1 2 3 4
play

1 2 3 4 Addressing three aspects of engineering education - PDF document

Apr 25, 2023 •27 likes •117 views

CAEE/APS team Findings from the Academic Pathways Study of Leadership team: Robin Adams, Cynthia Atman, Engineering Undergraduates Sheri Sheppard, Lorraine Fleming, Larry Leifer, Ronald Miller, Barbara Olds, Karl Smith, Reed 2003 2008

  1. CAEE/APS team Findings from the Academic Pathways Study of  Leadership team: Robin Adams, Cynthia Atman, Engineering Undergraduates Sheri Sheppard, Lorraine Fleming, Larry Leifer, Ronald Miller, Barbara Olds, Karl Smith, Reed 2003 – 2008 Stevens, Ruth Streveler, Jennifer Turns  Assistant Director: Dennis Lund Cynthia Atman, Sheri Sheppard, Lorraine Fleming, Ronald Miller, Karl  APS team members at ASEE: Samantha Bozek, Smith, Reed Stevens, Ruth Streveler Debbie Chachra, Deborah Kilgore, Micah Lande, Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education Holly Matusovich, Sarah Parikh, Dawn Williams, ASEE 2009, Austin, TX Sherry Woods, Ken Yasuhara 2009 June 16  Admin team: Sylvia Bach, Patricia Gomez, Tina Loucks-Jaret Based upon work supported by National Science Foundation Grant No. ESI-0227558. Opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations 2 expressed in this material are the authors’ and do ASEE, 2009 June 16 not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. Acknowledgements Plan for session  Current and former advisory board members  Introduction to CAEE  External Advisory Board: S. Ambrose, R. Felder, N. L.  Academic Pathways Study (APS) Fortenberry, T. Foot, L. M. Gomez, M. J. Gonzalez, R. Hall, C. Meyers, G. A. Moses, A. Moyé, J. W. Prados, J.  Overview Roundhill, E. Seymour, K. Watson, D. Wormley  Three selected findings  Internal Advisory Board: S. L. Crouch, P. Hudleston, J.  Small-group discussion of implications H. Johnson, Jr., N. Middleton, M. O’Donnell, J. D. Plummer, O. Taylor; and J. Bransford,  Large-group discussion with panel J. D. Nyquist, P. A. Wasley, and D. H. Wulff at the U. of Washington  Special thanks to Denice D. Denton (image courtesy M. Klawe) 3 4 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 Undergraduate engineering education Center for the Advancement of engineeri ring curriculum Engineering Education 1 2 3 4  Addressing three aspects of engineering education  Students: Academic Pathways Study (APS)  Faculty: Studies of Engineering Educator Decisions (SEED), Jennifer Turns  Building rigorous research capability: Institute for Scholarship on Engineering Education (ISEE), Robin Adams 5 6 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 1

  2. Sampling of APS findings: Academic Pathways Study Large variation in student pathways Sheppard (lead), Atman, Fleming, Miller, Smith, Stevens, Streveler  Large-scale, multi-method study of  A. Getting in undergraduate engineering students  Reasons for choosing engineering  Perceptions of engineering  3 cohorts of engineering student participants  B. Getting through  Multiple groups of early-career engineers  Proficiency and confidence in engineering skills  Experiences in courses  Additional analysis of national survey data  C. Getting out  Preparation for “the real world”  Perceived importance of aspects of engineering Research on the engineering learning  Post-graduation plans experience from the student perspective 7 8 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 Plan for session Research methods & samples  Introduction to CAEE  A. NSSE national sample  National Survey of Student Engagement; 2002, 2006 – 2007  Academic Pathways Study (APS)  N = 11,819 matched pairs (first-year and senior) from 247 institutions  B. Longitudinal cohort  Overview  Surveys, structured interviews, ethnographic interviews and  Three selected findings observations, engineering design tasks, academic transcripts; 2003 – 2007  Small-group discussion of implications  N = 160 from four campuses  Oversampled for underrepresented groups  Large-group discussion with panel  C. Broad national sample  APPLES2 survey, Spring 2008  N = 4,266, cross-sectional sample from 21 engineering colleges  Oversampled for underrepresented groups 9 10 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 A Three findings for discussion Discussion preview B C  A. Getting in  Consider the implications of each finding on (NSSE sample, N = 11,819) how…  B. Getting through  educators (APS longitudinal sample, N = 160)  student advisors and support services staff  C. Getting out  department heads and deans (APS broad national sample, N = 4,266)  industry  others who influence engineering education …go about their work. 11 12 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 2

  3. A. Getting in (NSSE sample) A A. Getting in: B APS-NSSE partnership 1 2 3 4 C  How does persistence in the engineering major compare to persistence in other major groups?  What are the migration patterns into and out of engineering and non-engineering majors?  In what ways are engineering majors like and not like students in other major groups? 1 2 3 4 (See Donaldson & Sheppard, 2007; Lichtenstein et al ., 2009; and Ohland et al ., 2008.) 13 14 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 A A Net migration Migration terminology B B by major category C C  Persisters: Students whose senior-year major Oth 80% category is the same as first-year (% of first- years) 60%  In-Migrants: Students who enter a major 40% category (% of seniors) A&H 20%  Net Migration: Difference between in- and SS Bus out-migrants (% of first-years) 0% STM CS -20% Engr 15 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 A A Persistence and in-migration Engineering vs. other majors: B B Enriching educational experiences by major category C C 100% HIGH LOW Persistence In-migration Culminating senior Study abroad 22% 80% 95% experience Indep. study/self- 23% 60% Practicum/co-op/ designed major internship/field 86% Foreign language 40% experience 34% coursework 20% 0% (% seniors) Engr STM Bus CS SS A&H Oth 17 18 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 3

  4. A A Engineering vs. other majors: Engineering vs. other majors: B B Engagement and outcomes scales Enriching educational experiences C C 100% HIGH LOW Culminating experience Foreign language FY higher order FY Gains, gen ed 62 80% 71 thinking practices SrGains, personal & 49 60% FY gains, practical social developm’t 73 competence Sr Integrative 40% 55 Sr gains, practical learning practices 82 competence 20% Sr Reflective learning 54 practices 0% Engr STM CS Bus SS A&H Oth (0 – 100 scale) 19 20 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 B. Getting through (APS longitudinal cohort) A B. Getting through: B 1 2 3 4 Conceptualizing design C  How do students conceptualize engineering scienc ience engineer gineering ing design? caps pstone one anal alysis mat ath design ign  APS Longitudinal cohort  Survey question  Years 1 and 4 inter erns nship/ hip/ (See Atman, Kilgore, & McKenna, 2008, and Chachra et al ., 2008.) res esear earch 21 22 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 Important design activities A A Important design activities B B Understanding the problem all (89) Communicating C C Planning “Of the twenty -three design activities below, please Brainstorming Making decisions put a check mark next to the SIX MOST IMPORTANT: Using creativity Testing Visualizing  Abstracting  Making trade-offs Goal Setting  Brainstorming  Modeling Seeking Information Building  Building  Planning Identifying Constraints  Communicating  Prototyping Evaluating Generating alternatives  Decomposing  Seeking information Modeling  Evaluating  Sketching Imagining Prototyping  Generating alternatives  Synthesizing Abstracting  Goal setting  Testing Making trade-offs Decomposing  Identifying constraints  Understanding the problem Synthesizing Year 1  Imagining  Using creativity Sketching Iterating  Iterating  Visualizing  Making decisions 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % participants including item among six "most important" 23 24 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 4

  5. Important design activities, A A Important design activities, changes B by gender B C 80% IDing constraints*** C women (55) Seeking Information** down in men (92) 60% Building** Year 4 difference in % from Year 1 to 4 Year 1 40% Prototyping** Iterating** Prototyping Evaluating Modeling women (39) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20% Goal Setting** men (64) Testing* 0% Year 4 Building** Building Using creativity -20% Communicating* Planning* up in Visualizing** 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % participants including item among six "most important" Year 4 -40% * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; N = 89 -60% 25 26 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 C. Getting out (APS broad national sample) A C. Getting out: B Post-graduation plans 2 3 4 C  What do students plan to do after completing their engineering degrees? PURPLE   Engineering jobs GREEN   Non-engineering jobs BLUE   Engineering graduate study  … (See Lichtenstein et al ., 2009, and Sheppard et al., 2009.) 27 28 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 A A Students’ post -graduation plans: Factors that predict B B Engineering jobs engineering work plans C C 100% NO Student-levelindependent variables Engr. job UNSURE + 1. Financial motivation 80% positive + 2. Exposure to engineering profession predictor 60% + 3. Academic involvement: Engineering + 40% YES 4. Intrinsic psychological motivation 5. Confidence in professional and – 20% interpersonal skills negative predictor 6. Extracurricular participation: Non- 0% engineeringactivities Planning on an engineering job – 7. GPA (self-reported) 29 30 ASEE, 2009 June 16 ASEE, 2009 June 16 5

Recommend

More recommend