The Experts below are selected from a list of 164184 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Maura Borrego - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
development of a taxonomy of keywords for Engineering Education research
European Journal of Engineering Education, 2016Co-Authors: Cynthia J Finelli, Maura Borrego, Golnoosh RasoulifarAbstract:The diversity of Engineering Education research provides an opportunity for cross-fertilisation of ideas and creativity, but it also can result in fragmentation of the field and duplication of effort. One solution is to establish a standardised taxonomy of Engineering Education terms to map the field and communicate and connect research initiatives. This report describes the process for developing such a taxonomy, the EER Taxonomy. Although the taxonomy focuses on Engineering Education research in the United States, inclusive efforts have engaged 266 individuals from 149 cities in 30 countries during one multiday workshop, 7 conference sessions, and several other virtual and in-person activities. The resulting taxonomy comprises 455 terms arranged in 14 branches and 6 levels. This taxonomy was found to satisfy four criteria for validity and reliability: (1) keywords assigned to a set of abstracts were reproducible by multiple researchers, (2) the taxonomy comprised terms that could be selected as keywords...
-
what is the state of the art of systematic reviewin Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education, 2015Co-Authors: Maura Borrego, Margaret J Foster, Jeffrey E FroydAbstract:Background Systematic review refers to a growing set of research methodologies intended to critically appraise and synthesize research to inform policy and practice. Systematic review methods, widely used in fields such as medicine, psychology, and Education, are being applied in Engineering Education. Analysis of current systematic review practices in Engineering Education can contribute to continuous improvement of an important set of synthesis methodologies. Purpose To promote continuous improvement in systematic reviews, researchers are currently developing criteria to evaluate the quality of systematic review methodologies. The purpose of this article is to identify prior systematic reviews in areas of interest to the Engineering Education community, use these criteria to critique these systematic reviews, and make recommendations for improving use and quality of systematic review methods in Engineering Education research. Scope/Method Using systematic review search methodologies, we identified 12 conference papers and 37 journal articles that are systematic reviews published since 1990. Two reviewers coded each by topic, Education level, quantitative or qualitative sources and synthesis methods, and 18 quantitative measures of review quality. Interrater reliability was calculated using kappa as described by Landis and Koch, which ranged from 0.43 (moderate) to 0.80 (almost perfect) with overall agreement of 0.64 (substantial). Conclusions We found that the 49 identified systematic reviews in Engineering Education are particularly strong in stating their purposes, rationale, and inclusion criteria. They can be improved by explaining reasons for excluding studies, appraising quality of included studies, engaging multiple coders in evaluation procedures, stating their limitations, and, in the case of meta-analyses, describing statistical methods in greater detail.
-
changing Engineering Education views of u s faculty chairs and deans
Journal of Engineering Education, 2014Co-Authors: Mary Besterfieldsacre, Kacey Beddoes, Maura Borrego, Monica Farmer Cox, Jiabin ZhuAbstract:Background Many reports present a vision of what Engineering Education should look like, but few describe how this should happen. An American Society for Engineering Education initiative in 2006 attempted to bridge this gap by engaging faculty, chairs, and deans in discussion of change in Engineering Education; results were reported in a Phase I report (2009). In a second phase, survey data were integrated into a Phase II report (2012). Purpose This article uses the ASEE survey results to identify promising pathways for transforming Engineering undergraduate Education. Design/Method The survey asked faculty, chairs, and deans at Engineering departments at 156 U.S. institutions to reflect on the recommendations of the Phase I report. Quantitative and qualitative responses were separately analyzed and then mixed by mapping findings to the Four Categories of Change Strategies model developed by Henderson et al. (2011), which frames the results and illustrates gaps and opportunities. Results Responses mapped to three of the four categories of the model that were most commonly used in other STEM Education efforts: developing and disseminating new instructional approaches, supporting faculty members in their own scholarly teaching, and implementing policies that enable and reward teaching innovation. No responses mapped to developing a shared vision through activities such as strategic planning. Conclusions The greatest promise for transformative change in Engineering Education lies in developing a shared vision for Educational innovation. The findings of this article provide a foundation for ongoing discussion and evaluating progress.
-
systematic literature reviews in Engineering Education and other developing interdisciplinary fields
Journal of Engineering Education, 2014Co-Authors: Maura Borrego, Margaret J Foster, Jeffrey E FroydAbstract:Background In fields such as medicine, psychology, and Education, systematic reviews of the literature critically appraise and summarize research to inform policy and practice. We argue that now is an appropriate time in the development of the field of Engineering Education to both support systematic reviews and benefit from them. More reviews of prior work conducted more systematically would help advance the field by lowering the barrier for both researchers and practitioners to access the literature, enabling more objective critique of past efforts, identifying gaps, and proposing new directions for research. Purpose The purpose of this article is to introduce the methodology of systematic reviews to the field of Engineering Education and to adapt existing resources on systematic reviews to Engineering Education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Scope/Method This article is primarily a narrative review of the literature on conducting systematic reviews. Methods are adapted to Engineering Education and similar developing interdisciplinary fields. To offer concrete, pertinent examples, we also conducted a systematic review of systematic review articles published on Engineering Education topics since 1990. Fourteen exemplars are presented in this article and used to illustrate systematic review procedures. Conclusions Systematic reviews can benefit the field of Engineering Education by synthesizing prior work, by better informing practice, and by identifying important new directions for research. Engineering Education researchers should consider including systematic reviews in their repertoire of methodologies.
-
feminist theory in three Engineering Education journals 1995 2008
Journal of Engineering Education, 2011Co-Authors: Kacey Beddoes, Maura BorregoAbstract:Background Women remain underrepresented in Engineering despite decades of effort. Feminist theory may explain why some well-intentioned efforts actually reinforce the very conditions they seek to change. Purpose (Hypothesis) Our purpose is to understand and advance the use of feminist theory in Engineering Education research towards the goals of increasing gender diversity and equity in Engineering. Specifically, we seek to address the following questions: How has feminist theory been engaged within Engineering Education scholar ship? And what opportunities exist for further engagement? Design/Method We analyzed articles from Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), European Journal of Engineering (EJEE), and International Journal of Engineering Education (IJEE) that had women or gender as a central part of their studies. Titles, keywords, and abstracts for every article in the journals were reviewed for the years 1995–2008. The 88 articles directly addressing gender or women in Engineering were analyzed to determine their level of engagement with feminist theory. Result Feminist theory is not widely engaged or systematically developed in this scholarship. Most work rests upon implicitly liberal and standpoint feminist theories, but a minority of articles point to intersectional, interactional, and masculinity studies approaches. We identified several ways in which deeper engagement with a wider range of feminist theories can benefit Engineering Education scholarship. Conclusion Feminist theory is underutilized within Engineering Education scholarship. Further engagement with, and systematic development of, feminist theory could be one beneficial way to move the field forward.
Kacey Beddoes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
methodology discourses as boundary work in the construction of Engineering Education
Social Studies of Science, 2014Co-Authors: Kacey BeddoesAbstract:Engineering Education research is a new field that emerged in the social sciences over the past 10 years. This analysis of Engineering Education research demonstrates that methodology discourses ha...
-
changing Engineering Education views of u s faculty chairs and deans
Journal of Engineering Education, 2014Co-Authors: Mary Besterfieldsacre, Kacey Beddoes, Maura Borrego, Monica Farmer Cox, Jiabin ZhuAbstract:Background Many reports present a vision of what Engineering Education should look like, but few describe how this should happen. An American Society for Engineering Education initiative in 2006 attempted to bridge this gap by engaging faculty, chairs, and deans in discussion of change in Engineering Education; results were reported in a Phase I report (2009). In a second phase, survey data were integrated into a Phase II report (2012). Purpose This article uses the ASEE survey results to identify promising pathways for transforming Engineering undergraduate Education. Design/Method The survey asked faculty, chairs, and deans at Engineering departments at 156 U.S. institutions to reflect on the recommendations of the Phase I report. Quantitative and qualitative responses were separately analyzed and then mixed by mapping findings to the Four Categories of Change Strategies model developed by Henderson et al. (2011), which frames the results and illustrates gaps and opportunities. Results Responses mapped to three of the four categories of the model that were most commonly used in other STEM Education efforts: developing and disseminating new instructional approaches, supporting faculty members in their own scholarly teaching, and implementing policies that enable and reward teaching innovation. No responses mapped to developing a shared vision through activities such as strategic planning. Conclusions The greatest promise for transformative change in Engineering Education lies in developing a shared vision for Educational innovation. The findings of this article provide a foundation for ongoing discussion and evaluating progress.
-
feminist theory in three Engineering Education journals 1995 2008
Journal of Engineering Education, 2011Co-Authors: Kacey Beddoes, Maura BorregoAbstract:Background Women remain underrepresented in Engineering despite decades of effort. Feminist theory may explain why some well-intentioned efforts actually reinforce the very conditions they seek to change. Purpose (Hypothesis) Our purpose is to understand and advance the use of feminist theory in Engineering Education research towards the goals of increasing gender diversity and equity in Engineering. Specifically, we seek to address the following questions: How has feminist theory been engaged within Engineering Education scholar ship? And what opportunities exist for further engagement? Design/Method We analyzed articles from Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), European Journal of Engineering (EJEE), and International Journal of Engineering Education (IJEE) that had women or gender as a central part of their studies. Titles, keywords, and abstracts for every article in the journals were reviewed for the years 1995–2008. The 88 articles directly addressing gender or women in Engineering were analyzed to determine their level of engagement with feminist theory. Result Feminist theory is not widely engaged or systematically developed in this scholarship. Most work rests upon implicitly liberal and standpoint feminist theories, but a minority of articles point to intersectional, interactional, and masculinity studies approaches. We identified several ways in which deeper engagement with a wider range of feminist theories can benefit Engineering Education scholarship. Conclusion Feminist theory is underutilized within Engineering Education scholarship. Further engagement with, and systematic development of, feminist theory could be one beneficial way to move the field forward.
-
advancing global capacity for Engineering Education research relating research to practice policy and industry
European Journal of Engineering Education, 2010Co-Authors: Brent K. Jesiek, Maura Borrego, Kacey BeddoesAbstract:Findings are presented from a series of moderated interactive sessions held at international Engineering Education conferences between July 2007 and December 2008, where attendees discussed the current state and future trajectory of Engineering Education research. More specifically, this study examines how session attendees described: (1) the relationship between Engineering Education research and Educational practice, policy considerations and industry; (2) important stakeholders, mechanisms/strategies and challenges for relating research to practice, policy and industry. Thematic analysis and open coding procedures were used to analyse the data collected at each session. In summary, frequent discussion and widespread consensus was observed about the need to relate Engineering Education research to the practice of Engineering teaching. Discussions about relating research to policy and industry remain formative, but appear to be gaining traction. The paper concludes by proposing a cyclic model to better c...
-
advancing global capacity for Engineering Education research agceer relating research to practice policy and industry
Journal of Engineering Education, 2010Co-Authors: Brent K. Jesiek, Maura Borrego, Kacey BeddoesAbstract:Background We report on the results of a joint initiative between the European Journal of Engineering Education and Journal of Engineering Education titled Advancing Global Capacity for Engineering Education Research (AGCEER). More specifically, we present findings from a series of moderated interactive sessions held at international Engineering Education conferences between July 2007 and December 2008, where participants were asked to discuss the current state and future trajectory of Engineering Education research. Purpose (Hypothesis) How did AGCEER session attendees describe: (1) the relationship between Engineering Education research and Educational practice, policy considerations, and industry, and (2) important stakeholders, mechanisms/strategies, and challenges for relating research to practice, policy, and industry? Design/Method Thematic analysis was used to categorize and understand the textual data of report back transcripts and note pages from ten AGCEER sessions involving 300 participants on six continents. An open coding procedure was used to capture issues raised in each of the sessions on the relation of research to practice, policy, and industry. Results We observed frequent discussion and widespread consensus among AGCEER participants about the need to relate Engineering Education research to the practice of Engineering teaching. Discussions about relating research to policy and industry remain formative, but appear to be gaining traction. Conclusions We propose a cyclic model to better conceptualize how Engineering Education research can be strategically related to practice, profession, and industry across diverse local and global contexts.
Brent K. Jesiek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Expansive (Dis)Integration of Electrical Engineering Education
IEEE Access, 2017Co-Authors: Brent K. Jesiek, Leah H. JamiesonAbstract:This paper examines the history of electrical Engineering Education, leveraging the concept of “expansive (dis)integration” to frame a number of key trends and challenges in the field. Our account is organized historically, starting with the origins and early development of electrical Engineering Education beginning in the late 1800s, and then tracing out the rise of new subfields and specialties during the inter-war and post-WWII periods. The development of computer Engineering as a field is given special attention as a case study in disciplinary (dis)integration, while setting the stage for a discussion of broader trends associated with the rising influence of digital techniques and technologies across electrical Engineering. The final sections of this paper report on some contemporary challenges and opportunities that may further transform the field in upcoming years and decades, with particular emphasis on issues of demographic diversity and perceptions of broader relevance and impact. The approach of this paper is largely historical, drawing on a wide variety of primary and secondary source materials. It is expected that this paper will be of interest to anyone who would like to know more about the historical development of electrical Engineering Education, including in relation to more contemporary currents in the field.
-
work in progress mesoscopic analysis of Engineering Education scholarship in electrical and computer Engineering 2002 2011
Frontiers in Education Conference, 2012Co-Authors: Farrah Fayyaz, Brent K. JesiekAbstract:Engineering Education remains a relatively new and rapidly developing research field. As a result, there are significant variations in the quantity and kinds of Engineering Education research being conducted and published in different Engineering disciplines and local/national contexts. Responding to a lack of systematic attempts to study such dynamics, this paper describes our ongoing efforts to investigate the quantity and nature of Engineering Education scholarship in Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) and allied fields over the last ten years. More specifically, we report preliminary results of an in-depth quantitative and qualitative analysis of journal articles (n=664) published in IEEE Transactions on Education from 2002 to 2011, including co-authorship patterns, geographic distribution of authors, and research funding reported. To help contextualize the study, the authors also discuss other studies of publication trends in Engineering Education research.
-
advancing global capacity for Engineering Education research relating research to practice policy and industry
European Journal of Engineering Education, 2010Co-Authors: Brent K. Jesiek, Maura Borrego, Kacey BeddoesAbstract:Findings are presented from a series of moderated interactive sessions held at international Engineering Education conferences between July 2007 and December 2008, where attendees discussed the current state and future trajectory of Engineering Education research. More specifically, this study examines how session attendees described: (1) the relationship between Engineering Education research and Educational practice, policy considerations and industry; (2) important stakeholders, mechanisms/strategies and challenges for relating research to practice, policy and industry. Thematic analysis and open coding procedures were used to analyse the data collected at each session. In summary, frequent discussion and widespread consensus was observed about the need to relate Engineering Education research to the practice of Engineering teaching. Discussions about relating research to policy and industry remain formative, but appear to be gaining traction. The paper concludes by proposing a cyclic model to better c...
-
advancing global capacity for Engineering Education research agceer relating research to practice policy and industry
Journal of Engineering Education, 2010Co-Authors: Brent K. Jesiek, Maura Borrego, Kacey BeddoesAbstract:Background We report on the results of a joint initiative between the European Journal of Engineering Education and Journal of Engineering Education titled Advancing Global Capacity for Engineering Education Research (AGCEER). More specifically, we present findings from a series of moderated interactive sessions held at international Engineering Education conferences between July 2007 and December 2008, where participants were asked to discuss the current state and future trajectory of Engineering Education research. Purpose (Hypothesis) How did AGCEER session attendees describe: (1) the relationship between Engineering Education research and Educational practice, policy considerations, and industry, and (2) important stakeholders, mechanisms/strategies, and challenges for relating research to practice, policy, and industry? Design/Method Thematic analysis was used to categorize and understand the textual data of report back transcripts and note pages from ten AGCEER sessions involving 300 participants on six continents. An open coding procedure was used to capture issues raised in each of the sessions on the relation of research to practice, policy, and industry. Results We observed frequent discussion and widespread consensus among AGCEER participants about the need to relate Engineering Education research to the practice of Engineering teaching. Discussions about relating research to policy and industry remain formative, but appear to be gaining traction. Conclusions We propose a cyclic model to better conceptualize how Engineering Education research can be strategically related to practice, profession, and industry across diverse local and global contexts.
-
Engineering Education research discipline community or field
Journal of Engineering Education, 2009Co-Authors: Brent K. Jesiek, Lynita K Newswander, Maura BorregoAbstract:Engineering Education research has experienced a notable scale-up in recent years through the development of departments and degree programs, high-profile publication outlets, research agendas, and meetings. We begin by reviewing these developments, contextualizing them historically, and clarifying some relevant terminology. We then use observational data collected at the 2007 inaugural International Conference on Research in Engineering Education (ICREE) to examine how Engineering Education is variously conceptualized as a discipline, community of practice, and/or field. We also examine how ICREE participants engaged with questions about the infrastructure and major goals of Engineering Education research. Our data reveals both an overall lack of clarity and continued sense of ambiguity about the identity and status of Engineering Education research. We conclude by recommending that participants and stakeholders work to clarify the goals and objectives of Engineering Education research, especially to inform the continued development of the field's identity and supporting infrastructures.
Karl A Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
five major shifts in 100 years of Engineering Education
Proceedings of the IEEE, 2012Co-Authors: Jeffrey E Froyd, Phillip C Wankat, Karl A SmithAbstract:In this paper, five major shifts in Engineering Education are identified. During the Engineering science revolution, curricula moved from hands-on practice to mathematical modeling and scientific analyses. The first shift was initiated by Engineering faculty members from Europe; accelerated during World War II, when physicists contributed multiple Engineering breakthroughs; codified in the Grinter report; and kick-started by Sputnik. Did accreditation hinder curricular innovations? Were Engineering graduates ready for practice? Spurred by these questions, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) required Engineering programs to formulate outcomes, systematically assess achievement, and continuously improve student learning. The last three shifts are in progress. Since the Engineering science revolution may have marginalized design, a distinctive feature of Engineering, faculty members refocused attention on capstone and first-year Engineering design courses. However, this third shift has not affected the two years in between. Fourth, research on learning and Education continues to influence Engineering Education. Examples include learning outcomes and teaching approaches, such as cooperative learning and inquiry that increase student engagement. In shift five, technologies (e.g., the Internet, intelligent tutors, personal computers, and simulations) have been predicted to transform Education for over 50 years; however, broad transformation has not yet been observed. Together, these five shifts characterize changes in Engineering Education over the past 100 years.
-
a new paradigm for a new field communicating representations of Engineering Education research
Journal of Engineering Education, 2008Co-Authors: Maura Borrego, Karl A Smith, Ronald L Miller, Ruth A StrevelerAbstract:Based on a three-year experience of developing, facilitating, and assessing NSF-funded workshops on Rigorous Research in Engineering Education (RREE), the authors present four representations of Engineering Education scholarly work in the United States, specifically teaching and research. Many of the representations describe the relationships between Engineering research, Education research, teaching, and assessment. For each of the representations, assessment data are presented to evaluate which aspects resonated with workshop participants and which needed to be changed for wide acceptance by a U.S. Engineering Education audience. It was found that participants preferred continua to dichotomy and were more receptive to models that were introduced inductively through active learning exercises. Lessons learned, implications for the field, and future plans for further development of the paradigm are also included.
-
becoming an Engineering Education researcher intersections extensions and lessons learned among three researchers stories
Inaugural International Conference on Research in Engineering Education ICREE, 2007Co-Authors: Robin Adams, Lorraine Fleming, Karl A SmithAbstract:1 Robin Adams, Engineering Education, Purdue University, rsadams@purdue.edu 2 Lorraine Fleming, Civil Engineering, Howard University, 3 Karl Smith, Engineering Education, Purdue University, smith511@purdue.edu Abstract Engineering Education is an emerging discipline, and the number of people choosing this career path is increasing. What pathways might we navigate on our way to becoming an Engineering Education researcher? How can we investigate these pathways and what could we learn? In this paper we explore intersections, extensions, and lessons learned among three stories of becoming an Engineering Education researcher. We present these stories to facilitate scholarly discourse on pathways for becoming Engineering Education researchers and to seed the generation of a broader palette of stories through the reader’s self-reflection on their own pathways. The theoretical framework for the article is Bruner’s (1991) “The narrative construction of reality.” Narrative, through storytelling, is used as a method of inquiry to enable shared meaning making and common ground within a community of practice. In this paper, each author presents their story or personal journey of becoming an Engineering Education researcher in their own voice. By bringing the reader into our stories we seek to make visible and shared what we are collectively learning and to invite the reader to reflect on their own stories. For example, we observed many themes among our stories. Key among these is that we each began with a burning question that needed inquiry beyond our own sphere of expertise, and that (regardless of how long we’ve been on our paths) we see our journeys as ongoing. We conclude the paper with a discussion on potential roles for storytelling for building capacity in Engineering Education research.
Mary Shaw - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
software Engineering Education a roadmap
International Conference on Software Engineering, 2000Co-Authors: Mary ShawAbstract:Software’s increasingly critical role in systems of widespread significance presents new challenges for the Education of software engineers. Not only is our dependence on software increasing, but the character of software production is itself changing ‐ and with it the demands on the software developers. Four challenges for educators of software developers help identify aspirations for software Engineering Education.
