Universities across the United States have integrated international experiences into their engineering students' education. International engineering programs provide learning and professional opportunities for participating faculty and students while aiding international partners in their own efforts. These programs are unique from traditional engineering courses and projects and generate outcomes desired for engineers entering the workforce including professional skills, critical thinking skills, and a strong understanding of their target audiences. While individual programs have explored the impacts of their programs on their students and their resulting project outcomes, there are significant gaps when considering the following: 1) how are programs structured, 2) what are the intended learning outcomes, 3) why do faculty participate in these programs, 4) how are relationships formed and maintained with international partners, and 5) what barriers exist that limit international engineering programs? To address these gaps, I interviewed 25 program faculty and 40 students. Through qualitative analysis of these interviews, I found that programs shared a common consideration for the program's focus on student learning or achieving international partner goals. Programs approached both structure and learning outcomes with either more emphasis on one or the other; balancing these two goals was a challenge for most programs. Faculty were motivated to participate in international engineering programs by their own intrinsic values, however, many felt limited when in traditional tenure track positions. Students tended to reflect more deeply and from a systems perspective the more exposure and time in a program. Students who engaged in either multiple programs or longer participation within a program tended to reflect their experiences contributed more to their current and future career plans. Partners were typically developed initially through personal relationships of the faculty members or through third-party organizations that specialize in international work. Maintaining relationships was highly varied between programs, but a common deficit among programs was the ability to evaluate project outcomes with partners in a numerical way. The examination of these questions about international engineering programs provides a foundation of knowledge for future programs to build on and for existing programs to compare their approaches. This is a critical step to implementing these types of programs in a more widespread and intentional way. / Doctor of Philosophy / Universities across the United States have added international experiences into their engineering students' education. International engineering programs provide learning and professional opportunities for participating faculty and students while aiding international partners in their own efforts. These programs are unique from traditional engineering courses and projects and help students learn professional skills, critical thinking skills, and a strong understanding of their target audiences to prepare them for jobs. While individual programs have explored the impacts of their programs on their students and their resulting project outcomes, we don't know the following: 1) how are programs structured, 2) what are the intended learning outcomes, 3) why do faculty participate in these programs, 4) how are relationships formed and maintained with international partners, and 5) what barriers exist that limit international engineering programs? To answer these questions, I interviewed 25 program faculty and 40 students. I transcribed and used qualitative coding to analyze the data from faculty and students. Through these interviews, I found that programs shared a common consideration for the program's focus on student learning or achieving international partner goals. Each primary focus leverages different aspects of program design, learning, and participation outcomes to achieve those goals. Faculty were motivated to participate in international engineering programs by their own personal and moral values, however many felt limited when they held traditional tenure track positions. Students tended to reflect more deeply and from a systems perspective the more exposure that they had to a program in terms of length. While participation one time led to valuable learning and reflected learning, those that engaged in either multiple programs or longer programs tended to consider more components of their experiences as it affected their current and future plans. Partners were typically developed initially through personal relationships of the faculty members or through third party organizations who specialize in international work. Maintaining relationships was highly varied between programs, but a common deficit among programs was the ability to evaluate project outcomes with partners in a numerical way. These answers help future programs to strategically build programs and helps existing programs compare their program to others.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:VTETD/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/115674 |
| Date | 06 July 2023 |
| Creators | Baugher, Brooke Erin |
| Contributors | Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shealy, Earl Wade, Kaminsky, Jessica, Iorio, Josh, Paige, Frederick Eugene, Baird, Timothy David |
| Publisher | Virginia Tech |
| Source Sets | Virginia Tech Theses and Dissertation |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Dissertation |
| Format | ETD, application/pdf |
| Rights | In Copyright, http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds