Search for: All records

There are a variety of urgent calls for institutional initiatives and actions to transform engineering education. For a transformational change to occur, the initiatives must alter the culture of the institutions (Eckel, Hill, and Green, 1998). In this work in progress, we detail the methods used to conduct a scoping literature review (ScR) concerning the current state of the literature surrounding institutional culture and transformational change in engineering education at institutions of higher learning in the United States. As institutional culture and transformational change are currently underexplored topics in the engineering education literature, we investigated the larger body of computer science and engineering literature in the United States. Once completed, this study aims to reveal the current trends, theories, and potential gaps in the literature regarding these topics. Arksey and O’Malley’s methodology for conducting scoping reviews informed the development of our scoping review protocol, which similarly includes five stages: (1) identify the research questions, (2) identify relevant studies, (3) select relevant studies, (4) chart the data, and (5) collate, summarize, and report results (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). University librarians who specialize in conducting systematic reviews aided in the refinement of this protocol. From the research question and aim of the study, three main inclusion criteria were created: (1) the literature must discuss both organizational culture and transformational change, (2) discussion of transformational change must describe the institution where the change happened, and (3) the literature must emphasize the agents of transformational change. Additional inclusion and exclusion criteria were created in collaboration with both the librarians and reviewers. These criteria guided the search for existing literature in the following online databases: Elsevier (Engineering Village – Compendex and Engineering Village – INSPEC), ProQuest (ERIC and Education Database), Scopus, and Web of Science. These six databases were selected as they often include publications relevant to the field of engineering education. After the search was conducted, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were turned into questions to inform a three-step screening process (title, abstract, and full text) used by reviewers to determine whether a publication was eligible for the study. Reviewers were assigned to review papers through Covidence, a cloud-based systematic literature review management platform. There are currently two primary reviewers and a third additional reviewer to resolve any conflicts or disagreements if they should arise. Before each review cycle, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are revisited, revised, and agreed upon by the three reviewers. This screening process is performed iteratively, allowing for critical reflection at each stage to drive the resulting findings by the reviewers in consultation with content matter experts. We are currently conducting our first round of screening in the study selection (third stage) of the scoping review protocol. After the removal of duplicates, 999 publications were found by searching in the six selected databases. This number is expected to be further reduced with each step of the screening process. When this scoping review is complete, the resulting publication will contain an analysis of the literature and synthesis of our findings, and present the prominent themes, theories, and potential gaps in the literature. This publication is expected to unite disparate lines of research on institutional culture and transformational change, challenge the assumptions in the field, and change the way engineering education views transformational change. 

In 2017, the report Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students from the National Academy of Science and Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) invited research programs to develop experiences that extend from disciplinary knowledge and skills education. This call to action asks to include social responsibility learning goals in ethical development, cultural issues in research, and the promotion of inclusive learning environments. Moreover, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) all agree that social responsibility is a significant component of an engineer’s professional formation and must be a guiding force in their education. Social Responsibility involves the ethical obligation engineers have to society and the environment, including responsible conduct research (RCR), ethical decision-making, human safety, sustainability, pro bono work, social justice, and diversity. For this work, we explored the views of Social Responsibility in engineering students that could provide insight into developing formal and informal educational activities for future summer programs. In this exploratory multi-methods study, we investigated the following research question: What views of social responsibility are important for engineering students conducting scientific in an NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)? The REU Site selected for this study was a college of engineering located at a major, public, comprehensive, land-grant research university. The Views of Social Responsibility of Scientists and Engineers (VSRoSE) was used to guide our research design. This validated instrument considers the following major social responsibility elements: 1) Consideration of societal consequences, 2) Protection of human welfare and safety, 3) Promotion of environmental sustainability, 4) Efforts to minimize risks, 5) Communication with the public, and 6) Service and Community engagement. Data collection was conducted at the end of their 10-week-long experience in Summer 2022 using Qualtrics. REU students were invited to complete an IRB-approved questionnaire, including collecting demographic data, the VSRoSE-validated survey, and open-ended questions. Open-ended questions were used to explore what experiences have influenced positive student views of social responsibility and provide rich information beyond the six elements of the VSRoSE instrument. The quantitative data from the VSRoSE is analyzed using SPSS. The qualitative data is analyzed by the research team using an inductive coding approach. In this coding process, the researchers derive codes from the data allowing the narrative or theory to emerge from the raw data itself, which is great for exploratory research. The results from this exploratory study will help to strategically initiate a formal and informal research education curriculum at the selected university. In addition, the results may serve as a way for REU administrators and faculty to create metrics of impact on their research activities regarding social responsibility. Finally, this work intends to provoke the ethics and research community to have a deeper conversation about the needs and strategies to educate this unique population of students.