Characterizing Research Process Sophistication in Engineering Ph.D. Students and the Influence of Prior Experiences

Mosyjowski, Erika A.; Daly, Shanna R.; Peters, Diane L.; Skerlos, Steven J.; Kaczanowski, Megan

doi:10.18260/p.26483

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the eight cases in which ratings differed, the PI reviewed the transcripts and made the final determination. More information about these analyses can be found in Mosyjowski et al (2016). For the purposes of this paper, we highlight the features that characterize the responses that make up the most and least sophisticated descriptions of research thinking and note defining characteristics of these categories, as they relate to our findings on the ways students draw on prior experiences to inform their research work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This section begins with a description of the responses that make up the least sophisticated (Category 1) and most sophisticated (Category 3) categories of research thinking, followed by a discussion of the linkages between the distinguishing characteristics of these emergent levels of research thinking and the prior experiences of returning and direct-pathway students that may contribute. The descriptions of each category come from our team's previous work (Mosyjowski et al, 2016), which also provides examples of participant responses in each category.…”

Section: Sophistication Of Students' Research Thinking and The Role Of Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigating the ways prior experience informs the research approaches of returning and direct-pathway students in engineering PhD programs

Mosyjowski

Daly

2020

SGPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the ways engineering doctoral students draw on prior experiences to inform their doctoral research. This study includes the experiences of “returners” – those who have worked as practitioners for five or more years before entering a PhD program – who have distinct experiences from “direct-pathway students,” which may inform how they engage in doctoral research. This study also explores the traits that distinguish varying levels of sophistication in the ways PhD students think about the research process and how prior experience may contribute. Design/methodology/approach This study draws on interview data from 52 returning and direct-pathway engineering doctoral students. A thematic analysis of this interview data highlights the primary ways participants’ prior professional, academic and life experiences inform their doctoral research. In addition, the authors conducted an iterative analysis process to sort participants’ responses about their management of a hypothetical research scenario into emergent categories of research thinking sophistication to understand what characterizes varying levels of sophistication in research thinking and explore how experience may contribute. Findings Participants identified past experiences as shaping their research, related to how they identify a research problem, considering what needs to and can be done to address the problem, identifying an appropriate research approach, managing unexpected challenges, responding to critical feedback, determining their comfort taking risks and using intuition to lead a project. Originality/value Outcomes of this research can inform how graduate education supports students throughout their degree by identifying key experiences that may contribute to students’ research approaches.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sophistication Of Students' Research Thinking and The Role Of Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the ways prior experience informs the research approaches of returning and direct-pathway students in engineering PhD programs

Mosyjowski

Daly

2020

SGPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This initial study found that the primary value driving returners back to school was utility value, with a lesser emphasis on interest and attainment, and examined the various costs and cost mitigation strategies that returners experience and utilize. Further work, utilizing EVT, was conducted in a nationwide study of engineering returners in doctoral programs [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. This work found similar results for cost categories, compared to earlier work, and provided more insight into the needs of returners in these programs.…”

Section: Returnersmentioning

confidence: 86%

Investigating the Experiences of Military Professionals who Return to Engineering Graduate School

Peters

Gross

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Those graduate students known as returners, who have a gap of at least five years between their undergraduate degree conferral and their return to school for a graduate degree, have a wide variety of different experiences. While many of them spend those gap years in employment at an industrial employer, some of them serve in the military in various capacities. As military experience is different from working at an industrial employer, one might expect that these returners will be different in their outlook, skills, or approach to learning. In this study, the differences between military returners and returners from industry are examined. Twenty-one returners were interviewed, of whom seven had either served in or worked directly for the military as a civilian. The interview protocol covered the participants' decision-making process, challenges they experienced in the program, and whether and how their past experiences interacted with or had an influence on their education. The transcripts of these interviews are analyzed, and the two groups are compared, with key differences and similarities, such as their approach to leadership, noted. In addition, the findings from this analysis are compared to military personnel entering an undergraduate program, as reported in the literature.

show abstract

“…[8][9][10][11] This study included both a survey and interviews; the survey provided information to characterize the returners, and to look further at the value of their return to school, using the EVT framework. [8][9][10] The interview phase was designed to learn more about the intersection between work experiences and doctoral research, and at the impact this had on the research process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[8][9][10] The interview phase was designed to learn more about the intersection between work experiences and doctoral research, and at the impact this had on the research process. 11 In addition to these studies specifically on returners, there has been research conducted on the more general population of older, or non-traditional, students. This work covers a variety of different fields, and includes adult students in many different types of degree programs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Industry to Graduate School: How Returners (Re)Learn How to Write

Peters

Goldstein

Lax

2017 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, a number of researchers have studied returners in engineering graduate programs; these are students who, after graduating with a bachelor's degree in engineering, have chosen to enter the workforce for a significant period of time before beginning a graduate degree. Previous research has shown that returners bring unique strengths to their graduate programs. They are highly motivated, aware of the implications of their work, and interested in applying it to the real-world problems with which they are familiar. They do, however, face many challenges. One such unexplored cost involves writing. Professionals in industry have to communicate, and much of this communication is in written form; however, the rhetorical genres in industry differ significantly from academia. This may present challenges, and returners need to transfer their writing skills from the industrial context to an academic context. In this exploratory study, we developed an interview protocol and conducted interviews with four (n=4) returner participants in the engineering doctoral programs at a major Midwestern university. The common themes revealed in the interviews form the basis for implications for how graduate engineering programs can help returners make a successful transition from skilled industry writers to effective academic writers.

show abstract

Characterizing Research Process Sophistication in Engineering Ph.D. Students and the Influence of Prior Experiences

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Investigating the ways prior experience informs the research approaches of returning and direct-pathway students in engineering PhD programs

Investigating the ways prior experience informs the research approaches of returning and direct-pathway students in engineering PhD programs

Investigating the Experiences of Military Professionals who Return to Engineering Graduate School

From Industry to Graduate School: How Returners (Re)Learn How to Write

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About