University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Making meaning: using constructivism to understand students' relationship to engineering

(USC Thesis Other)

Making meaning: using constructivism to understand students' relationship to engineering

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 1

Making Meaning: Using Constructivism to Understand Students’ Relationship to Engineering

By

Chelsea Jones

A Thesis Presented to the
Faculty of the USC Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF EDUCATION
(EDUCATION COUNSELING)

May 2018

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 2

Dedication

Trent, I will never stop telling your story.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 3

Acknowledgments

I would not have been able to develop the perspective necessary for this work without the
opportunity to observe a group of first-year freshman engineering students throughout their
introductory engineering course. To the students who welcomed me in class every week and
shared their stories, their backgrounds, their interests, and their big ideas, I sincerely thank you.
Thank you for allowing me to see how engineering surrounds us every day and that it takes
everyone’s involvement to make the world a better place. I am deeply grateful to have witnessed
your brilliance, first-hand. I wish each of you the best in your academic and professional careers.
I owe a tremendous amount of gratitude and thanks to my thesis co-chairs Dr. Anthony
Maddox and Dr. John Slaughter, and my committee member Dr. Patricia Tobey. In what feels
like such a short period, we created something special. I truly have become a better person, a
more confident researcher and writer, and a critical thinker, because of your influence and
guidance. Dr. Slaughter, thank you for responding to my very first email inquiry and welcoming
me into your office for an in-person conversation. Since the first time we met, you challenged me
to step out of my comfort zone and away from what I was familiar with in order to start thinking
differently. I still carry that wisdom with me. Thank you for trusting me with your time and with
all that you shared. Dr. Maddox, I cannot express the full extent of my appreciation for all that
you have done for me. Thank you for your respect, patience, and enthusiasm throughout this
writing project. In knowing you, I have learned how to advocate for myself and create
opportunities for my ideas to manifest, when just under a year ago, I did not believe that I could.
I thank you for bringing me to the table and recognizing my brilliance before I recognized it in
myself. I am eternally grateful and reaffirmed in my purpose. I promise to never lose sight of
why we do this work. Dr. Tobey, thank you for treating my project and me with so much

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 4

compassion, love, and care. Throughout the entirety of my writing process, you have always
centered my humanity and wellness and, paired with your eye for detail, I was able to produce
this piece. Thank you for critical conversations we shared following workdays. They were
therapeutic.
Next, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my mentor, Darin Gray. Thank you
for welcoming me into the world of STEM outreach and advocacy years ago and for trusting me
in creating programs with you. It was through our critical conversations that influenced the
planning behind our programs and events, which inspired me to begin this project. Thank you
for your continued patience and advice not only throughout my thesis but also in life. Our
collaborations and mentorship has reinforced why this research is so important to uplifting
communities throughout Los Angeles, CA and beyond.
To my family, thank you for a lifetime of understanding, love, and support, especially,
throughout this project. Your constant support has made this opportunity possible. To my
grandmothers, thank you for your faith when mine had often fallen short, and for your prayers
that restored my strength. To my younger brother, Trent, thank you for being exactly as you are,
and letting me tell your story. You are the source of my inspiration and will continue to be.
Hopefully, I am able to do for many other children what I have been able to do for you. I wish
you the best in everything you do in life.
To my friends, near and far, who encouraged me in this journey, thank you.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 5

Table of Contents
Dedication……………………………………………………………………………………...2
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………3
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………...8
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………...9
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study…………………………………………………………….10
Grand Engineering Challenges………………………………………………..10
Evolving Standards for Education…………………………………………….11
Interest vs. Preparedness………………………………………………………13
Engineering Thinking…………………………………………………………15
Constructivism………………………………………………………………...16
Research Questions……………………………………………………………………17
Background of the Problem…………………………………………………………...18
Engineering Education Integration……………………………………………19
Barriers………………………………………………………………………...21
Student Attitudes and Perceptions of Engineering……………………………25
Improving Public Understanding of Engineering……………………………..28
Purpose………………………………………………………………………………...29
Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………..30
Organization of the Study……………………………………………………………..32
Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………………………….34
Constructivism………………………………………………………………………...34
Active Learning………………………………………………………………..34
Constructivist Learning Theory………………………………………………..36
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 6

Student and Teacher Interactions…………………………………………….38
Inquiry Learning……………………………………………………………...40
Engineering Education and Student Challenges……………………………………...41
Influences on Engineering Students’ Academic Achievement……………….43
Persistence in STEM………………………………………………………….44
First Generation College Students and Persistence in Engineering Majors…..46
Constructivist Learning Experiences and STEM Career Expectations……………….47
Summary………………………………………………………………………………49
Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………………………50
The Population and Sample …………………………………………………………..51
Instrumentation and Data Collection………………………………………………….52
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………….53
Limitations and Delimitations………………………………………………………...54
Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………………….55
Study Participants…………………………………………………………………….56
Presentation of Themes and Results………………………………………………….59
Summary……………………………………………………………………………...81
Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings……………………………………………………………83
Summary of Findings…………………………………………………………………83
Implications for Practice……………………………………………………………...93
Opportunities for Future Research……………………………………………………100
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………100
References…………………………………………………………………………………….102
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 7

Appendices
Appendix A: Informed Consent………………………………………………………...106
Appendix B: First-Semester Engineering Freshman Survey…………………………...107
Appendix C: Interview Questions……………………………………………………....112
Appendix D: Research Matrix………………………………………………………….113

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 8

List of Figures

Figure 1: Gender Breakdown of Survey Participants ...............................................................57
Figure 2: Racial/Ethnic Breakdown of Survey Participants…………………………………..57
Figure 3: Breakdown of Survey Participants Born in U.S. or Another Country……………...58
Figure 4: Breakdown of whether Survey Participants’ Parents Attended College……………58
Figure 5: Breakdown of Survey Participants’ Initial Major Selection ……..…………………59

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 9

Abstract

The primary focus of this research study is to reveal the contextual factors that contribute
to students’ understanding of engineering and how the first year of college validates, or
invalidates, that relationship. Using constructivism theory, the study attempts to frame how a
student makes meaning to identify how and why they were drawn to engineering. Further, it
examines whether these experiences must exist within their first year of college. Contextual
events surrounding students’ learning experiences and journey to understanding engineering
were elicited through a mixed methods survey. Common themes were identified as they related
to the theories presented in this thesis. Two interviews were conducted with first-year
engineering students. Analysis of the survey and interview content highlighted the following
themes: (1) participating in hands-on, project based learning represented key experiences where
students recalled becoming self-aware of their abilities and interests (2) engaging in active
problem solving gave students the opportunity to demonstrate and further develop their
intellectual capacities; (3) their introduction to, and reinforcement of, STEM-related interests
was discovered through active engagement and application of these topics, (4) there is a strong
correlation between students who prefer, and are high performing in, mathematics and science
coursework and interests in engineering, (5) collaborative learning experiences shape significant
memories associated with understanding STEM, specifically engineering, and (6) family
influences in learning are extremely formative in students’ understanding of engineering, or lack
thereof. These themes have an effect on students’ (7) confidence and in establishing a (8)
connection with engineering at the collegiate level and beyond.
Keywords: Constructivism, engineering, learning experiences, PK-12, higher education,
validation, confidence

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 10

Chapter 1: Overview of the Study

Grand Engineering Challenges. In 2012, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE)
critically reviewed and proposed 14 challenges that threaten the sustainability of our world.
Complex, and presented as families of problems rather than single-answer dilemmas, the 14
Grand Engineering Challenges were tasked to engineers in order to help improve quality of life,
globally. The Grand Engineering Challenges are as follows:
 Make solar energy economical
 Provide energy from fusion
 Develop carbon sequestration methods
 Manage the nitrogen cycle
 Provide access to clean water
 Restore and improve urban infrastructure
 Advance health informatics
 Engineer better medicines
 Reverse-engineering the brain
 Prevent nuclear terror
 Secure cyberspace
 Enhance virtual reality
 Advance personalized learning
 Engineer the tools of scientific discovery
Although the grand challenges are large-scale causes, when explored, the conditions the
challenges aim to overcome are felt every day, by common people. The issues presented have,
and continue to, shape realities and dictate the quality of living around the world. Therefore,
those that are deeply affected by these issues are integral in understanding the complexities of
problems, and thus, how they can be solved. Areas of academic study and disciplines,
professional industries and organizations, literature, and more, have created opportunities for
people to actively learn and become critical thinkers and problem solvers in addressing issues
that affect humanity. However, it is not as widely understood how these problems are perceived

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 11

through an engineering thinking perspective, or the full scope of how engineering practice
changes the landscape of our world. This can be isolating for those who demonstrate the
potential to contribute, but did not have the learning experiences, or active reinforcement, to
support their understanding of engineering thinking and practice; whereas, those who can
identify with tenets of the discipline are more likely to engage and connect with the practice.
Standards for education are evolving to help prepare students to think more critically and be
equipped with scientific and technical knowledge to approach issues, such as those presented
within the grand challenges. There is a need to develop a cadre of engineers, and those who
possess engineering thinking skill, to address these challenges forwardly. Therefore, the onus of
preparation for upcoming generations of problem-solvers lies on teachers, curricula, students,
and other constituents—further emphasizing the importance of the Next Generation Science
Standards.
Evolving Standards for Education. The framework for the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) is a multi-prong and interdisciplinary curricular response to how gaps in K-12
science education can be rectified. Developed in 2013 by a collection of 26 states, the National
Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
National Research Council (NRC) and Achieve, an independent, nonprofit education reform
organization, the NGSS were intentionally and holistically crafted to bring dynamic, richer
science education to American schools—following science education standards benchmarked,
internationally. According to these standards, upon graduation, high school students should have
an awareness of Science and Engineering Practices, Disciplinary Core Ideas, and Crosscutting
Concepts. However, before students are able to visualize and believe that they can meet these
standards and ultimately become key contributors in improving overall quality of life around the
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 12

world, there must be an in-depth exploration of how science and engineering content are
perceived throughout primary and secondary education.
In research and studies facilitated by the National Research Council (NRC) (2012),
students should possess broad knowledge of, and appreciation for, science and engineering and
be able to engage in public discourse on related topics by the conclusion of the 12
th
grade year.
Students should be aware and critical of scientific and technological information as it relates to
their everyday lives and have developed the skills to enter careers of their choosing, including
the science, engineering, and technology professions. Here, is an example of how introducing
students to the significance of the grand challenges can encourage them to start framing their
worlds and experiences within an engineering context.
The overarching goal is for current and future generations of students to feel prepared and
empowered to learn about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics concepts within
PK-13 education, and feel a sense of belonging in discussing, studying, and working within these
fields, at every level. This will require revisions and improvements of current curricula to include
a deeper integration of science-related content, different approaches to instruction, assessment,
and professional development for PK-12 educators.
An analysis of students’ learning experiences outside of the classroom as it relates to
knowledge construction and what is personally meaningful is integral to understanding how
students make sense of information within the classroom, as well. In this exploration, students’
academic and personal interests are revealed and also their level of preparedness, particularly, in
the more challenging science and mathematics subjects. In efforts to motivate students to take
part in understanding problems, such as those presented within the grand challenges, through an
engineering point of view, assessing their level of interest and preparedness throughout PK-13 is
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 13

critical. In this thesis, learning will be addressed in the PK-13 context, or pre-kindergarten (PK)
through the first year of college education (13). Towards the latter years of high school,
standardized testing can serve as a measure of preparedness and gauge students’ interest in
mathematics and science subjects leading into their first year of higher education. Overtime, as
the NGSS continue to reshape students’ learning experiences, performance on standardized tests
could be impacted.
Interest vs. Preparedness. The ACT, American College Test, was established in 1959,
as an alternative mainstream college admissions test, by Everett Franklin Lindquist, a professor
of education at the University of Iowa. The ACT differed from the SAT, Scholastic Aptitude
Test, as it drew from content and material actually taught throughout primary and secondary
education. The ACT was also the first standardized test to include a science component. The
ACT was designed to focus on identifying test takers’ strengths and weaknesses in subject areas
to influence placement versus cognitive reasoning indicators. The ACT has become a leader in
measuring college and career readiness across the United States, and in 2016, released a national
report addressing the readiness levels of the 2016 graduating class.
As 64% of the class of 2016 took the ACT exam, data captured a comprehensive picture
of the emerging STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education pipeline.
Reports indicated that between 2012-2016, 48% of students indicated an overall interest in
STEM, yet 26% of students met the ACT College Readiness and STEM benchmarks (ACT,
2016). In a research study facilitated by the National Science Foundation (NSF) over a 35-year
period (1972-2007), about a third of all first-time freshmen at 4-year institutions planned to
major in science and engineering (S&E) when they began college. These figures rose notably to
40% in 2011, and then declined by one percentage point in 2012. This data revealed that men,
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 14

across every racial/ethnic group, have been more likely than women to consider pursuing an
S&E major as freshmen students. Male students represented 46% of freshmen students intending
to major in S&E, while female freshmen students represented 34% (ACT, 2016). In the same
study, 53% of majority Asian first-time freshmen intended to major in S&E, Hispanic students at
42%, white students at 37%, Black students at 36%, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives at
33% (ACT, 2016). In terms of degree attainment, women earned 42% of S&E degrees at the
associate’s level, nearly 50% at the bachelor’s level, 46% at the master’s level, and 41% at the
doctoral level (ACT, 2016). Granted these figures may depict that female students are
represented highly throughout S&E studies, women are still considered to be a part of the
underrepresented demographic in overall STEM majors and professions. Recent data is not yet
available for review. In terms of S&E representation across racial/ethnic groups, in 2012,
Hispanic students earned 10.3% of S&E bachelor’s degrees, Asian/Pacific Islander students
received 9.7%, and Black students earned 9.7% of S&E degrees. White students are consistently
overrepresented among all levels of S&E degree attainment, while Black and Hispanic students
remain underrepresented at every degree level. In sum, according to the NSF, nearly 33% of
bachelor’s degrees, 21% of master’s degrees, and 57% of doctoral degrees were awarded in
science and engineering (S&E) fields (ACT, 2016). Analyses of who studies STEM subjects and
whether they persist throughout college paints a more holistic picture of how to approach
instructional and pedagogical changes at the fundamental PK-13 level.
STEM education data show historical disparities between student interest and
preparedness, as well as, along gender and ethnic/racial lines. Discussions of how to increase
student interest and overall STEM education preparedness greatly focus on how engineering,
specifically, is presented within PK-13 curricula, classrooms, and other learning situations. With
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 15

evolving state and national educational standards calling for the integration of engineering
characteristics into pedagogy, it is believed that an increase in engineering literacy can help
improve students’ overall educational experience (Bell & Hartman, 2017). Problems of societal
importance, much like the 14 Engineering grand challenges, require current and future
generations of students to have more dynamic, impactful learning experiences, inside and outside
of the classroom, in which engineering education initiatives are centered. Also, this expectation
calls for teachers and educators to become confident in adapting to engineering curricula and
adjusting instructional strategies to reflect on how their students best learn. Both students and
teachers become learners of how engineering concepts can enhance the classroom and critical
thinking skills.
Engineering Thinking. As one of the tenets of science and engineering education is to
cultivate students’ scientific and engineering habits of the mind (Yasar et. al, 2017), for students
to be able to think like engineers, curricula and instruction must be able to support this. In
understanding engineering’s role in society, students should recognize engineers as promoters of
human welfare that utilize critical thinking and technology to solve society’s problems (Taylor
et. al, 2017). To gain the fundamental skills that engineers use in their work, technological and
pedagogical tools must support scientific and engineering thinking practices in the classroom, as
the way science and engineering is presented affects how new generations of learners are
educated (Becker & Lammi, 2013). In breaking down engineering thinking to consumable,
implementable practice, students should be able to ask scientific questions and define
engineering problems, analyze and interpret data, construct explanations and design solutions,
engage in arguments based on evidence, properly communicate information, and use contextual
mathematics and science knowledge to engage and achieve (Yasar et. al, 2017).
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 16

Constructivism. The constructivist theory of learning (Dewey, 1938) postulates that
people construct meaning through experiences. Focusing on how people learn and the nature of
knowledge gives learners the power to construct knowledge on their own (Hein, 1991). As
individual learners actively contextualize information, they are simultaneously constructing their
own world, based on their lived experiences (Hein, 1991). A philosophical challenge that faces
the development of engineering thinking, or the ability to define problems and solve them,
throughout PK-13, is that students with sufficiently explicit prior knowledge or awareness of
engineering concepts have “internal guidance” which allows them to engage in this type of
thinking more fluidly (Yasar et. al, 2017). Therefore, students without the pre-requisite
engineering content knowledge or the environment needed to foster scientific inquiry and
engineering design thinking may be at a disadvantage (Yasar et. al, 2017). In response, tenets of
constructivism provide epistemological frameworks grounding how science and engineering are
performed and presented that affects how people learn. For example, the social constructivist
perspective allows teachers to move beyond testing standards as the measure of efficiency and
student learning, and focus more on the core of the educational process: learning and the learner
(Palincsar,1998).
Principles of constructivist thinking reinforce that learning is active (Dewey, 1938) and
that learners must be doing something to feel engaged with the real world. Passively learning
about engineering’s role in society would not necessarily have the profound effect on a learner’s
broader understanding of engineering; whereas, if learning is consistently hands-on in
engineering based activities and engaged in discourse, it may increase how perceptive a learner
is to the discipline. By analyzing pedagogy from the point of view of the learner, there is
recognition given to the importance of socio-cultural settings and the learning experience.
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 17

Through learning as a construction, the objective is for students to understand their reality and
believe that they have the capacity and intellectual tools to take on those challenges. Papert
(1991) refers to constructionism as a complement or extension of constructivism where learners
are consciously engaged in constructing a public entity. Papert lends a greater focus to learning
through making by way of artifacts, objects, and representations to demonstrate thinking (1991).
With engineering thinking influenced by constructivist learning, students can construct meaning
of problems, as well as, solutions.
Research Questions
As the NGSS detail, upon graduation, high school students should have an awareness of
Science and Engineering Practices, Disciplinary Core Ideas, and Crosscutting Concepts.
Importantly, students should be able to identify the influence of science, technology, engineering
and mathematics in everyday life and how it can be used to solve problems. Therefore,
preparation for students to be able to think critically and problem solve (engineering thinking)
begins before enrolling in a higher education institution, but rather, validated within their first
year of college. However, identifying problems, from individual learning experiences, is a
subjective task. A primary and/or secondary school learner’s lived experiences, personhood, and
relationship with their educational environments influence how they receive information being
taught and the conclusions drawn about the content. This is continued throughout their learning
experiences in post-secondary education. For a student to have an equitable opportunity to meet
the expectations as set forth by the National Research Council (NRC), there must be an emphasis
on analyzing the individual learning experience and thus, responding pedagogically with

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 18

teaching methods that reflect students’ unique learning needs. In understanding the
environments that fostered students’ ongoing understanding of, and interest in, science and
engineering content, it may be revealed which learning conditions influence persistence. The
research questions guiding the study are:

1a. Inside of the classroom, which types of learning experiences help shape students’
understanding of engineering?

1b. Outside of the classroom, what kind of learning opportunities promote an understanding of
engineering?

2a. Is there a difference in college student perceptions towards science and engineering before
and after an introductory engineering course?

2b. How does a student’s experience in an introductory engineering course impact confidence in
their major selection?

Background of the Problem
STEM Attrition. In 2013, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) produced
a Statistical Analysis Report (SAR) examining STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) attrition among college students throughout a 6-year period. This longitudinal
study was performed in response to the increasing necessity of colleges to graduate significantly
more STEM majors, with expectation that they will be equipped and prepared to pursue STEM
occupations. This has become one of the nation’s top priorities, as STEM fields are vital to the
sustainability and development of our economy. Policymakers are tasked with identifying ways
to reduce overall STEM attrition in college in order to decrease this deficit; therefore, retention
in STEM programs is believed to be key in producing STEM professionals (NCES, 2013). Data
from this SAR span the course of 6 years in college, 2004-2009. Here, STEM attrition refers to
college students’ enrollment choices that result in potential STEM graduates transitioning out of

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 19

STEM fields and into non-STEM fields or leaving post-secondary education before earning a
degree or certificate (NCES, 2013).
According to this report, about 28% of bachelor’s degree students entered a STEM major,
within 6 years of entering postsecondary education between 2003-2004 (NCES, 2013). Of this
figure, many of the identified STEM entrants left their field of study several years later by either
changing majors or exited college without completing a degree (NCES, 2013). A total of 48% of
bachelor’s degree students who entered STEM fields between 2003-2004 reported leaving these
fields by spring of 2009 (NCES, 2013). In examining these data further, roughly fifty percent of
those who left switched their degree to a non-STEM field, while the remainder left the university
(NCES 2013). This report describes some of the characteristics of “STEM leavers”. From these
data, more female students left their STEM majors by switching to non-STEM programs (32%
vs. 26%) in comparison to male students who completed the same action (NCES, 2013). Among
racial and ethnic groups, Asian-identified students left STEM fields by dropping out of college at
the lowest rate (10% vs 20-29% for other racial/ethnic groups) (NCES, 2013). The information
within the 2013 NCES report helps frame and contextualize the problem(s) that will be addressed
throughout this thesis.
Engineering Education Integration. Bybee (2011) explains that engineering education
refers to content standards where specific learning outcomes reflect knowledge and abilities for a
subject area. In more detail, students should learn and understand concepts such as systems
thinking, optimization and feedback, the capabilities of engineering design, as well as,
engineering habits of the mind (Bybee, 2011). Historically, talks of education standards took
place throughout the late 1800s, however, many conversations included an emphasis on science
and technology, yet engineering was rarely mentioned (Bybee, 2011). The 1980s was deemed
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 20

the “standards era” as education policy-makers were shifting focus toward strengthening the
content of the PK-12 core curriculum and raising expectations using measurable standards
(Bybee, 2011). Standards-based reform would establish clear policies and challenging content as
learning outcomes for PK-12 education (Bybee, 2011). For students to attain these standards
there must be thoughtful selection of educational programs, strategic use of instructional
practices, and implementation of assessments (Bybee, 2011). Therefore, undergraduate and
graduate teacher education and professional development from PK-12 teachers would also need
to abide by these standards, as well.
In 1993, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) released
benchmarks for science literacy, and in 1996, the National Research Council (NRC) published
the National Science Education Standards that included recommendations related to engineering
and technology (Bybee, 2011). Both societal and educational perspectives served as the
justification for developing engineering education standards. In 1999, to determine the top 100
news stories of the 20
th
century, the Newseum, a journalism museum in Washington DC,
administered a survey of American historians and journalists (Bybee, 2011). From this survey, a
large percentage of news topics were directly related to engineering and technology. These
findings influenced the emphasis on engineering education and technology literacy as much of
what the public reads, hears, and values are relative to engineering and technology (Bybee,
2011).
Justification for the integration of engineering into the classroom has evolved with the
contemporary challenges as presented by the National Academy of Engineers (NAE). The grand
challenges project centers the role of engineering and innovation in solving some of the world’s
critical problems, thus creating opportunity for educators, students, and communities to take part
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 21

in responding to those Challenges. During the Obama administration, science and technology
advisor John Holdren introduced “cross-cutting foundations” for success in meeting the
economic, social, environmental, biomedical, and security challenges facing the United States of
America (Holdren, 2009). To meet these challenges, all constituents must work cohesively to
strengthen STEM education at every level, from pre-college to post graduate to lifelong learning
(Holdren, 2009). In speaking of “STEM” education, however, oftentimes, it is the mathematics
and science subjects that are emphasized most, leaving technology slightly visible and
engineering invisible (Bybee, 2011). Strengthening STEM education calls for making the “E”
more visible throughout classrooms. Furthermore, the development of engineering education
standards assists with the development of 21
st
century skills, which are necessary in identifying
and solving the world’s challenges (Bybee, 2011). Also known as 21
st
Century Skills (NRC,
2010), adaptability, complex communication and social skills, non-routine problem-solving
skills, self-management and self-development, and systems thinking are each fundamental to
engineering education and thinking practices necessary for people to develop.
Barriers. Bybee (2011) asserts that there are limited barriers to the development of PK-
13 engineering standards; however, significant challenges emerge in the actualization of these
standards in national and state education policies, school programs, and classroom practices.
Although, these assertions were made prior to NGSS being released, recognizing historical
barriers are important. Federal laws, state standards, assessments, teachers’ conceptual
understanding and personal beliefs, instructional strategies, budget priorities, parental concerns,
college and university teacher preparation programs, and teacher unions serve as constituents
that must prioritize and promote engineering thinking in education, or they risk acting adversely
(Bybee, 2011).
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 22

Common misconceptions or stereotypes of engineers and of the engineering profession
may play a significant role why an individual is less perceptive to this field. At the PK-13 level,
many students are first exposed to different academic and career options through principals,
teachers, and counselors; therefore, students’ understanding of industries depends greatly on
administrators’ preparedness to provide general to specific information. In a 2002 study,
researchers sought to gauge school counselors’ attitudes and knowledge about engineering and
the influence their perspectives had on students’ career decision-making processes. As some
researchers have asserted that school counselors’ limited knowledge has served as barriers
preventing students from seriously considering engineering and other science related careers
(Gibbons et al., 2003), this study provided insight to that claim. As a preface to this research, a
survey facilitated by the National Science Foundation (NSF) reported that 25% of adults
assessed thought that scientists were “apt to be odd and peculiar”, while 29% believed that
scientists had “few interests outside of their work.” The survey data also revealed that 53% of
adults thought that scientific work was “dangerous”. This is critical information, as students who
do not know engineers personally may have accumulated similar negative stereotypes from
adults that share these beliefs, thus they must be actively dispelled (Gibbons et al., 2003).
Negative impressions about engineering and the work conditions for engineers could
greatly discourage students from considering the field as a viable option. Lack of exposure to the
engineering discipline may also lead some students to believe that they do not “fit the profile of
an engineer”, fearing that the environment would not be welcoming or accepting (Gibbons et al.,
2003). For example, (Gibbons et al., 2003) cites work by Fouad in 1999 where some African
American students and female students were more likely to choose majors and careers in which
their sex or race was decently represented. They believed that within this environment, there
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 23

would be less discrimination and greater opportunity for achievement (Gibbons et al., 2003). For
students not excelling at the top percentile within their class, they may hold the belief that
engineering and technical skills are only suitable for students performing outstandingly (Gibbons
et al., 2003).
As included in the results of the research study assessing a total of 233 school counselors’
perceptions of engineering, many attributed a lesser role to engineering in conducting space
research, developing new forms of energy, and creating new materials (Gibbons et al., 2003),
although, they believed that engineers are highly respected by others. Of the “negative”
perceptions, data reported that counselors believed “engineers are people who were nerds in high
school” and “spend most of their time working with computers”. In measuring pre-engineering
counseling efficacy, 70% of surveyed counselors indicated that they encourage students to
consider engineering as a career (Gibbons et al, 2003). However, only 57% felt they had the
information needed to properly prepare students who may want to become engineers (Gibbons et
al, 2003). In analyzing engineering education pedagogy and information sharing throughout the
PK-13 level, career guidance is a critical piece of the learning experience, in which
misconceptions and stereotypes can be challenged.
A similar study was conducted throughout Arizona school districts that assessed K-12
teachers’ perceptions of engineers and familiarity with teaching design, engineering, and
technology (DET). As the public understanding of technology is limited, Yasar et. al (2006)
phrased the most common interpretation of technology to essentially be, artifact. DET education
involves teaching the design, engineering, and technological issues related to conceptualizing,
creating, sustaining, and disposing of useful objects and/or processes in the human-built world
(Yasar et. al, 2006). The primary purpose of integrating DET education into K-12 classrooms is
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 24

to increase technology literacy of students, and ultimately, the broader public (Yasar et. al,
2006). However, understanding teachers’ knowledge and needs surrounding DET requires
exploration of their familiarity and perceptions of these areas. Trends may reveal factors that
serve as barriers to successful DET integration (Yasar et. al, 2006). A benchmark and standard
for DET education is to increase teachers’ self-confidence and knowledge through pre-service
teacher preparation and in-service professional development (Yasar et. al, 2006).
The survey was completed by 98 K-12 science teachers; 56 identified as female and 42
identified as male. 23% of a school district in Arizona had teachers participate in this study. Key
points revealed in survey results indicated that despite gender differences, the sample revealed
that teachers believed that DET was important (Yasar et. al, 2006). Teachers indicated wanting
to promote an understanding of how DET affects society and to develop scientists, engineers,
and technicians for the working world (Yasar et. al, 2006). Although there were no significant
differences found between male and female identified teachers’ familiarity with DET, female
teachers believed DET should be integrated into K-12 curricula, more than their male-identified
peers (Yasar et. al, 2006). However, based on survey results, teachers’ confidence in integrating
DET concepts was not strong and their familiarity with DET was reported to be even weaker.
Teachers attributed their lack of familiarity with DET and difficulty integrating DET into their
curriculum mainly to the lack of administrative support, lack of knowledge, lack of training, and
a lack of time to learn about DET (Yasar et. al, 2006). Teachers with high familiarity with DET
indicated having high administrative support within their schools and implemented DET
activities in their classrooms (Yasar et. al, 2006). Recognizing degrees in teacher preparedness
is a critical contributor in analyzing how engineering thinking can be presented in classrooms.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 25

Student Attitudes and Perceptions of Engineering. In addition to teachers’ and
counselors’ attitudes and perceptions of engineering and their relevance to engineering thinking
in education, understanding students’ views of this field is equally needed. As there is an
increase in demand for engineering professionals to fill positions in the working world, this call
is not met with a significant uptick in students pursuing engineering studies (Garcia & Oliver,
2012). A common assumption is that students, overwhelmingly, do not have the background
mathematics and science knowledge or performance needed to prepare them for college
engineering courses; however, that is only a part of the explanation (Garcia & Oliver, 2012). In
a 2012 study surveying eight first-year college students at the University of Pittsburgh about
their relationship to engineering, results revealed that some of the reasons why students do not
take interest in engineering or drop-out of their engineering programs varied. Some tend to have
perceptions such as negative attitudes towards how engineering is taught, maintain poor
impressions of engineering as careers, hold negative views about the types of activities engineers
engage in, and have less enjoyment in studying mathematics and science subjects (Garcia &
Oliver, 2012). Studying attitudes are important, as those which students carry about engineering,
either positive or negative, is a direct indicator of the type of experience they will have with that
subject (Garcia & Oliver, 2012). Students that are reluctant to pursue engineering and carry
negative views tend to believe that a person has to be a “genius to become an engineer and be a
computer and technology fanatic” (Garcia & Oliver, 2012). From the responses, many of these
students maintain incomplete or incorrect ideas about what an engineer does, such as, believing
that engineers do not deal with environmental issues. Many also believe that the workload of an
engineer is not compatible with family life or that the salaries do not measure up to the level of
work involved (Garcia & Oliver, 2012).
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 26

The survey measured the motivations of the students towards or away from engineering
studies. Students who left an engineering program after their first year in college were invited to
complete an open-ended survey analyzing why they chose to leave the major. Some students
indicated that they misunderstood which career options were available, or that they were poorly
advised (Garcia & Oliver, 2012). Although, some students reported sound reasons for leaving
their major, some explained that they no longer liked engineering and therefore, were not going
to study it. One third of students that were leaving their major indicated becoming interested in
another field (Garcia & Oliver, 2012). One third of students, while even in good academic
standing, lacked confidence in their own academic possibilities (Garcia & Oliver, 2012). In more
positive feedback, throughout students’ first year, the engineering students reported an increase
in enjoyment of their program when working in groups, which lessened their belief that the
engineering discipline is an “exact science” (Garcia & Oliver, 2012).
These studies help reveal the full scope of students’ resistance to engineering and what
keeps interested students motivated and persisting. Throughout this spectrum, it can be
concluded that how engineering is introduced and taught to students throughout PK-13, greatly
impacts their relationship with the subject throughout their first year of college. Exposure
influences students’ self-efficacy, confidence, and their academic and career decision making
process.
In a 2014 study examining the effects of “STEM Academies”, or STEM outreach
programs, on K-12 students’ perceptions of engineers and engineering, results showed that
actively engaging in science and engineering activities alone do not significantly chip away at
students’ prior understanding of the discipline. Over the span of three years, engineering students
from Ohio Northern University dedicated a full day to facilitating STEM activities with 4-6
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 27

grade students at a public middle school. Participants and program organizers referred to these
days as STEM Academies. Although the science and engineering academies were well received
by students and positive feedback were given to faculty, the level of effectiveness of
communicating the richness of engineering to students was not certain (Reeping and Reid, 2014).
Following the activities, students were tasked with completing survey questions to reflect on
their understanding or feelings towards engineering. The survey questions were similar to a
“Draw an Engineer Test” (DAET). The survey sample was 60 6
th
grade students, 27 boys and 33
girls, from a small public middle school. The data revealed that students held commonly known
misconceptions about engineering and engineers, and maintained a level of resistance from
exploring a new field that differed from their idealized profession (Reeping & Reid, 2014).
Interestingly, students indicated being drawn to engineering based on misinformed perceptions,
including the type of work they believed engineers do and do not perform. When asked “What
does an engineer do? And, how would you describe engineering to a friend?” the most
commonly chosen action verbs were, “build, make, experiments, and comes up with new
ideas/brainstorms.” The actions that were least chosen to identify with engineers and
engineering were, “design, work, learn, teach, construct, think, use their imagination, invent,
plan, wire things, does science, solve problems, test, or control.” Reeping and Reid (2014) see
that the value is lost on STEM Academies if there is not much focus given to helping students
understand engineering skills. Further, they are concerned of whether STEM Academies further
reinforce students’ misconceptions of engineering (2014).
Improper, or limited, exposure to engineering thinking throughout PK-13 risks students
not maximizing their potential contributing power in helping solve some of the world’s grand
challenges. In reframing how engineering is learned at the PK-13 level, students should have a
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 28

more developed understanding of how engineering is practiced by the time they are college
ready.
Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. In 2008, The Committee on Public
Understanding of Engineering Messages, National Academy of Engineering (NAE), released
“Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering”.
Recognizing that the vast majority of Americans will not become engineers, the NAE (2008)
understands that everyone, regardless of age, can benefit from maintaining a better understanding
of the role engineers serve in technological creations. Means of effective messaging can help
raise the level of technological literacy among the general population of Americans, which is a
key competency of the 21
st
century. In their document, the Committee (2008) mentions that
despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent toward improving the public’s understanding
of engineering, educational research still showed, at that time, that K-12 teachers and students
generally maintained a poor understanding of what engineers do. The polling data (2008)
included in their document revealed that the public believes that engineers do not engage in
matters of societal and community concerns, like they believe scientists do, and are less likely to
play a role in saving lives.
The NAE (2008) wants the general public to have an accurate, more positive impression
of engineering and the work engineers do for very important reasons. First, the United States
must sustain its capacity for technological innovation (2008). The NAE explains that a better
understanding of engineering would, subsequently, educate policy makers and the general public
of how engineering manages to contribute to economic development, quality of life, national
security, and health (2008). Next, it is important to debunk misconceptions about engineering
and, thus, attract young people to careers in engineering. With a better understanding of
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 29

engineering, students would be more encouraged and willing to take higher-level mathematics
and science courses, as early as middle school (2008). This would enable and properly prepare
them to pursue engineering education in the future. Lastly, by improving technological literacy,
people would become more capable and confident participants in our extremely technology-
dependent society (2008). With a more informed and nuanced understanding, citizens will know
something about how engineering and science, among other factors, lead to new technologies
(2008).
The goal spearheading the NAE’s 2008 messaging project, is to intentionally encourage
coordinated, consistent, and effective communication by the engineering community to a variety
of constituents such as school students, their families, and school counselors about the
importance of engineering and its career potential. The NAE seeks to emphasize the direct
personal benefits of engineering and being an engineer and reinforce the connections between
engineering and ideas and possibilities, rather than engineering being understood as a
mathematics/science based approach to problem solving (2008). It is hoped for that engineering
is understood to be inherently creative and concerned with human welfare, as well as, an
emotionally gratifying profession.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to contribute to ongoing efforts of making engineering more
accessible and public to all. By understanding the strengths and gaps within historical
engineering pedagogy, future learning models and teaching practices can evolve. By focusing on
individual learning experiences, the study can reveal how students construct different meanings
around engineering. When students understand engineering within the context of their own
world and lived experiences, they may become more confident of their ability to connect with
this field personally, academically, and/or professionally. In unpacking how students have
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 30

identified with science and engineering throughout PK-13, critical contextual information is
revealed about how they are likely to connect and persist throughout the college engineering
curriculum. At a base level, they will gain a nuanced appreciation for engineering, as a whole,
and be knowledgeable of society’s grand problems.
Conceptual Framework
Seymour Papert (1991), speaks of constructionism as a richer means to elaborate on and
make sense of information. Although constructionism cannot be confined to any single
definition, fundamentally, the physical act of constructing—or creating a public entity—makes
the process of learning a deeper activity, regardless of the circumstances that frame the learning
conditions. Papert’s constructionism encourages learners to create a personal construction and
make sense of something. One’s own personal construction will, in turn, embody a rich and full
understanding that can be shared with others, as well. Hands-on, project based activities, Papert
(1991) explains, “allow students to think, to dream, to gaze, to get a new idea and try it and drop
it or persist, time to talk, to see other people’s work, and their reaction to (theirs).” This
engagement with learning, by making, creates bolder, disciplinary experiences in which students
approach concepts like mathematics and science, through real world application. Many
constructivist principles were inspired by constructionism.
Jonassen (1994) summarized the underlying assumptions of constructivism into eight key
points. Deriving from the contributions of constructivism theory’s primary proponents, Jonassen
(1994) describes how constructivist learning environments (CLE) provide multiple
representations of reality. To avoid an oversimplification of the real world and rather highlight
its complexities, CLEs promote learners creating their own representation of the world
(Jonassen, 1994). CLEs are a response to standard knowledge reproduction approaches to
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 31

learning, where the emphasis of knowledge instruction is upheld (Jonassen, 1994). Furthermore,
CLEs value authentic tasks that maintain meaningful contexts in place of abstract instructions
that do not serve a greater purpose (Jonassen, 1994). As CLEs center real-world contexts
through case-based learning, predetermined sequences of instruction would not serve learners
best in their process of understanding content and material (Jonassen, 1994). Ultimately, CLEs
encourage thoughtful reflection on experiences individually and also through collaborative
construction (Jonassen, 1994).
Dewey (1933/1938) has been cited as the founder of the philosophical approach known
as constructivism. In his beliefs, Dewey rejected the educational ideology that schools should
focus on perpetuating rote, repetitive memorization in classrooms (1933/1938). Rather, Dewey
(1933/1938) in response, proposed “directed living” where students would actively participate in
real-world, practical workshops. Within these spaces, students would be welcomed to
demonstrate their knowledge through creativity and collaboration (Dewey, 1933/1938), allowing
students to think for themselves and articulate their thoughts.
Piaget (1985) is also known to contribute greatly to the idea of constructivism. Piaget
(1985) rejected the notion that learning is the passive assimilation of knowledge shared. Rather,
Piaget (1985) believed that learning is a process of active construction, where the student
(learner) creates and tests their own theories of the world, building and constructing upon their
previous knowledge, regardless of how information is taught. Piaget’s Conception of
Equilibrium theory (1985) explored how new information is molded to fit within the scope of a
learner’s existing knowledge and how existing knowledge is adjusted to accommodate new
information.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 32

Vygotsky (1986) is most known for his contributions to constructivism by reinforcing the
notion that it is impossible to separate learning from its social context—social constructivism.
Vygotsky (1986) emphasized the necessity of collaborative nature of learning and the importance
of cultural and social contexts as an undeniable part of the learning process. Vygotsky (1986)
spoke of knowledge being more than the assimilation of new knowledge acquired by learners,
but rather, learning is the process by which learners being actively integrated into a knowledge
community. In 1934, Vygotsky upheld language, culture, and knowledge as key roles in one’s
cognitive development and how individuals perceive the world. According to Vygotsky (1934),
language, culture, and knowledge provide frameworks through which people experience,
communicate, and understand “reality”. In Vygotsky’s (1978, p.56) Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) theory, he further explained his belief that learning takes place with help or
guidance from others that maintain more advanced understandings of ideas and concepts, as the
learner cannot understand at that level on their own, yet. As a feature of ZPD, intersubjectivity
explores how two or more participants can work together to achieve a shared understanding
(Newson & Newson, 1975). Scaffolding, another feature, requires adjustment in support
throughout a teaching session to fit, or accommodate, a learner’s current level of performance
(Newson & Newson, 1975). The final feature of ZPD, guided participation, refers to shared
works, projects, endeavors, between a learner and someone with a deeper understanding of
knowledge. Key tenets of constructivism will serve as the conceptual frame in which students’
relationship to science and engineering is explored throughout this thesis.
Organization of the Study
For this study, an online questionnaire was created and distributed to every first-year
freshman engineering student enrolled in the ENGR 102: Engineering Freshman Academy
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 33

course, within a private institution in Los Angeles, California. This convergent parallel mixed
methods approach, comprised of open- and closed-ended and Likert-scale questions, offering
students the opportunity to reflect on which PK-13 experiences guided them towards science and
engineering and the impact of the Engineering Freshman Academy on their relationship with
engineering courses and the profession. The survey highlighted the elements of constructivism
rooted in the course’s curriculum and gauged whether or not students feel more connected to the
field because of it. Appendix B lists the questions that were included in the survey. Outreach was
performed through faculty and senior administration that found value in this type of research
being gathered on this population of students. Following this section is Chapter 2, the literature
review. Chapter 2 outlines research about learner-centered knowledge (constructivism),
engineering thinking in education integration, and student persistence throughout PK-13. Chapter
3 provides detailed information on the methodology chosen for the study and research design.
Chapter 4 shows the results of the study and Chapter 5 is a discussion about the results.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 34

Chapter 2: Literature Review
At the time of this writing, I was able to identify historical and emerging research on
constructivism and find data on access barriers to engineering thinking and education. However,
there is limited research on unique experiences or conditions established within PK-13 that must
be present within the first year of college for engineering students to feel validation within
engineering and persist throughout the major. The literature presented will provide a conceptual
framework highlighting select tenets of constructivism and insight on how learning experiences
facilitate knowledge construction and meaning-making of engineering. It will explore the
development of students’ understanding of engineering and also shed light on misconceptions.
There will be a focus on differences in exposure and how engineering can, and is, engaged in
nonlinear ways. This chapter will draw connections between students’ awareness of engineering
and critical tenets of constructivism. The literature highlights the need for a deeper, humanistic
understanding of how students (learners) apply personal experiences to knowledge construction,
especially in relation to science and engineering. More specifically, there is a need for more
nuanced explanations surrounding what engineering is, in theory and in practice, and for it to be
more widely known. Through this, the sentiment will become that the engineering-related fields
are available for all to explore.
Constructivism
Active Learning
The nature of active learning can be found within select theories: Dewey’s theory of
progressive education, Piaget’s theory of assimilation and accommodation, and Vygotsky’s
Social Development Theory and Zone of Proximal Development (Pardjono, 2002). In a study
performed in Indonesia, the author focuses on how active learning approaches implemented in
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 35

classrooms have improved the quality of the learning process. Although active learning is met
with various contextual definitions of what it is in theory and in practice, the theories mentioned
sought to address the fundamentals of what how it looks when applied.
Dewey rejected the traditional notion of traditional education, throughout the early
twentieth century, that the teacher possesses knowledge and that the child must receive
knowledge that is passed on (Pardjono, 2002). In contrast to “passive and receptive knowledge”,
proposed principles of active learning, within Dewey’s discussions of progressive education,
identified students as being more active in their learning process (Pardjono, 2002). Dewey
viewed the classroom as a microcosm of a democratic society where students learn by experience
(Pardjono, 2002). Dewey’s theory reinforced that as a condition of the learning experience,
students needed to interact with their environment in order to think, thus, every student should be
involved in project-based activities (Pardjono, 2002).
The author describes the nature of active learning as having three aspects: knowledge,
learning, and teaching (Pardjono, 2002). Pardjono (2002) posits knowledge in active learning as
an individual experience that is organized and constructed through the learning process, not
through texts provided by teachers. Rather, teaching is executed through the proper facilitation
of the learning environment, allowing students to attain knowledge through active involvement
in learning activities (Pardjono, 2002). The physical action required for active learning calls for
students to learn by working with objects, whereas the mental action involved is the continual
reconstruction of thought, as described by Pardjono (2002).
In Piaget’s theory of assimilation and accommodation, it is not realistic to expect a
teacher and a student to achieve mutual communication, as proponents of traditional methods of
education infer (Pardjono, 2002). In classrooms where the expectation is that teachers speak and
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 36

students listen, a student will hear what they perceived, which may not align with the message
the teacher was conveying (Pardjono, 2002). Plainly, what is taught is not always what is
learned. Rather, Dewey asserts that classroom control helps develop the relationship between
students and teachers (Pardjono, 2002). In this learning model, in order for students to be more
active within the classroom, the communication between the student and the teacher must be
reciprocal (Pardjono, 2002). Students and the teacher are both senders and receivers of
information and, thus, both function as teachers and learners, where the teacher’s primary role is
to provide guidance and suggestions (Pardjono, 2002). In 1953, Piaget’s theory spoke of the
continuous balance of complex forms within the learning environment. Assimilation refers to
adaptation within current structures and accommodation occurs when one ‘s existing way of
thinking is changed as a result of a new event or stimulus (Pardjono, 2002). From this derives
four principals of active learning. First, students should construct their own knowledge so that it
is meaningful (Pardjono, 2002). Next, students learn best when they are being active and
interacting with concrete objects and materials (Pardono, 2002). Learning should be student-
centered and individualized (Pardono, 2002). Lastly, social interaction and cooperative work
should be significantly present in the classroom environment (Pardjono, 2002). In sum, learning
is constructing knowledge and teaching is creating a stimulating environment supplied with
concrete materials and hands-on activities that promote individualized learning processes and
experiences (Pardjono, 2002).
Vygotsky’s social learning and development context and the zone of proximal
development believed that learners are active organizers of their experiences and emphasizes the
social and cultural dimensions of individual development (Pardjono, 2002). Vygotsky slightly
differs from Dewey and Piaget where he promotes problem solving under adult guidance or in
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 37

collaboration with more capable peers (Pardjono, 2002), as being the means for proper learning
approaches. Vygotsky’s theory called for active agents within the educational process to aid in
the development of a learner’s potential (Pardjono, 2002). The theory further explains that as the
child is viewed as building or actively constructing, the social environment is critically necessary
to the support system they need to move forward and build new competencies (Pardjono, 2002).
The active learning tenet of constructivism is vital to the research topic presented in this
thesis as it specifically describes classroom environments that center the role being hands-on
plays in how students make sense of information. When students are tasked with projects that
grant them the autonomy to approach answering questions as they naturally would, it makes
space for their creativity to manifest, as well as their ability to think critically. This could reveal
students’ natural abilities to think and act like an engineer, granted a teacher maintains the
knowledge and capability to draw correlations between engineering behavior and what takes
place in the classroom.
Constructivist Learning Theory
Constructivist learning theory (CLT) stresses that learners do not passively receive
information, but rather actively construct knowledge as it relates to making sense of their
individual worlds (Pardjono, 2002). Constructivism holds that the process of knowing is active,
individual, personal, and based on previously constructed knowledge (Pardjono, 2002). It is a
continuous process of building upon experiences and interpretations of the world based on their
interactions within the world (Pardjono, 2002).
Boudourides (2003) presents four varieties of constructivism as they relate to education,
science, and technology: philosophical, cybernetic, educational, and sociological constructivism.
In focusing on social constructivism, Boudourides (2003) stressed the idea of cultural
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 38

psychology where communication and social life were central to meaning formation and
cognition. Latter versions of constructivism hold that knowledge is a social construct, and these
social constructs frame science and technology studies (Boudourides, 2003). Constructivist
views of learning promote a psychological influence on education and the learning process,
where one’s beliefs and perceptions of the world guide how they process and interpret
information (Boudouries, 2003). To further build upon that ideology, social constructivism is the
understanding of the ways in which science, technology, and society intersect (Boudouries,
2003), and how human interpretation gauges these intersections.
CLT contextualizes how learning is individual and that approaches to education must
anticipate and reflect how experiences will vary. In introducing students to the fundamentals of
engineering, throughout PK-13 within a CLT framework, a student will process the information
as it relates to their unique worldview. Sense-making of how engineering is a part of everyday
life will occur as content draws relevance to lived experiences and prior knowledge. A student’s
relationship with engineering develops as they personally begin to see how it exists and can
understand the language around how it operates around them.
Student and Teacher Interactions
Colburn (2015) discussed the unifying capability of constructivism within science
education. Philosophically, Colburn (2015) identifies how there is no way for learners, or
observers, to learn and observe the same things in the same way. As individual experiences and
viewpoints affect how one perceives the world, reality is in fact a personal construction
(Colburn, 2015). What a person maintains as truth is based on learning methods that work best
for them (Colburn, 2015). Constructivism as it applies to the classroom shows that prior to
entering a class setting, students hold multiple unique experiences and personal beliefs and
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 39

knowledge base about how the world works (Colburn, 2015). Therefore, how they process
scientific ideas is influenced by previously held ideas and conceptions (Colburn, 2015), which
may differ from those accepted by the scientific community. Within a constructivist framework,
challenging students’ misconceptions about science can pose as a difficult task for teachers,
however, not impossible. Teachers should create an environment where students are clear in
their understanding of their own ideas, help students understand the problems within their
beliefs, and present alternate beliefs that could work better for them personally (Colburn, 2015).
With the development of the next generation science standards, science teaching using
constructivist tenets can be more distinctly defined. A constructivist perspective within a
classroom is seen where students are engaged in open-ended activities in which they can reflect
upon previously established knowledge to answer questions (Colburn, 2015). Open-ended
activities provide teachers with greater opportunity to relate with students, ask and exchange
questions, and better understand their students’ scientific ideas (Colburn, 2015). Within these
environments, cooperative learning is able to manifest. Students talking to each other about their
ideas create opportunities for exchange. Exchanges among students could lead to challenging
questions that may help people recognize flaws in their ideas in a potentially less threatening
manner, than if a teacher was leading the critique (Colburn, 2015). Questions and time allotted
to processing supports constructivism in the classroom. This behavior helps stimulate students’
thinking, which may influence conceptual change (Colburn, 2015). The goal of the open-ended
questions approach is for students and teachers to understand their personal views of the world
and for teachers to be equipped with how to strategically challenge any student misconceptions
(Colburn, 2015).

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 40

Kroll (2007) reinforces how constructivist learning and teaching theory conflicts with the
notion of teaching as telling and learning as copying or memorizing what is considered to be
true. Rather, learning as a process of construction and reconstruction represents the multiplicity
of ways in which to think about learning and development, and ultimately about teaching (Kroll
2007). Kroll (2007) leans on Vygotsky’s emphasis of the importance of language in learning and
how vocabulary students are taught can redefine how new concepts are perceived. Applying
new language and vocabulary throughout the learning processes is a constructivist development.
As students and teachers interact frequently, students often rely on teachers to provide
information that is factual and provoking, as well as, relevant. For many PK-13 students,
exposure to engineering, STEM majors in college, engineering careers, and validation of a
student’s place within these spaces stems from interactions with their teachers. Therefore, how
teachers construct their classrooms and form relationships with students can have either positive
or negative impacts on students’ interpretation of course material and academic/career decision
making.
Inquiry Learning
Bevevino, Dengal, and Adams (1999) in analyzing constructivist theory in the classroom,
address teachers’ point that students sometimes have trouble applying and transferring
knowledge due to underdeveloped problem-solving skills. Thus, students do not understand the
importance of what they are being asked to learn in the classroom (Bevevino, Dengal, & Adams,
1999). According to the authors, teachers can make learning meaningful when employing
activities that require students to draw upon their prior knowledge and experiences to construct
their own frames of thought (1999). Inquiry learning approaches within classroom environments
demand that students use critical thinking, while encouraging the internalization of major
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 41

concepts. In promoting individual frames of thought, teachers can find ways to personalize and
contextualize significant moments in history and challenge students to apply lessons to their own
lives. Learning about history in a deeply personal and internalized way frames the importance of
context when tasked with solving problems.
Inquiry learning supports students’ engagement in problem solving. Being skilled in
identifying and solving problems is key to engineering thinking and engineering practice.
Engineering Education and Student Challenges
Alkandari (2014) sought to use their research to gain an understanding of the challenges
engineering students have encountered. At the College of Engineering & Petroleum at Kuwait
University, 385 students were selected on a random basis for this study. From this study, most of
the challenges reported were associated with academic issues, faculty members and projects, and
psychology, or belief in the inability to accomplish a task (Alkandari, 2014). Alkandari (2014)
proposes that these reported problems are likely to be resolved if student-teacher relationships
are improved, more effective teaching strategies are developed and employed, and if students are
provided with an environment that influences motivation and encouragement.
Alkandari (2014) notes within their research that there are many students who cease to
pursue engineering because they cannot overcome the obstacles present, despite having the
requisite skills to be admitted to the university. Some students indicated being pressured by
family to pursue engineering because they received high grade point averages (gpas) in high
school, but then realized how much more challenging the college environment is (Alkandari,
2014). Freshmen student participants in this study reported being convinced that they had
developed the basic skills required in the field, however, sophomore student participants could
not say the same (Alkandari, 2014). Second year (sophomore) students held the opinion that the
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 42

engineering concepts developed throughout the first year of study were not enough to prepare
them for the following academic years (Alkandari, 2014). According to Alkandari (2014),
research showed that it was vital for students to participate in a basic first year course that
targeted the development of their skills and improvement of their understanding of engineering
fundamentals so they are better prepared to study more advanced subjects moving forward.
From the questionnaire, the main barriers to engineering education were reported as
academic burdens, large amounts of homework, tough exams that resulted in low overall course
grades, and difficulty understanding course contents and concepts, as students believed that their
studies were not personally beneficial (Alkandari, 2014). Significantly, students also reported
that faculty created problems for them. Students mentioned that some teachers disregarded the
different skill levels present within their classes, yet treated every student as if they all
maintained the same experiences (Alkandari, 2014). Students that reported struggling in classes
and were not able to keep up with the rest of the class did not receive any extra attention from
faculty (Alkandari, 2014). Further questionnaire results highlighted participants’ beliefs that
they were not apt enough or had the skills required to enter the engineering field (Alkandari,
2014). Issues with time management and procrastination were also present. In addition, students
encountered psychological challenges such as anxiety, frustration, and depression (Alkandari,
2014). These feelings were more prominent for students who were struggling to adapt to the
new college environment and could not meet the expectations placed upon them (Alkandari,
2014). Lastly, forming groups inside and outside of classes were also found to be an issue for
students.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 43

Influences on Engineering Students’ Academic Achievement
In a 2016 study, Alias, Akash, and Kesot conducted an investigation to gain insight on
the relationships between effective learning needs, specifically self-efficacy and locus of control,
learning efforts and academic achievement among engineering college students. Locus of
control is defined as a person’s belief that they can influence the events and outcomes in their
life, while self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to accomplish a task. The survey was
conducted on first-year engineering students from two technical universities in Malaysia (Alias,
Akash, and Kesot, 2016). The results of this study found that female-identified engineering
students tend to have higher self-efficacy in comparison to male-identified counterparts, while
both groups reported similar locus of control and learning efforts (Alias, Akash, and Kesot,
2016). In this research, locus of control is related to academic achievement, while self-efficacy
is related to efforts (Alias, Akash, and Kesot, 2016).
The need for universities to produce engineers with high technical skills has resulted in
engineering educators placing significant emphasis on cognitive learning needs within classroom
teaching and learning approaches and practices (Alias, Akash, and Kesot, 2016). However,
learning involved affects such as feeling and emotion, therefore, practices must also meet the
demand for engineers to have more people skills and affective learning outcomes within
engineering education (Alias, Akash, and Kesot, 2016). Engineering education research is
beginning to emphasize the need for an understanding of the affective domain within engineering
education teaching and learning (Alias, Akash, and Kesot, 2016). Affective learning needs are
defined as having the self-perception of being able to succeed on a task (self-efficacy) and
possess feelings of being in control of event outcomes (locus of control) (Alias, Akash, and

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 44

Kesot, 2016). This is also revealed within Bandura and Rotter’s 1963 social learning theory
framework.
In the study that surveyed 410 first-year engineering students from two Malaysian public
technical schools, findings indicated that students were slightly more extrinsic in their local of
control (Alias, Akash, and Kesot, 2016). This means students overall perceived that external
factors are more influential in determining the outcomes of their efforts (Alias, Akash, and
Kesot, 2016). Self-efficacy of engineering survey participants was found to be above average,
similar among male and female-identified groups (Alias, Akash, and Kesot, 2016). In sum, data
found in this study support the conclusion that self-efficacy and effort and indirectly related to
academic achievement for students with extrinsic locus of control (Alias, Akash, and Kesot,
2016).
Persistence in STEM

In 2013, Anderson and Ward utilized an expectancy-value model for the STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) persistence plans of 9
th
grade, high ability students of
students who identified as Black, Hispanic, and White. Anderson and Ward (2013) sought to
identify whether there were group differences in the effects of expectancies and values students
have for STEM subjects. Given the underrepresentation of minorities in these disciplines makes
it evident that there is a large amount of underdeveloped talent in these populations (Anderson
and Ward, 2013). In 2012, the National Science Foundation (NSF), reported that Black and
Hispanic students were underrepresented by more than 50% in undergraduate engineering
programs, compared to white students who were overrepresented by more than 10% for the 2008
entering classes.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 45

A predictor of who earned a STEM degree was early interest (Anderson and Ward
(2013). Those who reported taking a greater number of, and more rigorous, mathematics and
science courses increased their chances of pursuing a STEM degree (Anderson and Ward, 2013).
From their research, students from underrepresented minority (URM) groups, such as African
Americans/Black, Hispanics/Latino, and women have been shown to be at a greater risk of
leaving a STEM major (Anderson and Ward, 2013). Black high school students indicated that
career considerations took priority over which classes to take (Anderson and Ward, 2013). In
terms of expectations for success, persistence is predicted by how successful students believe
they will be in STEM (Anderson and Ward, 2013). Students who reported having higher self-
efficacy or interest in mathematics and science were more likely to progress in those subjects
(Anderson and Ward, 2013). The authors controlled for achievement and socioeconomic status
here.
Anderson and Ward (2013) used Eccles’ 1983 expectancy value model of achievement
related choices to understand who chooses to pursue STEM subjects. According to this model,
students’ decision to persist within mathematics and science coursework is determined by their
personal belief that they will be successful in it (Anderson and Ward, 2013). Value is thus
determined by utility, whether the material applies to a student’s future goals, whether students
receive enjoyment from the coursework, whether students identify with the course content, and
whether the time investment is worth making (Anderson and Ward, 2013). Within the
expectancy value model, subjective task value (STV) is constructed during the identity formation
process by which adolescents select activities that reflect the most important characteristics of
groups that they most identify with (Anderson and Ward, 2013). As STV applies to career
choice, students who planned on pursuing a STEM career were more than twice as likely to earn
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 46

a college degree in the STEM subjects than those who did not have those plans (Anderson and
Ward, 2013).
A deeper analysis of STV requires a look into the intersection of race, ethnicity, and
culture. A student’s racial, ethnic, and cultural identity and the interactions they experience as
they relate to these attributes define what STEM culture is for them (Anderson and Ward, 2013).
For example, a lack of same-race role models or prominent historical figures in science and
mathematics may prevent students who identify with that race from identifying with STEM
domains (Anderson and Ward, 2013). Some research notes that students feel they must
assimilate and give up their racial identity to succeed (Anderson and Ward, 2013). Anderson
and Ward (2013) also report that many minority students may be less likely to view science and
mathematics coursework as having high utility value or application to their lives. As there is a
lack of evidence of Black and Latino people, especially, succeeding in those subjects, they may
not be perceived to be viable possibilities. Here, lower perceived utility relates to a lack of
connection between STEM courses and students’ personal goals, which contributes to a lower
STV and reduces the overall likelihood that students’ plans to persist (Anderson and Ward,
2013).
First Generation College Students and Persistence in Engineering Majors
In a 2016 study, Garriott, Navarro, and Flores addressed the relationship between
parental support, engineering related learning experiences, self-efficacy, outcome expectations
and persistence intentions in a sample of first-generation college student (FGCS) engineering
majors. Study results indicated that parental support predicted engineering self-efficacy, along
with realistic performance accomplishments (Garriot, Navarro, and Flores, 2016). If students
were confident in the subject area and believed that would do well, they were more likely to
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 47

persist throughout their engineering major (Garriot, Navarro, and Flores, 2016). As FGCS
complete bachelor’s degrees at approximately half the rate of their peers, they are extremely
underrepresented in STEM careers, as a result (Garriot, Navarro, and Flores, 2016). 22% of
FGCS meet college readiness benchmarks for mathematics and 17% for science (ACT, 2015).
FGCS are also reported as being less likely than their peers to have taken the appropriate
mathematics and science courses in high school, to express interest in STEM-related careers by
the time they graduate from high school, or to maintain a good interest-major fit in engineering
or other STEM-related fields (ACT, 2015). Although FGCS’ caregivers may not be able to
provide necessary “college knowledge” they may still share academic and career-related
encouragement, which is critical to successfully navigating the college experience (Garriot,
Navarro, and Flores, 2016). Research further showed that FGCS who feel supported at the end
of an academic year experienced more frequent positive feedback and encouragement about their
future engineering-related tasks (Garriot, Navarro, and Flores, 2016). Engineering self-efficacy
is often predicted through performance accomplishment and physiological arousal (Garriot,
Navarro, and Flores, 2016).
Constructivist Learning Experiences and STEM Career Expectations
Wild (2015) studied the relationships between high school chemistry students’
perceptions of a constructivist learning environment (CLE) and their STEM career expectations.
In this exploratory survey study, 693 students from 7 public high schools within the San
Francisco, California bay area participated. From the results, perceptions of a CLE predicted
their expectations of entering a science career, but not engineering, computer, health, or
mathematics-related careers (Wild, 2015). However, findings showed that when all groups of

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 48

students perceived the learning environment as more constructivist, they reported being more
likely to explore science-related careers (Wild, 2015).
Scholars within this research have identified psychological barriers that prevent students
from continuing to advance in science education (Wild, 2015). Some of these barriers include
the mismatch between prototypical scientists and students’ self-views, the threat of confirming
negative stereotypes, and the perception of science subjects being boring and irrelevant (Wild,
2015). In attempt to alleviate the psychological burdens facing learners, its required to
understand the sources of the problems. Although the influence of classroom factors on
students’ longitudinal persistence in science is less defined (Wild, 2015), classroom
environments are critical spaces to explore. Reports show that teacher enthusiasm, placing
course content in an everyday context, stimulating lesson plans, discussions about careers and
issues in science all affect students’ decisions of whether or not to further their interest in science
(Wild, 2015). Students who have early career expectations are much more likely to advance
their science education, than those who do not (Wild, 2015).
Research spanning over the past 40 years has shown consistent associations between
students’ perceptions of their learning environments, the social and psychological environment in
which learning occurs and a variety of affective and cognitive outcomes (Wild, 2015). In sum,
positive perceptions of the learning environment are associated with more favorable attitudes
toward learning, belief about the nature of science, academic achievement, and academic self-
efficacy (Wild, 2015). Many scholars have suggested that science classrooms lacking
characteristics found in CLE’s may deter students’ interests, motivation, and identity
development in school science (Wild, 2015). Collectively, these are important to persistence in
STEM education trajectories (Wild, 2015).
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 49

Wild (2015) used Johnson and McClure’s 2014 Constructivist Learning Environment
Survey instrument to gauge chemistry students’ relationship to the constructivist classroom. The
survey highlighted four characteristics: career expectations, perceptions of self and “best
chemistry students”, the CLE, and student characteristics (Wild, 2015). From the findings, when
students perceived chemistry class as more constructivist, they were more likely to expect
physical, life, and social science careers, rather than careers such as management, architecture,
education, etc. (Wild, 2015). The type of experiences students have within their STEM classes
may play a large role in who decides to remain and who leaves the field (Wild, 2015).
Summary

In detailing various tenets of constructivism, this chapter explained how a person’s
learning experiences oftentimes extends beyond the classroom. The conditions students
(learners) are given and create serve as the mediums in which they fundamentally form an
understanding of engineering and their relationship with the family of engineering subjects.
Different experiences that facilitate learning have the potential to inform, misinform, encourage,
and/or discourage students, emphasizing the importance of identifying individual and shared PK-
13 conditions. Here, the first-year of engineering college students’ educational career is framed
as a period of validation or challenge in a students’ decision to pursue these degrees. For that
reason, a complex exploration of the elements that played a role in this decision-making,
especially of varying learning experiences is necessary to understand retention and persistence
trends. Chapter Three will provide a methodology in which this is examined.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 50

Chapter 3: Methodology

The primary focus of this research study is to reveal the contextual factors that contribute
to students’ understanding of engineering and how the first year of college validates or
invalidates their relationship to the science and engineering fields. Using tenets of
constructivism theory, the study attempts to frame a student’s ability to make meaning of their
individual world to identify how and why they were drawn to engineering and whether specific
elements must exist within their first year of post-secondary education in order for them to
persist in the discipline.
Implementing a mixed methods research approach will address the research questions
presented in this thesis. According to Creswell (2014), mixed methods designs are unique in that
they integrate qualitative and quantitative research and data within a study. Utilizing embedded
mixed methods design, I created a questionnaire to retrieve qualitative and quantitative feedback,
which would provide a stronger understanding of the research questions. I will also be
conducting interviews that will further provide a narrative perspective essential to better
understanding students’ unique introductions to engineering and how those relationships have
developed. Contextual events surrounding students’ learning experiences and paths to
understanding science and engineering were elicited through a series of open-ended and close-
ended questions and, ultimately, interpreted by identifying common themes as they related to the
theories presented in this thesis. I will also be conducting a document analysis of the various
syllabi used throughout the different introductory engineering course sections to interpret which
learning outcomes and approaches to student learning are constant. Furthermore, in looking at
the student data collection, I will be able to identify which approaches are most favored and
impactful to students and cross reference that information what with the introductory engineering
course offers, overall, based on the syllabi.
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 51

The Population and Sample

The population being identified in this study is first-year freshman engineering college
students from a private university in Southern California. First-year freshman engineering
college students are defined as individuals who graduated from high school and enrolled in an
undergraduate engineering program in the following fall term. First-year freshman engineering
college students are in pursuit of completing a Bachelor’s of Science (BS) degree. For the
purpose of this study, only first-year freshman engineering college students enrolled in the
introductory engineering course will be surveyed—a total of 473 potential participants.
This was a multistage (clustering) sampling procedure, by which the data collection tool
was distributed by constituents who had direct access to names within the population, according
to Creswell (2014). Towards the beginning of this process, my thesis co-chair and I consulted
with the Senior Associate Dean of the engineering school we worked for and presented the
objective of our study. The Senior Associate Dean supported our mission and offered to receive
the data tool and ask faculty of the introductory engineering course sections to distribute this tool
to their students on the final week of instruction of the Fall 2017 term, upon approval by the
Institutional Research Board (IRB). Upon receiving approval, instructors would obtain the
survey link along with an explanation of its purpose and allow students ample amount of time to
complete it toward the tail end of the last lecture.
The selection process for participants was not random. Respondents were chosen
purposefully, as the study calls for first-year freshman engineering college students who
completed a semester long course designed, specifically, for first-year freshman engineering
college students. It was in the best interest and convenience of my thesis and the organization I
serve to assess this specific population of students. There will not be stratification of the
population sample before selecting the sample, in this study. It is known through institutional
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 52

demographic data that there is representation across different characteristics of individuals (e.g.
gender identification—females, males, etc.). The sample made up of first-year freshman
engineering college students will represent the true proportion of the population of individuals’
identifying characteristics.
Instrumentation and Data Collection

A 30-question survey consisting of open-ended, close-ended, and Likert-scale prompts
will be distributed among 7 introductory engineering faculty members, potentially, to a total of
473 students. The questionnaire will allow for participants to reflect on their relationship with
engineering-related content and practice and detail unique moments that influenced their
decision to persist in the mathematics and sciences and pursue an engineering major. Open-
ended questions provide opportunity for participants to craft a narrative and make their responses
more unique. Elements of narratives give further depth and perspective to answers for the
research questions. Close-ended and Likert-scale ranking questions make results more
quantifiable and allow for inferences to be made and stories to be told through numbers and
figures. The prompts were crafted to reflect students’ relationship with the constructivist
theoretical tenets presented in this theory such as active learning, meaning making and world
creation, social learning, as well as, persistence influencers. Interview questions were created
with the intent of receiving students’ personal accounts as they relate to their choice to pursue an
engineering major. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are extremely beneficial in
attempting to accomplish the goals of the study.
As the focus of the study is to understand how participants developed an understanding of
engineering and the influences that lead them to pursuing science and engineering subjects, the
survey tool will seek to measure college students’ relationship to engineering following their first
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 53

semester. Demographic information, context relating to events throughout PK-13, and
perceptions of the introductory engineering course class will be collected. Originally, it was
asked that instructors allow students the final 15-20 minutes of class time to complete the survey,
thoughtfully; however, given certain limitations, faculty were not given information to share with
students until after the conclusion of the semester. The surveys will be submitted anonymously,
so names and identifiers such as student ID numbers were not asked of participants to indicate.
Data Analysis

The close of the Qualtrics survey marked the completion of data collection. I exported the
raw data from the online tool and created a Microsoft Excel file, in which I began to organize
and code the information into themes. I transcribed the two interviews, constructed a summary,
and coded each transcript for themes, as well. There were more themes revealed in the
quantitative data, whereas the two interviews focused on one or two key themes that were also
present in the survey data. As the purpose of the study is to reveal key, contextual life
experiences that shaped students’ relationship to engineering, the qualitative data provided more
depth and personal narrative than the numerical data provided in the survey scales and rankings.
Both sets of data were complementary and enhanced the overall results. Specifically, from the
results, critical inside and outside of the classroom learning experiences played a significant role
in how students perceive engineering. The data reveal that participation in hands-on, project
based learning, active problem solving, STEM engagement and application, collaboration,
mathematics and science exposure and family influences have an impact on students’ level of
confidence in the major selection, as well as, in how they connect, or discover purpose and
belonging within engineering. The research questions were crafted using the constructivist

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 54

tenets that require students to draw upon their life experiences and how they best learn to discuss
their relationship to engineering.
Limitations and Delimitations

There were several limitations associated with the study. In creating the survey tool and
publishing it, two survey questions that were designed to appear if a student selected a certain
answer, actually did not prompt when students were completing the survey. This allowed for
pieces of data inquiry to not be completed. Although, a sample survey entry was facilitated, this
error was overlooked, thus creating a limitation to my data collection and results. Another
limitation included the survey’s distribution. Instructors of the introductory engineering course
served as the conduits in which the tool was to be provided. However, although all instructors
were provided with the link to the survey, along with supplemental information, they were not
mandated to participate or disclose whether they did or did not. For that reason, I was not made
aware of how many students received the survey in total, although I do know the total number of
students enrolled in the introductory engineering course across all sections. As students were not
required to complete each question of the survey, some questions have more or less responses
than others. In the results chapter, each question is followed by how many respondents
participated. Originally, students were not provided an incentive for participation in the
interview. Throughout different forms of outreach, I received only two inquiries to participate.
Eventually, I chose to provide an incentive of $10 Trader Joe’s gift cards and successfully
updated the criteria in my IRB proposal. Although, I did not garner more student interview
participants, the two students that previously participated in the survey were provided with the
incentive.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 55

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of the study was to identify key student learning experiences throughout PK-
13, as they relate to their understanding of engineering. First-year freshman engineering students
from a private higher education institution who were enrolled in the introductory engineering
course in the Fall 2017 term were given the opportunity to participate in a survey and indicate
whether they also wanted to be a part of a semi-structured, anonymous interview. The survey
tool and interview questions are listed in Appendices B and C, respectively. From the responses,
two students were willing to be interviewed; therefore, two interviews were conducted. From the
results of this study, I anticipate that future generations of learners and their communities
(families, peers, and teachers) can recognize behavior and thinking habits associated with
engineering and understand how it can be applied across different contexts—personally and
beyond. Having an understanding is critical to confidence and influences decision-making in
academic and professional pursuits, as well as, in what someone may choose to explore in their
personal time. This is pertinent to the purpose of this study. Data were acquired using a mixed-
method approach consisting of a survey tool and participant interviews. As Creswell (2014)
asserts, mixed methods designs are useful in that they bring together qualitative and quantitative
research data within a study. In sorting and organizing data pulled from the survey reports and in
transcribing the interviews, identifying key themes was required for qualitative data analysis.
Numerical data from close-ended and Likert-scale questions comprised the quantitative analysis.
The themes provided broaden the scope of where learning and realizations occur, as they pertain
to engineering thinking and practice. They help reveal how students make meaning of their
interests, personal narratives and experiences, and highlight their journey to finding purpose
through engineering. Most of all, the themes reveal what has been historically integral to
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 56

furthering students’ pursuits of knowledge that must also be present in their college experience,
as well.
In this chapter, I detail the spectrum of formative learning experiences through childhood
and into the first year of engineering study. I have organized this chapter by presenting
participant demographics and the themes within survey data and interview content, respectively,
as they answer the research questions this study proposes. Following, I include reflections of the
data presented and will further develop these points in Chapter 5.
Study Participants

There were 474 first year freshman engineering students enrolled in the Fall 2017
introductory engineering course at the identified higher education private institution in Southern
California. There were 16 sections offered, taught by nine engineering faculty. Teachers of this
course were presented with a summary of the research project, as well as, the link to the student
survey to be distributed to their classes. However, as participation was optional, faculty were not
required to request that their students complete the survey. It is unknown how many course
instructors did ask their classes to participate. In total, there were 34 survey submissions,
however, it is important to note that students had the option to answer or not answer any survey
question, which is reflected throughout the data results. Surveys were submitted anonymously so
students’ identities were protected. The two interviewees were both female biomedical
engineering students who completed a survey, as well. Demographic data of the survey
participants are shown through Figures 1-5 listed below.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 57

Figure 1: Gender Breakdown of Survey Participants

Figure 2: Racial/Ethnic Breakdown of Survey Participants

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 58

Figure 3: Breakdown of Survey Participants Born in the United States or Another Country

Figure 4: Breakdown of Whether Parents of Survey Participants did or did not Attend College

26
3
5
34
Yes No No Reponse Total
Did Parents Attend College

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 59

Figure 5: Breakdown of how Survey Participants Selected their Major before the Course.

Presentation of Themes and Results
Here, I identify and describe the themes found within the survey responses and
participant interviews. I determined which factors and experiences qualified as themes based on
how frequently these responses were listed. The themes serve as answers to the research
questions guiding this study, which explain students’ relationship to engineering by way of
constructivism theory. Concluding this section is a reflection on the results that will be greatly
detailed in Chapter 5.
RQ #1: Inside of the classroom, which types of learning experiences help
shape students’ understanding of engineering? Outside of the classroom,
what kind of learning opportunities promote an understanding of
engineering?
Hands-On and Project-Based Learning

In survey question #8, students were prompted with the following: “In a few words,
describe the first moment when you discovered that you liked to tinker, solve problems, take

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 60

objects apart/put objects together, etc.”. There were 22 open-ended responses recorded. Of the
responses, 54.5% of the descriptions represented students’ participation in hands-on activities at
different times in their lives, especially throughout childhood. For example, one student reported:
“It was in 4th grade when I joined a model airplane making club at my school. In addition to the
hands-on aspect of it, I was drawn into it because for the first time I realized that I could apply
some of the things I learned in math and science class.” Within the 54.5% of responses that
referenced being hands on, playing specifically with Legos, blocks, toys, and models, made up
66.66% of those references. One student described, “When I was younger, I built a Lego plane-
like model without any directions that I'm still proud of.”
In looking at the response data indicated by female-identifying participants, 8 of the 11
(72.72%) students provided a description of moment where they first discovered that they liked
to tinker, solve problems, or take objects apart. Of the 8 responses, two referenced being hands-
on. Regarding being hands-on, one student provided the following statement, “In middle school,
I loved taking pens apart and putting them back together.” The other, “as a child with toys and
puzzles.” The single student, who identified as gender-fluid, did not indicate a response to
question #8. Additionally, the student who chose not to gender-identify did not provide a
response to survey question #8. In the participant demographic, there was one Black student and
one Latino student identified in this sample. In looking at response data indicated by the two
Black and Latino students, there were no answers recorded for question #8. There were three
students who chose not to identify their racial/ethnic background in this survey. For survey
question #8, two of the three students provided a response and 33.33% indicated being hands-on.
In survey question #12, students were prompted with the following, “Identify why you
persisted in STEM in pre-K-12 and into college.” Students were able to choose as many listed
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 61

options, as needed, and were given the space to provide a free-response answer. Of the 27
recorded response combinations, “working on exciting projects” was selected 16 (59.25%) times.
Anticipation of project-based, hands-on activities was the third highest selected option. Six of the
11 responses from female-identifying participants indicated exciting projects as a key persistence
indicator in STEM throughout PK-13. However, although, across gender lines “working on
exciting projects” was constant, neither the individual Black nor Latino student participants
indicated that working on exciting projects was a key reason for their persistence in STEM in
PK-12 and into college. Rather, both selected “Meeting my family’s expectations” as their
primary reason.
In survey question #18, students were prompted with the following: “Does sharing your
curiosity and projects with others reinforce what you learn?” Of the 20 total recorded responses,
16 (80%) students indicated “yes”, while 3 (15%) students indicated “in some ways”. These data
are reflected across gender and racial/ethnic demographics.
In survey question #19, students were prompted with the following: “In 50 words or less,
describe a critical moment or incident when you decided engineering was the profession for you.
Please share if you believe it is not.” There were 14 open-ended responses recorded. Of the 14
responses, four (28.57%) students reported being hands-on. One student described their critical
moment with the following anecdote:
In Mexico, there was a family I was helping build a house for and their neighborhood
was awful as in the sewer system was terrible, there wasn't any real piping that made
clean water accessible and the air quality was horrible and I realized I wanted to help
families and communities like that one and improve their standard of living.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 62

Of the 11 female-identifying participants, six (54.54%) provided an open-ended response to
question #9, none of which mentioned being hands-on when describing a critical moment that
framed engineering as a profession for them. The student who identified as gender-fluid
provided the anecdote mentioned above. The student who chose not to gender-identify did not
provide an open-ended response to survey question #19. The individual Black student, when
prompted to discuss a critical moment that defined whether or not engineering was the profession
for them, they replied, “I knew that it would satisfy my parents but I'm not entirely sure about it
anymore.” The individual Latino student did not provide a response to this question. Of the
three students who did not disclose their racial/ethnic background, one of the three students
provided a response to question #19 and none indicated being hands-on when describing a
critical moment.
In survey question #27, students were prompted with the following: “Of the various
approaches to learning engineering, computer science, and materials science content, I best
learned through: hands-on activities, grand challenges discussions, group projects, problem
solving demonstrations, independent research, making personal connections to information,
interdisciplinary foci, technical (practical) applications, soft skill applications.” This question
was strategically places for students to answer based on their experiences following the
introductory engineering course. Students were given freedom to select however many
approaches that apply. Overall, “hands-on activities” was selected 15 times, the most of all
approaches presented. Of the 11 female-identifying participants, seven (63.63%) provided an
open-ended response. Six (85.71%) of the seven responses included “hands-on activities” as
facilitators of learning engineering. The student who identified as gender-fluid indicated that
hands-on activities were one of their best approaches to learning engineering content. The
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 63

student who chose not to gender-identify did not provide an open-ended response to survey
question #27. The individual Black student indicated that hands-on activities were also one of
their best approaches to learning, as the sole Latino student did not indicate a response.
To maintain anonymity interview participant #1 is given the name “Beth”. Beth is a first-
year Biomedical Engineering student who identifies as White and female. In Beth’s interview, I
inquired about the [introductory engineering] class structure, the presentation of different
elements, such as the engineering habits of the mind and the type of impact this had on her
decision to pursue engineering. Beth provided the following response:
I found the grand challenges and those projects to be really interesting—I didn’t
know they existed. I found that most people chose a grand challenge in line with
their major. Not everyone though. I think that in that sense for me, it really
solidified what I wanted to do, because my focus was on ‘Engineering better
medicine’, so I was learning and researching on personalized medicine and it
really made me interested and excited for my future.
To maintain anonymity interview participant #2 is given the name “Liz”. Liz is a first-
year Biomedical Engineering student who identifies as Asian-American and female. In the
interview, I asked Liz to respond to the following statement: “Talk to me more about what you
said, that you were doing and practicing engineering, but you did not have the language to put
around it, or the understanding to know what engineers do.” Liz responded by saying,
I liked taking things apart and putting things together when I was little. Pens,
Legos, anything I could get my hands on. And I feel like even in my family, I
would help build stuff like building a lamp or building a bed. Now that I think
about it, that was an engineering state of mind.
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 64

When I asked Liz if she found the practical, hands-on elements on the introductory engineering
course helpful and if she wished for more throughout the semester, she responded,
I wish that there were more hands-on elements, but I know that because of the
time, there couldn’t be as much as I’d hoped. And because of the varying degrees
and varying majors its impossible for us to do the extend of what I wanted us to
explore… and actually get to build something of our own, using our own
engineering minds.
Learning Through Problem Solving

In survey question #8, students were prompted with the following: “In a few words,
describe the first moment when you discovered that you liked to tinker, solve problems, take
objects apart/put objects together, etc.”. There were 22 open-ended responses recorded. Of the
22 responses, five (22.72%) students indicated that they engaged in problem solving. For
example, one student disclosed, “I found that humans have countless ways to solve simple
problems, and all of them have different advantages under certain circumstances. I felt really
excited to come up with different ways to solve a problem, even an easy one.”
In looking at response data to survey question #8 indicated by female-identifying
students, eight (72.72%) of 11 students provided a response and only one student noted that they
took part in problem solving. “Sixth grade we began solving real-world word problems, and I fell
in love with it. Solving them made me feel so intelligent and capable.” Of the total participants,
one student identified as gender-fluid and provided the following statement, “Solving problems
are fun, but also like the feeling of solving something others couldn’t or the satisfaction of
solving something difficult.” The sole student who did not gender identify did not provide an
answer to survey question #8. In the participant demographic, there was one Black student and
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 65

one Latino student identified in this sample. In looking at response data indicated by the two
Black and Latino students, there were no answers recorded for question #8. For the three
students who did not wish to identify their racial/ethic background, only two participants
(66.66%) provided an open-ended response to survey question #8 and neither response related to
problem solving.
In survey question #19, students were prompted with the following: “In 50 words or less,
describe a critical moment or incident when you decided engineering was the profession for you.
Please share if you believe it is not.” There were 14 open-ended responses recorded. Of these
responses, 4 (28.57%) recognized problem solving ability as a critical moment. One student
explained, “When I wrote a proposal and delivered a speech about the rolling barrier system and
engineering innovation that has the potential to save lives. Unlocked my problem solving and
integrating abilities.” Another, “Beginning my research work to provide novel approaches to
cancer management, learning how to ask questions, solve problems, and leverage technology for
improved patient outcomes.”
In looking at the response data to survey question #19 indicated by female-identifying
students, six (54.54%) of 11 students provided a close-ended response, while two (33.33%) of
six students mentioned problem solving as a critical moment. One student noted, “I really like
working with computers and the logic and problem solving it involves.” The other, "after
solving a very difficult problem for my high school physics class.”
For survey question #25, I posed a series of Likert scale prompts, one of which addresses
problem solving: “In addressing the grand challenges, I learned how to approach problem
solving in my own world.” Of the 20 responses, 12 (60%) students strongly agreed and agreed.
The five of seven (72%) female students that reported an answer strongly agreed and agreed. The
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 66

Black-identifying student agreed with the prompt, while the Latino-identifying student did not
provide an answer.
In survey question #27, students were prompted with the following: “Of the various
approaches to learning engineering, computer science, and materials science content, I best
learned through: hands-on activities, grand challenges discussions, group projects, problem
solving demonstrations, independent research, making personal connections to information,
interdisciplinary foci, technical (practical) applications, soft skill applications.” This question
was strategically places for students to answer based on their experiences following the
introductory engineering course. Students were given freedom to select however many
approaches that apply. Of the 19 responses, problem-solving demonstrations was selected 10
times.
In Beth’s interview, I asked “What activities do you enjoy doing most inside and outside
of the classroom as it related to engineering and also as it doesn’t?” Beth responded, “Inside of
the classroom, given I chose this major, I enjoy solving problems. I’ve been a heavy math and
science person, [so] I enjoy when things have a solution. I like being able to work through
something. So that guided me here.”
In interview #2, Liz did not explicitly state problem solving as the type of learning
experiences held that contributed to her understanding of engineering.
Learning STEM Through Engagement and Application

Here, I explore how engagement in and application of STEM content served as learning
experiences, based on data results. In survey question #7, students were asked to select which of
the following prompts most influenced their major selection among exposure to subject matter
throughout primary and secondary school (PK-12), drawn to career options, parents/guardians
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 67

worked in an engineering (or related) field, had an important figure in life that held a
degree/worked in the discipline, and/or participated in STEM program(s) or summer camps.
Students were able to select each area that applied, and many did. However, the three areas that
were selected, independently, were STEM program(s) and summer camps, exposure to STEM
subject matter in PK-12, and drawn to career options. In this section STEM program(s) or
summer camps and exposure to STEM subject matter in PK-12 are perceived as engagement and
application. Of the 29 selection combinations, 11 (38%) students indicated participation in
STEM program(s) or summer camps. Of the 29 selection combinations 17 (58.62%) students
indicated being exposed to STEM subject matter throughout PK-12. While across gender and
racial/ethnic lines, selections appear to be mixed and include engagement and application as
influential to major selection, the individual Latino student did not indicate this to be true in their
learning experience.
In survey question #8, students were prompted with the following: “In a few words,
describe the first moment when you discovered that you liked to tinker, solve problems, take
objects apart/put objects together, etc.”. There were 22 open-ended responses recorded. Of the
22 responses, two (9%) students provided an answer that relates to STEM engagement and
application. One student reported, “took a computer science course at a local community college
during the summer.” The other, “I learned to write C++ programs in my senior high, and I solved
several interesting problems within the first few days. I love coding to solve problems with huge
data sets that only a computer can deal with.”
In survey question #9, students were prompted with the following: “From what sources
did you best learn that the activities you like to do are also what scientists and engineers like to
do?” Students were able to select as many listed options as applicable. Of the 26 total response
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 68

combinations, “summer camps/STEM clubs and orgs.” was selected six times (23%), and
“laboratories, studios, and start-ups” was selected twice (7.69%). These two options more
forwardly involve STEM engagement and application, compared to the other options offered.
There was one free response answer that also identified STEM engagement/application as
fundamental to their learning experience, “I took a MOOC on coding and really enjoyed it.” Of
the responses selected by female participants, less than half indicated that “summer
camps/STEM clubs and orgs” or “laboratories, studios, and start-ups” were learning experiences
that contributed to their understanding of STEM. The Black student participant did indicate that
STEM engagement through “laboratories, studios, and start-ups” as a learning experience they
participated in, while the Latino student indicated using the “internet” to learn and engage.
To further explore the scope of engagement and application in students’ educational
experiences, survey question #15 prompts, “In high school, how frequently did your teacher(s)
engage the class in open-ended discussions/activities about real world events?” Students were
able to select one of the following: “Very often. Often (monthly). Seldom (per quarter, semester),
or Not at all.” Of the 27 total responses, 20 (74%) students indicated that they participated in
real world engagement very often and often. Six (22.22%) students indicated that they
participated in engagement seldom, while only one student mentioned their teacher(s) not
engaging the classroom with real world events at all.
In survey question #19, students were prompted with the following: “In 50 words or less,
describe a critical moment or incident when you decided engineering was the profession for you.
Please share if you believe it is not.” There were 14 open-ended responses recorded. Of these
responses, five (35%) students provided a statement that related to learning experiences that
engaged and applied STEM content and served as a defining moment in their relationship to
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 69

engineering. One student shared, “When I wrote a proposal and delivered a speech about the
rolling barrier system and engineering innovation that has the potential to save lives. Unlocked
my problem solving and integrating abilities.” Another, “Beginning my research work to provide
novel approaches to cancer management, learning how to ask questions, solve problems, and
leverage technology for improved patient outcomes.”
In survey question #27, students were prompted with the following: “Of the various
approaches to learning engineering, computer science, and materials science content, I best
learned through: hands-on activities, grand challenges discussions, group projects, problem
solving demonstrations, independent research, making personal connections to information,
interdisciplinary foci, technical (practical) applications, soft skill applications.” This question
was strategically places for students to answer based on their experiences following the
introductory engineering course. Students were given freedom to select however many
approaches that apply. Of the 19 responses, “technical (practical) applications was selected six
times.
STEM Engagement and application was not found to be a theme within the two
interviews that were conducted with Beth and Liz, first-year Biomedical Engineering students.
Collaborative Learning Experiences

Working with others, such as peers and family/friends, was mentioned often when
students were asked about their learning experiences following the introductory engineering
course and when referencing important moments of the past. For survey question #25, I posed a
series of Likert scale prompts, one of which addresses collaboration, “It is important to
collaborate with students of other majors within [chosen institution].” Of the 21 total recorded
responses, 20 (95%) strongly agreed and agreed with the prompt. These data are present across
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 70

gender and ethnic/racial identifications. Another prompt from survey question #25 asked, “I
learned that complex issues often require collaboration.” Of the 20 total recorded responses, 19
(95%) participants strongly agreed and agreed. These data are present across gender and
ethnic/racial identifications. Another prompt from survey question #25 asked, “I learned how
different academic and professional disciplines can work together to help solve problems.” Of
the 20 total recorded responses, 18 (90%) participants strongly agreed and agreed. These data
are present across gender and ethnic/racial demographics.
In survey question #27, students were prompted with the following: “Of the various
approaches to learning engineering, computer science, and materials science content, I best
learned through: hands-on activities, grand challenges discussions, group projects, problem
solving demonstrations, independent research, making personal connections to information,
interdisciplinary foci, technical (practical) applications, soft skill applications.” This question
was strategically places for students to answer based on their experiences following the
introductory engineering course. Students were given freedom to select however many
approaches that apply. Of the 19 responses, “group projects” was selected nine times (47%).
Three of seven female-identifying respondents indicated, “group projects” was a best learning
approach. These data are present across ethnic/racial backgrounds.
Interview participant #1, Beth, when asked about her experience in the introductory
engineering course, spoke specifically of the collaborative aspect. “Yea. I found it very exciting.
I also enjoyed learning from my peers about the other grand challenges in engineering. I enjoyed
that the class was group project structured, especially, because we were able to learn a lot from
each other. It was very enlightening.” Interview participant #2, Liz, also shared collaborative

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 71

learning experiences in her response. When asked about taking control of her in-class and out of
class- educational experiences as they related to engineering, Liz responded with the following:
Coming into this class… I found it to be kind of difficult for me because I didn’t
know where to start and it was difficult because working in groups we had such
different ideas of where to start. Students in my group were freaking out because
there were no guidelines and they were afraid they were going to do it wrong. It
helped me a lot because it allowed me to explore more in finding out why I want
to do what I want to do.
Mathematics and Science Learning Experiences

References to mathematics and science learning experiences as they relate to students’
pathways to understanding engineering content were present throughout the survey and interview
data. In survey question #8, students were prompted with the following: “In a few words,
describe the first moment when you discovered that you liked to tinker, solve problems, take
objects apart/put objects together, etc.”. There were 22 open-ended responses recorded. Of the
22 responses, three (14%) students mentioned mathematics and science a part of their
introduction to engineering. One student provided, “In high school, I discovered that enjoyed
physics and mathematics which led me to my interest in engineering.” In reviewing the eight
responses from female-identifying participants, only one mentioned mathematics and science
learning experiences, specifically, when discovering they liked to tinker. The individual Black
and Latino-identifying students did not indicate mathematics and science learning experiences.
In survey question #19, students were prompted with the following: “In 50 words or less,
describe a critical moment or incident when you decided engineering was the profession for you.
Please share if you believe it is not.” There were 14 open-ended responses recorded. Five (35%)
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 72

students described their influential mathematics and science learning experiences. One student
reported, “I never had such a moment; however, I felt that engineering was the best profession
for me because it matched the classes I enjoyed in high school.” Another, “AP Bio [Biology] was
one of the first classes in high school that I was excited to go to. I've always wondered about the
human body and I wanted a way to apply this passion in a more applied sense than just flat-out
biology.” In reviewing the six responses provided by female-identifying students, two (33%)
described their critical moment as being within a mathematics and science-learning contexts.
The individual Black and Latino-identifying students did not indicate mathematics and science
learning experiences.
Both interview participants indicated being gifted in and enjoying mathematics and
science content and that contributing to their interest in engineering. Notably, others recognizing
their high achievement in mathematics and science was also fundamental to their introductions to
engineering. Interview participant #1, Beth, talked about her guidance counselor introducing her
to engineering, “I didn’t really know what engineering was. I assumed it was like mechanics.
My guidance counselor knew I was good at and enjoyed math, science, and problem solving and
told me I might be interested in it and should look into it, as I might be pretty good at it.” When
discussing activities Beth enjoyed doing most inside of the classroom she replied, “Given I chose
this major, I enjoy solving problems. I’ve been a heavy math and science person, I enjoy when
things have a solution. I like being able to work through something, so that guided me here.”
Further, Beth compared mathematics and science to history subjects. “Math and science are
really interesting to me because it’s such a dynamic field. History is interesting, but it’s not
really changing when you learn the same things about the past. [In] math and science, there’s a
lot of research, it’s evolving, so I found that really intriguing, also.” Interview participant #2,
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 73

Liz, referred to her appreciation of the science subjects, as well, when asked about activities she
enjoyed doing:
I’ve always loved the science subjects like physics and chemistry, but I’ve always
thought that they were too theoretical for me and I’m a hands-on person. I used to
love doing experiments but it wasn’t enough. Coming here and realizing that
engineering puts everything together—creating things and inventing things.
Family Influence in Learning

Throughout the survey data, there were several references to family in students’ learning
experiences. In survey question #7, students were asked to select which of the following prompts
most influenced their major selection among exposure to subject matter throughout primary and
secondary school (PK-12), drawn to career options, parents/guardians worked in an engineering
(or related) field, had an important figure in life that held a degree/worked in the discipline,
and/or participated in STEM program(s) or summer camps. Students were able to select each
area that applied, and many did. Of the 29 response combinations, “parents/guardians worked in
an engineering or related field” appeared five (17%) times. Of the 11 responses provided by
female-identifying participants, one (9%) response indicated “parents/guardians worked in an
engineering or related field”. Neither the Black nor Latino-identifying students selected
“parents/guardians worked in an engineering or related field”.
In survey question #8, students were prompted with the following: “In a few words,
describe the first moment when you discovered that you liked to tinker, solve problems, take
objects apart/put objects together, etc.”. There were 22 open-ended responses recorded. Of the
22 responses, two (9%) responses spoke of family being a part of their hands-on learning
experiences. One student disclosed, “Building model cars with my father” was one of their first
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 74

moments. Interestingly, the other student responded, “When my older sister made me self-
conscious of how many questions I asked.”
In survey question #9, students were prompted with the following: “From what sources
did you best learn that the activities you like to do are also what scientists and engineers like to
do?” Students were able to select as many listed options as applicable. Of the 26 total response
combinations, “family/friends” appeared 19 times (73%), the most of any other category
presented. These data are reflected across gender and racial/ethnic demographics.
In survey question #12, students were prompted with the following, “Identify why you
persisted in STEM in pre-K-12 and into college.” Students were able to choose as many listed
options, as needed, and were given the space to provide a free-response answer. Of the 27
recorded response combinations, “meet my family’s expectations” was selected seven (26%)
times. Of the nine responses provided by female-identifying participants, five (55%) indicated
meeting family expectations are a persistence factor. These data are reflected across gender and
racial/ethnic demographics.
In survey question #19, students were prompted with the following: “In 50 words or less,
describe a critical moment or incident when you decided engineering was the profession for you.
Please share if you believe it is not.” There were 14 open-ended responses recorded. Of the 14
responses, two (14%) participants mentioned an experience with, or related to, family. One
student replied, “I knew that it would satisfy my parents but I'm not entirely sure about it
anymore.” The other, “My grandpa is an engineer and so growing up I would help him build or
fix things which spurred my passion to become an engineer myself.”

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 75

In both interviews, family played a huge rule in the lives of Beth and Liz, and ultimately,
in their decisions to pursue engineering, educationally and professionally. When Beth was asked
what led her in the direction of Biomedical Engineering, she provided the following:
When I was 10 years old, my dad had a nearly fatal heart attack and after that he
had five stints put in and after that, I became curious about medical devices and
intrigued by the heart. This spurred my interest in the medical field because it was
personal to me. Seeing that my dad almost died and was able to be revived by
way of medical devices [that] expanded the quality of his life, I became interested
in that and wanted to be involved in it. To help other people, myself, and be apart
of the innovation that can improve the quality of life and help other people.
Liz mentioned in her interview that the people around her such as teachers, family, and
administrators, did not necessarily understand what engineering was, but rather, had an idea of
the things that she could do. “I come from a family of doctors, who focus on medicine and
research.”
RQ #2: Is there a difference in college student perceptions towards science and
engineering before and after an introductory engineering course? How does a
student’s experience in an introductory engineering course impact confidence in
their major selection?

In survey question #21, students were asked to briefly describe how the introductory
engineering course was originally explained to them, or to indicate if it was not. 17 total
responses were recorded. Of the 17 responses, six (35%) indicated that the course was not
explained to them prior. Seven (41%) of the responses indicated that students believed the
course was designed as an introduction to the different engineering disciplines (majors). “As a
way to learn about all the engineering disciplines and what they each do (ME, CHEME, ISE...),
so that we could understand better what each field entailed (if we needed to change our major).”
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 76

Four (23%) responses indicated that students believed it to be a more social experience. “A
‘Make a Friend’ class,” a student expressed.
Confidence

In survey question #6, students were presented with the following Likert-scale prompt,
“How confident were you in your major selection [upon entry, pre-introductory engineering
course]?” There were 28 total responses. 24 (85%) students reported being “very confident” or
“confident” in their major selection. Three (11%) students reported being “unsure/not
confident”, while one free response answer stated, “had no idea what it was.” One student
indicated being “indifferent” in their major selection. Of the 11 responses recorded of female-
identifying students and the gender-neutral student, eight (72%) were “very confident” or
“confident”.
In survey question #10, students were asked, “Did you always believe you would attend
college?” Of the 28 total responses recorded, 27 (96%) participants replied “yes”, one student
replied “no”, and zero students indicated “it was a possibility.” These data are reflected across
gender demographics. However, the individual Latino student indicated that they did not believe
they would attend college.
In survey question #11, students were asked, “Did you always believe/know you would
attend college to pursue an engineering (or STEM related) subject? Of the 28 total responses
recorded, 16 (57%) participants replied “yes”, eight students replied “no” (29%), and four (14%)
students selected “it was a possibility”. In the 12 responses given by female participants, seven
(58%) students replied “yes” and one replied “it was a possibility”. The individual Black student
indicated that it was a possibility, and the only Latino student did not know they would attend
college to pursue engineering.
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 77

Survey question #24 was designed to measure students’ confidence in an area, after
completing the introductory engineering course. They were asked the following Likert-scale
prompt, “Through in-class activities, I am now more confident in my ability to identify and solve
problems using critical thinking”. Of the 16 responses, 12 (75%) students selected “confident”,
while zero selected “very confident”. Five (31%) students indicated that they were “unsure”,
while one student indicated “not confident”. There were two free responses given by two
female-identifying students. One student replied, “I developed this skill in high school, not with
this class.” The other replied, “I don’t think this class helped at all with this, but I’m very
confident in my critical thinking skills.” These data are reflected across gender and racial/ethnic
demographics.
In survey question #25, students were asked the following Likert-scale prompt, “I better
understand how the engineering habits of the mind will benefit me in the future job, internship,
and research opportunities”. Of the 20 total responses, 11 (55%) students selected “strongly
agree” or “agree”, while nine (45%) selected “unsure”. No students selected “disagree” or
“strongly disagree”. Data results reflected fairly across gender and racial/ethnic demographics.
Also, as a part of the Likert-scale survey question #25, students were asked to rate the following
confidence area, “I believe that I am creative”. Of the 20 total responses, 13 (65%) indicated
“strongly agree” or “agree”, while seven (35%) identified with “unsure”. In measuring
confidence in attitude, students were asked to rate the following prompt, “I learned to find
optimism through failure”. Of the 20 total responses, 11 (55%) were “Strongly agree” or
“agree”, while seven (35%) were “Unsure” selections, and one “Disagree”.
There were two Likert-scale prompts that measured students’ confidence in their
communication skills. In survey question #25, students were presented with the following, “I
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 78

learned that sharing my ideas publicly improved my communication skills”. Of the 20 total
responses, 16 (80%) students chose “strongly agree” or “agree”, while four (20%) were
“unsure”. Next, students were asked, “I learned that exploring different media literacies
improved my communication skills”. Of the 20 total responses, 17 (85%) students indicated
“strongly agree” and “agree”, while three (15%) chose “unsure”. The students who mentioned
being unsure about their communication skills were Asian/Asian-American-identifying.
In survey question #26, students were presented with the following Likert-scale prompt,
“I learned how to more confidently approach faculty through interactions with my ENGR 102
professor”. Of the 23 recorded responses, 17 (74%) were “strongly agree” or “agree”, while two
(9%) students were “unsure” and one indicated that they “disagree”. The students who
mentioned being unsure, or not confident, in their confidence in approaching professor were
Asian/Asian-American-identifying. Students were also asked to rate, "My learning and social
experiences in the [introductory engineering class] strengthened my decision to pursue my
major”. 11 (55%) of the 20 total responses were “Strongly agree” or “Agree”, while six (30%)
were “unsure”, and two (10%) were “disagree”. These data are present across gender and
ethnic/racial demographics.
Interview participant #2, Liz, spoke about the impact of the introductory engineering
course on her learning:
I think I loved the [introductory engineering course] because its so different from
the other classes in the way that there is no structure and I had to create structure
on my own and break out of my shell… I feel like if you put your heart into it,
you can really learn a lot. Like, I learned so much about engineering in that class
just by doing research and reading about things.
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 79

To gauge students’ confidence after completing the introductory engineering course, they
were asked the following prompt in survey question #29, “After completing [the introductory
engineering course], which of the following best describes my response to changing major
disciplines in [higher education institution].” In the 20 total responses, 15 (75%) indicated “I am
confident in my major decision and not changing”. Three (15%) indicated “Possibly changing”
and two (10%) “I am strongly considering changing”. These data are present across gender and
ethnic/racial demographics.
As a concluding question, survey question #30 asked students to rate the following
statement, “The [introductory engineering class] further validated my belonging in engineering,
computer science, or materials science”. Of the 20 total entries, 14 (70%) indicated “Strongly
agree” or “Agree”, while four (20%) were “Unsure” and one student (10%) chose “Disagree”. In
the sole free response answer given, by the individual Black student represented in the data, they
replied, “I felt that I was the most unqualified and definitely not the smartest in the class which
brings me to question why and how I am here.”
Connection: Purpose or Belonging

Here, we explore students’ responses to finding purpose or a sense of belonging in
engineering, through personal connections. In survey question #12, students were prompted with
the following, “Identify why you persisted in STEM in pre-K-12 and into college.” Students
were able to choose as many listed options, as needed, and were given the space to provide a
free-response answer. Of the 27 recorded response combinations, “making a difference in
people’s lives and the world” was selected most frequently, 19 (70%) times. This piece of data
was reflected across gender and racial/ethnic demographics.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 80

In survey question #19, students were prompted with the following: “In 50 words or less,
describe a critical moment or incident when you decided engineering was the profession for you.
Please share if you believe it is not.” There were 14 open-ended responses recorded. Of the 14
responses, nine (64%) students shared a response that reflected their sense of belonging in the
engineering discipline in PK-12 or during their first year of college. One student replied, “After I
took a MOOC on coding in Junior & Senior year summer, I knew that was what I wanted to do
for the rest of my life.” Another indicated, “[Introductory] Engineering class, Break to Make
Hack-a-thon”.
In survey question #22, students were prompted with the following Likert-scale
statement, “I reflected on my interests in STEM that I help prior to entering college.” Of the 20
total responses, 14 (70%) of students replied that they did so “weekly” or “every few weeks”,
while three (15%) students reported “occasionally” and the remaining three (15%) students
stated that they did so “almost never”. These data are present across gender and ethnic/racial
demographics. As a follow up, students were then asked to rate, “I would learn more about
topics presented in class on my personal time.” Of the 20 total responses, 11 (55%) students
reported that they engaged in class material on their personal time “weekly” or “every few
weeks”, while 4 (20%) indicated that did so “occasionally”. Five (25%) replied “almost never”.
These data are present across gender and ethnic/racial demographics.
In survey question #23, students were prompted with the following Likert-scale
statement, “The NAE grand challenges are important to why I want to pursue science and
engineering”. Of the 20 total recorded responses, 17 (85%) indicated “extremely important”,
“important”, or “moderately important”, while three (15%) indicated that they were “not
important”.
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 81

In survey question #25, students were prompted with the following Likert-scale
statement, “I feel more connected to the [higher education institution] community”. Of the 20
total responses, 17 (85%) indicated “Strongly agree” or “Agree”, while three (15%) reported
“Unsure”. These data are reflected across gender and racial/ethnic demographics.
In survey question #27, students were prompted with the following: “Of the various
approaches to learning engineering, computer science, and materials science content, I best
learned through: hands-on activities, grand challenges discussions, group projects, problem
solving demonstrations, independent research, making personal connections to information,
interdisciplinary foci, technical (practical) applications, soft skill applications.” This question
was strategically places for students to answer based on their experiences following the
introductory engineering course. Students were given freedom to select however many
approaches that apply. Of the 19 total responses, “making personal connections to information”
was selected nine (47%) times. As a follow up, in survey question #28, students were asked,
“with these learning approaches, I am more likely to stay engaged in engineering subjects”. Of
the 20 recorded responses, 18 (90%) indicated that they “strongly agree” or “agree” with that
statement, while two (10%) were “unsure”. The student that indicated they were unsure
identified as Black and female, while the other identified as Asian, but did not disclose their
gender identity.
Summary

The results presented from the survey and interview data captured major themes, as
they pertain to understanding students’ relationship to engineering based on individual, lived
experiences. First, hands on and project based learning served as key experiences to students
becoming self-aware of their talents, interests, and passions, and were foundational to their
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 82

understanding of engineering thinking and practice, throughout PK-13. Second, learning through
problem solving demonstrated that students’ intellectual capacities were piqued throughout PK-
12, and often, validated in their first year of college. Next, learning STEM through engagement
and application revealed how students with specific STEM related interests demonstrated in
primary and secondary years are active in discovering ways to implement and reinforce that
knowledge. Forth, there is a strong correlation between students who prefer, and are high
performing in, mathematics and science coursework and interests in engineering. Next, the
scope of collaborative learning experiences is significant as data show it encompasses family,
friends, and peers. Sixth, family influences in learning is formative, as the basis for students’
understanding of engineering, or lack thereof, often starts with individuals closest to them. As
students answered questions that reflected their learning experiences in the introductory
engineering course, it is critical to gauge confidence in different areas, as the first year is
extremely important in learners validating their decision to pursue the discipline. Lastly, as an
extension of confidence and validation, the final theme explored is connection, or students’
purpose and belonging in engineering. These findings will be analyzed in detail in the following
chapter.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 83

Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings

This study sought to understand students’ relationship to engineering by identifying key
learning experiences throughout PK-12 and to explore whether the presence of these experiences
have an affect on their choice to persist in the engineering discipline in their first year of college.
Using constructivism, this study aimed to explore students’ approaches to thinking, learning, and
making sense of information through lived experiences, or their individual world. Through
constructivism, this study manages to describe students’ relationship to engineering in a personal
and high-touch design. Although first-year engineering students tend to share many
characteristics, talents, and interests, the nuances within their internal and external experiences
that helped shape their engineering identity is critically important to recognize. Garnering more
interest in, understanding of, and persistence within the STEM subjects, specifically engineering,
cannot allow monolithic approaches to be applied across all types of learners. Rather, the
realization that every experience, individual or collaborative, internal or external, has the
potential to influence a person’s attraction or resistance towards these disciplines must spark
deeper intentionality from everyone. The first-year freshman engineering students I surveyed and
interviewed shared key life experiences in which their relationship to engineering began to
manifest and in which ways their first year of college validated, or invalidated, this relationship.
In the following paragraphs, I present a summary of these findings.
Summary of Findings
Finding #1: Hands-On and Project-Based Learning. When asked to describe initial
moments where they discovered that they enjoyed tinkering and taking objects a part, often to
create new things, nearly 56% of students shared a personal anecdote. Students referenced being
involved and hands-on in different types of activities, especially apparent throughout their
childhood, such as playing with toys, Legos being most commonly identified, and building
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 84

model airplanes. One student found that they were drawn to hands-on aspects of learning
because they realized they could apply the concepts they learned in mathematics and science
classes. Another student reported feeling a sense of pride in being able to build a model airplane
out of Legos without directions. Between male and female-identifying participants, there was no
disparity present in this area. The student that identified as gender-fluid did not describe a
moment where being hands-on in their learning served as an initial indicator of personal
discovery. It is important to reiterate the limitation that students were given the option to not
respond questions. Therefore, is not enough information provided to draw a conclusion on
whether disparity exists. As there was one Black and one Latino student represented in the
sample, I chose to specifically state their responses or feelings within each finding to determine
whether disparities or key distinctions are present in their experiences. Here, neither the Black
nor Latino student referenced participating in hands-on and project-based learning as it relates to
personal discovery. The same limitation mentioned applies here, as well. As (Dewey, 1938)
spoke to the belief that people construct meaning through experiences—constructivism—here,
the data shows that students’ recollections of being hands-on were critical in establishing their
understanding of what engineering meant to them. As an extension of constructivism, Papert
(1991) postulates constructionism where learners are consciously engaged in constructing a
public entity, as a physical manifestation of learning and sense making. Students’ indication that
hands-on projects are a strong persistence indicator further validates the need to explore the
deeper meaning associated with these actions.
The expectation of working on exciting projects represented nearly 60% of students’
reasons for persisting in STEM throughout PK-12 and into college. This reveals that nearly 60%
of survey participants maintain some level of understanding that the work associated with
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 85

engineering is project-based, and thus, appealing at a young age. As stated in chapter four, the
anticipation of working on exciting projects is a reason to persist in engineering between all
gender groups identified. However, a key disparity in responses is found as both the Black and
Latino student did not indicate hands-on projects as a reason to persist in STEM, but rather,
meeting family expectations was the sole factor listed. Overwhelmingly, however, across gender
and racial/ethnic demographics, is the positive impact sharing curiosity and projects with others
has on students’ learning. 95% of students reported that this act reinforces what they learn
entirely, or in some ways. This data implies that as students are drawn to participating in the
creation of something, a key part of that process is the opportunity to share the outcome with
others.
Interestingly, when given the freedom to describe a critical moment or incident that
influenced their decision to pursue engineering as a profession, or not, there were 14 total
responses and four that referenced being hands-on as a determining factor. As one student
detailed their experience in Mexico, building a house, and witnessing the inefficient sewer
system that limited their access to clean water, which led to their choice to pursue engineering,
professionally, not all responses were this certain. As reported in Chapter four, the single Black
student disclosed that choosing engineering as a profession would bring satisfaction to their
parents, and was no longer sure about their decision. Although this is one student’s narrative,
research indicates that this explanation is not uncommon among Black students’ perceptions
toward engineering. As Anderson and Ward (2013) reported in their study, Black and Latino
students, along with other minority-identifying groups, may be less likely to view mathematics
and science as having significant value or application in their lives, which could have a
subsequent affect on their ability to persist in the subjects.
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 86

When students were asked to identify which approaches to learning engineering,
computer science, and materials science best served them, at the conclusion of the introductory
engineering course, “hands-on activities” was selected most frequently among survey
participants. This data was maintained across racial/ethnic and gender groups. Interview
participant #1, Beth, revealed that although she was not aware of the grand challenges prior to
the introductory engineering course, the involvement in those projects solidified what she wanted
to do within engineering. In interview #2, Liz was able to make the connection between
behavior she naturally engaged in throughout her childhood, such as taking things a part and
building household items, with tenets of the engineering [habits] of the mind. The engineering
habits of the mind framed majority of the weekly lesson plans and themes found throughout the
first-year introductory engineering course. From this narrative, I can defend that students are
more likely to find themselves, or their engineering-like behaviors, validated in their first year
after engaging in an intentionally structured introductory engineering course.
Finding #2: Learning Through Problem Solving. References to problem solving were
also significantly mentioned throughout the data collection. Problem solving can be defined, or
identified, through student experiences within the classroom and outside of the classroom.
Student feedback regarding problem solving often referred to personal accounts, observations,
and beliefs. As one student disclosed that because of his perception of human behavior being its
tendency to find countless ways to solve simple problems, he became really excited by the
possibility to come up with different ways to solve problems. The problems that were often
referred to, according to the data, was not hypothetical, but are happening in the real world.
Further, student responses indicated heightened feelings of intelligence and capability when
given the space to solve problems, along with feelings of fun and satisfaction when solving
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 87

something that others could not. Although this sentiment is maintained between genders, the
Black and Latino students did not reference a moment that demonstrated their attitudes toward
problem solving. Of the participant responses to the prompt asking for students to reflect on
when they decided engineering was or was not the profession for them, nearly 30% referred to
the problem-solving element associated with the family of disciplines as something they
personally identify with. One student linked problem-solving ability with their desire to use
engineering innovation to potentially save lives, while another student sought to continue their
research to develop approaches to cancer management, by way of engineering and technology,
for improved patient outcomes.
As participants more forwardly addressed their ability to solve problems in PK-12,
discovering whether this carried over into their first year of college is important. Throughout the
introductory engineering course, students were faced with problem solving simulations in being
exposed to the grand challenges and tasked with creating hypothetical solutions. 60% students
who participated in this survey question agreed that addressing the grand challenges they learned
how to approach problem solving in their own world. From this data, it can be believed that
participation in problem solving demonstrations with real world problems can have sustaining
impacts on how students actually apply finding solutions in their personal lives. Interview
participant, Beth, explained that she chose the Biomedical Engineering major because she is
someone who prefers and enjoys subjects that have a solution, such as mathematics and science.
The ability to work through something guided her to engineering and sustains her. Further,
problem solving demonstrations was frequently identified among student participants as a best
approach to learning engineering, computer science, and materials science content. Bevevino,

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 88

Dengal, and Adams (1999), posit inquiry learning, or the ability to identify and solve problems
as a key component of constructivism and to engineering thinking and practice.
Finding #3: Learning STEM Through Engagement and Application. Data continues
to reveal that there are multiple touch points in which students are first exposed, and remain
exposed, to STEM concepts. The survey tool provided students with space to indicate which
areas most influenced their major selection. Nearly 40% of participants indicated that they
participated in STEM program(s) or summer camps throughout PK-12 and nearly 60% of
students indicated being exposed to STEM subject matter in school. However, evidence of
STEM engagement and application was only identified in 10% of responses when students were
asked to describe when they first discovered they enjoyed tinkering. It could be that students
discovered this interest before participating in STEM programs and camps; therefore, this is not
where they first had this realization. As stated in Chapter four, engagement and application were
identified throughout racial/ethnic and gender lines. Although, nearly 40% of responses
reflected students’ participation in STEM program(s) or summer camps, 23% of respondents
learned that the activities they like to do are also what scientists and engineers like to do through
those types of programs. If the purpose of supplemental STEM programs is to help increase
students’ beliefs that they belong in engineering, it may be important for organizers to reevaluate
whether their programs are effectively communicating the links between student behaviors and
interests and that of which engineers possess. Following the introductory engineering course,
31% of respondents identified technical (practical) applications as a learning approach to
engineering, computer science, and materials science content that best served them. In neither
interview did STEM engagement and application appear to be a theme.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 89

Finding #4: Collaborative Learning Experiences. Constructivism theory often speaks
to the social aspect of learning and in making sense of information. Exploring the effect of
collaboration throughout students’ lives on their understanding of engineering will reveal
whether this aspect is important to overall persistence. 95% of respondents agreed that
collaboration with students from other majors within their institution is generally important and
is required to solve complex issues. Unsurprisingly, as nearly 50% of respondents indicated that
group projects were one of the best approaches to learning engineering, it can be inferred that
this is a necessary component to maintaining students’ involvement in the discipline. The more
involved students are with others, the more likely they are to have a more developed
understanding of problems and how engineering can be a catalyst in solving them. Through
social constructivism, Vygotsky (1986) emphasized that the collaborative nature of learning
cannot be isolated from the learning process, thus creating and expanding knowledge
communities. In both interviews, participants speak to the challenges and benefits of working
among people with similar and different ideas, as it pushed each member beyond their comfort
zone and into a period of exploration.
Finding #5: Mathematics and Science Learning Experiences. References to
mathematics and science were not overwhelming present within the data collection. Although
students who are engineering majors are typically high-achieving in mathematics and science
subjects, throughout PK-12, there were limited responses that spoke to the influence mathematics
and science learning environments had on further developing students’ understanding of
engineering. Rather, students who enjoyed mathematics and science in high school were
encouraged by others to look into engineering as an area they may prefer, simply because it

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 90

requires that direct skill set. From the data, mathematics and science interest and proficiency
served as a gateway to learning what engineering is.
Finding #6: Family Influence in Learning. Family played a significant role in
students’ engineering understanding. Some students’ parents or grandparents worked as
engineers, or in a related field, while others recounted experiences where they would take time
and build new things with a family member that piqued their interest in the world of engineering.
While most influences were positive, one student noted feeling self-conscious when they were
criticized about the number of questions they asked. Although, more than likely perceived as a
harmless act by the perpetrated by the family member, it was significant enough to remain with
the student. Fortunately, the student found that asking questions is a positive trait maintained by
engineers, rather than letting that personal experience deter them from continuing to ask
questions throughout their upbringing. Family members and friends served as significant
sources of information regarding how students best learned what engineers and scientists do, and
this was present across gender and ethnic/racial lines. Family expectations shaped a quarter of
respondents’ cause to persist in STEM throughout PK-13. As constructivism upholds that
learners create meaning of information and purpose based within their world creation, the
correlation between family and how students perceive engineering and their place within it is
paramount. In the two interviews, content reveals how family influenced both of their
perceptions in distinct ways. Beth was raised seeing how medical devices saved her father’s life
after he suffered a nearly fatal heart attack. This was a defining part of her world, and as a result,
she wanted to dedicate her life to playing a role in the development of medical devices that will
help people, everywhere. Liz, who was raised within a family of doctors, was confident that she

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 91

too would follow along a similar path and combine her love of medicine with her need to be
hands-on and experimental in engineering.
Finding #7: Confidence. Scaling students’ confidence in their major selection before
taking the introductory engineering course was meant to reveal how certain students were of
their belonging in engineering, thus far. As anticipated, vast majority were confident in their
choice, while a small percentage were unsure or less confident. Following the introductory
engineering course, the study sought to measure how the course’s structure and content impact
students’ perception of engineering in their first year, validating or invalidating their decision to
persist within the engineering discipline. As nearly 100% of respondents indicated that they
always believed they would attend college, the most notable outlier was the single Latino student
represented in the sample that indicated that they did not always believe they would go to
college. In relation to pursuing STEM subjects, the data are less overwhelming. While majority
(57%) of respondents knew they would pursue an engineering (or STEM related) subject, nearly
30% did not believe they would. This is significant as it could explain why a student is more
likely to switch out of engineering and into a different STEM subject or into a non-STEM major.
Confidence in major selection was high among gender lines, but low for the Black and
Latino student represented in the sample. Students were also confident in their ability to identify
and solve problems by using critical thinking skills, which was an anticipated learning outcome
of the introductory engineering course. However, some open-ended responses indicated that
these were skills established prior to taking the course and were less willing to give the course
credit for developing those skills. Through the weekly unveiling of the engineering habits of the
mind, students were to be exposed to how these behaviors apply to them, personally. As 55% of
the respondents agreed that they understand how the engineering habits of the mind can benefit
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 92

them, it is also important to note that over 50% of respondents believe that they are creative and
find optimism through failure—all of which are anticipated learning outcomes for the
introductory engineering course. Across gender and racial/ethnic groups, data further reveal that
about 55% of students feel their experiences in the introductory engineering class strengthened
their decision to pursue their major. Interview participant #2, Liz, disclosed that her learning
experiences in the course were positive and her belonging in engineering was reinforced as she
put in significant effort in the class and outside of the class. Her efforts outside of the class
included research on material that was covered within class. Rather than be overwhelmed by the
challenge to be autonomous in her learning, Liz saw the non-traditional class structure as an
opportunity to break out of her shell and learn as much as she could.
Student engagement and initiative likely plays a significant role in how impactful the
course has the potential to be. As the course does require students to be more autonomous in
their learning, in order for the experience to be more robust, there is an expectation that students
be leaders in their education. Although 75% of respondents indicated that they were confident in
their major selection and not changing following the introductory engineering course, which is
“down” from the 85% who were confident in their major selection at the beginning of the survey,
there were only 20 recorded responses, compared to 28 total at the beginning. However, in
gauging students’ belonging in engineering, nearly three quarters of respondents agreed that they
do belong in engineering, computer science, or materials science. The single black student
represented further expressed their feelings of uncertainty in the major, as they believed they
were the most unqualified and least smart in the class. Subsequently, this belief lead to further
self-doubt and questioning of why they are in the major and how were they admitted. This

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 93

prompts a necessity for deeper research and investigation in the experiences of Black students in
college engineering programs.
Finding #8: Connection: Purpose or Belonging. As the impetus supporting much of
the work engineers do is for the improvement of people’s lives and the world we live in,
identifying whether students established a similar sense of purpose is integral to the study.
Additionally, experiencing a sense of personal connection to the array of work engineers do is
also an indicator of belonging. Reflecting across demographics, making a difference in people’s
lives and the world was the most frequently identified reason why students persisted in STEM
throughout PK-13. This is also reflected and further validated following the introductory
engineering class as 85% of respondents indicated that the NAE grand challenges were important
to why they want to pursue engineering. Students also indicated that exposure to different types
of classes in high school such as coding, verified that that is the type of work they would like to
do for the rest of their lives.
Implications for Practice
Students’ understanding of engineering falls along a spectrum. While each of the
students included in the sample arrived at the same place, how they arrived there was a collection
of different experiences for each of them. There were students represented who were surrounded
by engineering thinking and behavior all their lives due to the occupation of their parents, while
contrarily, there were students who discovered engineering by way of a recommendation from
their college counselor during the latter years of high school simply because they were good at
mathematics and science. Regardless of how the engineering relationship was established,
nuances within the pathways to engineering, as represented in this study, reveal that interactions,
internal and external, have profound influence on self-perception, what a student finds
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 94

interesting, and how they spend their time. Collectively, this has fundamental impacts on
whether students decide to attend college and which areas to study; which, ultimately, decide
which profession they believe they will be successful within. For these reasons, based on the data
in this study, there must be a discussion of what effects the results can have on the various touch
points that contribute to the students’ relationship to engineering. Additionally, an exploration
into how the experiences generated by the various touch points can be replicated and applied
towards populations who would not have otherwise had them, organically, increasing the scope
of possibility that they will find engineering to be a viable option for them, or at least be aware of
what the discipline entails.
Reinforcing what students learn, how they behave, and how learning and behavior can be
applied was an underlying theme among each finding. For majority of these students, who
happened to also be confident in themselves, their talents, and their decision to pursue
engineering, received this reinforcement through various mediums. In PK-12, in interactions
with school administrators, teachers, fellow students, they were supported in their curiosity and
given opportunities to positively develop. There were no reports or indications of poor
interactions with these agents that could have derailed their intent to go to college and pursue
engineering. To reference Beth’s interview, she was not made aware of engineering until it was
a recommendation of her high school guidance counselor, because they learned that she was
talented in mathematics and science. However, Beth knew what she wanted to do prior to this
exchange. Beth envisioned her purpose and place in this world because of her lived experiences
watching her father struggle with his health. This is important to distinguish when considering
the significant, notable experiences in the upbringings for many other PK-12 students, who may
not necessarily look like or demonstrate the characteristics of someone who could excel within
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 95

engineering or embody engineering thinking and practice. Often, in these cases, students may
not believe that they can envision engineering as a pathway to discovering purpose and
fulfillment because of the lack of reinforcement or access. The data highlighted key differences
in levels of confidence, belonging, and persistence within the feedback given by the Black and
Latino students. This leads to questions about their learning experiences and whether STEM, or
engineering, was efficiently introduced as a thoughtful, intentional pathway for what they wanted
to do based on what difference they wanted to make in the world, or whether it posed as an
option solely based on their mathematics and science performance. In expanding the knowledge
community and building the cadre of people that think, behave, and problem solve like engineers
across all professional fields and disciplines, requires that PK-12 schools—administrators,
teachers, counselors, students, even the infrastructure itself—not silo how and where the STEM
subjects are introduced or make determinations based on stereotypes, misinformation,
misperceptions, prejudice, discrimination. Learning how to fully understand a student and how
engineering applies, or fits within, their world requires commitment, research and knowledge,
and resources; however, developing this approach is critical to expanding access and creating
new learning opportunities for all types of learners. Educators and researchers must continue to
explore how curriculum and teaching pedagogy can be inclusive of more constructivism based
teaching approaches that center how students learn and construct learning versus the more
traditional ways of distributing knowledge from the teacher to the student.
As seen in the data, what happens inside and outside of the classroom are not independent
of one another, but rather works hand in hand in creating collective experiences that make up the
world students operate within. Therefore, what is learned and felt in the home, among
family/friends, in the surrounding community have an impact on students’ educational
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 96

experiences, as well. Many students referenced moments with their family members that served
as critical moments in their lives, as they relate to understanding engineering and their places
within it. Additionally, family expectations were also prioritized as important. It is difficult to
recommend implications for how to be influential among family dynamics; however, the
distribution of information to parents and families is more than likely the most critical necessity
in expanding the access students have to STEM subjects. For this reason, there must be
continued or redesigned efforts to bridge the relationships between parents who may possess
misconceptions about STEM, or are completely unaware, to how the subjects apply to the real
world. With widespread improved understandings of engineering among parents, they are likely
to better communicate and expose the discipline to their learner at critical points in their lives.
Student/academic affairs professionals and faculty play a huge role in the retention and
persistence of students. As engineering majors usually maintain lower enrollment numbers than
non-STEM, humanities programs, ensuring that students are matriculating throughout each year
is a multi-prong approach. Student/academic affairs personnel such as academic advisors,
administrators, counselors, and more, must do more than making sure students are enrolled in
their classes and completing them. As the first points of contact for students’ concerns,
successes, and all in between, the relationships created are fundamental to how a student feels
they belong within their major and on campus. In the event faculty and staff are faced with
students’ feelings, such as those expressed by the Black and Latino students represented in this
data, it is their responsibility to explore every possible support option and academic choice
option, after learning about the experiences that lead them to engineering, initially. This
establishes trust, safety, and encourages autonomy upon guiding the student to discover the full
scope of their talents and belonging at a university and in this world. Engineering schools, and
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 97

universities overall, must continue to build upon what students have previously learned and
experienced by creating similar opportunities at the collegiate level.
Recommendations for Introductory Engineering Courses
Godwin, Hazari, and Potvin (2013) explain that choosing to pursue an engineering
discipline, upon college entry, is a partially informed decision. In their work, they recognize the
need for a greater pool of engineering students, and thus, developed the critical engineering
agency (CEA) framework to understand students’ perception of their ability to change their
world through their daily actions and also in their broader life goals (Godwin, Hazari, and
Potvin, 2013). Critical, in this framework, emphasizes that students become critics of science,
overall, through critical thinking, which should also lend to students being self-reflective and
critical of their own beliefs and behaviors (Godwin, Hazari, and Potvin, 2013). CEA is centered
on individuals possessing an understanding of engineering and engineering related processes—
specifically, the skills and modes of inquiry associated with the disciplines (Godwin, Hazari, and
Potvin, 2013). Further, Godwin, Hazari, and Potvin (2013) claim that self-identification should
evolve from achieving certain degrees of expertise in one or more of the engineering disciplines
and, thus, use engineering as a foundation to bring about changes in the world. Identity, in this
framework, is defining oneself within the context of engineering and understanding that the
engineering identity must come before choosing an engineering major in college (Godwin,
Hazari, and Potvin, 2013). The identity is measurable through four dimensions: performance,
competence, recognition by others, and interest (Godwin, Hazari, and Potvin, 2013). Therefore,
development of CEA through these areas will practically influence students’ decision to pursue a
certain engineering major and also their professional choices. Professional identity development

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 98

will subsequently allow for advancement of their position in the world and/or encourage change
in their world in ways that they personally envision (Godwin, Hazari, and Potvin, 2013).
Critical engineering agency should ground future iterations of the introductory
engineering course observed in this research, as well as, in colleges and universities, nationwide.
In order to further develop first-year freshman students’ engineering identity, instructors must
first gauge where their students are in their understanding of engineering. In the feedback given
by survey participants about the introductory engineering course, many strongly expressed
wanting to learn about all the different engineering disciplines and how curricula and their
professions differ and intersect. Students recognize that even though they declared an
engineering major discipline upon entry, there is still a need for understanding which area of
study would be the best personal and professional fit. Instructors could consider dedicating their
first class meeting to presenting the different engineering majors and professional areas and
taking questions and discussion points from the class, or the course’s upperclassman student
leads could be responsible for creating a video with their peers across different majors
highlighting what they learn in the classroom and participate in outside of the classroom and
showing it in the initial lecture, or there could be a student and faculty panel that is available for
every section of the introductory engineering course to attend, where panelists address their area
of study and practice. When students are exposed to more accurate representations of
engineering, they can let go of previously held misconceptions and begin forming logical
connections, both personally and in the world.
Next, instructors should gauge students’ expectations of the course, prior to, or at the
very beginning of, the academic term. Student feedback revealed that there exists a spectrum of
expectations and misconceptions about how the class would be facilitated, the level of rigor, the
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 99

purpose of the course, and its utility. For that reason, faculty and personnel responsible for
content creation and messaging must be intentional about how the course is designed and
communicated to students leading up to its start. Students are relying on street knowledge to
inform their beliefs towards the course, which may negatively influence their experiences.
Faculty and staff must take a coordinated approach in pre-empting that from happening each
year. An opportunity to delineate consistent, informed messaging would be through each summer
orientation meeting, preceding the fall term.
The course should continue reinforcing the importance of autonomous learning and
encouraging students to continue taking initiative in their learning experiences like they did
throughout high school. Instructors should first define and discuss what autonomous learning
entails in theory and in practice and tie it back to how it could serve students well in the course
and throughout the engineering curriculum. In the data, some students indicated hesitancy
toward a lack of instruction in projects, and a preference for more structured study. Instructors
must recognize that some students may be drawn to this format, while it may be unfamiliar to
others. There must be context given to why personalized learning is beneficial.
Prior to the start of class, instructors should require that students complete a first-
semester engineering student survey, such as that used in this research, and reveal the results that
show in which ways they best learn. Then, instructors should use that data to explain that the
course will be facilitated in ways that cater to the approaches to learning that best serve them.
Instructors should also consider making it possible for students to leave the course with
something, such as a project, a business idea or concept, a meaningful collaboration, and/or skills
(technical and soft). By identifying what students find valuable, useful, and important, what they

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 100

take from the course should be foundational and further built upon as they continue to navigate
the engineering curriculum and professional spaces. As students continue to demonstrate a
desire for work to be outcomes driven and solutions oriented, an introductory engineering course
should appropriately and intentionally reflect those needs. Projects and class themes held
throughout the course should manage to tie into, or apply to, the material they are learning in
their other classes. There is a need for the course to develop a more clear, seamless purpose that
is relevant to the science, mathematics, and engineering courses they are taking, concurrently.
Opportunities for Future Research
Using constructivism theories, my study revealed key learning experiences that were
foundational to students’ relationship to engineering throughout PK-13. Further, it explored
whether these experiences still served as reasons to persist throughout their first year of college,
by way of measuring confidence in major choice selection before and after completing an
introductory engineering course. A study that explores experiences that have deterred students
from considering engineering as a viable option throughout PK-12 would add more depth to
understanding obstacles to STEM pathways to college. Additionally, exploring the effects of
classroom models that offer student-centered learning and more autonomous approaches to
education on students’ attitudes and receptiveness towards STEM subjects could reveal that
traditional ways of exposing students to STEM, specifically engineering, do not serve how
students best learn.
Conclusion
The purpose of this thesis was to discover why students chose to pursue engineering.
Furthermore, the purpose was to identify what initially engaged students to choose engineering
and whether that needed to be present throughout their first year to validate, or invalidate, their
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 101

decision. For readers, specifically those who serve PK-12 students, or are parents/guardians who
have children enrolled in primary and secondary school, along with faculty and staff who work
with college engineering students, the goal was to expose the various touch points in which
students become aware of engineering thinking and practice and for constituents to begin, or
continue, reinforcing the positive outcomes of these learning experiences. The impetuses
supporting this goal was both discovering how to best replicate these learning experiences within
students’ first year of college and throughout PK-12 for students who are less likely to have these
moments.
The mixed method study was grounded in constructivism theory and provided results that
painted a necessary, holistic picture for those in education. Students who made the decision to
pursue engineering received more than good grades in mathematics and science. They were
researchers, self-teachers, collaborators, builders, critical thinkers, tinkerers, problem solvers,
and thankful for the moments spent with family. These were young people given the opportunity
to be challenged, learn, and fail in different ways across different environments, and were
supported in that development. As important as these developments were that shaped students’
positive relationship to engineering, there were, and continue to be, students that enter their first
year of college without confidence in their decision to pursue engineering, academically. For
that reason, educators and advocates must gauge students’ experiences within the themes
presented in this study. In the shared experiences provided, what binds these students to the
engineering discipline is the personal impact engineering has had on their lives, thus far. As
efforts to dispel misconceptions toward engineering evolve, more students will understand and
experience engineering within the daily lives, within their communities, and within the
classroom.
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 102

References

American College Testing (ACT) (2015) The Condition of College & Career Readiness: First-

Generation Students.

Alias, M., Akasah, Z. Abidin, Kesot, M. (2016) Relationships between locus of control, self-

efficacy, efforts and academic achievement among engineering students. Advanced

Science Letters, 68 (18004).

Alkandari, N. (2014). Engineering Education and Students' Challenges: Strategies Toward

Enhancing the Educational Environment in Engineering Colleges. College Student

Journal (2) pp. 221-230.

Anderson, L, Ward, T. (2013) Expectancy-Value Models for the STEM Persistence Plans of

Ninth-Grade, High-Ability Students: A Comparison Between Black, Hispanic, and White

Students. Science Education, 98(2) pp 216-242.

Bevevino, M., Dengal, J., Adams, K. (1999). Constructivist Theory in the Classroom

Internalizing: Concepts through Inquiry Learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of

Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas. 72(5) pp 275-278.

Boudourides, M. (2003). Constructivism, Education, Science, and Technology. Canadian
Journal

of Learning and Technology. 29(3).

Bybee, R. W. (2011, November 30). Scientific and Engineering Practices in K-12 Classrooms:

Understanding. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ960316

Chen, X. (2013). Stem Attrition: College Students’ Paths into and Out of Stem Fields. Statistical

Analysis Report. NCES 2014-001.

Colburn, A. (2015). Constructivism: Science Education's “Grand Unifying Theory”. The

Clearing House: A Journey of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 74(1) pp 9-12.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 103

Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering, National Academy of Engineering (2008).

Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of

Engineering. The National Academies Press.

Gibbons, S., Hirsch, L., Kimmel, H., Rockland, R., Bloom, J., (2003). Counselors’ Attitudes and

Knowledge about Engineering. International Conference on Engineering Education.

Godwin, A., Hazari, Z., Potvin, G. (2013). The Development of Critical Engineering Agency,

Identity, and the Impact on Engineering Career Choices. American Society for

Engineering Education.

Hartman, B., & Bell, R. (2017, July 20). Teaching the Nature of Engineering in K-12 Science

Education: A Delphi Study (Fundamental). Retrieved from

https://peer.asee.org/teaching-the-nature-of-engineering-in-k-12-science-education-a-
delphi-study-fundamental

Hein, G. (1991). Constructivist Learning Theory. CECA (International Committee of Museum

Educators) Conference. Retrieved from

http://beta.edtechpolicy.org/AAASGW/Session2/const_inquiry_paper.pdf

Holdren, J. (2009). Science in The White House. Science. 324 (5927) pp. 567

DOI: 10.1126/science.1174783

Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design Model.

Educational Technology, 34(4) pp. 34-37.

Kroll, L.R., (2007). Constructing constructivism: how student ‐teachers construct ideas of

development, knowledge, learning, and teaching. Teachers and Teaching, theory and

practice. 10(2) pp 199-221.

Matthew, L., & Becker, K. (2013). Engineering Design Thinking. Journal of Technology

Education, 24(2). doi:10.21061/jte.v24i2.a.5

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 104

NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering. (2012).

https://www.nae.edu/Projects/grand-challenges-project.aspx

National Science Board, Science and engineering indicators-2002, Arlington, VA: National

Science Foundation Division of Science Resources Statistics, (NSB 02-01), 2001

Newson, E., Newson, J. (1975). Intersubjectivity and the transmission of culture: On the social

origins of symbolic functioning. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 28, pp.

437- 446.

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction - Science. (2017, July 10). Next Generation

Science Standards. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/Science/NGSS.aspx

Oliver, J., Garcia, B., (2012). Students' Attitudes to Engineering Education. Global Engineering

Education Conference.

10.1109/EDUCON.2012.6201059

Palincsar, AS., (1998). Social Constructivist Perspectives on Teaching and Learning. Annual

Review of Psychology. 49 (1) , 345-375.

Papert, S., Harel, I. (1991). Constructivism: Research Reports and Essays 1985-1990. Norwood,

New Jersey. Ablex Publishing Corp.

Papert, S. (1991). Situating Constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), (Tran.),

Constructionism (1–11). Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Pardjono, P (2002)., Active Learning: The Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky and Constructivist Theory

Perspectives. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan. 9(3).

Patton, G., Navarro, R., Flores, L. (2016) First-Generation College Students’ Persistence

Intentions in Engineering Majors. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1).

Reeping, D., Reid, K. (2014) Student Perceptions of Engineering after a K-12 Outreach—a

“STEM Academy”. American Society for Engineering Education
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 105

Taylor, A., Lutz, B., Hampton, C., Lee, W., Watford, B. (2017). Critical Pedagogies and First-

year Engineering Students’ Conceptions of ’What it Means to be an Engineer’. American

Society for Engineering Education. Paper ID #18243

The Condition of STEM 2016. (2016). Retrieved from

http://www.act.org/content/act/en/research/condition-of-stem-2016.html

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. (M. Cole et al., Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The

MIT Press. (Original work published in Russian in 1934.)

Wild, A. (2015). Relationships between High School Chemistry Students’ Perceptions of a

Constructivist Learning Environment and their STEM Career Expectations. International

Journal of Science Education. 37(14) pp 2284-2305.

Yasar, O., Maliekal, J., Veronesi, P., Little, L., (2017). The Essence of Scientific and

Engineering Thinking and Tools to Promote It. American Society for Engineering

Education. Paper ID #18172.

Yasar, S., Baker, D., Robinson, S. (2006). Development of a Survey to Assess K-12 Teachers'

Perceptions of Engineers and Familiarity with Teaching Design, Engineering, and

Technology. The Research Journal for Engineering Education. 95(3) pp 205-216.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 106

Appendix A

Informed Consent

University of Southern California
“Making Meaning: Using Constructivism to Understand Students’ Relationship to
Engineering"

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Chelsea Jones at the University
of Southern California. Please read through this form and ask any questions you might have
before deciding whether or not you want to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand how first-year engineering students, such as
yourselves, came to learn about engineering thinking and practice. Further, it aims to reveal
which types of learning experiences contributed to students pursuing and persisting within
engineering majors.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete the following survey
questions. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $10 Trader Joe’s gift card if you opt to participate in an interview.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. At
the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and the de-identified data may be
used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should
not participate.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Chelsea
Jones at Chelsecj@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to
someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional
Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 107

Appendix B

First-Semester Engineering Freshman Survey

1) Please select your racial/ethnic identification:
 Black/African American
 Middle Eastern/North African
 Latina/o/x/Hispanic
 Asian/Asian American
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
 American Indian or Alaskan Native
 White/Caucasian
 I do not wish to identify

2) Please indicate your gender identification (female, male, non-binary..):
__________________________________

3) I am a:
 Domestic student
 International student

4) Neither of my parents completed a college (bachelor’s +) degree:
 Yes
 No

5) Please select your major:
 Aerospace Engineering (AE/AME)
 Chemical Engineering (CHE/CHEB/CHEN/CHPE/CHEE/CHPM/CHSE)
 Applied Mechanics (APMA)
 Industrial Systems Engineering (ISE)
 Electrical Engineering (EE)
 Computer Science (CSCI/CSBA/CSGM/CECS)
 Biomedical Engineering (BME/BMEC/BMEL/BMEN)
 Undeclared Engineering (ENGR)
 Mechanical Engineering (ME/MEPE)
 Civil Engineering (CE/CEBS/STRC)
 Environmental Engineering (ENE)
 Astronautical Engineering (ASTE)

6) How confident were you in your major selection at the beginning of the Fall 2017
semester?
A) Very Confident B) Confident C) Indifferent D) Unsure/Not Confident E)
_________

7) What influenced your major selection?
A) I was exposed to the subject matter throughout K-12
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 108

B) I was drawn to the career options and the type of work associated with the
discipline
C) I had family (parents or guardians) that worked in an Engineering (or related)
field
D) I had an important figure in my life that held a degree/worked in that discipline
E) I participated in science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics (STEM)
program(s) or summer camp(s)
F) ________________

8) In a few words, describe the moment when you discovered that you liked to tinker, solve
problems, take objects apart/put objects together, etc.? (ie: a conversation with a parent,
playing with machinery...)
______________________________________________________________________

9) From what sources did you learn that the activities you like to do are also what scientists
and engineers like to do?
A) Family/friends
B) Teachers and school administrators
C) Media (television, film, news, articles/books, etc.)
D) Summer camps/STEM clubs and organizations
E) Laboratories, studios, or startups, etc.
F) _____________

10) Did you always believe/know you would attend college?
A) Yes B) No C) It was a possibility

11) Did you always believe/know you would attend college to pursue an engineering (or
STEM related) subject?
A) Yes B) No C) It was a possibility

12) Identify why you persisted in STEM in K-12 and into college:
A) Making a difference in people’s lives and the world
B) Potential salaries
C) Flexible career options
D) Meet my family’s expectations
E) Work on exciting projects
F) ___________________

13) Now that you are in college, have these changed or evolved?
A) Yes B) No C) In some ways

14) If yes or in some ways, describe why you persist in STEM, in a few words:

15) In high school, how frequently did your teacher(s) engage the class in open-ended**
discussions/activities about real world happenings: **open-ended, here, means exchanges
of questions, opinions, and personal experiences

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 109

Very Often (e.g. weekly) Often (e.g. monthly) Seldom (e.g. quarterly/per semester)
Not at all
16) If Very Often or Often, did it spark curiosity or deeper exploration outside of the
classroom?
A) Yes B) No C) In some ways D) ___________
17) If Seldom or Not at all, did you seek other places to have these conversations?
A) Yes B) No C) In some ways D) _____________
18) Does sharing your curiosity and projects with others reinforce what you learn?
A) Yes B) No C) In some ways
19) In 50 words or less, describe a critical moment or incident when you decided
engineering was the profession for you. Please share if it is not.
_________________________________

ENGR 102 QUESTIONS:
20) In 50 words or less, describe how the Engineering Freshman Academy was
explained to you during Orientation :
________________________________
In the Freshmen Academy…
21) Please rank the following statements:
Weekly Every few weeks Occasionally Almost never
 I learned about how engineers, computer scientists, and material scientists can
help solve global problems through understanding the National Academy of
Engineering (NAE) grand challenges.
 I learned of how societal and historical contexts influence engineering,
computer science, and materials science.
 I learned of a different USC/Viterbi resource or department.
 I reflected on my interests in STEM that I held prior to entering college.
 I would learn more about topics presented in class in my personal time.
 I participated, or spoke up/engaged, in lecture discussions.
22) The NAE grand challenges are important to why I want to pursue science and
engineering.
A) Extremely important B) Important C) Somewhat important D) Not important
E) ________________
23) Through in class demonstrations, I am now more confident in my ability to identify and
solve problems using critical thinking.
A) Very confident B) Confident C) Unsure D) Not confident E) ______________

24) Please rank the following statements:
Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree
 My understanding of the engineering discipline was validated in this course.
 I better understand how the Engineering Habits of the Mind (Systems
Thinking, Creativity, Optimism, Collaboration, Communication, and Ethical
Considerations) will benefit me in future job, internship, and research
opportunities.
 I feel more connected to the USC/Viterbi community.
 It is important to collaborate with students of other majors within Viterbi.
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 110

 In addressing the grand challenges, I learned how to approach problem
solving in my own world.
 I learned to find optimism even through failure.
 I learned that creativity is not independent of engineering.
 I believe that I am creative.
 I learned that complex issues often require collaboration.
 I learned that sharing my ideas publicly improved my communication skills.
 I learned that exploring different media literacies (e.g. text, images, audio,
video, or animation) improved my communication skills.
 I learned how different academic and professional disciplines can work
together to help solve problems.

25) Please rank the following statements:
Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

 I recognized that my unique skills and experiences would be best applied in
pursuing a Viterbi degree.
 I want to pursue an additional discipline (minor/major/specialization) in the
arts, humanities, sciences, or other domain (Viterbi Engineering+).
 I am interested in further demonstrating my understanding of engineering,
computer science, or materials science by becoming a Grand Challenge
Scholar.
 I am considering dropping the Viterbi major entirely.
 I believe it is important to visualize and practice my contributions to
engineering in my first year of college.
 I would have liked to participate in small scale, hands-on projects that address
challenges in the local community.
26) Please rank the following statements:
Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

 Instructor lectures should be no more than 20 minutes.
 The weekly course meeting times were appropriate (2 hours).
 How I make meaning of information in ENGR 102 is different than in my
other courses.
 My learning and social experiences in ENGR 102 strengthened my decision to
pursue the subject.
 The Academy Coaches were helpful resources throughout the semester.
 I learned how to more confidently approach faculty through interactions with
my ENGR 102 professor.

27) Of the various approaches to learning engineering, computer science, and materials
science content, I best learned through:
A) Hands-on activities
B) Grand challenges discussions
C) Group projects
D) Problem solving demonstrations
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 111

E) Independent research
F) Making personal connections to information
G) Interdisciplinary foci
H) Technical (practical) applications
I) Soft-skill applications
J) Other: ___________________

28) With these above learning approaches, I am more likely to stay engaged in engineering
subjects.
A) Strongly agree B) Agree C) Unsure D) Disagree E) Strongly Disagree
F) ______________

29) After completing ENGR 102, which of the following best describes my response to
changing major disciplines in Viterbi.
A) I changed during the semester
B) I am strongly considering changing
C) Possibly changing
D) I am confident in my major selection and not changing
E) ____________
30) The Engineering Freshman Academy further validated my belonging in engineering,
computer science, or materials science.
A) Strongly agree B) Agree C) Unsure D) Disagree E) Strongly Disagree

F) ______________

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 112

Appendix C
Interview Questions

1) What made you want to major in engineering in college? What did you understand the
engineering discipline was throughout grade school?

2) What type of activities do you enjoy doing most inside and outside of the classroom?
What were you naturally drawn to doing and/or learning about?

3) What are your thoughts on the ENGR 102: Freshman Academy Course? Did it challenge
or reaffirm what you believed the engineering discipline to be?

UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ RELATIONSHIP TO ENGINEERING 113

Appendix D

Research Matrix

Demographics
Survey Item: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5

Research Questions: Theory/Concept: Methodology:
(Research)
Survey Item:
1a. Inside of the
classroom, which types
of learning experiences
help shape students’
understanding of
engineering?

Constructivism

Qualitative/Mixed
methods

#7, #8, #9, #15, #18,
#19, #21, #22, #23,
#24, #27
1b. Outside of the
classroom, what kind of
learning opportunities
promote an
understanding of
engineering?

Constructivism

Qualitative/Mixed
methods

#7, #8, #9, #16, #17,
#18, #19, #21
2a. Is there a difference
in college student
perceptions towards
science and engineering
before
and after an introductory
engineering course?

Constructivism

Quantitative

#6, #12, #13, #14, #20,
#22, #24, #25, #28, #30
2b. How does a
student’s experience in
an introductory
engineering course
impact confidence in
their major selection?

Constructivism

Quantitative

#21, #23, #24, #25,
#26, #28, #29, #30

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The primary focus of this research study is to reveal the contextual factors that contribute to students’ understanding of engineering and how the first year of college validates, or invalidates, that relationship. Using constructivism theory, the study attempts to frame how a student makes meaning to identify how and why they were drawn to engineering. Further, it examines whether these experiences must exist within their first year of college. Contextual events surrounding students’ learning experiences and journey to understanding engineering were elicited through a mixed methods survey. Common themes were identified as they related to the theories presented in this thesis. Two interviews were conducted with first-year engineering students. Analysis of the survey and interview content highlighted the following themes: (1) participating in hands-on, project based learning represented key experiences where students recalled becoming self-aware of their abilities and interests (2) engaging in active problem solving gave students the opportunity to demonstrate and further develop their intellectual capacities

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Impact of participation in STEM organizations and authentic learning experiences on women of color engineering students

PDF

Women in STEM: self-efficacy and its contributors in women in engineering within community college

PDF

Designing college transition programs for low-income, first-generation commuter students

PDF

The mentoring experiences of African American women in masters programs

PDF

Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom

PDF

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

PDF

The mentoring experience: a case study of a mentoring program for first-generation students transitioning to a postsecondary institution

PDF

Academic success of students who come from highly stressful homes

PDF

The psychosociocultural model as it relates to Latino/a college students and their academic success: a literature review

PDF

Impostor phenomenon determinants in research and development organizations

PDF

Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

PDF

Peer mentor curriculum: post-secondary students with autism: success in self-regulation and thriving

PDF

An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students

PDF

Stories of persistence and courage: undocumented students' educational experience enrolled at a 4-year institution

PDF

Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions

PDF

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

Equity and access for veteran's students in the California community colleges

PDF

African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college

Asset Metadata

Creator Jones, Chelsea Chanelle (author)

Core Title Making meaning: using constructivism to understand students' relationship to engineering

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Master of Education

Degree Program Educational Counseling

Publication Date 04/10/2018

Defense Date 04/09/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag confidence,constructivism,Engineering,Higher education,learning experiences,OAI-PMH Harvest,PK-12,validation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maddox, Anthony (committee chair), Slaughter, John Brooks (committee chair), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email chelsecj@gmail.com,chelsecj@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-10929

Unique identifier UC11672270

Identifier etd-JonesChels-6182.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-10929 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JonesChels-6182.pdf

Dmrecord 10929

Document Type Thesis

Rights Jones, Chelsea Chanelle

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA