Post-graduation Plans of Undergraduate BME Students: Gender, Self-efficacy, Value, and Identity Beliefs
- PDF / 779,616 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 593.972 x 792 pts Page_size
- 42 Downloads / 133 Views
Annals of Biomedical Engineering (Ó 2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-020-02693-9
Original Article
Post-graduation Plans of Undergraduate BME Students: Gender, Self-efficacy, Value, and Identity Beliefs ANITA PATRICK ,1 MAURA BORREGO,1 and CATHERINE RIEGLE-CRUMB2 1
The Center for Engineering Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 2501 Speedway, Austin, TX 78712, USA; and 2 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, STEM Education, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA (Received 4 August 2020; accepted 12 November 2020) Associate Editor Jane Grande-Allen oversaw the review of this article.
Abstract—This study investigates career intentions and students’ engineering attitudes in BME, with a focus on gender differences. Data from n = 716 undergraduate biomedical engineering students at a large public research institution in the United States were analyzed using hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis. Results revealed five clusters of intended post-graduation plans: Engineering Job and Graduate School, Any Job, Non-Engineering Job and Graduate School, Any Option, and Any Graduate School. Women were evenly distributed across clusters; there was no evidence of gendered career preferences. The main findings in regard to engineering attitudes reveal significant differences by cluster in interest, attainment value, utility value, and professional identity, but not in academic self-efficacy. Yet, within clusters the only gender differences were women’s lower engineering academic self-efficacy, interest and professional identity compared to men. Implications and areas of future research are discussed. Keywords—Women, Biomedical engineering education, Bioengineering education, Cluster analysis, Survey, Career choice, Motivation.
INTRODUCTION Recent national reports continue to document how engineering needs to attract the best and brightest students to enhance economic productivity and improve quality of life worldwide.11 Arguments for diversity in engineering range from the competitive advantages of having more critical thinkers, inventors, and problem-solvers in the field, to promoting social justice and equity.2 Having a more diverse population Address correspondence to Anita Patrick, The Center for Engineering Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 2501 Speedway, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Electronic mail: [email protected]
of engineers may help encourage more women and minorities to pursue this area of study and eventually join the engineering workforce. The practical implications are that once a critical mass of those who are traditionally under-represented in engineering enter and remain in the engineering workforce, this will then lead to more innovative solutions to the grand challenges facing society.2 Yet despite this acknowledged need for diversity, engineering still has one of the lowest percentages of women degree holders among STEM fields24 and women account for only 13% of the total U.S. engineering workforce.6 Yet, within engineering, Bio/biomedical engineering (BME) stands out as
Data Loading...
