Development and Testing of an Instrument to Understand Engineering Doctoral Students’ Identities and Motivations
Development and Testing of an Instrument to Understand Engineering Doctoral Students’ Identities and Motivations
复制标题
开发和测试了解工程博士生身份和动机的工具
DOI：
10.18260/1-2--30319
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Adam Kirn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Perkins;M. Bahnson;C. Cass;Marissa A. Tsugawa;Adam Kirn
本研究旨在探讨一项旨在了解工科研究生身份和动机的调查的形成和心理测量学。在STEM中，近50%的学生在完成博士学位之前就离开了，许多干预措施建议加强学生的身份，以防止辍学。然而，工程身份和基于身份的动机（IBM）在工程研究生人口没有得到很好的探索。为了弥补这一点，两份问卷被创建，项目来自研究生的定性研究。从227名工程研究生中收集数据，并分析缺失模式（即，尽管整体调查完成，但参与者跳过的个别项目），对参与者情绪状态的影响（使用积极和消极情绪量表，PANAS），以及有效性和可靠性。MANOVA分析表明，调查焦点对积极或消极情感没有显著影响，F（4，646）= 1.075，p = .368，但IBM调查中的数据并非随机缺失，χ（503）= 580.80，p = .009）。探索性因素分析，潜在的结构进行了测试，并细化的项目列表。这些调查结果的影响，为全面调查和未来的研究将进行讨论。简介：GRADS项目呼吁增加美国的STEM毕业生，工程研究生的流失仍然是一个严重的问题[1]。先前的研究表明，STEM博士生的流失率高达50% [2]，而来自传统边缘化群体的学生的保留仍然是特别关注的问题[3]。这些研究还表明，强大的工程身份和明确的未来目标对学生的成功至关重要[4]-[6]，但通常未能将研究生作为与本科生不同的人群[7]-[9]。为了开始弥补这一差距，提出了GRADS项目，对工程博士生（EDS）的经验，身份和动机进行定性和定量调查。作为该过程的第一步，使用EDS样品进行了三项定性研究[11]-[13]。这样做既是为了调查EDS是否将他们的经历和身份与以前的本科生群体相似，也是为了开始探索计划中的定量阶段的问题。结果表明，工程身份，身份匹配，和未来的目标一样重要的博士生，因为他们是本科生，但结构有时被阐明和优先级不同。例如，那些强烈认同为工程师的研究生在定义“工程”的含义时扮演了更积极的角色，他们认识到这个领域很广泛，刻板的定义可能是有限的[11]。同样，研究生使用过去的经验来阐明目标并描述他们在该领域的未来位置，而不像本科生通常只考虑目前的表现。GRADS项目的第二步是制定和管理一项具有全国代表性的EDS调查。为了做到这一点，研究小组收集了以前开发的量表和调查，发表了关于EDS身份和动机的文献（包括前面提到的三项定性研究），并将它们结合起来，以适应当前调查的目标，同时保留以前建立的有效性和可靠性指标。这导致了三个全长调查的发展，每个侧重于工程身份，基于身份的动机和未来的时间观念。为了将这三项调查联合收割机组合成一项可用于全国人口的小型调查，我们使用工程研究生样本进行了试点，并使用探索性因素分析（EFA），ANOVA和Little's MCAR检验（完全随机缺失检验）对结果进行了有效性和可靠性分析。本文探讨了三个试点调查中的两个的发展，特别是那些侧重于身份和基于身份的动机问题。本文探讨了以往研究与研究生访谈数据相结合的过程，以及对调查的心理测量学进行定量分析。我们的结论与其他人寻求扩展和转移的研究结果从本科到研究生空间，以及那些寻求开发调查与全国代表性的人口工程专业学生使用的建议。总的来说，本文的目标是叙述的创建，测试和验证的调查措施之前，它是用于全国人口。我们希望本文将有助于工程教育中的调查开发最佳实践的讨论，以及作为数据和结果共享的毕业生项目的未来资源。
This research paper explores the formation and psychometrics of a survey developed to understand the identities and motivations of engineering graduate students. Within STEM, almost 50% of students leave before completing their PhD, and many interventions suggest strengthening students’ identities to prevent dropout. However, engineering identity and identitybased motivation (IBM) within the engineering graduate population is not well-explored. To remedy this, two questionnaires were created, with items derived from qualitative research with graduate students. Data were collected from 227 engineering graduate students, and were analyzed for patterns in missingness (i.e., individual items skipped by participants despite overall survey completion), effects on participants’ emotional state (using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, PANAS), and validity and reliability. MANOVA analysis indicated there was no significant effect of survey focus on positive or negative affect, F(4,646) = 1.075, p = .368, but that data was not missing at random in the IBM survey, χ(503) = 580.80, p = .009). With Exploratory Factor Analysis, the latent constructs were tested and the list of items refined. The implications of these findings for the full survey and for future studies will be discussed. Introduction: the GRADS Project Amidst calls for an increase in STEM graduates in the U.S., attrition among engineering graduate students remains a serious issue [1]. Previous studies have indicated that the attrition rate among STEM doctoral students is as high as 50% [2], and retention of students from traditionally marginalized groups continues to be of special concern [3]. These studies also indicate that strong engineering identities and clear future goals are critical to student success [4]–[6], but often fail to include graduate students as a population distinct from undergraduate students [7]–[9]. To begin remedying this gap, the GRADS project was proposed, a qualitative and quantitative investigation of engineering doctoral students’ (EDS) experiences, identities, and motivation [10]. As the first step in this process, three qualitative studies were conducted with an EDS sample [11]–[13]. This was done both to investigate whether EDS framed their experiences and identities similarly to previous undergraduate populations, and to begin exploring questions for the planned quantitative phase. Results indicated that engineering identity, identity fit, and future goals were as important for doctoral students as they were for undergraduates, but that the constructs were sometimes articulated and prioritized differently. For instance, graduate students who strongly identified as engineers took a more agentic role in defining what ‘engineering’ meant, recognizing that the field is broad and that the stereotypical definitions can be limiting [11]. Similarly, graduate students used past experiences to clarify goals and describe their future place in the field, unlike undergraduates who often only considered present performance [12]. The second step in the GRADS project entailed the development and administration of a nationally representative survey of EDS. To do this, the research team gathered previously developed scales and surveys, published literature about EDS identities and motivations (including the three qualitative studies mentioned previously), and combined them to fit the current survey’s goals while retaining previously established metrics of validity and reliability. This resulted in the development of three full-length surveys, each focusing on engineering identity, identity-based motivation, and future time perspective. To combine these three surveys into a single, smaller survey that could be used with a national population, we piloted them with an engineering graduate student sample and the results were analyzed for validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), ANOVAs, and Little’s MCAR test (missing completely-at-random test). This research paper explores the development of two of the three pilot surveys, specifically those focusing on issues of identity and identity-based motivation. The process by which previous research and interview data from graduate students were combined is explored, as well as the quantitative analyses of the surveys’ psychometrics. We conclude with recommendations for others seeking to extend and transfer findings from the undergraduate to the graduate space, as well those seeking to develop surveys for use with nationally representative populations of engineering students. Overall, the goal of this paper is to recount the creation, testing, and validation of the survey measure before it was used with a national population. We hope this paper will contribute to the discussion of survey development best practices within engineering education, as well as act as a future resource for the GRADS project as data and results are shared.
DOI：
10.18260/p.26122
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
影响因子：
--
作者：
Godwin, Allison
通讯作者：
Godwin, Allison