Discovering Upper-Division Students’ Cognitive Engagement Across Engineering Courses—An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis Approach
By: Allyson Barlow and Shane Brown
References
- Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427–445. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
- Barlow, A., Brown, S., Lutz, B., Pitterson, N., Hunsu, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Development of the Student Course Cognitive Engagement Instrument (SCCEI) for college engineering courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1). DOI: 10.1186/s40594-020-00220-9
- Bédard, D., Lison, C., Dalle, D., & Boutin, N. (2010). Predictors of student’s engagement and persistence in an innovative PBL curriculum: Applications for engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(3), 1–12. DOI: 10.7771/1541-5015.1355
- Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2014). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
- Chasmar, J. M., Melloy, B. J., & Benson, L. (2015). Use of self-regulated learning strategies by second-year industrial engineering students. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition: Making Value for Society. DOI: 10.18260/p.24979
- Chen, J. C., Whittinghill, D. C., & Kadlowec, J. A. (2010). Classes that click: Fast rich feedback to enhance student learning and satisfaction. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 159–168. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01052.x
- Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
- Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., … Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42, 1777–1832. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12626
- Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
- Ciani, K. D., Sheldon, K. M., Hilpert, J. C., & Easter, M. A. (2011). Antecedents and trajectories of achievement goals: A self-determination theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 223–243. DOI: 10.1348/000709910X517399
- Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
- Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- DeMonbrun, M., Finelli, C. J., Prince, M., Borrego, M., Shekhar, P., Henderson, C., & Waters, C. (2017). Creating an instrument to measure student response to instructional practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(2), 273–298. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20162
- Faber, C., & Benson, L. C. (2017). Engineering students’ epistemic cognition in the context of problem solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 677–709. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20183
- Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. DOI: 10.3102/00346543074001059
- Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14–30. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.989230
- Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181–192. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1996.0015
- Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation foreword. In Fourth Generation Evaluation.
- Heller, R. S., Beil, C., Dam, K., & Haerum, B. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 253–261. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01060.x
- Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2011). Increasing the impact and diffusion of STEM education innovations. Invited Paper for the National Academy of Engineering, Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education Forum.
http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx . - Huff, J., & Clements, H. (2018). The hidden person within the frustrated student: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of a student’s experience in a programming course. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. DOI: 10.18260/1-2--28971
- Huff, J. L., Smith, J. A., Jesiek, B. K., Zoltowski, C. B., Graziano, W. G., & Oakes, W. C. (2015). From methods to methodology: Reflection on keeping the philosophical commitments of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Proceedings—Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, (February). DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2014.7044253
- Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspect of motivation in education developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 113–125. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep3402_4
- Hutchinson, J. R., & Huberman, M. (1994). Knowledge and dissemination and use in science and mathematics education: A literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(1). DOI: 10.1007/BF01575814
- Kirn, A., & Benson, L. (2018). Engineering students’ perceptions of problem solving and their future. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(1), 87–112. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20190
- Kirn, A., Godwin, A., Cass, C., Ross, M., & Huff, J. (2017). Mindful methodology: A transparent dialogue on adapting interpretative phenomenological analysis for engineering education research. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. DOI: 10.18260/1-2--28669
- Kirn, A., Huff, J. L., Godwin, A., Ross, M., & Cass, C. (2019). Exploring tensions of using interpretative phenomenological analysis in a domain with conflicting cultural practices. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(2), 305–324. DOI: 10.1080/14780887.2018.1563270
- McGough, C., & Benson, L. (2017). Distribution of characteristic ways that students think about the future in large enrollment engineering classes. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings,
2017-June . DOI: 10.18260/1-2--28187 - National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018). Implications for learning in school. In How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures, (pp. 135–162). DOI: 10.17226/24783
- Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Education Psychology Review, 27. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8
- Pawley, A. L. (2017). Shifting the “default”: The case for making diversity the expected condition for engineering education and making whiteness and maleness visible. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 531–533. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20181
- Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
- Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle jangle and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 3–20). DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
- Sinatra, G. M., & Chinn, C. A. (2011). Thinking and reasoning in science: Promoting epistemic conceptual change. In Critical theories and models of learning and development relevant to learning and teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 257–282). DOI: 10.1037/13275-011
- Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
- Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenonenologial analysis: Theory, method and research. London: SAGE Publications.
- Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2007). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Qualitative Psychology (pp. 53–80). DOI: 10.1002/9781119975144.ch9
- Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87–101. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x
- Stump, G., Hilpert, J., Husman, J., Chung, W.-T., & Kim, W. (2011). Collaborative learning in engineering students: gender and achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 475–497. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00023.x
- Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2013). Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 626–659. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20029
- Zhao, C.-M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138. DOI: 10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/see.5 | Journal eISSN: 2690-5450
Language: English
Page range: 58 - 73
Submitted on: Aug 14, 2019
Accepted on: Oct 1, 2020
Published on: Nov 20, 2020
Published by: Virginia Tech Publishing
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
© 2020 Allyson Barlow, Shane Brown, published by Virginia Tech Publishing
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.