Reflecting on Reflection: How Educators Experience the Opportunity to Talk About Supporting Student Reflection

In Memoriam: Dr. Clive L. Dym (1942–2016)

Is Engineering Education Research Global?Although there has been an increasing focus on the globalization of Engineering EducationResearch (EER) in recent years (Borrego and Bernhard, 2011; Cheville, 2012) to what extent hasEER become globalized? To test such a claim we hypothesized that author and citation data fromUS and European journals would demonstrate globalization.We assumed that with respect to globalization the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) isrepresentative of US EER journals and the European Journal of Engineering Education (EJEE)of European. Author affiliations were collected for all authors from the 2010 through 2013issues. Whereas affiliations of EJEE authors were fairly evenly distributed around the globe witha slight preponderance of European researchers over those from North America, Australia, Braziland South Africa, almost 90% of JEE authors were from the US.Second, a list of frequently cited sources was developed, and the country of professionalaffiliation for each source was determined. We initially started with the list of 33 frequentlycited sources in JEE from 1993 through 2002 (Wankat, 2004) and added to this list otherfrequently cited authors. The sources were separated into three groups based on geographiclocation: US, Europe, and Other (all other countries). Citations were counted from regular papers(excluding editorials and guest editorials) and self-citations were not included.Table 1 shows that citations in JEE are dominated by sources with US affiliations, which doesnot support our hypothesis. On the other hand, the EJEE data show that while US sources arefrequently cited, European and Other authors are also well represented. The short answer to ourtitle question is that in citation terms, European EER is global but US EER not.The data in Table 1 also reveal a number of other interesting observations. For example, of the33 top sources on the original JEE list (Wankat, 2004) only 14 occur in the top 33 in Table 1(Felder, Sheppard, Atman, Johnson & Johnson, Smith, NSF, Olds, Seymour, Hewitt, Astin,Agogino, ABET, and NRC) - sic transit gloria mundi. Some US authors such as Kolb andBorrego are relatively better known in Europe than in the US. Regional differences are clear insome cases – for example, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) is heavily cited in JEEbut only twice in EJEE, and UNESCO is significantly cited in EJEE but was not cited in JEE.On the other hand, ABET was heavily cited in both JEE and EJEE. Table 1: Highly cited authors in EJEE and JEE (2010 – 2013) EJEE Authors JEE Authors Rank Author Citations Region Rank Author Citations Region 1 Felder, RM 50 US 1 Felder, RM 58 US 2 Kolmos, A 32 Europe 1 NAE 58 US 3 Johnson, DW & RT 27 US 3 Sheppard, S 56 US 4 Smith, Karl 24 US 4 Atman, C 41 US 5 ABET 22 US 5 Bandura A 36 US 6 De Graaff, E 16 Europe 6 Johnson, DW & RT 35 US 7 Trevelyn, J 15 Other 7 Besterfield-Sacre, M. 33 US 8 Marton F 14 Europe 8 Eccles, J. S. 32 US 8 Biggs, J. 14 Europe 8 Smith, Karl 32 US 10 Atman, C 13 US 10 NSF 29 US 11 Borrego 12 US 10 Olds, B 29 US 11 Kolb, DA 12 US 10 Shuman, L 29 US 11 NSF 12 US 10 Terenzini TP 29 US 11 Sheppard, S 12 US 14 Latucca 28 US 11 UNESCO 12 Europe 15 Miller, R 26 US 11 Woods, DR 12 Other 15 Ohland, M 26 US 17 Miller, R 11 US 17 Seymour, E 25 US 17 Baillie, C 11 Other 18 Simon HA 21 US 19 Prince MJ 10 US 19 Adams, Robin 20 US 20 Dym, CL 9 US 19 Astin, AW 20 US 20 Stice, J 9 US 19 Hewitt 20 US 20 Alpay, E 9 Europe 19 Newstetter, WC 20 US 20 Lindsay, E 9 Other 23 Dym, CL 19 US 20 Lohmann J 9 US 23 Litzinger T 19 US 25 ASEE 8 US 23 Prince MJ 19 US 25 Jonassen D H 8 US 23 Streveler, R. 19 US 25 Gill J 8 Europe 27 ABET 18 US 28 Besterfield-Sacre 7 US 27 Agogino 18 US 28 Seymour, E 7 US 29 NRC 17 US 28 Streveler, R. 7 US 30 Vygotsky, LS 16 US 31 Bandura A 6 US 30 Marton F 16 Europe 31 Olds, B 6 US 32 Johri A 15 US 31 Case, Jennifer 6 Other 32 Kuh, GD 15 US 32 Cross, N 15 Europe 32 Latour, B 15 EuropeReferencesBorrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011) "The emergence of engineering education research as aninternationally connected field of inquiry." JEE, 100, 14 - 47.Cheville, A. (2012) IMS 2012 Special Sessions: Globalization of Engineering Education andResearch: Opportunities and Challenges https://ieeetv.ieee.org/conference-highlights/ims-2012-special-sessions-globalization-of-engineering-education-and-research-opportunities-and-challenges-alan-chevilleWankat, P. C. (2004) “Analysis of the First Ten Years of the Journal of EngineeringEducation,” JEE, 93, 13-21.

Some within the engineering education community have asserted that engineering education should be considered a profession. While the formal meaning and identifying characteristics of a profession are debated, in general an individual that is considered professional meets at least three criteria: recognized expertise drawn from a widely accepted body of knowledge, accepted norms of professional behavior, and adherence to codified ethical standards. This paper addresses the third of these issues by exploring canons that could and should be contained within an engineering education code of ethics. To develop the framework for a code of conduct, published ethical codes from four professions-engineering, education, law, and medicine-were analyzed for both content and structure. Both areas of overlap and divergence within the codes were identified. From the areas of overlap between these professional canons a draft code of ethics for engineering education was developed and is compared with the recent American Society for Engineering Education code of ethics. The development process and resulting draft are presented to stimulate larger discussion within the engineering education community around purposes for engineering education.

Building Assessment and Evaluation Capacity of Engineering Educators Through ASSESSAbstractIn recent years, assessment and evaluation have become vital to engineering educators for bothprogram accreditation and judging the impacts of educational innovations. For effectiveassessment, engineering faculty must understand assessment, be able to select appropriateassessment instruments, administer assessments suitably to gain accurate measures of outcomes,and interpret results for properly informed decision making. Yet, engineering faculty often donot receive training to adequately incorporate assessment into daily practice. Others face ongoingchallenges of locating assessment instruments suitable for their specific needs and knowing howto use them competently. A need exists to identify ways of incorporating assessment instrumentsinto evaluation of educational innovations and outcomes in engineering contexts.This paper aims to build the evaluation and assessment capacity of engineering educators byunfolding the final version of the Appraisal System for Superior Engineering EducationEvaluation-instrument Sharing and Scholarship (ASSESS), a web-based repository and searchengine for finding desired assessment instruments. The paper provides an overview of theengineering assessment landscape and ways in which assessment can be used to effectivelyevaluate educational practices. The paper characterizes assessment instruments currently used inengineering education and tabulates characteristics of assessment instruments necessary forsound assessment and evaluation. Specific cases from ASSESS are examined for assessingselected outcomes, and gaps are identified where additional instruments are needed. The paperdescribes lessons learned from developing the database as well as recommendations for usingASSESS to locate assessment information for use in engineering education contexts. Focus isplaced on building the assessment and evaluation capacity of engineering educators and othersinvolved in the assessment of engineering education innovations.

In recent years, the engineering education community has invested significant energy and resources in the creation of a rigorous empirical knowledge base to support the transformation of engineering education practice. In this work, we address the specific question: When researchers identify practical implications in their research publications, what specific actions are they suggesting be done, and who is expected to take these actions? We answer this question by identifying "implication for action" sentences in a sample of sixteen articles across two issues of the Journal of Engineering Education. We find that the actions offered are infrequently cognitive (15% in our dataset) and frequently related to courses (83% in our dataset); and the identification of an actor happens just under half of the time (43% in our dataset). We discuss these results through a pragmatic perspective and a critical perspective.

Previous articleNext article No AccessComparative Engineering EducationEngineering Education Systems in Japanese UniversitiesPo S. ChungPo S. Chung Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Comparative Education Review Volume 30, Number 3Aug., 1986 Sponsored by the Comparative and International Education Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/446616 Views: 3Total views on this site Citations: 5Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1986 The Comparative and International Education SocietyPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Masako Hosaka Learning to become graduate students: Japanese women's experience in the research unit in engineering, European Journal of Engineering Education 35, no.66 (Dec 2010): 619–626.https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.502567Masahide Yuma Lifetime list of publications by Hiroya Kawanabe, (Jan 1998): 37–66.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9016-7_3Alice Lam Embedded Firms, Embedded Knowledge: Problems of Collaboration and Knowledge Transfer in Global Cooperative Ventures, Organization Studies 18, no.66 (Nov 1997): 973–996.https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800604Takuto Yamada, Robert H. Todd The Quest for Relevance: Roles for Academia and Industry in Japan and the U.S., Journal of Engineering Education 86, no.44 (Jan 2013): 341–348.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00307.xP.S. Chung, Yat-Wah Lam Integrative engineering program for modern converging technologies, IEEE Transactions on Education 35, no.11 (Feb 1992): 38–43.https://doi.org/10.1109/13.123415

The Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research is the critical reference source for the growing field of engineering education research, featuring the work of world luminaries writing to define and inform this emerging field. The Handbook draws extensively on contemporary research in the learning sciences, examining how technology affects learners and learning environments, and the role of social context in learning. Since a landmark issue of the Journal of Engineering Education (2005), in which senior scholars argued for a stronger theoretical and empirically driven agenda, engineering education has quickly emerged as a research-driven field increasing in both theoretical and empirical work drawing on many social science disciplines, disciplinary engineering knowledge, and computing. The Handbook is based on the research agenda from a series of interdisciplinary colloquia funded by the US National Science Foundation and published in the Journal of Engineering Education in October 2006.

The author discusses the activities of the task force on quality in engineering education at the National Science Foundation (NSF). This task force has been involved in a number of activities which have led to a recommendation for action items that NSF can implement to support the ue of quality concepts in academe. The following activities were accomplished by the task force: a survey of Deans of Engineering regarding their activities in quality in engineering education; a bibliography of basic research in quality in engineering education; a workshop on quality in engineering education to involve the engineering education community and to help accomplish the task force objectives; and alliances with other groups in the engineering education community including ABET, ASEE, and others. >

Recent developments in higher education have transformed teaching–learning processes across disciplines, including structural mechanics in civil engineering programs. However, reports on innovative teaching practices in structural engineering are scattered, hindering their application in other contexts. This study consolidates and analyzes global research trends in structural mechanics education (from 2014 to 2023), complemented by insights obtained from surveys applied to students, instructors, and senior structural engineers in Colombia. The sample literature comprises 150 Scopus-indexed English articles analyzed with Bibliometrix. Eight guiding questions serve to characterize the literature, identify predominant pedagogical strategies, and outline future research directions. Results reveal limited collaboration networks, inconsistent keyword usage, and a strong concentration of U.S.-based authors and institutions. Most papers appear in engineering education journals, and the recurrent topics (active learning strategies, digital and virtual resources, and assessment methods) confirm the prevalence of experiential, student-centered approaches. Based on the findings, eight emerging areas should guide future research: sustainability, educational research, non-disciplinary competencies, digital resources, artificial intelligence, innovation, disciplinary competencies, and digital competencies. Also, it is recommended that engineering faculties focus efforts on clarifying competency frameworks, strengthening pedagogical and faculty development, investing in educational technologies and laboratory infrastructure, fostering collaborative networks, and enhancing the visibility of structural mechanics education research.

This Innovative Practice Paper describes the process and strategies employed by a discipline-based engineering education researcher that led to creating a sustainable research group supporting the continuing professional development of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. One challenge faced by early-career faculty situated within research-intensive universities is developing and sustaining a robust research enterprise that includes recruiting, funding, mentoring, and graduating students and postdoctoral researchers. For faculty involved in a new and/or developing research area (e.g., engineering education), the challenge increases exponentially with limited research support and ambiguous metrics of success. The paper uses a model of workforce sustainability as a lens through which the engineering education community can view approaches to developing graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. The model of workforce sustainability includes eight attributes to define a workforce and its sustainability: nurturing, diversity, equity, health and well-being, connectivity, value, community, and maturity. In this paper, it is shown how the model guided the creation of a five-step process (with associated practices) to support the development of a sustainable research group: (1) Defining Goals and Values: Goal setting and reflection, (2) Onboarding Personnel: Retreat and Orientation, (3) Labeling Experience: Scholar Development and Faculty Practicum, (4) Uncovering Norms: Director Accessibility and Facilitation of Access, and (5) Informing Progress: Performance Evaluation. The primary goal of this innovative practice paper is to present a description and reflection that explain how the process and strategies have been used to create a sustainable research group in an emerging field like engineering education. Since the model provides an overview of key components of a process, this paper contributes an understanding of how to apply the model to maintain consistency and a rationale for practices, and how to attach individual practices to achieve stated outcomes or adapt the model to fit individual environment/context and desired outcomes.

This innovative practice work in progress paper presents an initial review of the emerging role of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Technological and Engineering Literacy and Philosophy of Engineering (TELPhE) Division from the perspective of a community of transformation. The group seeks to reframe, redesign, and reposition technological and engineering literacy as a central pillar of engineering education. With a philosophical perspective and a critical view of education that connects engineering education to the liberal arts, the group has been moving forward to make an impact in the engineering education community. The goal of the group via all of the collective efforts, discussions, papers, articles, special reports, publications, special sessions, and workshops has been focused on providing a new forum and platform for discussions, debate and dialogue in advocating public awareness of technological and engineering literacy. As an ASEE Division, TELPhE has grown in attracting and engaging practitioners of engineering education, technological and engineering literacy, and philosophy in an ongoing examination of engineering philosophy, the scope of engineering education, and the impact of engineering and technology. Thus far the group has evolved organically but now seeks a theoretical framework to inform strategic planning and goal setting. To this end, the development of the group is framed as a community of transformation. The paper briefly reviews the evolution of the group from the Technological Literacy Constituent Committee and the internal and broader-based discussions and growth into the Technological and Engineering Literacy and Philosophy of Engineering Division. By starting to review the evolution and metamorphosis of the ideas that were developed by the group members and associates, the paper begins an analysis of TELPhE as a community of transformation to inform effective avenues for future activities to impact engineering, engineering education, and technological and engineering literacy.

INTRODUCTION In the United States 1 , engineering education as an area of interest for curriculum development and pedagogical innovation emerged about 1890 to 1910 and its transition to a more scholarly field of scientific inquiry occurred nearly 100 years later (Continental, 2006; Lohmann, 2005). Learning to become an engineer, historically and today, fundamentally occurs at the baccalaureate level; thus, the literature in engineering education focuses predominantly on undergraduate education. It is only within the last decade or so that the engineering and engineering education communities have taken more interest in precollege education. This history is important because much of the scholarly literature in education and the learning

Even though diversity issues have not always been addressed in engineering education, addressing diversity has emerged as an important issue in the engineering education community as the student population in colleges and universities has become increasingly more diverse. Despite these changes in student populations, attrition from engineering programs remains a significant issue across all groups. For underrepresented minority groups, recruitment and retention in the engineering programs is especially critical because significantly fewer engineering degrees were awarded to these students in the last decade. The current number of minorities and women in student populations represented in engineering programs are still well below parity with their distribution within the higher education population.

Building a Community of Scholars: The Role of the<i>Journal of Engineering Education</i>as a Research Journal

Mathematical modelling, as a universal language of modern science, is an indispensable mathematical skill that transforms complex real-world problems into quantitative and systematic frameworks, enhances prediction accuracy, optimizes decision-making processes, and guides the development of interdisciplinary solutions. This study conducts a bibliometric analysis to map scientific publications on mathematical modelling in mathematics education. Bibliometric analysis is a statistical method used to identify, evaluate, and track published literature through bibliometric data, including citation information related to authors, publications, institutions, journals, and countries. A total of 536 publications in the categories of Mathematics and Social Sciences from the Scopus database were analyzed. Findings reveal that the most prolific countries are the United States, Germany, and Spain, while the most influential journals are ZDM-Mathematics Education, ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, and Journal of Engineering Education. Additionally, the conceptual structure of mathematical modelling is visualized and presented.