"Don't Know What We'll Be Doing Yet": Enhancing Career Preview and Engagement among Undergraduate Engineering Students (original) (raw)

Abstract

Recruitment and retention is a key concern for Australian engineering, with indications that 40% of engineering graduates work in other professions rather than in engineering (Tilli & Trevelyan, 2010) and attrition from Australian engineering degrees standing at around 35% (Godfrey & King, 2011). The attrition of students and graduate engineers has led to concerns that students may enter engineering study without understanding the realities of either their degree programs or engineering work. This study contributes to understanding these issues and explores possible approaches to address them. BACKGROUND This study built on previous research in which potential threshold concepts in an engineering foundation program were identified by engineering educators and students, and negotiated by engineering educators around Australia, and in New Zealand and Europe (Male, 2012; Male & Baillie, 2011; Parkinson, 2011). The project revealed understanding of ‘roles of engineers’, the ‘value of learning’, and ‘self-directed learning’, as threshold concepts. These concepts were found to be transformative and troublesome for many students and they were likely to be linked (Meyer & Land, 2003). Using an innovative pedagogical design we explored how students might be supported to explore and manage these concepts within the existing curricular structures of undergraduate programs. PURPOSE To better understand the three concepts identified above and to determine how teaching staff could support students to negotiate them, the current study drew on research that had successfully enhanced students’ career preview, self-efficacy and identity development in other disciplines (Bennett, 2012) and applied this thinking to engineering. DESIGN/METHOD The study combined three theoretical frameworks. We engaged engineering students in workshops in which they investigated roles and attributes of engineers, the purpose of their studies, and their engineering goals. The workshops were designed to provide valuable learning experiences, and they were structured such that we could add to the existing body of research through data collection and analysis. RESULTS The findings within each framework are consistent and informed each other; however, each framework provided unique insights into why students experienced the previously identified threshold concepts and each framework gave us different terminology to explain the students’ experiences. CONCLUSIONS The three frameworks enriched understanding of the previously identified threshold concepts. The study draws attention to the need and opportunity for engineering educators to help students adopt presage or foundational thinking in relation to their engineering futures.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (18)

  1. Amabile, T.M., Hill, K.G., Hennessey, B.A., & Tighe, E.M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personaloty and Scoial Psychology, 66, 950-967.
  2. Bennett, D. (2012). A creative approach to exploring student identity. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 22(1), 27-41. Retrieved from http://creativity.or.kr
  3. Cousin, Glynis. (2006). An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, 17, 4-5.
  4. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. Cross, S.E., & Markus, H.R. (1994). Self-schemas, possible selves, and competent performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 423-438.
  6. Godfrey, E., & King, Robin. (2011). Curriculum specification and support for engineering education: understanding attrition, academic support, revised competencies, pathways and access. Strawberry Hills NSW: Australian Learning & Teaching Council.
  7. Male, S.A. (2012). Integrated Engineering Foundation Threshold Concept Inventory. Sydney: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
  8. Male, S.A., & Baillie, C.A. (2011). Engineering Threshold Concepts. Paper presented at the SEFI Annual Conference, Lisbon. http://www.sefi.be/?page\_id=24
  9. Male, S.A., & Bennett, D. (accepted). Threshold concepts in undergraduate engineering: Exploring engineering roles and value of learning. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education.
  10. Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(1), 551-558.
  11. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969.
  12. Merriam, Sharon B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  13. Meyer, J.H.F., & Land, R. (2003). Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Occasional Report 4 Retrieved 31 May 2010, from http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf
  14. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  15. Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A.W. Kruglanski & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (2 ed., pp. 452-453). New York: Guildford Press.
  16. Parkinson, David. (2011). Investigation of Experiences of Threshold Concepts by Engineering Students (BE Final Year Project Thesis), The University of Western Australia, Crawley.
  17. Stryker, S., & Burke, P.J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Phsychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297.
  18. Tilli, Sabbia, & Trevelyan, J. P. (2010). Labour Force Outcomes for Engineering Graduates in Australia. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 16(2), 101-122.