Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T04:30:23.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Engineering Education Research

from Part II - Foundations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2019

By
Michael C. Loui  and
Maura Borrego
Edited by
Sally A. Fincher  and
Anthony V. Robins
Sally A. Fincher
Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury
Anthony V. Robins
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

This chapter describes several aspects of engineering education research with an emphasis on how they might relate to computing education research. We briefly summarize the history of engineering education as a scholarly field, and we describe the current structures that support engineering education research: academic departments, scholarly journals, annual conferences, and professional societies. We identify the theories that often inform engineering education research studies, including theories of cognition, motivation, and identity. We explain how quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods have been used. We summarize the results of an illustrative selection of empirical studies across a broad range of topics, including instructional methods, student development, faculty teaching practices, diversity, and assessment. Finally, we outline some similarities and differences between computing education research and engineering education research. Engineering education research has a longer history of research in professional development and assessment but an arguably shorter history in pre-college education and less international integration than computing education research.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research , pp. 292 - 322
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R., Aldridge, D., Atman, C., Barker, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Bjorklund, S., & Young, M. (2006). The research agenda for the new discipline of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 259–261.Google Scholar
Ahn, B., Cox, M. F., London, J., Cekic, O., & Zhu, J. (2014). Creating an instrument to measure leadership, change, and synthesis in engineering undergraduates. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 115–136.Google Scholar
Allen, K., Reed-Rhoads, T., Terry, R. A., Murphy, T. J., & Stone, A. D. (2008). Coefficient alpha: An engineer’s interpretation of test reliability. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atadero, R. A., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., & Balgopal, M. M. (2015). Using Social Cognitive Career Theory to assess student outcomes of group design projects in statics. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(1), 55–73.Google Scholar
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atman, C. J., Eris, O., McDonnell, J., Cardella, M. E., & Borgford-Parnell, J. L. (2014). Engineering design education: Research, practice, and examples that link the two. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 201–225). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, L. C., Becker, K., Cooper, M. M., Griffin, O. H., & Smith, K. A. (2010). Engineering education: Departments, degrees and directions. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(5), 1042–1048.Google Scholar
Benson, L., & Borrego, M. (2015). The role of replication in engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 388–392.Google Scholar
Bernhard, J., & Baillie, C. (2016). Standards for quality of research in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), 2378–2394.Google Scholar
Besterfield-Sacre, M., Cox, M. F., Borrego, M., Beddoes, K., & Zhu, J. (2014). Changing engineering education: Views of U.S. faculty, chairs, and deans. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borenstein, J., Drake, M. J., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. L. (2010). The Engineering and Science Issues Test (ESIT): A discipline-specific approach to assessing moral judgment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(2), 387–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borrego, M. (2007). Development of engineering education as a rigorous discipline: A study of the publication patterns of four coalitions. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011). The emergence of engineering education research as an internationally connected field of inquiry. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 14–47.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature reviews in engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 45–76.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2015). What is the state of the art of systematic review in engineering education? Journal of Engineering Education, 104(2), 212–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrego, M., Froyd, J., & Knight, D. (2007). Accelerating emergence of engineering education via the International Conference on Research in Engineering Education (ICREE). Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 281–282.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220–252.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Karlin, J., McNair, L. D., & Beddoes, K. (2013). Team effectiveness theory from industrial and organizational psychology applied to engineering student project teams: A review. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 472–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2008). Characteristics of successful cross-disciplinary engineering education collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P–12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.Google Scholar
Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 304–328.Google Scholar
Canney, N., & Bielefeldt, A. (2015). A framework for the development of social responsibility in engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1B), 414–424.Google Scholar
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.Google Scholar
Case, J. M., & Light, G. (2011). Emerging research methodologies in engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 186–210.Google Scholar
Chao, J., Xie, C., Nourian, S., Chen, G., Bailey, S., Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, S., Adams, R. S., & Tutwiler, M. S. (2017). Bridging the design-science gap with tools: Science learning and design behaviors in a simulated environment for engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 1049–1096.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.Google Scholar
Clark, M. C., Froyd, J. E., Merton, P., & Richardson, J. (2004). The evolution of curricular change models within the foundation coalition. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crede, E., & Borrego, M. (2010). A content analysis of the use of mixed methods studies in engineering education. In ASEE Annual Conference (pp. 15.22.1–5.22.18). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.Google Scholar
Davis, M. (1998). Thinking Like an Engineer: Studies in the Ethics of a Profession. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. A., & Purzer, S. (2015). Validity: Meaning and relevancy in assessment for engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(2), 108–118.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. A., Rynearson, A., Purzer, S., & Strobel, J. (2016). Reliability, validity, and fairness: A content analysis of assessment development publications in major engineering education journals. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5a), 1960–1971.Google Scholar
Duval-Couetil, N., Reed-Rhoads, T., & Haghighi, S. (2010). Development of an assessment instrument to examine outcomes of entrepreneurship education on engineering students. In Frontiers in Education Conference (p. T4D-1). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Engineering Education Community Resource (2017). Engineering education departments and programs. Retrieved from http://engineeringeducationlist.pbworks.com/w/page/27610307/Engineering%20Education%20Departments%20and%20Programs%20(Graduate)Google Scholar
Eris, O., Chachra, D., Chen, H. L., Sheppard, S., Ludlow, L., Rosca, C., Bailey, T., & Toye, G. (2010). Outcomes of a longitudinal administration of the persistence in engineering survey. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 371–395.Google Scholar
Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2010). The National Effective Teaching Institute: Assessment of impact and implications for faculty development. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., & Dietz, E. J. (1998). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 469–480.Google Scholar
Fincher, S., Lister, R., Clear, T., Robins, A., Tenenberg, J., & Petre, M. (2005). Multi-institutional, multi-national studies in CSEd research: Some design considerations and trade-offs. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 111–121). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Finelli, C. J., Borrego, M., & Rasoulifar, G. (2015). Development of a taxonomy of keywords for engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 365–387.Google Scholar
Finelli, C. J., Daly, S. R., & Richardson, K. M. (2014). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: Designing an institutional change plan using local evidence. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firetto, C. M., Van Meter, P. N., Turns, S. R., & Litzinger, T. A. (2016). The validation of a conceptual reasoning inventory for introductory thermodynamics. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), 2635–2652.Google Scholar
Foor, C. E., Walden, S. E., & Trytten, D. A. (2007). “I wish that I belonged more in this whole engineering group:” Achieving individual diversity. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(2), 103–115.Google Scholar
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319–8320.Google Scholar
Froyd, J. E. (2005). The Engineering Education Coalitions program. In Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century (pp. 82–97). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Froyd, J. E., & Borrego, M. (2014). Leadership insights from the National Science Foundation Engineering Education Coalitions program and other large curriculum initiatives. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 45–50.Google Scholar
Froyd, J. E., Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Henderson, C., & Prince, M. (2013). Estimates of use of research-based instructional strategies in core electrical or computer engineering courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 393–399.Google Scholar
Froyd, J. E., & Lohmann, J. R. (2014). Chronological and ontological development of engineering education as a field of scientific inquiry. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 3–15). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gainsburg, J. (2015). Engineering students’ epistemological views on mathematical methods in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(2), 139–166.Google Scholar
Godfrey, E., & Hadgraft, R. (2009). Engineering education research: Coming of age in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 307–308.Google Scholar
Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016). Identity, critical agency, and engineering: An affective model for predicting engineering as a career choice. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 312–340.Google Scholar
Goldman, K. J., Gross, P., Heeren, C., Herman, G., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M. C., & Zilles, C. (2010). Setting the scope of concept inventories for introductory computing subjects. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(2), 1–29.Google Scholar
Gray, G. L., Costanzo, F., Evans, D., Cornwell, P., Self, B., & Lane, J. L. (2005). The Dynamics Concept Inventory Assessment Test: A progress report and some results. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 4819–4833). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.Google Scholar
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.Google Scholar
Henderson, C., Connolly, M., Dolan, E. L., Finkelstein, N., Franklin, S., Malcom, S., Rasmussen, C., Redd, K., & St. John, K. (2017),. Towards the STEM DBER Alliance: Why we need a discipline-based STEM education research community. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 349–355.Google Scholar
Herman, G. L., Zilles, C., & Loui, M. C. (2014). A psychometric evaluation of the digital logic concept inventory. Computer Science Education, 24(4), 277–303.Google Scholar
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.Google Scholar
Holloway, B. M., Reed, T., Imbrie, P. K., & Reid, K. (2014). Research-informed policy change: A retrospective on engineering admissions. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 274–301.Google Scholar
Hutchison-Green, M. A., Follman, D. K., & Bodner, G. M. (2008). Providing a voice: Qualitative investigation of the impact of a first-year engineering experience on students’ efficacy beliefs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 177–190.Google Scholar
Hynes, M. M. (2012). Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: A look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 345–360.Google Scholar
Hynes, M. M., Mathis, C., Purzer, S., Rynearson, A., & Siverling, E. (2017). Systematic review of research in P–12 engineering education from 2000–2015. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1B), 453–462.Google Scholar
Jamison, A., Kolmos, A., & Holgaard, J. E. (2014), Hybrid learning: An integrative approach to engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 253–273.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Pedagogical agent signaling of multiple visual engineering representations: The case of the young female agent. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (Eds.) (2014). Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kajfez, R. L., & Matusovich, H. M. (2017). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness as motivators of graduate teaching assistants. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(2), 245–272.Google Scholar
Karabulut-Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2017). A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 398–411.Google Scholar
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.) (2009). Engineering in K–12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, B. (2015). The flipped classroom in engineering education: A survey of the research. In International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 815–818). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Klein, S., Benjamin, R., Shavelson, R., & Bolus, R. (2007). The Collegiate Learning Assessment: Facts and fantasies. Evaluation Review, 31(5), 415–439.Google Scholar
Kolmos, A. & de Graaff, E. (2014). Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education: Merging models. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 141–160). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, S., Decker, J. C., & Griffin, R. (2003). Using a Materials Concept Inventory to Assess Conceptual Gain in Introductory Materials Engineering Courses. In Frontiers in Education Conference (p. T3D-7). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5–20.Google Scholar
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450), 1335–1342.Google Scholar
Leydens, J. A., Moskal, B. M., & Pavelich, M. J. (2004). Qualitative methods used in the assessment of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 65–72.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, G., Chen, H. L., Smith, K. A., & Maldonado, T. A. (2014). Retention and persistence of women and minorities along the engineering pathway in the United States. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 311–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Litzinger, T. A. (2010). Engineering education centers and programs: A critical resource. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 3–4.Google Scholar
Lohmann, J. R. (2003). The editor’s page: Mission, measures, and ManuscriptCentral™. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 1.Google Scholar
Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loui, M. C. (2017). Wickenden award, thanks, and farewell. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 347–348.Google Scholar
Mamaril, N. A., Usher, E. L., Li, C. R., Economy, D. R., & Kennedy, M. S. (2016). Measuring undergraduate students’ engineering self-efficacy: A validation study. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 366–395.Google Scholar
Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2012). Leaving engineering: A multi-year single institution study. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 6–27.Google Scholar
Martin, J. P., Simmons, D. R., & Yu, S. L. (2013). The role of social capital in the experiences of Hispanic women engineering majors. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 227–243.Google Scholar
Matusovich, H. M., Paretti, M. C., McNair, L. D. & Hixson, C. (2014). Faculty motivation: A gateway to transforming engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 302–330.Google Scholar
Matusovich, H. M., Streveler, R. A., & Miller, R. L. (2010). Why do students choose engineering? A qualitative, longitudinal investigation of students’ motivational values. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 289–303.Google Scholar
McKenna, A. F. (2014). Adaptive expertise and knowledge fluency in design and innovation. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 227–242). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menekse, M., Stump, G. S., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 346–374.Google Scholar
Montfort, D., Brown, S., & Shinew, D. (2014). The personal epistemologies of civil engineering faculty. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 388–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R. A., Stohlmann, M. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2013). Modeling in engineering: The role of representational fluency in students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 141–178.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation (2015). News release #15-066 “NSF awards $12 million to spur an engineering education revolution.” Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=135379Google Scholar
Nelson, K. G., McKenna, A. F., Brem, S. K., Hilpert, J., Husman, J., & Pettinato, E. (2017). Students’ misconceptions about semiconductors and use of knowledge in simulations. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(2), 218–244.Google Scholar
Newstetter, W., & Svinicki, M. (2014). Learning theories for engineering education practice and research. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 29–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ohland, M. W., Long, R. A., Layton, R. A., Lord, S. M., Orr, M. K., & Brawner, C. E. (2016). Making the Multiple Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD) more accessible to researchers. In Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1–3). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Finelli, C. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz, H. R., & Schmucker, D. G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 609–630.Google Scholar
Ohland, M. W., Sheppard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R. A. (2008). Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 259–278.Google Scholar
Ohland, M. W., Zhang, G., Thorndyke, B., & Anderson, T. J. (2004). Grade-point average, changes of major, and majors selected by students leaving engineering. In Frontiers in Education Conference (p. T1G-12). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Passow, H. J., & Passow, C. H. (2017). What competencies should undergraduate engineering programs emphasize? A systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 475–526.Google Scholar
Patrick, A., & Borrego, M. (2016). A review of the literature relevant to engineering identity. In ASEE Annual Conference (pp. 26–29). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Peters, D. L., & Daly, S. R. (2013). Returning to graduate school: Expectations of success, values of the degree, and managing the costs. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 244–268.Google Scholar
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813.Google Scholar
Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. D., & Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 165–184.Google Scholar
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.Google Scholar
Prybutok, A., Patrick, A., Borrego, M., Seepersad, C. C., & Kirisits, M. J. (2016). Cross-sectional survey study of undergraduate engineering identity. In ASEE Annual Conference. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Reid, K., & Ferguson, D. M. (2011). Enhancing the entrepreneurial mindset of freshman engineers. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 22.622.1–22.622.10). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78Google Scholar
Samuelson, C. C., & Litzler, E. (2016). Community cultural wealth: An assets-based approach to persistence of engineering students of color. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 93–117.Google Scholar
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S. D., Antonio, A. L., Brunhaver, S. R., & Gilmartin, S. K. (2014). The early career pathways of engineering students. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 283–309). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shuman, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & Litzinger, T. (2013). AEE and JEE: Where are the boundaries? Should there be boundaries? Do we need boundaries? Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 224–226.Google Scholar
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.) (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Sneider, C., & Purzer, S. (2014). The rising profile of STEM literacy through national standards and assessments. In Purzer, S., Strobel, J., & Cardella, M. (Eds.). Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 3–19). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steif, P. S., & Dantzler, J. A. (2005), A statics concept inventory: Development and psychometric analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 363–371.Google Scholar
Stevens, R., O’Connor, K., Garrison, L., Jocuns, A., & Amos, D. M. (2008). Becoming an engineer: Toward a three dimensional view of engineering learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 355–368.Google Scholar
Streveler, R. A., Brown, S., Herman, G. L., & Montfort, D. (2014). Conceptual change and misconceptions in engineering education: Curriculum, measurement, and theory-focused approaches. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 83–101). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streveler, R. A., Miller, R. L., Santiago-Román, A. I., Nelson, M. A., Geist, M. R., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Rigorous methodology for concept inventory development: Using the “assessment triangle” to develop and test the Thermal and Transport Science Concept Inventory (TTCI). International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(5), 968–974.Google Scholar
Streveler, R. A., & Smith, K. A. (2006). Conducting rigorous research in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 103–105.Google Scholar
Stice, J. E. (1976). A first step toward improved teaching. Engineering Education, 66(5), 394–398.Google Scholar
Stice, J. E. (1987). Using Kolb’s learning cycle to improve student learning. Engineering Education, 77(5), 291–296.Google Scholar
Stump, G. S. Husman, J., & Corby, M. (2014). Engineering students’ intelligence beliefs and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 369–387.Google Scholar
Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and Motivation in the Postsecondary Classroom. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.Google Scholar
Svinicki, M. D. (2010). A Guidebook on Conceptual Frameworks for Research in Engineering Education. Retrieved from www.dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files1/af66d923fb150b6c895b32655eb9b5ce.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.Google Scholar
Tims, J., Zweben, S., & Timanovsky, Y. (2017). ACM-NDC study 2016–2017: Fifth annual study of non-doctoral-granting departments in computing. ACM Inroads, 8(3), 48–61.Google Scholar
Tonso, K. L. (2007). On the Outskirts of Engineering: Learning Identity, Gender, and Power via Engineering Practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Tonso, K. L. (2014). Engineering identity. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 267–282). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trenshaw, K. F., Revelo, R. A., Earl, K. A., & Herman, G. L. (2016). Using Self Determination Theory principles to promote engineering students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3A), 1194–1207.Google Scholar
Tseng, T., Chen, H. L., & Sheppard, S. (2011). Early academic experiences of non-persisting engineering undergraduates. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 22.516.1–22.516.23). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
US Department of Education (1988). Secretary’s procedures and criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies, 53 Fed. Reg. 25088–25099 (proposed July 1, 1988) (to be codified at 34 CFR § 602–603).Google Scholar
Walther, J., Miller, S. E., & Sochacka, N. W. (2017). A model of empathy in engineering as a core skill, practice orientation, and professional way of being. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 123–148.Google Scholar
Walther, J., & Sochacka, N. W. (2014). Qualifying Qualitative Research Quality (The Q3 Project): An interactive discourse around research quality in interpretive approaches to engineering education research. In Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1–4). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2013). Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 626–659.Google Scholar
Wankat, P. C., Felder, R. M., Smith, K. A., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning in engineering. In Huber, M. T. & Morreale, S. P. (Eds.), Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (pp. 217–237). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540.Google Scholar
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.Google Scholar
Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2010). Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(4), 429–443.Google Scholar
Wilson-Lopez, A., Mejia, J. A., Hasbún, I. M., & Kasun, G. S. (2016). Latina/o adolescents’ funds of knowledge related to engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 278–311.Google Scholar
Zhu, Q., Zoltowski, C. B., Feister, M. K., Buzzanell, P. M., Oakes, W. C., & Mead, A. D. (2014). The development of an instrument for assessing individual ethical decisionmaking in project-based design teams: Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. In ASEE Annual Conference (pp. 24.1197.3–24.1197.12). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×