Development of Engineering Education as a Rigorous Discipline: A Study of the Publication Patterns of Four Coalitions

By Borrego, Maura | Journal of Engineering Education, January 2007 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Development of Engineering Education as a Rigorous Discipline: A Study of the Publication Patterns of Four Coalitions


Borrego, Maura, Journal of Engineering Education


ABSTRACT

A combination of publication analysis and faculty interviews was employed to study four NSF-sponsored engineering education coalitions as a case study of the recent history of engineering education. Current calls within the engineering education community for increased rigor can be understood in terms of the ways similar disciplines have emerged. In science education, for example, time was needed to develop consensus on important research questions, accepted methods, and standards of rigor. The abstracts of 700 publications listed on active engineering education coalition Web sites were analyzed over time by type of intervention, population of focus, and product. A picture consistent with other reports of coalition contributions emerged. Early focus was on freshman courses and integrating across disciplines, with teamwork, design and other active learning activities. Students and course improvement remained the dominant focus, but efforts increased over time in assessment, faculty development, and research. Interviews with coalition leaders and leading authors supplement the publication analysis and describe how coalition work helped lay the foundation for more rigorous engineering education research.

Keywords: engineering education coalitions, field development, standards of rigor

I. INTRODUCTION

Recently, calls for better quality and increased rigor in engineering education research have surfaced [1-6], and as a result, lack of quality has become an implied criticism of past engineering education work. In arguing for a radically new approach, it may appear necessary to discount past contributions: "Many years of reform efforts have not produced the breakthroughs we will need to find room for the new technologies and skills that are now being called for" [2]. From 1990-2004, a significant portion of National Science Foundation (NSF) engineering education funding has gone to the engineering education coalitions [7]. As a well-funded, yet bounded system, the coalitions serve as an excellent case study of the recent history of engineering education and internal motivations for increased rigor.

The purpose of this research was to understand the history of engineering education in light of recent publications calling for an increase in the quality of future engineering education research. As the recipients of significant NSF engineering education funding, the coalitions were the focus of this study. The following questions guided this research:

1. What shifts in focus over the 15-year history of the coalitions can be measured objectively and quantitatively?

2. How exactly do coalition publications stand up to evaluation using traditional engineering standards of research quality and impact?

3. What are the perceptions of coalition personnel with respect to rigor and the research goals of their coalition work?

The intention is to better understand the role of the engineering education coalitions in advancing the field of engineering education to its current state. Potential outcomes include a deeper understanding of the contributions of the engineering education coalitions, findings to guide future research and policy, and contributions to literature about the history of engineering education. Results include a quantitative summary of coalition publication efforts and qualitative reflections of coalition leaders and leading authors on rigor and field development.

II. DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION AS A DISCIPLINE

Calls for increased rigor can be understood in terms of the ongoing development of engineering education as a new discipline. A fbundational concept in history of science is consensus with regard to important research questions, standards of rigor, and even expected experimental results. In his highly cited work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn used the term "paradigm" to describe this consensus among scientists [8].

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Development of Engineering Education as a Rigorous Discipline: A Study of the Publication Patterns of Four Coalitions
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?