In this paper we provide an overview of theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in engineering education research (EER). First, we define the considerations for how the terminology around frameworks is used and how they are applied in the discipline. Then, we conduct a mapping review of different theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in EER that have been identified from grey literature publications in the discipline. We specifically use grey literature for this analysis to explore how frameworks are being used beyond their representation in traditional venues such as journal or conference publications, which are often post-hoc. Given the growth of EER during the past decade, many of the novel ideas and frameworks are likely to be first discussed and available in these venues. Furthermore, within the grey literature we analyze, frameworks are likely to play a broader role, including guiding the research design. The grey literature we analyze includes NSF-funded proposals, and engineering education Ph.D. dissertations from US institutions over the past decade (2011-2021). We examined a total of 194 dissertations and 106 NSF proposal abstracts uncovered using a set of keywords, academic discipline, and research areas. Our analysis approach utilizes and expands on existing categorizations, such as the Engineering Education Research Taxonomy and other categorical approaches within both the engineering education field and adjacent STEM and technology-related disciplines. Finally, we recognize the limitation of examining research situated only in the US but hopefully this study provides a roadmap to extend the analysis across other geographical areas with EER presence.

In this innovative practice, work in progress paper, we examined the degree of constructive alignment in a pilot course informed by service-learning. Constructive Alignment refers to the degree of alignment between an instructor’s intentions and students’ experiences of a course. Data for the study were derived from a narrative constructed from the instructor’s reflections, describing intentions and experiences, coupled with thematic analysis of a transcript of a class discussion in which students were prompted to express their expectations for the course and their experiences of it. The instructor’s intentions were to take students through the experience of doing a real-world engineering project with community impact. Students had signed up for this course with expectations reasonably aligned with this plan. What they did not expect was how open-ended the engineering process would be, how it would demand intrinsic motivation for them rather than focusing on grades, and the degree to which the process would rest on communication skills, with substantial in-class discussion.

This is a full research paper. Intentional decision making around course design and execution by instructors is a very important aspect of teaching and learning. Understanding instructor beliefs about knowledge and their students is critical for any educational endeavor in that instructor beliefs often guide how they choose to structure their course and what they choose to evaluate. However, despite all the rhetoric on the need to improve teaching in engineering education, there are surprisingly few close-up studies on what contemporary instructors are doing in their classrooms. A further limitation is that most studies take place in one country which then comes to stand in for a sort of universal context. We seek to understand how instructors’ knowledge and beliefs about disciplinary knowledge shape the design of instruction, assessment and perception of students. This work studies how engineering instructors in three different countries use their knowledge of disciplinary concepts and beliefs about teaching and learning, i.e. pedagogical content knowledge, to design their courses and teach content. We are interested in understanding how the different national and institutional contexts make possible potential differences in approaches to teaching.

This Innovative Practice Work in Progress Paper focuses on an interdisciplinary course with the title Create! which draws in students from a range of years and disciplines to engage with ill-structured real-world problems. The study aimed to characterize students' reflective and metacognitive processes as they engaged in these team-based challenges. The data for the study came from “freewrites”, which were regular assessments which required students to respond to reflective prompts. The study utilizes the IDEALS model for characterizing the stages of metacognition. Using data from six exercises, this exploratory study works with just over 75 responses to find which of the IDEALS stages were represented in student reflections and what form these took. The findings show detailed contextualized reflections across each of the IDEALS stages. The study supports the value of this team-based project-centered course structure for stimulating metacognitive reflection in an interdisciplinary context. It also confirms the validity of the IDEALS model for characterizing metacognitive processes.

This innovative practice, work in progress paper investigates constructive alignment in a first-year engineering course. Constructive alignment describes a course environment where stated course outcomes are in alignment with what students learn in the course. This study develops a novel method to explore the extent of constructive alignment. Drawing on minute papers which were already incorporated in the course, the study uses student responses to a final minute paper which required students to reflect briefly on what they learned in the course. Qualitative analysis of 189 responses determined four main themes, with two of them featuring prominently in some detail: teamwork and problem-solving. This was important evidence of alignment as these are key outcomes of this project-centered course. A further interesting finding was that students see programming as a focus for their learning but don't explicitly link it to the modeling of an engineering system as stated in the course learning outcomes.

This full paper examines the potential for using LinkedIn profile analysis to understand engineers' everyday work activity. Calls for change in engineering education are often framed around perceptions of the changing nature of engineering work in present times. Existing research on engineering work, which draws on interviews, ethnography, case studies, or surveys, consistently highlights the social and contextual dimensions of practice, but also suggests that engineering work may have more to do with maintaining existing systems than with creative development of new systems. To add to this growing body of research, in this exploratory study we turn to a novel data source: publicly available descriptions of engineering work available on social networks and job posting sites. Such data sources, if found to be useful, could significantly expand the reach of research on engineering work and provide access to much larger data sets than those obtained through current - predominantly qualitative - methods. This study is a preliminary look at using LinkedIn for these purposes. Specifically, we ask the question, "How does data about engineering work from LinkedIn compare to findings from in-depth interviews?" To answer this question, we use interviews with 15 new engineers at six and 12 months of work, and compare them to participants' LinkedIn profiles. The interviews, collected as part of a separate study, focused on newcomers' workplace responsibilities and challenges. Analysis focused on inductive coding to categorize engineers' work experiences and environments. The findings were then compared to participants' LinkedIn profiles to identify gaps and overlaps.

This panel session combines principles from graduate student socialization and intergenerational mentorship to provide a unique opportunity for early career scholars and pioneers in engineering education to interact face-to-face. Pioneers will serve as panelists and give their personal tips and reflections on networking and mentorship. Session attendees will then meet with the pioneers in a roundtable format, to ask questions, seek advice, and get feedback. This work builds on the National Science Foundation-funded Engineering Education Pioneers Project, which documented the stories of more than 40 engineering education pioneers through online profiles. The intended audience for this panel includes graduate students, junior faculty, and other individuals interested in the engineering education community. Expected benefits include better understanding, increased belonging, and new or enhanced interest in engineering education. Future efforts associated with this session include understanding the impact of such exposure to the pioneers on attendees and exploring the possibility of offering this event at future engineering education conferences.

This Innovative Practice Full Paper reports on perceptions of a curriculum reform innovation in an undergraduate engineering program in chemical engineering at a South African university. A key feature of this program is an integrated curriculum design, which involves a coherent development of theoretical topics alongside closely related project work. This design was chosen in alignment with the core objectives which were to improve the quality of student learning in the program and to increase the relevance of the curriculum to contemporary developments in the profession. The study took place during the year in which the final year of the new curriculum for the four-year program was implemented. Both lecturers and teaching assistants involved in delivering the new curriculum, and final year students who had been the first cohort through the curriculum were surveyed in an open-ended questionnaire. The study goes beyond a traditional evaluation design to be able to research in-depth differing perceptions of the new curriculum. The discussion focuses on the implicit trade-offs when moving to a more integrated curriculum design. The analysis also focuses on the inherent immediate challenges of implementing a substantial change to curriculum, and how this is perceived by both academics and students.

This Work in Progress paper reports on preliminary work in a new longitudinal project which tracks engineering students as they progress through four years of their undergraduate degree. It focuses specifically on students' engagement with disciplinary and professional knowledge, in domains of basic science, engineering science, and engineering design. The project centers on annual in-depth interviews that will be conducted with students recruited from the first year in a selected engineering program (Chemical Engineering) at two selected US bachelors' institutions: one a rural-based public land grant research university, and the other an urban public research university with a more diverse student intake. To highlight the distinctive features of the ways in which engineering graduates are formed, the project tracks in parallel a sample of students from a closely related science program (Chemistry/Biochemistry). The first year of data collection in this project is completed, and this paper will provide early reflections on the research design, specifically the ways in which student interview data can be used to show development of agency through engagement with knowledge.