Differences in perceptions of studies between cohorts of engineering students

Differences in perceptions of studies between cohorts of engineering students

T. Jungert (2008).  Differences in perceptions of studies between cohorts of engineering students . 15.

This paper draws on a larger longitudinal study and is based on 1775 questionnaire responses from five questionnaires and students in four cohorts of students in Applied Physics and Electrical Engineering. Two cohorts studied in a traditional setting whereas two cohorts followed the CDIO curriculum. The research questions concern differences in perceptions of workload, opportunities to cooperate, influence and interact with teachers between cohorts and over time. The first three cohorts perceived the workload as heaviest in the third year and the last cohort during their fourth year. Female students experienced heavier workloads than male students, but an interaction effect showed that females of last two cohorts experienced lower workloads than the first two cohorts. Studying in groups peaked during the third year. Later cohorts consistently experienced better opportunities to cooperate with peer students. Opportunities to influence the studies and having contacts with teachers increased over time and the last cohort had best such experiences. The last cohort experienced a stable pattern of significantly less social isolation, while the other cohorts experienced more variation and more social isolation. Students identified themselves more, were more proud of studying and had more faith in the quality of the program over time. 

Authors (New): 
Tomas Jungert
Pages: 
15
Affiliations: 
Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Keywords: 
Longitudinal study
Workload
cooperation
Social Isolation
project courses
Year: 
2008
Reference: 
Edvarsson Stiwne E. (Ed.), Studentens första år. En jämförelse mellan 4 årskullar teknologstudenter. Tekniska högskolans rapporter nr 2005:1, Linköpings universitet, Linköping, 2005.: 
Edvardsson Stiwne E., “Situated conceptions of learning and the reforming of an engineering programme”, World Transaction on Engineering and Technology Education,Vol. 5(2), 2006, pp 353-356. : 
Jungert T., “The effects of the CDIO curriculum on engineering students’ experiences of their study environment”, World Transaction on Engineering and Technology Education,Vol. 5(2), 2006, pp 357-360. : 
Jungert T., “Opportunities of student influence as a context for the development of engineering students’ study motivation”, Social Psychology of Education, Vol. 11, 2008, pp 79-94. : 
Jungert T., “A longitudinal study of engineering students’ approaches to their studies”, Manuscript accepted to be published in Higher Education Research and Development, 2008. : 
Candy P.C. and Crebert R.G., “Ivory Tower to Concrete Jungle: The Difficult Transition from the Academy to the Workplace as Learning Environments”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 62(5), 1991, pp 570-592.: 
Kolmos A., Forandring til projektarbejde og PBL – hvad og hvordan? In Kolmos A. and Krogh L. (Eds), Projektpaedagogik i udvikling, Aalborgs universitetsforlag, Aalborg, 2002. : 
Ames C., “Classrooms: Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 84(3), 1992, pp 261-271.: 
Blumenfeld P., Soloway E., Marx R. and Krajcik J., “Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning”, Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 1991, pp 369-398. : 
Boaler J., “Equity, Empowerment and Different Ways of Knowing”, Mathematics Education Research Journal, Vol. 9(3), 1997, pp 325-342. : 
Boaler J., “Open and Closed Mathematics: Student Experiences and Understandings”, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 29(1), 1998, pp 41-62. : 
Barlex D., Organizing project work. In Banks, F. (Ed.), Teaching Technology, Routledge, London, 1994: 
Waks S. and Merdler M., “Identifying creativity factors associated with final project in technology/engineering education”, Research in Science and Technological Education, Vol. 14, 2003, pp 83-90. : 
Gibson S., “Using a Problem Based, Multimedia Enhanced Approach in Learning about Teaching”, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 18(3), 2002, pp 394-409. : 
Waks S. and Sabag N., “Technology Project Learning versus Lab Experimentation”, Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 13(3), 2004, pp 333-342. : 
House J. and Kahn R., “Measures and concepts of social support”. In Cohen S. and Syme S.L. (Eds), Social support and health, Academic Press, Orlando, 1985. : 
Wilcox P., Winn S. and Fyvie-Gauld M., “‘It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people’: the role of social support in the first-year experiences of higher education”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 30, 2005, pp 707-722. : 
Weidman J.C., Twale D.J. and Stein E.L., Socialization of Graduate and Professional Students in Higher Education – a perilous passage? Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, 2001.: 
Ryan R. and Deci E., “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55(1), 2000, pp 68-78. : 
Reeve J., Understanding motivation and emotion. 4th ed, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2005. : 
Go to top