Search

Investigating and designing technologies, objects, or 'built systems' allows students to engage in engineering practices and engineering design. It also enables them to gain direct evidence to support the relationship [...]

Students may exhibit growth mindsets, where intelligence is seen as malleable and failures prompt more effort and new approaches, or fixed mindsets, where intelligence is seen as immutable and failures indicate lack of intelligence. One's mindset in general may be different from that for a particular domain such as engineering. Having a growth mindset predicts more positive learning outcomes. We described the general and engineering mindsets of students in fifth‐grade U.S. classrooms (ages 10 and 11) who received engineering instruction. We explored how general mindsets may predict engineering learning outcomes and how engineering mindsets may be predicted by general mindset and other variables. We collected General Mindset (GM) and Engineering Mindset (EM) surveys from 2,086 fifth graders. We analyzed and correlated their GM and EM scores and survey item responses. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we measured the contribution of GM to models predicting EM and engineering learning outcomes and identified factors that predicted EM. Almost three quarters of students who submitted EM surveys agreed with a growth mindset. Students with higher GM scores had higher engineering postassessment scores. Those who had a higher socioeconomic status did not receive special education services, experienced more whole‐class discussion and activity, or had a higher GM score were more likely to have a more growth‐minded EM score. Engineering education should help students see that they can grow in their capacities to engineer. Instructional interventions may positively impact mindset, which could be particularly important for some students. Engineering design may encourage an especially growth‐minded approach to failure experiences.

Mrs. Nealy approaches a team of girls in her fourth-grade classroom: 'All right, girls, you're on video. Can someone tell us, what three scoops [of materials] did you choose and [...]

As calls for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at the elementary level become more vociferous, elementary teachers may be wondering whether engineering is meant for all students. They [...]

There is considerable variability in conceptions of faculty mentoring in higher education. Rather than view this diversity as a problem, we see it as a potential resource that can inform design, implementation, and evaluation of faculty mentoring. To learn from this diversity, we review the literature on faculty mentoring in higher education to create a conceptual framework of mentoring. The conceptual framework is a tool that program administrators, participants, and evaluators can use to adapt mentoring to the unique needs of particular faculty and institutions.

The article focuses on the new mission and vision for education with the June 2016 approval of the Pre-College Engineering Education (PCEE) Division. Topics covered include PCEE core values including becoming part of the community, improvement in engineering through research and diversity in the engineering workforce. Also mentioned are alignment of PCEE core beliefs with the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and enrichment of community expertise in practice and research.