1 Developing into an engineer: the Academic Pathways Study* December 6, 2007 Sheri Sheppard *...
-
Upload
kaela-baldwin -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Developing into an engineer: the Academic Pathways Study* December 6, 2007 Sheri Sheppard *...
1
Developing into an engineer: the Academic Pathways
Study*
December 6, 2007
Sheri Sheppard
* Project within CAEE, an NSF funded Engineering Education Center, 1/1/03-12/31/08
2
AcknowledgementThis material is based on work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. ESI-0227558, which funds the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
CAEE is a collaboration of five partner universities: Colorado School of Mines, Howard University, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, and University of Washington.
For further information see the CAEE Web site at http://www.engr.washington.edu/caee or contact Cindy Atman at [email protected]
3
Outline of Presentation
A. Framing of the APS B. "What have we learned about
engineering students and their transitions to the world of work? And what are the implications for educational practice?"
C. What is next…
4
The Pipeline Metaphor
1. Expresses the typical process students take in preparation to become engineers
2. Expresses the activity of students who prematurely exit the preparation process
3. Expresses the activities being done to repair the preparation process
12
3
5
The Pipeline Metaphor
1. Expresses the typical process students take in preparation to become engineers
2. Expresses the activity of students who prematurely exit the preparation process
3. Expresses the activities being done to repair the preparation process
4. Expresses the successful exit as an engineer
12
34
6
Subset of Pipeline
7
detached… attached…
8
APS Research QuestionsSkills• How do students’ engineering skills and knowledge develop
and/or change over time?
Identity• How do pre/engineering students identify themselves?• How do these students come to identify themselves as
engineers?• How do student appreciation, confidence, and commitment to
engineering change as they navigate their education?• What communities do engineering students belong to?• How does belonging to a community contribute to their identity?
Education• How do pre/engineering students navigate their educations?• What elements of students’ engineering educations contribute
to changes observed in their skills and identity?• What do students find difficult and how do they deal with the
difficulties they face?
9
OUTCOME
Data Affective CognitivePsychological Self-concept
ValuesAttitudesBeliefsDrive for achievementSatisfaction with college
KnowledgeCritical Thinking abilityBasic skillsSpecial AptitudesAcademic Achievement
Behavioral Personal habitsAvocationsMental HealthCitizenshipInterpersonal relationships
Career DevelopmentLevel of educationalattainmentVocational Achievements
Classification of Student Outcomes by Type of Outcome & Type of Data (from A. Astin *)
* A. Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited, 1993
…as affected by “E” environmental factors (institutional characteristics, curricular measures,Faculty environment, peer environment, individual involvement measures).
10
OUTCOME
Data Affective CognitivePsychological • Identity (as engineers)
• Values (Diversity, motivations)• Beliefs (about the profession)• Satisfaction with college
• Knowledge (about profession)• Confidence in engr. skills• Design related skills• Choosing a major• Choosing a profession• Grades
Behavioral • Navigational Strategies • Persistence in practice• Career & Educational Goals
Classification of Student Outcomes being studied in APS*
…as affected by “E” factors: gender, race & ethnicity, institutional structures, etc.
* Based on A. Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited, 1993
11
Academic Pathways Study (APS)Sheppard (Lead), Atman, Fleming, Miller, Smith, Stevens,
Streveler
– Large scale, multi-method, longitudinal study of undergraduate engineering students, class of 2007, UW, Howard, CSM, Stanford (160 students)
– Cross-sectional study at 24 institutions, small-large, (>5000 students)
• From the student’s perspective…
As related to Stanford class of 2007:• 40 of the 160 were at Stanford• 400 academic transcripts from actual and potential engr. Grads. analyzed
As related to Stanford undergraduate students, Spring 2007:• 200 freshmen-senior students included in APPLES• participants included persisters and non-persisters
12
The research team…
Colorado School ofMines
Kimberley Breaux, Brittany Claar, Monica Geist, Tawni Hoeglund,Heidi Loshbaugh, Emily Milian, Ronald Miller, Barbara Olds, RuthStreveler
Howard University Karen Bland, Kimarie Engerman, Lorraine Fleming, Lisel Forbes,Sandria Gray, Marcus Jones, Sislena Ledbetter, Shante Mason, JaniceMcCain, Lamar Warren, Dawn Williams
Stanford University Tori Bailey, Helen Chen, Mia Clark, Laura Crenwelge, KristaDonaldson, Elizabeth Lee, Judy Lee, Larry Leifer, Gary Lichtenstein,Jini Puma, Sheri Sheppard, George Toye
University ofWashington
Daniel Amos, Cindy Atman, Theresa Barker, Philip Bell, LariGarrison, Andy Jocuns, Deborah Kilgore, Andrew Morozov, PortiaSabin, Jason Saleem, Reed Stevens, Ken Yasuhara
Olin College Özgür Eris, Debbie Chachra, Larry Ludlow, Camelia RoscaUniversity ofMinnesota
Karl Smith, Russ Korte
University ofRochester
Kevin O’Connor, Lisa Perhamus, Derek Seward
Purdue University Ruth Streveler. Karl Smith
13
APS’s Activities May 2006 – Sept. 2007
14
APS Research Methods
• Surveys• Structured interviews• Semi-structured interviews,
ethnographic observations• Engineering “thinking and doing”
tasks• Academic transcript evaluation• Exit interviews
15
Assessment of Research Questions By Methodology
Ethnography
w/Semi-structured Interviews
Structured Interviews
Engineering Design
Tasks
Surveys(PIE,
APPLE)
Cognitive (Skills)
Affective (Identity)
“E” Factors:
16
What have we learned:selected findings from the
APS team
• Cognitive--Persistence (Sheppard)– Decision Making & “persistence”– Persistence in a field
• Cognitive--Design Skills (Atman)• “E” Factors & Institutional Distinctions
(Fleming)• Affective--Identity (Stevens)
17
Should I Stay or Should I Go? Undergraduates’ Prior Exposure to Engineering and Their Intentions to
Major
Unsure Mostly Sure PositiveLisa, Linguistics Dana, Chemical Alexis, Math & ComputationJaime, Human Biology Kevin, Electrical Paula, CivilLeslie, Civil Grace, Product Design Sara, ElectricalGrace, Civil & Mechanical Todd, CivilJane, Physics Zach, MechanicalRobert, Mining Michael, Electrical*Anna, Mat'l & Metallurgy Kate, Mat'l & MetallurgyMark, Meteorology George, Physics
Thomas, Petroleum
Emma, Civil Christina, Electrical Max, PetroleumBill, Mechanical Marilyn, EnvironmentalRoger, Mechanical
Steve, Physics Nate, ChemicalOscar, ElectricalRudy, Undeclared*Hilary, ChemicalJoe, Mat'l & Metallurgy
Key: Coleman Students shown in RED; Mountain Tech Students shown in BLUE* Students who have left either Coleman or Mountain TechAll names are pseudonyms
Low
Moderate
High
INTENTION positiveunsure
low
high
EX
PO
SU
RE
For those with an identified interest in engineering,even most students who are unsure of majoring in engineering and who have little prior exposure to engineering choose to major in engineering
18
25,494 -- 52%
38,592 -- 58%
6,523 -- 40%
58,552 -- 59%
18,929 -- 53%
32,121 -- 44%
46,517 -- 56%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
A & H Bus Comp Sci Engr Other Other STM Soc Sci Undeclare
Toledo
Soc Sci
Other STM
Other
Engr
Comp Sci
Bus
A & H
Institution (All) Matriculation Year (All) Gender (All) Ethnicity (All)
Sum of N
Matriculation Major
Major at 8 Sem
Figure 1: Where students are at theend of 8 semesters, 1987-1999. (thenine MIDFIELD schools)
MATRICULATION MAJOR
Other STEM (44%)Engr. (59%)
M. W. Ohland, S. Sheppard,G. Lichtenstein, D.Chachra, Ö. Eris,
“We Can’t Teach Them ifThey Aren’t There:
Matriculation, Persistence,and Migration in
Engineering,” under reviewfor special edition of
Journal of EngineeringEducation on How People
Learn Engineering.
19
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Declared Major by Area of Academic Interest (AAI)
Number of Majors
Humanities (h)Social Sciences (s)Natural Sciences (n)Math and Physical Sciences (p)Engineering (e)
Preliminary Areas of Academic Interest (PAAI)
_ 72%
_ 31%
_ 66%
_ 50%
e p n s h
_ 61%
Figure 2:Stanford class of 2007---Majors at 9quarters*
72% with preliminary interest
in engineering
* K. Donaldson, S. Sheppard, “Exploring the Not-So-Talked-AboutUndergraduate Pathway: Migrating Into Engineering,” 1st InternationalConference on Research in Engineering Education, June 23-24, 2007, Honolulu,Hawaii.
20
Figure 3:Stanford class of 2007---Majors at 9quarters
52% with preliminary interest
in engineering
88% with preliminary interest
in engineering
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ChemE CE CS EE Eng EnvE IDM MS&E Mat.Sci. ME
Engineering Majors at Stanford University
Number of Majors
_93%
_52%
_52%
_57%
_67%
_88%
_ 81%_ 53%
_ 81%
What are the gender and race & ethnicity make-up in these various engineering fields?
21
As of June 2007, complex and still forming lives…
• For example, of the "40" at Stanford, as of June2007….
• 14 are going to graduate school…• 23 are working or looking for work…• 3 students are still working on completing their
undergraduate degrees…• 1 student is on leave-of-absence…
These quick numbers include one subject who is doing a co-term AND plans on working full-time next year --- thus the41 rather than 40.
• We are looking at how exposure and intention topractice affects decision to enter into engineeringwork
How typical is this of the 400?How typical is this of Stanford students?How typical is this of engineering majors nationally?
22
APPLES with Cross-sectional Sample, sample findings…
female male17b. How certain are you of your plans after graduation? 1.45 2.89(0=not sure at all, 1=Somewhat sure, 2=Pretty sure, 3=Absolutely sure)
(Cohort 3 schools)
23
What have we learned:selected findings from the
APS team
• Cognitive--Persistence (Sheppard)– Decision Making & “persistence”– Persistence in a field
• Cognitive--Design Skills (Atman)• “E” Factors & Institutional Distinctions
(Fleming)• Affective--Identity (Stevens)
24
Design Skills & Perceptions
• Year 1 – Women more context-oriented than men ٭– Women equally capable with design details
٭
• Year 4– Conceptions of engineering practice– Preparedness for engineering practice
• Year 1 vs. Year 4, longitudinal– Changes in conceptions of design
25
Engineering Design: Freshmen Take 1
Survey Question:
You have been asked to design a playground. You have a limited amount of time and resources to gather information for your design. From the following list, please put a check mark next to the five kinds of information you would MOST LIKELY NEED as you work on your design…
26
Information Categories by Gender
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Budget**Material costs**
Labor avail. & cost**
Utilities**
H'capped accessibility**N'hood demographics**Info. about the area*
% participants
all APS M (N=92)all APS F (N=51)
`
*p < 0.10 or **p < 0.05, Fisher exact
27
Engineering Design: Freshmen Take 2
Ten Minute Paper and Pencil Engineering Task:
Over the summer the Midwest experienced massive flooding of the Mississippi River. What factors would you take into account in designing a retaining wall system for the Mississippi?
28
Examples of Detail and Context
Design detail– “cost of materials”– “check the budget available for the operation”– “how to contain the river water that has flooded out”
Design context– “aesthetic appeal – is it going to draw local
complaint?”– “the surrounding habitat – make sure little or no
damage is done to the environment”– “would wall impact use of the river by industry?”
29
Detail vs. Context Factorsby Gender
Factors by category andby gender
(all APS, N=51 F + 92 M)
significant difference, p < 0.02
F
Mdetail
detail
context
context
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
men
women
number of segments
30
Engineering Design..an emerging picture from the first year…
Considering context – gender differences– men: emphasis on details of solution such as material,
financial...– women: emphasis on contextual factors such as social,
natural...
Conceptualizing design – gender differences– men: emphasis on building, prototyping...– women: emphasis on gathering information, planning...
31
ETD Selected findings
• Year 1– Women more context-oriented than men ٭– Women equally capable with design details ٭
• Year 4– Low importance, preparation for contextual
issues ٭– High importance, preparation for “people” skills
» Year 1 vs. Year 4, longitudinal– Changes in conceptions of design
32
Conceptions of design:Important design activities
• Of the twenty-three design activities below, please put a check mark next to the SIX MOST IMPORTANT...
33
Important design activities, by year
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
AbstractingSketching
SynthesizingDecomposing
ImaginingIterating**
Making trade-offsVisualizing**
BuildingPrototyping
Generating alternativesModeling
Seeking InformationEvaluating
Using creativityPlanning**
Goal SettingTesting
Making decisionsBrainstorming
Identifying Constraints**Communicating*
Understanding the problem
% participants selecting item as "most important"
Year 1 (89)Year 4 (89)
Significant changes asterisked (**p 0.01, *p 0.05).
Year 1 vs. 4
34
Important design activities, changes
Significant Year 1–4 changes asterisked (**p 0.01, *p 0.05).
Identifying constraints**EvaluatingModeling
Generating alternativesPrototyping
Making trade-offsIterating**
DecomposingSynthesizing
Sketching
up inYear 4
Communicating*Planning**
Using creativityBuilding
Visualizing**Imagining
Abstracting
down inYear 4
35
ETD Summary
• Complex gender differences– First-year women more context-oriented, but not
at the expense of focus on design details.– Implications on continuing challenge to recruit,
retain women.
• Meeting the ABET a–k and 2020 challenges – Seniors value and have learned traditional “core”
engineering, as well as some “people” skills (teamwork, communication).
– ...but not issues of societal/global context, contemporary issues.
36
What have we learned:selected findings from the
APS team
• Cognitive--Persistence (Sheppard)– Decision Making & “persistence”– Persistence in a field
• Cognitive--Design Skills (Atman)• “E” Factors & Institutional Distinctions
(Fleming)• Affective--Identity (Stevens)
37
Institutional FactorsFleming, Lead; Ledbetter, McCain, Williams
• Admission Policy• Access to Resources• Experiences Within University
Environment• Diversity Issues
38
18%
89%
100%
47%
65%
7%47%
11%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mtn Tech
Oliver U
Coleman U
UWest
Very
Somewhat
Not very/notat all
To What Extent Do You Consider Your School to be
Diverse?
39
Does Your Gender Affect Your Views of Becoming an Engineer?
Males
yes26%
no74%
Females
no50%
yes50%
40
Female Student’s ViewDoes your gender affect your views of becoming an engineer?
“… there are societies, like Society for Women Engineers…that does help change our perspective on being an engineer
…it’s ‘cause I’m female, because I’m a minority and I’m not used to being like that because I’m a white middle class individual
… it’s hard to become an engineer, it’s real intimidating to be ahm, working for… predominantly all males…it’s kind of a challenge to me,
…I can do this, I can pioneer this and be a female engineer, be just as good as a male engineer” Mountain Tech
41
Male Students’ ViewDoes your gender affect your views of becoming an
engineer?
“…if the females... have an advantage, just because [of] things like affirmative action … where they give certain advantages to some minorities, I wonder if it is a disadvantage being the majority?” University of West State-M
“It’s more natural for males to be engineers.” Coleman University-M
42
Diversity Summary• To most engineering students,
diversity means difference (school, gender, race , geographical, major field,
politics, religion). • Diversity can be an uncomfortable
topic for students to discuss.• Students recognize the impact of
diversity on their careers.
43
What’s Next?
• Mountains of data to be analyzed. . . . stay tuned
• Possible Relationships to WASC:• Study of knowledge evolution• Curricular Flow-educational careers study (Dan McFarland)• Model for study in other fields
44
Extra slides
45
APPLES with Cohort 3 Schools, sample findings…
20. Source of Knowledge about Engr. ProfessionFamily Member (35%)
Intern (32%)Close Friend (29%)
From being a visitor (27%)From university-related experience (9%)
From being a co-op student (7%)Other (6%)
19b. Since entering college, how much knowledge have you gained about the engineering profession? 2.20 2.19(0=No knowledge, 1=Limited knowledge, 2=Moderate Knowledge, 3=Extensive Knowledge)
female male19a. Before college, how much knowledge did you have about the engineering profession? 1.43 1.30(0=No knowledge, 1=Limited knowledge, 2=Moderate Knowledge, 3=Extensive Knowledge)
46
What have we learned:selected findings from the
APS team• Decision Making & “persistence”;
(Sheppard)• Identity (Stevens)• Design Skills and Perceptions
(Atman)• Institutional Factors (Fleming)
47
Identity٭: Becoming an Engineer
Stevens, Lead; Amos, Garrison, Jocuns• Identification
– The practices by which an individual becomes identified with engineering (by her/himself and by others)
• Navigation– How individuals navigate a pathway to
becoming an engineer
• Accountable Disciplinary Knowledge– Actions when performed are counted by
someone as engineering knowledge
48
Identification (Changes over time)
• Increasing solidarity with other engineering students– We/they language, “Techies” and “Fuzzies”– Identity displays – websites, clothing, social
activities
• Increasing expression of views that they are different from non-engineering students– Engineering work is harder– Harder work justifies future lifestyle
49
Navigation at UWest
Different navigational pathways have a clear effect on identification of students as engineers
– Students not admitted during their first year can be lost during this pre-engineering phase.
– Once admitted to engineering majors, students are granted literal “keys to the clubhouse” — a critical rite of passage that changes how students identify themselves as engineers.
– Students also took a more agentive stance to coursework and learning once admitted.
50
Gender Identity/Navigation at UWest
• Women and men both form identities as engineers that seem quite similar across the genders and draw on stereotypical engineering image (problem solver, good at math, etc.)
• However, in competitive admission practices at UWest women students are believed to have an advantage over men; presence of organizations supporting women also seen by men as evidence that women need help.
• Men use this explanation of women having an advantage in admission to set up a rationale (that involves no fault of their own) for their potential failure to get into the major.
• It is suggested that some believe that women who get into the major may be less qualified than men who do not. This leads to women working to “prove themselves” or working to appear deserving of being in engineering. This seems cultivate some stereotype threat (Steele).
• Women go ‘underground’—seeking help from other women as a first resort, makes them sensitive to criticism of their male peers
51
Accountable Disciplinary Knowledge (Changes over time)
During first two years:– Technical subject matter prerequisites (mathematics,
physics, chemistry) outside of engineering. Little exposure to engineering coursework.
– Lecture-based teaching, individual-based problem sets and exams (except labs)
During latter two years:– Kinds of problems to be solved shifts to more open-ended
problems
– Students’ relationship to data changes. They go from mathematical puzzle solvers to data users to data collectors
– Biggest changes in accountable disciplinary knowledge come through in experiences of Capstone project course
52
Accountable Disciplinary Knowledge (Changes over time)
Examples of two UWest students handling this change over time:
– Adam struggled as problem-set based mathematics (school math) was displaced by group work and open-ended problems
– Simon came into his element with the AA capstone; he drew on his wind tunnel experience (he ran the wind tunnel at UWest) and was the expert in some of the tests (even in relation to the professors/instructors)
53
Identity Summary
• Complex relationships between– Identification– Navigation– Accountable Disciplinary Knowledge
• Pathways for individuals vary greatly
54
What have we learned:selected findings from the
APS team• Decision Making & “persistence”;
(Sheppard)• Identity (Stevens)• Design Skills and Perceptions
(Atman)• Institutional Factors (Fleming)