Academic identity development of engineering academics in the Australian engineering education community

University of Technology Sydney. Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology.The field of research that an academic participates in is seen as central to the development of their academic identity. In the case of engineering academics that become engineering education researchers there are additional complications in reconciling this change with their academic identity. Part of the difficulty that engineering academics have with educational research paradigms is that they are so different to the typically positivistic perspective of most engineering epistemologies. A further complicating factor is that engineering education is an emerging research area in Australian universities and as such there are few formal training pathways into it and little consensus as to the standards and norms of practice. Yet engineering academics have and continue to make this transition - how they develop an academic identity in this research field is the focus of this study. The research approach is interpretive using the identity-trajectory as a theoretical framework because it pays attention to the context-specific characteristics of working as an academic. Interviews with a range of engineering academics about preparing a conference paper and their response to the peer review process illustrated how various aspects of their research work contribute to the development of the intellectual and networking strands of their academic identity, the effect of their university environment on this development, and included the ways that engineering academics interpret how their past experiences contribute to their present situation and/or their future intentions. By focussing on the individual, this conceptualisation of academic identity aligns with the common experience of engineering education researchers and with the premise that development of the field is a function of the development of the individual researchers within it. The engineering education research landscape model presented in this study was a successful stimulus for dialogue about the nature of the research field by allowing participants to identify where they belong on the landscape. Such discussions will help both the community and individuals to articulate and understand observed changed in their own and their peers’ research as expertise is developed, as well as provide a language for researchers to plan, discuss and evaluate this development. The continued importance of participation in engineering education conferences for the intellectual and networking strands of academic identity for members of this research community is apparent for researchers at all stages of development, although in different ways

Mapping the engineering education research landscape in Australia

BACKGROUND Engineering education research is still consolidating as a recognised research area in Australian universities. A current project funded by the US National Science Foundation is attempting to develop a taxonomy for engineering education as a research area. Our project takes a slightly different perspective by using a landscape model to describe engineering education as a knowledge domain that includes a variety of areas of endeavour. PURPOSE This paper is motivated by questions around the range of topics being addressed in the AAEE community and as a means of initiating a discussion about how we define, evaluate, understand and move within our research domain. APPROACH This paper reports data collected as part of a wider project examining the peer review process for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) annual conference. During semistructured interviews nineteen participants used one or two coloured adhesive stars to locate their paper on a model of the engineering education research landscape presented in this paper. The location of the stars was then analysed in relation to various elements of the model and the explanations were coded in NVivo 10 for themes relating to the star location. OUTCOMES All participants could locate the topic of their conference paper on the presented model, and articulate clearly why their star belonged in the selected location demonstrating an individual understanding of the focus and outcomes of their research. Not surprisingly most stars were clustered in the `teaching and learning of engineering element or on one of the trajectories leading to it. This reflects that for many participants, their educational publications are inextricably linked to their practice of teaching engineering. Interestingly, there were strong voices from participants across all expertise levels and university types against a perceived move to make the annual AAEE conference focus on theoretical research. This was seen as a move towards exclusivity and a lack of acceptance for practice-based studies. CONCLUSIONS The landscape model presented in this paper successfully stimulated dialogue around both the nature and the areas of research in our community and allowed participants to appreciate where they are positioned in the landscape. Such a dialogue will help us define our research domain and support both colleagues and postgraduate students seeking to participate in or move within it. We suggest it can also be used to dissipate some of the tensions developing in AAEE about the standard and value of research. We argue that a practice versus theoretical research dichotomy is ultimately divisive and that our national conference should provide a forum for all authors in an environment aimed at improving the quality of publications and the development of academics wherever they are in the landscape

Improving the standard and consistency of multi-tutor grading in large classes

For several years the authors have coordinated a large engineering design subject, having a typical cohort of more than 300 students per semester. Lectures are supported by tutorials of approximately 32 students that incorporate a combination of collaborative team and project-based learning activities. Each tutor is responsible for grading the assessment tasks for students in their tutorial. A common issue is how to achieve a consistent standard of marking and student feedback between different tutors. To address this issue the authors have used a number of methods including double-blind marking and/or random re-marking to support consistent grading. However, even when only small variations between the overall grading of different tutors were found, students still complained about a perceived lack of consistency. In this paper we report on an investigation into the use of a collaborative peer learning process among tutors to improve mark standardisation, and marker consistency, and to build tutorsâ expertise and capacity in the provision of quality feedback. We found that studentsâ perceptions of differences in grading were exacerbated by inconsistencies in the language tutors use when providing feedback, and by differences in tutorsâ perceptions of how well individual criterion were met

Threshold exams to promote learning and assurance of learning

BACKGROUND Formal examinations are often used in engineering classes as the tool to evaluate student learning. These exams are often high stakes assessment tasks and provide no opportunity for feed-forward. Despite academic claims that all topics in their subject are requisite material, students are regularly able to pass these assessment tasks with unsatisfactory, and perhaps even no capacity to demonstrate learning in some topics. Furthermore, while undertaking the exam often highlights to students their learning deficiencies, it typically has no impact on their learning as they rarely receive feedback other than a mark or grade and there is no further opportunity to address these learning gaps. This paper reports on the impact of a two-staged examination process on both student learning and assurance of that learning. PURPOSE The aim of the staged examination process was to improve confidence that students had satisfactory knowledge in all requisite subject topics and to test its capacity to be learning-oriented in that it provides improved opportunities for students to learn while simultaneously increasing the level of learning assurance. DESIGN/METHOD The first stage of the process was an exam that covered all requisite subject topics. This exam consisted of multiple choice questions set at or just above the level of threshold learning outcomes. Students were required to score 80% on this exam to qualify to undertake the second part of the assessment process at a later date. Students used IFAT (Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique) cards for this stage to facilitate immediate feedback as to their strengths and weaknesses. The time between exams allowed students to review identified areas of weakness before attempting the second stage of the exam. Note: while not contributing to their final grade students who failed the first exam were also permitted to undertake the second exam as an opportunity to learn and as a means of evaluating the impact of the process. The second exam consisted of open-ended questions requiring students to explain their critical thinking and judgement used to arrive at their answer. Evaluation of the effectiveness of this process was based on a student survey, focus group discussions and an analysis of student examination scripts. RESULTS The threshold learning outcome exam was effective in improving assurance of learning in that students had to demonstrate satisfactory learning across topics to achieve the 80% required to âpassâ the exam. Furthermore, students reported that they used the opportunity between exams to address identified learning gaps, hence demonstrating the learning orientation and feed-forward capacity of the two stage process. However, the fact that two students who did not achieve the threshold level of 80% in the first exam were able to address their learning gaps and pass the second and harder exam suggests that an alternative to the 80% exclusion criteria should be considered. CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrated that a two staged examination process improved confidence in assurance of learning while providing students with an opportunity to first identify and subsequently reduce learning gaps. However, the fact that some students who failed the threshold exam demonstrated significant improvement in their understanding in the second exam suggests that more research is needed to both understand the impact of and improve the benefits from this activity

Impact of student’s goal orientation in a flipped learning environment

BACKGROUND Flipped instruction is a form of blended learning that typically encompasses the use of technology to move instruction and preparation outside the classroom. This facilitates the use of ‘in class’ time for more participative learning activities. These activities should require students to interact and collaborate to improve both their learning and their learning experience. Many researchers have highlighted issues of importance to designing learning activities including student behaviour, assessment, student self-efficacy and goal orientation and the importance of dialogue and feedback for learning. PURPOSE In this paper we explore these themes in the context of a flipped instruction environment for different types of students: those with a learning mastery orientation, those focussed on grade achievement and a subset of grade achievement students - those who struggled to pass. APPROACH Student perceptions of flipped instruction were investigated through survey responses, observations and focus group discussion. In particular, students were asked to explain the impact of the flipped activities on their learning experience including how they approached their studies or managed their time. OUTCOMES Students reported liking flipped instruction compared to the more traditional lecture style delivery format. Most students believe that it had a positive impact on their learning experience and promoted them to become more independent and responsible learners. The main finding that emerged from the interviews and focus group was how the student’s goal orientation affected their engagement with the learning opportunities provided. CONCLUSIONS The authors present a model showing potential pathways for a change in goal orientation prompted by the quality of assessment and learning design. We found evidence to support our theory that a student’s orientation can be changed temporarily by the quality of the learning opportunity provided and in particular how it is assessed. We recommend that instructors develop learning activities that challenge students to develop their understanding from multiple perspectives and assessments that require them to apply this understanding in different contexts. Such activities and assessments will act as an initial step in promoting students’ adoption of a mastery approach to their learning

Assessment for learning: using minor assessment to promote major learning

The authors have previously reported the effectiveness of using self and peer assessment to improve learning outcomes in groupwork by providing opportunities to practise, assess and provide feedback on studentsâ attribute development. Combining this research and that reported in the literature regarding learning-oriented assessment we theorised that self and peer assessment would be an ideal tool to develop and efficiently facilitate activities specifically designed to be student centred and promote learning. In this paper we report the effectiveness of a self and peer assessment activity specifically designed to promote collaborative peer learning, require students to take responsibility for their learning and improve their judgement, while at the same time only imposing a small assessment load on academics