Supporting fair use in context of instruments in engineering education research: A renewed conversation about validity

I argue that larger cultural concerns about human–technology interactions are seldom addressed in teacher education. This article seeks to trace cultural anxieties about technology by addressing the long-standing trope of human versus machine; examine how these concerns are manifested and addressed (or not) in popular culture, educational technology research, and teacher education; and propose how, in a counterintuitive turn, we might begin to use what has been called cyborg anthropology, feminist cyborg discourse, and feminist posthuman discourse to address those fears in a world where human–technology relationships are increasingly symbiotic.

The traditional research backgrounds of engineering academics do not adequately prepare them to conduct quality education research. Nevertheless, there is institutional pressure on these academics to take a scholarly approach to teaching and conduct education research. What is required is an effective strategy to systematically help engineering academics to innovate, evaluate and publish education research and scholarship. This paper explores one model for structuring activities to help engineering and science academics develop their practices of education research. It is argued that the proposed Model for Action and Learning in Engineering Education Research (MALEER) presented is an effective strategy to prepare engineering academics to conduct quality education research. An initial model was developed, situated in various bodies of literature including communities of practice, professional identity development and becoming a professional, adult learning and reflection in and on action. It was then trialled with an engineering and science education research group set-up to help academics develop their education research practice. Evidence of the success of MALEER was drawn from the reflections of the coordinators of the group and the groups’ developed practices and outcomes.

The traditional research backgrounds of engineering academics do not adequately prepare them to conduct quality education research. Nevertheless, there is institutional pressure on these academics to take a scholarly approach to teaching and conduct education research. What is required is an effective strategy to systematically help engineering academics to innovate, evaluate and publish education research and scholarship. This paper explores one model for structuring activities to help engineering and science academics develop their practices of education research. It is argued that the proposed Model for Action and Learning in Engineering Education Research (MALEER) presented is an effective strategy to prepare engineering academics to conduct quality education research. An initial model was developed, situated in various bodies of literature including communities of practice, professional identity development and becoming a professional, adult learning and reflection in and on action. It was then trialled with an engineering and science education research group set-up to help academics develop their education research practice. Evidence of the success of MALEER was drawn from the reflections of the coordinators of the group and the groups' developed practices and outcomes.

This paper reflects on a number of different ways by which comparative research in technology education has been undertaken across countries. The history of comparative research in technology education demonstrates that it is possible to identify three major periods in the process of its development. When technology education was established a comparison had been made at the level of curriculum documents, syllabi and State Orders. People involved in the development of technology education were looking around the world for ideas. During this first stage, approaches to the analysis were not very systematic. The second stage in the development of comparative research in technology education could be characterised by a great number of published or presented papers that describe the situation in a particular country. Even though comparison, as such, was not used in this research the underlying assumption was that it should inform the research community about different approaches towards technology education and that it would be beneficial for the field. The third stage involved comparison between two or more countries about one or more specific aspects of technology education. These include for example, the meaning of the major concepts, teaching methods, comparison of goals, comparison of the balance between the global trends and local specificities. In this paper it is argued that it is essential to move towards the next stage - a comparison on the basis of two ideological beliefs about the purposes of general education. These beliefs are: whether education is designed to broaden minds and develop all students in the creation of a better society or is it really about training students to live and work in a market-oriented state, to be 'productive' in seizing the opportunities of the market. These two beliefs and the approaches derived from them have been chosen because they summarize an important issue that divides different social theories in their views on the role of education in society. They can provide a useful framework for analysing historical influences, curriculum theories, documents, and school practices in technology education in different countries.

As Engineering Education Research (EER) develops as a discipline it is necessary for EER scholars to contribute to the development of learning theory rather than simply being informed by it. It has been suggested that to do this effectively will require partnerships between Engineering scholars and psychologists, education researchers, including other social scientists. The formation of such partnerships is particularly important when considering the introduction of business-related skills into engineering curriculum designed to prepare 21st Century Engineering Students for workplace challenges. In order to encourage scholars beyond Engineering to engage with EER, it is necessary to provide an introduction to the complexities of EER. With this aim in mind, this paper provides an outline review of what is considered rigorous research from an EER perspective as well as highlighting some of the core methodological traditions of EER. The paper aims to facilitate further discussion between EER scholars and researchers from other disciplines, ultimately leading to future collaboration on innovative and rigorous EER.

Recent international calls have been made to build capacity in engineering by increasing the number of scholars using research-based instructional practices in engineering classrooms. Training traditional engineering professors to conduct engineering education research (EER) supports this goal. Previous work suggests that engineering professors interested in performing social sciences or educational research require structured support when making this transition. We interviewed 18 professors engaged with a grant opportunity in the United States that supports professors conducting EER for the first time through structured mentorship. Thematic analysis of interview data resulted in four findings describing common perceptions and experiences of traditional engineering professors as they begin to conduct formalised EER: motivation to conduct EER, institutional support and barriers, growth in knowledge, and integrating with EER culture. Within these findings, barriers to entering EER were uncovered with implications for professors interested in EER, funding agencies, and prospective mentors, resulting in suggestions for improving access to EER for professors developing as teaching scholars.

As educational technology practitioners and researchers engage in research in the field, a wide array of research methodologies are available to them. One such methodology is the Delphi Technique. Use of the Delphi Technique offers many benefits, including the ability to obtain expert opinion, build consensus, determine the suitability of the application of instructional interventions, forecast trends, and interact with research subjects without being limited by time and space. While the origin and early use of the Delphi Technique was in the business setting, it has been used in other environments over the years, including educational settings. The various intrinsic qualities of the methodology could be beneficial to the field of educational technology. This article examines the Delphi Technique, its benefits, and how it could benefit educational technology researchers.

This position paper contributes to the field of critical educational technology (Ed-Tech) research by providing empirical evidence for the qualities of the phenomenon known as Ed-Tech speak. The research question, how does Ed-Tech speak in research articles about Apple's iPad contribute to promoting and validating the importance and utility of the iPad for teaching and learning, is addressed by applying critical genre analysis to investigate empirical research articles discussing the use of iPads in institutional education. As a result, four categories were formed: the self-evident importance of iPads, overgeneralization of references, the use of strong reporting verbs (to boost weak references), and the use of boosting devices when discussing the findings. Possible explanations for the existence of Ed-Tech speak in research articles are offered.

BackgroundComplexity theory (CT) has been used in response to the need for a different mindset than the classical engineering paradigm. The engineering education research (EER) community may benefit from the knowledge of how CT has been used in the field.PurposeAiming to provide a broad view of CT in EER, the following research questions guided the study: How has CT been applied in EER, and how does it contribute to addressing the challenges of classical engineering education? What are the different complexity engineering approaches, and how can they be integrated into the context of EER?MethodA systematic literature review was conducted. The review process was divided into three stages: planning, conducting, and reporting. Fifty‐eight journal articles and five book chapters were submitted to an iterative process of organization, categorization, analysis, and synthesis.ResultsComplexity schools of thought were integrated into EER. The research was organized into thematic categories: epistemological and ontological perspectives; complex thinking and competences; pedagogical approaches; complexity, sustainability, and transdisciplinarity interdependence; engineering axiology; and systemic transformation of engineering education. For each category, main contributions were integrated, and gaps were identified. Different meanings of complexity engineering were discussed and related to complexity schools of thought.ConclusionsDefining the type of complexity approach used is essential to advance knowledge, as there are fundamental epistemological, ontological, and methodological differences. Thematic categories help future researchers position theoretical contributions and be precise about how their findings contribute to understanding complexity applications in EER. Overcoming the limits of classical engineering requires a paradigmatic discussion, and CT proves valuable for this.

Several universities have established or are considering establishing engineering education research centers and PhD programs. The aim of this special session is to provide an opportunity for representatives of established engineering education research programs to network with one another, to welcome representatives from emerging programs, and to provide guidance to colleagues who are considering establishing centers and PhD programs. Colleagues from established programs are encouraged to bring descriptions of their programs to distribute, and to be prepared to help others establish engineering education research programs. The session is open to everyone who is interested in fostering the continued development of the engineering education research community. We propose to utilize the occasion to brainstorm new and innovative ideas for improving the intellectual climate in engineering education research programs, as well as identify ways to continue to network. We will set up a space on the Collaboratory for Engineering Education Research (CLEERhub.org) where we will post the program descriptions (and links). We will encourage session participants to review the materials that are posted prior to the Special Session. We will encourage participants to use CLEERhub.org as a means for following up after the session.

Since the research on user acceptance of information technology was introduced by Fred D. Davis in the 1980s, two critical constructs (perceived usefulness and ease of use) and the technology acceptance model (TAM) have generated significant impacts on information science and management information system literature. In the early 2000s, educational technology researchers began to adopt TAM-related concepts to explain teaching and learning contexts. For example, Selim (2003) conducted research on empirically examine students' acceptance of course websites and published on Computers & Education. Accordingly, this proposal paper extends the authors' previous works (Hsiao & Yang, 2011; Hsiao, Tang & Liu, 2015; Hsiao & Chen, 2019; Tang, Hsiao & Hwang, 2022) to trace the latest development of educational technology research using TAM-related framework. In this proposal, we have identified a total of 366 articles with 20,242 citations. For the data analysis, we proposed a series of analyses (e.g., bibliometrics, main path analysis, document co-citation analysis, and social network analysis) to examine the knowledge trajectory in this field. This study is the first attempt to propose a research framework with a series of analyses to systematically analyze and review the longitudinal development of research using a TAM-related framework in educational technology. With this attempt, some significant turning points (e.g., theoretical converging and diverging points) can be further explored in the network diagram to identify the critical constructs, models, and theories in educational technology research. Overall, established on a large number of citation data, the results of this study aim to provide a platform for academic discussion and to make a prediction for the future trend of educational technology research.

Engineering education research (EER) as a field has seen considerable evolution in the past two decades. There has been a movement towards increased scholarly rigor, and in parallel with a broadening of the aims of engineering education, there has been considerable expansion in the constructs and phenomena which are the subjects of inquiry. This handbook contains 30 topical chapters which collectively capture discourse at the frontier of EER. This chapter serves as an overarching conclusion. For this chapter, a team of diverse authors – in terms of geography, career stage, and EER interest – joined hands. Following a review of the topical chapters, this concluding chapter presents the authors’ collective reflections centered on a view towards a future for engineering education research. In discussing the complexity that exists within EER, including interactions between stakeholder levels, the aspiration to develop globally competent engineers, and the need to translate research practices and ideas into an applied context, the field is confronted, the authors argue, with the reality that EER can always be more. What, then, could EER become in the future, and what does the community want it to become?

It is not uncommon to find that educational technology publications are undertheorized or uncritical of adopted frameworks. In many cases the literature is simply descriptive with only passing reference to an analytical or theoretical construct. This condition is particularly evident in the use of “community of practice” (CoP) in educational technology research. In these studies, CoP is often erroneously used to describe both an aspirational state of harmonious collaboration and an instrumentalist strategy to be enacted upon learners to achieve externally defined goals, such as the rapid adoption of technologies. The process of how CoPs form and function and the process of how CoPs achieve transformative change are usually underexamined. Therefore, there is a substantial body of literature and a corresponding tradition of research that ignores or treats as peripheral the complex relationships between technology, individuals, the collective, and a given sociocultural context over time. A less generous commentator might even claim that, at best, it reflects a dominant delusional ideology of education as a harmonious enterprise and, at worst, a disingenuous or willful ignorance of factors such as power relations, resistance, inequality, personal and socially negotiated histories and trajectories, and contested identities. This chapter explores the possible reasons for, implications of, and future strategies regarding the delusion, confusion, and instrumentalism of CoP in educational technology research.

This chapter aims to examine the practices and potential of Activity Theory (AT) for educational technology research (ETR). AT provides a framework within which to understand object-oriented, collective, and social environments (Engestrom, Perspectives in activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Activity systems provide flexible frameworks that can be modified according to the nature of the context. In ETR, AT has been used as a tool to analyze and design complex learning situations as well as to analyze the contradictions and barriers in technology integration and to describe the dynamics of organizational knowledge creation. In this chapter, the basics of AT are presented and the available research using AT as a methodological tool in ETR is examined. The use of AT as a metaphorical tool in learning design and artifact development, as an analytic tool in an innovation study, and as a descriptive and prescriptive tool in a knowledge management study is explained. I also refer to the potential use of Actor Network Theory (ANT) as a possible third generation AT (Engestrom, Journal of Education and Work 14(1):134–156, 2001) that can be used to understand the symmetrical relationship between multiple activity systems.

Background Given the increasing number of researchers engaging in engineering education research (EER) globally, there is intensifying interest in researcher development. Purpose This study systematically reviewed the literature guided by the research question: “What are the key factors and how do they influence the development of engineering education researchers?” The review aimed to contribute practical recommendations for enhancing engineering education researcher development and suggest future research directions. Scope/Method Database search with the application of screening criteria and a quality assessment resulted in 49 papers being included in the systematic review. Results Mapping the context of included papers showed that scholarly activity was increasing over time, that research on participants operating outside of the United States and Australia was underrepresented, and that studies were dominated by qualitative approaches applied to small sample sizes. The key factors influencing engineering education researcher development aligned to the following themes (and subthemes indicated in brackets): environment (funding, employment context, and recognition of impact); community (socialization and collaboration); knowledge acquisition (development pathways and engaging in a new research paradigm); and personal attributes (motivation and identity transition). Conclusions Recommendations are made for enhancing engineering education researcher development for researchers, EER leaders, and institutional leaders. Future research should seek to examine development experiences in a wider range of national contexts, ask more questions aligned to the size and significance of phenomena that require greater implementation of quantitative methods, and ask more comparative research questions that can foster understanding of what strategies have the greatest impact according to individual circumstances.