Background The ability to engage in a creative process to solve a problem or to design a novel artifact is essential to engineering as a profession. Research indicates a need for curricula that enhance students' creative skills in engineering. Purpose Our purpose was to document current practices in engineering pedagogy with regard to opportunities for students' creative growth by examining learning goals, instructional methods, and assessments focused on cognitive creative skills. Design/Method We conducted a critical case study of engineering pedagogy at a single university with seven engineering courses where instructors stated the goal of fostering creativity. Data included instructor and student interviews, student surveys, and course materials. For qualitative analysis, we used frameworks by Treffinger, Young, Selby, and Shepardson and by Wiggins and McTighe. Results One aspect of creativity, convergent thinking (including analysis and evaluation), was well represented in the engineering courses in our case study. However, instruction on generating ideas and openness to exploring ideas was less often evident. For many of the creative skills, especially those related to divergent thinking and idea exploration, assessments were lacking. Conclusions An analysis of pedagogy focused on goals, instruction, and assessments in the engineering curriculum revealed opportunities for growth in students' creative skill development. Designing assessments that motivate students to improve their creative skills and to become more aware of their own creative process is a key need in engineering pedagogy.
Background Professionals who pursue a doctorate after significant post‐baccalaureate work experience, a group we refer to as returners, represent an important but understudied group of engineering doctoral students. Returners are well situated to leverage their applied work experiences in their advanced engineering training. Purpose/Hypothesis We drew on results from the Graduate Student Experiences and Motivations Survey to explore the dimensionality of our scales measuring value and cost constructs. We used these scales, as well as measures of student expectancy of success, to compare returners with direct‐pathway students. Design/Method We surveyed 179 returners and 297 direct‐pathway domestic engineering doctoral students. We first conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis on our cost and value measures. We then used both Ordinary Least Squares and Ordinal Regression Model analyses to assess the relationships of various student characteristics and experiences (including returner status) with student expectancy of success and the emergent cost and values factors associated with doctoral study in engineering. Results Factor analysis revealed three categories of values (interest, attainment, and career utility) that were largely consistent with those in Eccles’ expectancy‐value framework. A similar analysis identified three categories of costs (balance, financial, and academic) associated with pursuing a PhD. Returners felt significantly less confident in their ability to complete their degrees prior to enrolling and perceived higher levels of all cost types than direct‐pathway students. Conclusions Given the differences between returning and direct‐pathway students, it is important to consider how universities might best recruit and retain returners. Tracking returner status could be critical in better supporting these students.
Engineers, facing increasingly complex problems, need to understand the technical and contextual aspects of their work to develop effective solutions. Assessments of comprehensive systems thinking skills are needed to support the development of these skills and to inform professional placement. Thus, our study investigated current systems thinking assessments in engineering by systematically reviewing existing assessments. We analyzed which systems thinking skills were emphasized, how they were evaluated, how data were collected and in what content areas assessments were based. The results revealed a range of assessments, in terms of type, format, and content area, but a lack of assessments that equally prioritized accounting for technical and contextual considerations. This overview of assessments can be used by employers and educators to select assessments appropriate for their contexts and goals. Overall, this study demonstrates a need for comprehensive systems thinking assessments that evaluate performance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.