Kacey Beddoes

Bio: Kacey Beddoes is an academic researcher from San Jose State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Engineering education & Engineering education research. The author has an hindex of 17, co-authored 66 publications receiving 1092 citations. Previous affiliations of Kacey Beddoes include Purdue University & Pennsylvania State University.

Team Effectiveness Theory from Industrial and Organizational Psychology Applied to Engineering Student Project Teams: A Research Review

Abstract: Background Engineering student team projects are frequently used to meet professional learning outcomes. Industrial and organizational psychologists study teams in the industry settings for which we prepare students, yet this research does not effectively inform engineering education. Purpose This research review sought to demonstrate the relevance of literature on teams literature from industrial and organizational psychology to engineering education and to identify implications for practice and future directions for research. Scope/Method Phase 1 systematically reviewed 104 articles published from 2007 to 2012 describing engineering and computer science student team projects and sought to answer the following questions: What professional learning outcomes have been met by team projects? What negative student team behaviors have faculty sought to minimize? What literature has been used to inform development of teamwork outcomes? Phase 2 reviewed five team effectiveness constructs selected according to the results of Phase 1: social loafing, interdependence, conflict, trust, and shared mental models. Examples from Phase 1 articles and our own work explain how this research informs facilitation and assessment of engineering student teams. Conclusions Engineering faculty sought to achieve a variety of outcomes through team projects, including teamwork, communication, sustainability, and consideration of global/societal design context. They sought to avoid social loafing and conflict while building trust to ensure equal team effort. That few Phase 1 articles engaged the literature about team effectiveness indicates there is great opportunity to apply industrial and organizational psychology research to engineering education.

Changing Engineering Education: Views of U.S. Faculty,Chairs, and Deans

Abstract: Background Many reports present a vision of what engineering education should look like, but few describe how this should happen. An American Society for Engineering Education initiative in 2006 attempted to bridge this gap by engaging faculty, chairs, and deans in discussion of change in engineering education; results were reported in a Phase I report (2009). In a second phase, survey data were integrated into a Phase II report (2012). Purpose This article uses the ASEE survey results to identify promising pathways for transforming engineering undergraduate education. Design/Method The survey asked faculty, chairs, and deans at engineering departments at 156 U.S. institutions to reflect on the recommendations of the Phase I report. Quantitative and qualitative responses were separately analyzed and then mixed by mapping findings to the Four Categories of Change Strategies model developed by Henderson et al. (2011), which frames the results and illustrates gaps and opportunities. Results Responses mapped to three of the four categories of the model that were most commonly used in other STEM education efforts: developing and disseminating new instructional approaches, supporting faculty members in their own scholarly teaching, and implementing policies that enable and reward teaching innovation. No responses mapped to developing a shared vision through activities such as strategic planning. Conclusions The greatest promise for transformative change in engineering education lies in developing a shared vision for educational innovation. The findings of this article provide a foundation for ongoing discussion and evaluating progress.

Feminist Theory in Three Engineering Education Journals: 1995–2008

Abstract: Background Women remain underrepresented in engineering despite decades of effort. Feminist theory may explain why some well-intentioned efforts actually reinforce the very conditions they seek to change. Purpose (Hypothesis) Our purpose is to understand and advance the use of feminist theory in engineering education research towards the goals of increasing gender diversity and equity in engineering. Specifically, we seek to address the following questions: How has feminist theory been engaged within engineering education scholar ship? And what opportunities exist for further engagement? Design/Method We analyzed articles from Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), European Journal of Engineering (EJEE), and International Journal of Engineering Education (IJEE) that had women or gender as a central part of their studies. Titles, keywords, and abstracts for every article in the journals were reviewed for the years 1995–2008. The 88 articles directly addressing gender or women in engineering were analyzed to determine their level of engagement with feminist theory. Result Feminist theory is not widely engaged or systematically developed in this scholarship. Most work rests upon implicitly liberal and standpoint feminist theories, but a minority of articles point to intersectional, interactional, and masculinity studies approaches. We identified several ways in which deeper engagement with a wider range of feminist theories can benefit engineering education scholarship. Conclusion Feminist theory is underutilized within engineering education scholarship. Further engagement with, and systematic development of, feminist theory could be one beneficial way to move the field forward.

‘Different people have different priorities’: work–family balance, gender, and the discourse of choice

Abstract: This paper contributes new perspectives on the underrepresentation of female faculty in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines by identifying how faculty themselves conceptualize or make sense of the problem. We conducted in-depth interviews with 19 STEM faculty members. The interviews were employed to identify discourses faculty engage in their explanations for underrepresentation. Work–family balance emerged as the leading theme, with participants identifying many challenges thereto. As participants discussed work–family balance, they engaged a discourse of choice to frame the challenges faced by female faculty members in particular. We relate the discourse of choice to the persistence of gender inequalities in STEM departments.

Identifying Opportunities for Collaborations in International Engineering Education Research on Problem- and Project-based Learning

Abstract: We report on the results of a study to examine the global state of engineering education research on problem- and project-based learning (PBL). This paper has two major aims. First, we analyze a large collection of conference papers and journal articles to report on research trends in PBL, including in specifi c, leading countries. Second, based upon our analysis as well as a literature review of meta-analyses/syntheses of PBL literature, we propose a theoretical model for conceptualizing international research collaborations. Based on this model, we make recommendations for future initiatives, including multinational collaborations for research on PBL in engineering education.

Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives

Abstract: Introduction - after the science question in feminism. Part 1 Science: feminism confronts the sciences how the women's movement benefits science - two views why \"physics\" is a bad model for physics. Part 2 Epistemology: what is feminist epistemology \"strong objectivity\" and socially situated knowledge feminist epistemology in and after the enlightenment. Part 3 \"Others\": \"...and race?\" - the science question in global feminism common histories, common destinies - science in the first and third worlds \"real science\" thinking from the perspective of lesbian lives reinventing ourselves as other Conclusion - what is a feminist science.

Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases

Abstract: Traditional engineering instruction is deductive, beginning with theories and progressing to the applications of those theories Alternative teaching approaches are more inductive Topics are introduced by presenting specific observations, case studies or problems, and theories are taught or the students are helped to discover them only after the need to know them has been established This study reviews several of the most commonly used inductive teaching methods, including inquiry learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based teaching, discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching The paper defines each method, highlights commonalities and specific differences, and reviews research on the effectiveness of the methods While the strength of the evidence varies from one method to another, inductive methods are consistently found to be at least equal to, and in general more effective than, traditional deductive methods for achieving a broad range of learning outcomes

Bruno Latour, The pasteurization of France , trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law, Cambridge, Mass., and London, Harvard University Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. 273, £23.95. - Georges Canguilhem, Ideology and rationality in the history of the life sciences , trans. Arthur Goldhammer, Cambridge, Mass., and London, The MIT Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. xi, 160, £17.95.

Abstract: BRUNO LATOUR, The pasteurization of France, trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law, Cambridge, Mass., and London, Harvard University Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. 273, £23.95. GEORGES CANGUILHEM, Ideology and rationality in the history of the life sciences, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, Cambridge, Mass., and London, The MIT Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. xi, 160, £17.95. Bruno Latour has written a wonderfully funny book about himself. It is difficult, however, to summarize a text committed to the view that \"Nothing is, by itself, either reducible or irreducible to anything else\", (p. 158). In Latour's opinion, the common view that sociologists of knowledge and scientists are opposed is incorrect. Both groups, according to Latour, are the authors of identical mistakes: reductionism and, relatedly, attempting to conjoin (in the instance of the sociologist) science and society, or (in the instance of the scientist) keeping them apart. For Latour, there are only forces or resistances which different groups encounter and attempt to conquer by forming alliances. These groups, however, are not simply the actors of conventional sociology. They include, for example, microbes, the discovery of the Pasteurians, with which they have populated our world and which we must now take notice of in any encounter or war in which we engage. War is a fundamental metaphor for Latour, since in a war or a battle clashes of armies are later called the \"victory\" of a Napoleon or a Kutuzov. Likewise, he argues, the Pasteurization of France can be viewed as a battle, with its field and its myriad contestants, in which opposing sides attempted to mould and coerce various forces of resistance. Strangely, he points out, the outcome of this huge battle, the labour and struggle of these masses, we attribute to the scientific genius of Pasteur. Pasteur's genius, however, says Latour, lay not in science (for this could be yet another way of making science and society distinct) but as strategist. Pasteur was able to cross disciplinary lines, recruiting allies to laboratory science by persuading them that they were recruiting him. This was possible because, like the armies in battle, they had already done the work of the general. Thus Pasteur's microbiology, which might conventionally be seen as a whole new science, can also be construed as a brilliant reformulation of all that preceded it and made it possible. Hygienists seized on the work of the Pasteurians and the two rapidly became powerful allies because \"The time that they [the hygienists] had made was now working for them\" (p. 52). French physicians, on the other hand, resisted recruitment, since for them it meant enslavement. Finally, however, they recruited the Pasteurians to their enterprise. Pasteurian public health was turned into a triumph of medicine. It is impossible to read this book and not substitute Latour for Pasteur. At the head of his own army, increasingly enlarged by the recruitment of allies, Latour now presents us, in his own language, with something we have made, or at least made possible. The cynic might say, using the old jibe against sociologists, that Latour has explained to us in his own language everything we knew anyway. Retorting thus, however, would be to unselfconsciously make an ally of Latour and miss the point by a narrow margin that might as well be a million miles. Latour says all this much more clearly (and certainly more wittily) than any review. Read it, but beware; in spite of Latour's strictures about irreducibility, the text is not what it seems. This is a recruitment brochure: Bruno needs you. Among the many historians whom Latour convicts by quotation of mistaking the general for the army, Pasteur for all the forces at work in French society, is Georges Canguilhem. Latour uses two quotes from Canguilhem, both taken from the original French version of Ideology and rationality in the life sciences, first published in 1977. Reading Canguilhem after Latour induces a feeling akin to culture shock. Astonishingly, Canguilhem seems almost Anglo-American. Anyone familiar with Canguilhem's epistemological universe would hardly be surprised to discover that Latour finds in it perspectives different from his own. After all, Canguilhem remains committed to the epistemologically distinct entity science or, better still, sciences. Likewise he employs distinctions between science and ideology, as in Spencerian ideology and Darwinian science, which will seem familiar, possibly jaded to English-reading eyes. His text is liberally seeded with unLatourian expressions, including injunctions to distinguish \"between ideology and science\" (p. 39), lamentations that eighteenth-century medicine \"squandered its energy in the erection of systems\" (p. 53), rejoicing that physiology \"liberated itself' from classical anatomy (p. 54), and regret that \"Stahl's influence ... seriously impeded experimental