Today's engineering graduates will solve tomorrow's problems in a world that is advancing faster and facing more critical challenges than ever before. This situation creates significant demand for engineering education to evolve in order to effectively prepare a diverse community of engineers for these challenges. Such concerns have led to the publication of visionary reports that help orient the work of those committed to the success of engineering education. Research in engineering education is central to "all" of these visions. Research on the student experience is fundamental to informing the evolution of engineering education. A broad understanding of the engineering student experience involves thinking about diverse academic pathways, navigation of these pathways, and decision points--how students choose engineering programs, navigate through their programs, and then move on to jobs and careers. Further, looking at students' experiences broadly entails not just thinking about their learning (i.e., skill and knowledge development in both technical and professional areas) but also their motivation, their identification with engineering, their confidence, and their choices after graduation. However, an understanding of the engineering student experience is clearly not enough to create innovation in engineering education. Educators who are capable of using the research on the student experience are needed. This involves not only preparing tomorrow's educators with conceptions of teaching that enable innovation but also understanding how today's educators make teaching decisions. The nation also needs to be concerned about creating the capacity to do such research--in short, more researchers are needed. One promising approach is to work with educators who are interested in engaging in research, supporting them as they negotiate the space between their current activities and their new work in engineering education research. To fully support this process, the nation must also investigate what is required for educators to engage in such a path. The Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE) began research in January 2003 as one of two national higher-education Centers for Teaching and Learning funded by the National Science Foundation that year. Originally funded for 2003-2007, supplementary funds from the Engineering Directorate allowed additional analysis and dissemination to continue through 2010. This report describes the work of CAEE. The authors summarize CAEE's findings and outcomes, followed by highlights from their efforts to disseminate the results, including a set of research instruments and other materials that are available for use by others. The authors conclude with a look ahead at next steps and some questions for future research. Appended are: (1) References and Cumulative Bibliography; (2) Cumulative Team List and Advisory Board Members; (3) APS Headlines; (4) Local Inquiry Questions; (5) Looking Ahead: Ideas for Future Research. (Contains 26 figures and 10 tables.).

a guide for engineering students enrolled at community colleges

If a group of engineering deans were asked whether students at their institutions were successful and why, what information might they immediately or subconsciously use to measure or gauge the engineering students' success? If only academic performance outcomes like GPA, individual course grades, or graduation rate race to their minds, then their rationale aligns with the majority of researchers. My research seeks to shift the mindset that frames engineering student success mainly within the boundaries of academic performance measures. By measuring students' perceived autonomy, competence, social integration and relatedness within their programs, and aspirations after graduation, one can more accurately judge whether engineering students are achieving holistic student success. By utilizing surveys and exit interviews for freshmen Summer Bridge Program (SBP) participants, interviewing continuing and past SBP participants, and surveying engineering seniors, this research gathered more in-depth information on students' experiences. In turn, one can better understand how the structures of engineering summer and undergraduate programs either contribute to or detract from student success and motivation. Results from SBP freshmen indicated that community building, structured studying, real-world experiences, residential life, and mentorship were perceived as valuable components by the students. Also, a perceived difficulty gap, based on students' prior engineering experience(s), was uncovered. For continuing SBP students, there was an emphasis on Black community, leadership, and discourse when moving from SBP to larger departments. Lastly, within the seniors, we found that students tend to choose engineering careers regardless of their undergraduate experiences. This information can be used in practice for enhancing programmatic planning and design as well as potentially developing novel program components that contribute to students becoming more self-determined, motivated engineers. It is my hope that one day in the near future, engineering education faculty, administrators, and leaders will cultivate and measure success based on a more comprehensive assessment of lived experiences and better recognize how their decisions regarding programmatic structures impact students' success and motivation.

Today, postsecondary engineering education stands perched on the edge of transformation. A precursor to impending change is national recognition that nontraditional students0́4adults and working students with socioeconomic backgrounds not currently well-represented in engineering education0́4possess untapped potential to improve the diversity as well as increase the size of the U.S. engineering workforce. To support nontraditional student participation in engineering, a qualitative investigation was undertaken to examine the ways in which nontraditional engineering undergraduates defined and experienced success during their engineering education. It is thought that, through a deeper, richer understanding of the ways in which the nontraditional engineering undergraduates overcome barriers and experience success, newer, more impactful alternative pathways that assist nontraditional students in becoming part of the engineering profession can be envisioned and developed. During this study, 14 nontraditional student participants were purposefully sampled from the population of undergraduates who participated in a distance-delivered, alternative engineering transfer program offered at a western, land-grant, public university between 2009-2015. Qualitative data from in-depth interviews were used to co-develop life history0́3style narratives for each of the participants. Completed narratives chronologically ordered and richly described the participants0́9 experiences leading up to, happening during, and occurring after their engineering education. Narrative analysis revealed that the nontraditional student participants viewed their own educational success contextually, relationally, and in terms of their long-term goals for social mobility through engineering careers. Additionally, the distance-delivered alternative engineering transfer program was seen to promote their educational success in three ways: a) working to promote long-range career goals through job market signaling, b) enabling academic bootstrapping in an adult learning environment, and c) maintaining connection to community-based support through place. Recommendations for engineering programs that seek to broaden nontraditional student participation are offered.

Shows how the engineering curriculum can be a site for rendering social justice visible in engineering, for exploring complex socio-technical interplays inherent in engineering practice, and for enhancing teaching and learning Using social justice as a catalyst for curricular transformation, Engineering Justice presents an examination of how politics, culture, and other social issues are inherent in the practice of engineering. It aims to align engineering curricula with socially just outcomes, increase enrollment among underrepresented groups, and lessen lingering gender, class, and ethnicity gaps by showing how the power of engineering knowledge can be explicitly harnessed to serve the underserved and address social inequalities. This book is meant to transform the way educators think about engineering curricula through creating or transforming existing courses to attract, retain, and motivate engineering students to become professionals who enact engineering for social justice. Engineering Justice offers thought-provoking chapters on: why social justice is inherent yet often invisible in engineering education and practice; engineering design for social justice; social justice in the engineering sciences; social justice in humanities and social science courses for engineers; and transforming engineering education and practice. In addition, this book: Provides a transformative framework for engineering educators in service learning, professional communication, humanitarian engineering, community service, social entrepreneurship, and social responsibility Includes strategies that engineers on the job can use to advocate for social justice issues and explain their importance to employers, clients, and supervisors Discusses diversity in engineering educational contexts and how it affects the way students learn and develop Engineering Justice is an important book for today’s professors, administrators, and curriculum specialists who seek to produce the best engineers of today and tomorrow.

This volume aims to provide the reader with a broad cross-section of empirical research being carried out into engineers at work. The chapters provide pointers to other relevant studies over recent decades – an important aspect, we believe, because this area has only recently begun to coalesce as a field of study and up to now relevant empirical research has tended to be published across a range of academic disciplines. This lack of readily available literature might explain why contemporary notions of engineering have drifted far from the realities of practice and are in urgent need of revision. The principal focus is on what empirical studies tell us about the social and technical aspects of engineering practice and the mutual interaction between the two. After a foreword by Gary Lee Downey, the research presented by the various chapter authors is based on empirical data from studies of engineers working in a variety of global settings that include Australia, Ireland, Portugal, South Asia, Switzerland, the UK and the US The following groups of readers are addressed: •researchers and students with an interest in engineering practice, •professional engineers, particularly those interested in research on engineering practice, •engineering educators, •people who employ, recruit or work with engineers. Providing a much clearer picture of engineering practice and its variations than has been available until now, the book is of interest to engineers and those who work with them. At the same time it provides invaluable resource material for educators who are aiming for more authentic learning experiences in their classrooms. Further information, visit the website Engineering Practice in a Global Context Online: http://epr.ist.utl.pt/EPGC/