ORCID Profile
0000-0002-9929-5587
Current Organisation
Purdue University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 27-08-2023
DOI: 10.1002/JEE.20552
Abstract: Engineers operate in an increasingly global environment, making it important that engineering students develop global engineering competency to prepare them for success in the workplace. To understand this learning, we need assessment approaches that go beyond traditional self‐report surveys. A previous study (Jesiek et al., Journal of Engineering Education 2020 109(3):1–21) began this process by developing a situational judgment test (SJT) to assess global engineering competency based in the Chinese context and administering it to practicing engineers. We built on this previous study by administering the SJT to engineering students to explore what prior experiences related to their SJT performance and how their SJT performance compared with practicing engineers' performance on the SJT. Engineering students completed a survey including the SJT and related self‐report survey instruments. We collected data from three groups of students: those who had studied abroad in China those who had studied abroad elsewhere and those who had not studied abroad. We found that students' SJT performance did not relate to their scores on the self‐report instruments, but did relate to their participation in study abroad programs. The students also performed better on the SJT when compared to the practicing engineers. Our results highlight the need to use multiple forms of assessment for global engineering competence. Although building evidence for the validity of the Global Engineering Competency China SJT is an ongoing process, this data collection technique may provide new insights on global engineering competency compared to traditionally used assessments.
Publisher: ASEE Conferences
Date: 2017
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--27622
Publisher: University of Rhode Island
Date: 30-10-2018
Publisher: ASEE Conferences
Date: 2018
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--30187
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 18-03-2022
DOI: 10.1007/S10734-022-00836-6
Abstract: There is an increasing emphasis on assessing student learning outcomes from study abroad experiences, but this assessment often focuses on a limited range of outcomes and assessment methods. We argue for shifting to assessing student learning processes in study abroad and present the critical incident technique as one approach to achieve this goal. We demonstrate this approach in interviews with 79 students across a range of global engineering programs, through which we identified 173 incidents which were analyzed to identify common themes. This analysis revealed that students described a wide range of experiences and outcomes from their time abroad. Students’ experiences were messy and complex, making them challenging to understand through typical assessment approaches. Our findings emphasize the importance of using a range of assessment approaches and suggest that exploring students’ learning processes in addition to learning outcomes could provide new insights to inform the design of study abroad programs.
Publisher: ASEE Conferences
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--35626
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 04-2020
DOI: 10.1002/SDR.1659
Publisher: ASEE Conferences
Date: 2018
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--31039
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 21-03-2023
DOI: 10.1007/S10956-023-10027-2
Abstract: Self-report assessments are used frequently in higher education to assess a variety of constructs, including attitudes, opinions, knowledge, and competence. Systems thinking is an ex le of one competence often measured using self-report assessments where in iduals answer several questions about their perceptions of their own skills, habits, or daily decisions. In this study, we define systems thinking as the ability to see the world as a complex interconnected system where different parts can influence each other, and the interrelationships determine system outcomes. An alternative, less-common, assessment approach is to measure skills directly by providing a scenario about an unstructured problem and evaluating respondents’ judgment or analysis of the scenario (scenario-based assessment). This study explored the relationships between engineering students’ performance on self-report assessments and scenario-based assessments of systems thinking, finding that there were no significant relationships between the two assessment techniques. These results suggest that there may be limitations to using self-report assessments as a method to assess systems thinking and other competencies in educational research and evaluation, which could be addressed by incorporating alternative formats for assessing competence. Future work should explore these findings further and support the development of alternative assessment approaches.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 16-07-2021
Publisher: ASEE Conferences
Date: 2018
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--31008
Publisher: ASEE Conferences
Date: 2017
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--28194
No related grants have been discovered for Kirsten Davis.