. Thus, understanding how experiments in laboratory courses vary in offering students opportunities to make such decisions, and how students navigate higher agency learning experiences is important for preparing graduates ready to direct these practices. In this study, we sought to answer the following research questions: How do students perceive their agency in course-based undergraduate research experiences? What factors are measured by the Consequential Agency in Laboratory Experiments survey? To better understand student perceptions of their agency in relation to laboratory experiments, we first conducted a case study of a course-based research experience (CURE) in a senior-level chemical engineering laboratory course. We then surveyed six upper-division laboratory courses across two universities using an initial version of the Consequential Agency in Laboratory Experiments survey. We used exploratory factor analysis to investigate the validity of the data from the survey for measuring relevant constructs of authenticity, agency in specific domains, responsibility, and opportunity to make decisions. We found that with instructional support, students in the CURE recognized that failure could itself provide opportunities for learning. They valued having the agency to make consequential decisions, even when they also found the experience challenging. We also found strong support for items measuring agency as responsibility, authenticity, agency in the communication domain, agency in the experimental design domain, and opportunity to make decisions. These findings give us insight into the value of higher agency laboratory experiments, and they provide a foundation for developing a more precise survey capable of measuring agency across various laboratory experiment practices. Such a survey will enable future studies that investigate the impacts of increasing agency in just one domain versus in several. In turn, this can aid faculty in developing higher agency learning experiences that are more feasible to implement, compared to CUREs. 

Laboratory experimentation is a key component of the development of professional engineers. However, experiments conducted in chemical engineering laboratory classes are commonly more prescriptive than the problems faced by practicing engineers, who have agency to make consequential decisions across the experiment and communication of results. Thus, understanding how experiments in laboratory courses vary in offering students opportunities to make such decisions, and how students navigate higher agency learning experiences is important for preparing graduates ready to direct these practices. In this study, we sought to answer the following research question: What factors are measured by the Consequential Agency in Laboratory Experiments survey? To better understand student perceptions of their agency in relation to laboratory experiments, developed an initial version of the Consequential Agency in Laboratory Experiments survey, following research-based survey development guidelines. We implemented it in six upper-division laboratory courses across two universities. We used exploratory factor analysis to investigate the validity of the data from the survey for measuring relevant constructs of authenticity, agency in specific domains, responsibility, and opportunity to make decisions. We found strong support for items measuring agency as responsibility, authenticity, agency in the communication domain, agency in the experimental design domain, and opportunity to make decisions. These findings provide a foundation for developing a more precise survey capable of measuring agency across various laboratory experiment practices. Such a survey will enable future studies that investigate the impacts of increasing agency in just one domain versus in several. In turn, this can aid faculty in developing higher agency learning experiences that are more feasible to implement, compared to authentic research experiences. 

Laboratory experimentation is a key component of the development of professional engineers. However, experiments conducted in chemical engineering laboratory classes are commonly more prescriptive than the problems faced by practicing engineers, who have agency to make consequential decisions across the experiment and communication of results. Thus, understanding how experiments in laboratory courses vary in offering students opportunities to make such decisions, and how students navigate higher agency learning experiences is important for preparing graduates ready to direct these practices. In this study, we sought to answer the following research question: What factors are measured by the Consequential Agency in Laboratory Experiments survey? To better understand student perceptions of their agency in relation to laboratory experiments, developed an initial version of the Consequential Agency in Laboratory Experiments survey, following research-based survey development guidelines. We implemented it in six upper-division laboratory courses across two universities. We used exploratory factor analysis to investigate the validity of the data from the survey for measuring relevant constructs of authenticity, agency in specific domains, responsibility, and opportunity to make decisions. We found strong support for items measuring agency as responsibility, authenticity, agency in the communication domain, agency in the experimental design domain, and opportunity to make decisions. These findings provide a foundation for developing a more precise survey capable of measuring agency across various laboratory experiment practices. Such a survey will enable future studies that investigate the impacts of increasing agency in just one domain versus in several. In turn, this can aid faculty in developing higher agency learning experiences that are more feasible to implement, compared to authentic research experiences. 

Despite being at the center of undergraduate engineering education, laboratory experiments have remained unchanged for decades, resulting in assignments lacking in opportunities for students to learn and grow. We used a survey to measure students’ sense of agency in prototypical design and laboratory courses at research universities. We found students in laboratory courses at both levels experienced significantly lower framing agency than their peers in senior design, and that even those engaged in authentic course-based research did not perceive the experiments as more agentive or authentic. We infer students drew upon abundant low-agency experiences in laboratory experiments; maximizing learning in laboratory courses may hinge on clearer communication about authentic experiments or systematic redesign of earlier courses 

In contrast to the dynamic treatment of other aspects of the curriculum, and despite being at the center of chemical engineering education, laboratory experiments have remained largely unchanged for decades. To characterize the potential impact changes to laboratory courses could have, we explored student perceptions across a department and characterized the kinds of opportunities students have to use their agency in these courses across universities. We used a survey to measure students’ sense of agency across several laboratory courses in a chemical engineering department. We found students in laboratory courses across the chemical engineering laboratory sequence, including those engaged in authentic course-based research did not perceive the experiments as agentive or authentic. We infer students draw upon abundant low-agency experiences in laboratory experiments. We report on the agency that instructors report students possessing across two chemical engineering departments to understand variation across institutions. Maximizing learning in laboratory courses may hinge on clearer communication about authentic experiments or systematic redesign of earlier courses. 

Experiments form the backbone of much of engineering education, but because it is not always possible to do them in person, simulations can provide a powerful alternative to assist student learning. We present data from two versions of two chemical engineering courses where in-person labs pivoted to virtual simulated experiments. In the first-year introduction to chemical engineering course we designed a simulation for students to design and then test a bench-scale prototype of a remediation column for acid mine drainage. In the junior-level chemical engineering laboratory—students typically carry out a bomb calorimetry experiment of sucrose and then analyze their data. We created a simulation based on a combination of thermodynamic models and previous years' data. We found that opportunities for learning came out of the amount of agency and the consequential decisions each experiment allowed the students to make. Based on student engagement and learning, we propose guidelines for integrating simulations as prelab activities. 

Research suggests expert designers frame problems more broadly than novices, but authentic context may make a design problem too difficult. Yet decontextualized problems provide little opportunity for students to learn how to direct their framing and solving of problems. This paper considers characteristics of design problems that support students to develop design skills as they learn and apply concepts to the framing and solving of design problems. We selected and analyzed (un)successful design problems used over four years of iterations in an undergraduate chemical engineering program. We analyze salient features that made the design problems particularly educative and generalize an Educative Design Problem Framework, finding that such problems are relevant to students, have sociotechnical complexity, and are accessible yet require accurate application of technical content to solutions that are not deterministic—in other words, they are low-bar entry and high ceiling. Faculty can use this framework to evaluate and improve design problems in their teaching.