This Work in Progress paper focuses on the impact of a project-based education program on the entrepreneurial and innovation self-efficacies of the program's alumni. The Social Cognitive Theory is the theoretical foundation of this study, which builds on a previous study conducted among mechanical engineering graduate students at Stanford University. The goal of this current research is to identify the career pathways of the alumni, how this education program impacted their entrepreneurial outcomes and innovation behaviors and provide analysis and recommendations to the program's teaching team. To achieve this a survey was deployed to 1000 program alumni, covering a 25-year span from 1998 to 2023.

This Research Work-in-Progress Paper focuses on the change in collaboration practices within engineering and design (E&D) teams caused by COVID. A mixed-methods research approach was used. A survey designed to examine the long-term educational impact of an in-depth mechatronics graduate-level course sequence on its alumni was supplemented with Likert-scale and open-ended questions asking participants about the impact of COVID on their work mode and work satisfaction. The survey was administered in September 2021 and served as a filter to determine an interview sample. A literature review identifies leadership as an important factor in increasing team collaboration efficiency among virtual E&D teams. We identified and interviewed nine of the alumni who are currently leading E&D teams. Our goal is to identify skills those leaders acquired during their course experience that were particularly valuable for navigating the transition to remote collaboration. Furthermore, skills that have been critical for successful collaboration but were not learned during the course will also be identified. We then aim to derive practical implications for E&D course teaching teams on how to better prepare future E&D team leaders for remote collaboration. This Work-in-Progress paper focuses on our study motivation, design and preliminary results.

This research to practice full paper presents the work of an academic-industry research partnership to explore the internship experiences of summer interns at a large global engineering company. Engineering internships give students the opportunity to apply the engineering skills they have been learning to real products and can have high impact on innovation and engineering task self-efficacy. Innovation self-efficacy (ISE) and engineering task self-efficacy (ETSE) matter because these measures are an important predictor of major and career choice [1]. In contrast, innovation interests indicate an individual's interest in innovative behaviors and outcomes. This paper explores students' innovation interests, as related to their internship work assignment and supervisor interactions. Furthermore, the relationship between the internship experience and the intern's likelihood of accepting a job offer from the same company is also explored. A survey administered to product development interns (N=115) at the end of their summer 2017 internship at a large global engineering company forms the main dataset for this work.

This innovative practice work-in-progress paper presents the findings of the first implementation of a digital textbook developed by the authors. Recognizing that technology offers new ways to conceive of what a textbook is and does, the digital statics textbook is designed to be a personalized learning experience for students. It includes numerous innovations to provide real-world context and motivation for the theory, scaffold learning, support students in developing systematic and structured problem solving processes, and provide immediate feedback. The online materials were integrated into a lecture- and lab-based, active-learning course offered for approximately 80 students in a 10-week quarter. The online resources were accessible to the students through the university's learning management system. While students learned the material and performed well, they were challenged by this new method of accessing a textbook and identified several limitations of the integration of the digital resource in the course. Instructors need to determine the right mix of online problem solving with immediate feedback and paper-based homework that reinforces a structured problem solving approach. A second offering was underway at the time of writing this paper.

This Research Work in Progress paper looks at community-engaged learning, service learning, and similar pedagogies that extend project-based learning beyond the classroom into “real world” communities. Use of such pedagogies is increasingly common in engineering education, and evidence suggests that they are particularly effective at connecting engineering theory to practice, engaging engineering students motivated to “make an impact,” and preparing engineering students for an increasingly globalized world. Community-engaged learning and similar pedagogies typically involve creating a partnership between campus partners (e.g. students, faculty, or staff) and community partners (e.g. community members or organizations) to address an engineering challenge that, if successful, will contribute to student learning and provide value to the community partners. Building upon the existing frameworks of “do no harm” and “engineering to help,” this paper examines the relationships between academic and non-academic partners as a crucial yet relatively unstudied aspect of community-engaged learning. The partner relationship - the shared expectations, commitments, responsibilities, and trust (or lack thereof) between partners - appears to be vital. However, because it is not always the primary focus of those involved, and because partners' interests, incentives, epistemologies, and worldviews do not always align, partnerships frequently fail, leaving dissatisfaction and disillusionment among campus and community partners alike. This study employs a comparative case study approach using sets of interviews with students, instructors, and community partners involved in different sides of the same engineering projects. Some projects are retrospective while others are current, and some had positive outcomes (as defined by stakeholders) while others were less than positive. We present qualitative findings that suggest a set of considerations for mutually beneficial partnerships in community-engaged engineering courses and programs. Ultimately, this paper aims to provide a current perspective and guidance for engineering educators, students, and community partners who wish to jointly build and nurture enduringly effective and equitable partnerships.

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 panel session will provide findings from the Professional Engineering Pathways Study (PEPS) followed by an interactive discussion between the panel members and attendees. The interactive forum is intended for stakeholders interested in understanding undergraduate engineering students career choice pathways. The process of engineering graduates pursuing their first position after graduation has become an increasingly complex process. Understanding the ever-increasing number of career options, discerning the specific engineering skills employees desire for a position, and the variety of methods resulting in successfully receiving a job offer may be daunting for students. PEPS, a multi institutional longitudinal mixed methods study, studied factors such as career options, the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for those options, and student career expectations, values, and goals from both university influencer and student perspectives. The panel will highlight salient results anticipated to be of interest to academic advisors, career counselors, faculty, and students pursing their first position after graduation and act as a catalyst to an interactive discussion with attendees.

This Research to Practice Work In Progress Paper describes an academic-industry research partnership aimed at understanding how undergraduate juniors and seniors navigate a summer internship at a large global engineering company in the automotive industry. The study explores the question: What are the relationships between internship experiences and engineering students' self-efficacy, creativity and innovation, and future academic and career choices and plans? Focusing on survey and interview data collected from product development interns at a single engineering firm, this research explores the highlights and challenges encountered in their internship as well as their perceptions regarding opportunities for creativity and innovation. An additional set of interview questions examined the organizational ecology within the company based on who interns interacted with and sought out for mentorship and support. These results are contextualized in findings from a survey of undergraduate engineering students across a nationally representative sample of 27 U.S. engineering schools. Future research based on survey and interview data will take a mixed methods approach to inform an actionable understanding of the role of engineering internships for three critical stakeholders across whom an engaging & effective pathway is sought: students, colleges & universities, and industry.

This innovative practice work in progress paper responds to the question, how might we prepare design students to transfer their practice from academic contexts to applied contexts? This mixed methods study describes a new reflective assessment called Reflective Design Practice. This assessment prompts student to deliberately reflect on concrete artifacts created during the course. Twenty university students enrolled in design-based and project-based courses used Reflective Design Practice to more deeply understand both their design practice and the way environment impacts design. This assessment differs from existing assessments in that it can be applied to virtually any student work created during a course. Furthermore, it grounds abstract metacognition in tangible output.

This Research-to-Practice Full Paper investigates engineering students' career goals and intentions regarding organizational settings, and how their goals and intentions relate to their background, learning and contextual measures. Moreover, despite vocational choice and turnover having been heavily studied in the literature, few studies have examined how students' career goals relate to change in their organizational settings over time and how these perceptions then influence their turnover intentions. To fill in this research gap, this paper explores how organizational setting and respondent aspiration to be in that setting relate to turnover intentions.The paper is based on the nationally-representative, longitudinal Engineering Majors Survey and has a sample size of 350 respondents, characterized as employed and recently graduated (<;2y) from an undergraduate engineering program. Respondents are categorized in three different alignment groups (Aligned, Fluid, Unaligned) according to their career goal achievement. Respondents who are currently employed in the type of organization, they had imagined being employed at a year earlier are called Aligned. Respondents who are actually employed in the type of organization (e.g., small versus large firm) to which they stated “Might or might not” be employed a year earlier are classified as Fluid. Finally, respondents, who work in the organizational setting, which they did not want to work in one year prior, are called Unaligned. The paper also determines respondents turnover intentions (Stay, Flexible, Go) related to organizational settings, such as small companies or medium and large companies. Alignment and turnover groups were then compared with each other in relation to background, learning, and contextual measures. Background measures are gender, underrepresented minority status, and first generation to college status. Learning measures are internship experience, and contextual measures are job satisfaction and grade point average.The findings suggest that most of these recent graduates are Aligned and want to Stay in their organizational setting. Employees in small companies are relatively less Aligned and are more likely to Go and leave the organizational setting than are employees in large companies. Respondents who have done an internship are more often Aligned and less likely want to Go and leave their organizational setting than those who have not done an internship. These results suggest that many respondents decide before graduation on an organizational setting and continue to desire the same organizational setting after being employed for some time. Future longitudinal research should compare organizational settings-based turnover intentions with turnover intentions related to specific companies, -as a complement to much of the in literature on turnover intentions mostly refers to leaving specific organizations.

This Research to Practice Full Paper outlines the use of an ABET-based engineering self-efficacy scale (ESE-ABET) to successfully measure changes in engineering self-efficacy pre-to-post over a course term. This scale can be used to measure learning progress toward the “instructor's intent” for learning in a class, which will likely be unique to each engineering classroom experience. This scale also shows the differing changes in engineering self-efficacy for groups of students generally underrepresented in engineering education - women, ethnic minorities and first-generation college students. A discussion of the value of having a valid and reliable ABET-based self-efficacy measure is included.

This Research to Practice Full Paper outlines the process of converting the ABET Criterion 3 - Student Outcomes into an engineering self-efficacy scale (ESE-ABET) and in this format compares the current ABET 3.1-7 items with the previous ABET 3a-k items with undergraduate engineering students. In total, survey responses were collected from undergraduate engineering students (n =561) attending five institutions ranging from larger public universities to smaller private universities. Mean comparison, correlation and regression suggests that the ABET Criterion 3 do make valid and reliable measure of overall “engineeringness” self-efficacy and that self-efficacy scales based on ABET 3.1-7 and ABET 3a-k produce nearly identical results. Factor analysis and hierarchical clustering show that the ABET Criteria 3 items tend to form two groups - “Technical Skills” and “Professional Skills” - and this finding may make it easier to use the criteria as an organizing curricular structure and/or a measure of program effectiveness. Support was also found for a short form version (ESE-SF) of this scale when survey capacity is limited. A discussion of the value of having a valid and reliable ABET-based self-efficacy measure is included.

Preliminary findings from the Professional Engineering Pathways Study, a study of career placement processes of undergraduate engineering majors at six diverse US institutions will be presented, and small group discussions guiding the application of the findings to the institutions represented by the audience will be led.

This research explores the intersection of mindfulness and engineering education. Among the reported benefits of mindfulness are enhanced cognitive flexibility, improved concentration, and increased emotional intelligence. These characteristics may be beneficial to engineers as they tackle increasingly complex and interdisciplinary challenges. This research looks at trait mindfulness of 75 students in an introductory engineering course. Results show that mindfulness correlates with business skills self-efficacy (including interpersonal skills) but not with mechanics self-efficacy or final grade. There is also a correlation between mindfulness and the intent to pursue a career in a small company or in an entrepreneurial start-up company. Implications of this research suggest that mindfulness-based classroom activities may help broaden the engineering education experience.

This paper introduces the Professional Engineering Pathways Study (PEPS), a three-year study aimed at developing new understandings of early career engineering career preparedness and decision-making. The project takes a national perspective, drawing on data from six partner institutions across the U.S., and focuses specifically on engineering students' experiences, perceptions, and plans as they look toward their initial career steps. The project involves two critical elements. The research element uses a longitudinal, mixed-method approach to examine how engineering students explore, select, and prepare for their chosen careers. The community of practice element focuses on bridging research-to-practice by engaging administrators, faculty, and staff at the six partner institutions in data interpretation and dissemination activities. This research will help drive continuous improvement in engineering programs and universities. Preliminary results of the study will be presented at the conference.

Research in engineering education has shown that academic programs are often designed based on a projected image of engineering practice. However, this image may be outdated or misaligned with today's actual professional work. To develop a more complete picture, we designed the Engineering Pathways Study (EPS). EPS extends findings from the NSF-funded Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE), and in particular findings from CAEE's multi-method, multi-institutional Academic Pathways Study (APS) research project. Following-up with participants from APS, we are uniquely positioned to explore transitions to the workforce and the needs/experiences of early career professionals (ECP). Over a period of two years, our sequential mixed-methods design uses outcomes from in-depth interviews to develop a survey for a broader sampling. Currently in early phases of interviews and analysis, preliminary findings highlight connections and gaps between current career experiences and academic career preparation.