Engineering PhD Returners and Direct‐Pathway Students: Comparing Expectancy, Value, and Cost

BackgroundProfessionals who pursue a doctorate after significant post‐baccalaureate work experience, a group we refer to as returners, represent an important but understudied group of engineering doctoral students. Returners are well situated to leverage their applied work experiences in their advanced engineering training.Purpose/HypothesisWe drew on results from the Graduate Student Experiences and Motivations Survey to explore the dimensionality of our scales measuring value and cost constructs. We used these scales, as well as measures of student expectancy of success, to compare returners with direct‐pathway students.Design/MethodWe surveyed 179 returners and 297 direct‐pathway domestic engineering doctoral students. We first conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis on our cost and value measures. We then used both Ordinary Least Squares and Ordinal Regression Model analyses to assess the relationships of various student characteristics and experiences (including returner status) with student expectancy of success and the emergent cost and values factors associated with doctoral study in engineering.ResultsFactor analysis revealed three categories of values (interest, attainment, and career utility) that were largely consistent with those in Eccles’ expectancy‐value framework. A similar analysis identified three categories of costs (balance, financial, and academic) associated with pursuing a PhD. Returners felt significantly less confident in their ability to complete their degrees prior to enrolling and perceived higher levels of all cost types than direct‐pathway students.ConclusionsGiven the differences between returning and direct‐pathway students, it is important to consider how universities might best recruit and retain returners. Tracking returner status could be critical in better supporting these students.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140046/1/jee20182.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140046/2/jee20182_am.pd

Threats and Supports to Female Students’ Math Beliefs and Achievement

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149563/1/jora12384_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149563/2/jora12384.pd

Mobilising Knowledge through Global Partnerships to Support Research-informed Teaching: Five Models for Translational Research

Education Futures Collaboration Charity The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Improving the quality of teaching is of global concern: UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4c in the Education 2030: Framework for Action calls for high quality teaching for all. The OECD challenges the education system to improve Knowledge Management. JET’s (2015) special issue: Translational Research (TR) and Knowledge Mobilisation in Teacher Education introduced the concept of ‘translational’ or ‘theory to practice’ research - well-established in medicine but not in education. Five TR models were subsequently developed by the MESH charity’s international network with organisations in South Africa, Bangladesh, Australia, Pakistan, UK. These distinct models engage 1) university staff and teachers 2) subject associations, 3) research units, 4) an international NGO working in crisis settings, 5) PhD tutors and students. Each model shares common features forming the MESH Translational Research methodology introduced in this article. A TR repository is part of the MESH knowledge mobilisation strategy giving teachers access to research summaries which, overtime, accumulate knowledge. TR publications called MESHGuides (www.meshguides.org) complement existing forms of publication. This article proposes the MESH TR methodology as one affordable and scalable solution to OECD and UNESCO’s challenges of keeping teachers up-to-date and making new knowledge accessible to teachers regardless of location