Monica F. Cox

Engineering Professionals’ Expectations of Undergraduate Engineering Students

AbstractThis paper presents the results of a study that sought to identify constructs that engineers in academia and industry use to describe attributes they consider important for undergraduate engineering students to possess. We explicitly targeted the attributes of leadership, recognizing and managing change, and synthesizing engineering, business, and social perspectives. Our findings indicate ways that engineering students can engage in technical and nontechnical activities that enhance their undergraduate engineering experiences. The final goal of this ongoing effort is to develop, validate, and implement a tool that examines undergraduate students’ embodiment of the three targeted attributes.

Investigating the attributes and expectations of engineering Ph.D.s working in industry

Many engineering Ph.D.s are finding career opportunities in industry. Despite the increase in number of Ph.D. engineers working in industry, there is little research on what it takes to be a successful engineering Ph.D. in industry. This study explores the characteristics, and expectations of engineering Ph.D.s by interviewing ten engineering Ph.D.s working in industry. These preliminary findings reveal that responsibilities of engineering Ph.D.s in industry include more than research and development. Among other things, engineering Ph.D.s that work in this sector are expected to communicate effectively and teach others. The characteristics that engineering Ph.D.s need to possess to be successful in industry are also discussed.

Leadership Training in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education in Bulgaria.

This synthesis paper explores current leadership training in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in Bulgaria. The analysis begins with discussion of global factors influencing the implementation of leadership training in STEM education in general and then presents information about the current status of leadership training in Bulgaria with emphases on the countrys economics, politics and geographical location as specific factors influencing leadership education. A short background of Bulgaria is presented with regard to population, gross domestic product, educational system, engineering force and possible need for leaders in industry in Bulgaria and the European Union. The paper provides an overall view about the current status of leadership training in all Bulgarian universities offering STEM education and concentrates specifically on two major universities by examining their currently offered programmes. As part of the discussion, similar training elements in other European countries and the USA are presented.

Validation of an Instrument for Chinese Engineering Students’ Epistemological Development: Application of Perry’s Theory

Perry’s theory has demonstrated usefulness in understanding students’ epistemological development and the implications for educational practices. It depicts the development of adults’ thinking in four stages: Dualism, Multiplicity, Relativism , and Commitment within Relativism . Challenges exist in large sample studies due to the lack of appropriate instruments that can represent the stages, in particular Multiplicity and Relativism . This challenge is of unique importance because the transition from Multiplicity to Relativism signifies the most dramatic change in thinking development. To map the epistemological development profile of Chinese engineering students on a large scale, this work re-constructed and validated a survey using Perry’s theory. We tested the survey through content and structural validation. Content validation was performed by collecting ratings from eight external content experts. Structural validation was accomplished through an exploratory factor analysis using responses from 621 Chinese engineering students. This survey can be useful for understanding Chinese engineering students’ epistemological development.

Creating Comprehensive Educational Experiences for the 21st Century Ph.D.

What does having a Ph.D. say about you or about your accomplishments? The current process for obtaining a Ph.D. confirms that you can follow directions and complete a task, can pass courses and a comprehensive and/or qualifying exam, can conduct independent research, and can one´s research findings. But what else does it say? Does having a Ph.D. mean you are a good teacher, advisor, mentor, grant writer, or independent thinker? Does it mean you are ready to guide the next generation of Ph.D.´s? Upon graduation, there is variability in the skills demonstrated by new Ph.D.s? Whose responsibility is it to train Ph.D. recipients in areas in which they are weak? Does this responsibility rest on the major professor, the dissertation committee, the department, or the institution?

Motivations for Pursuing an Engineering PhD and Perceptions of its Added Value: A U.S.-based Study

Engineering doctor of philosophy (PhD) holders possess expertise that is vital to addressing society’s grand challenges, but the dismal number of U.S. citizens pursuing the degree suggests many are not convinced of its value. There are few studies that have explored what motivates people in other disciplines to pursue a PhD, and not many of these were in the context of engineering. In this study, forty engineering PhD holders working in academia and industry in the U.S. described their motivations for earning an engineering PhD and the perceived added value of possessing the degree. The results of this study indicate that the motivations for pursuing an engineering PhD relate to career aspirations, prior success in graduate school, the influence of others, and intrinsic factors. Participants’ discussions about the added value of an engineering PhD manifests itself in the form of career outcomes, attributes and skills, and positive responses from others. Few participants described the “added value” of a PhD as neutral or having limitations. Both motivational and added value factors vary by employment sector. The findings of this study have implications for engaging more students in pursuing doctoral engineering studies — both in U.S. institutions and doctoral engineering programs around the world.

Recommendations for engineering doctoral education: Design of an instrument to evaluate change

In recent years, many studies and reports have highlighted concerns and problems with engineering doctoral degree recipients. Criticisms have come from professionals in both industry and academia, as well as from current and former Ph.D. students. Given the dissatisfaction of a variety of stakeholders, there have been calls from professional societies, disciplinary bodies and federal agencies to improve doctoral granting programs across the U.S. and to educate Ph.Ds. who are equipped with skills and attributes necessary to meet the highly-competitive and rapidly changing 21st century workforce [1, 2]. Within this context, this study focuses on the perspectives of working professionals from both academia and industry. Preliminary findings were obtained from one-on-one interviews with forty engineering Ph.D. holders who are from industry and/or academia. They recommended practical measures for engineering doctoral students to obtain desired characteristics upon graduation. Using the preliminary results, the work in progress precludes the design of an instrument to evaluate on-going changes to different aspects of doctoral education. The instrument will serve as a useful tool to understand the degree and scope of changes in engineering doctoral program. Portions of the instrument informed from these recommendations are provided.

Aligning the Ph.d. and Mentoring Experiences of U.S. Underrepresented Minority Students in Engineering

According to the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) (2010), in 2009, 55.1% of doctoral engineering students were foreign nationals, and 44.9% were domestic students. Of these domestic engineering doctoral students, 65.7% were white, 14% were Asian-American, 5.2% were Hispanic, 4.4% were African-American, 9.7% were unidentified, and 1% were classified as other (i.e., American Indians, Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, and two or more combined groups).

Work in progress — Developing a curriculum to prepare engineers to participate in public policy

With the increasing proliferation of scientific knowledge and technological artifacts into society comes an increased need to regulate these artifacts and their use. The development and implementation of such regulations and laws in many cases requires both a technical understanding of the functioning of these artifacts and an understanding of how this technology interacts with social and natural systems, and would benefit from the involvement of a technical expert. Clearly, there is an important role to be filled by engineers in the public policy arena. However, there are very few engineers participating in public policymaking and very few engineering programs offer or encourage courses of study in policy. While there is agreement in the engineering education community that an increased focus on Engineering and Public Policy is a good idea, very little empirical evidence has been assembled to guide the establishment of these courses and programs. This paper reports on the development of an initiative at one university to develop a public policy curriculum for engineers that can easily be integrated into the existing engineering program.