Investigating Student Engagement in Emerging Technology Career Pathways
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54337/irspbl-11064Keywords:
Emerging technologies, Engineering education, Student perceptions, Career plansAbstract
This study asks the question: How do rural undergraduate engineering students perceive emerging technologies (ET) in relation to their educational and career goals? Conducting semi-structured interviews and using in vivo coding, results are grouped into three themes: defining emerging technology, choosing ET pathways in a sociocultural context, and academic and industry preparation. The findings highlight the complexity of aligning engineering education with evolving industry needs, especially as technologies like generative AI, advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology reshape the workforce. Students are drawn to ET for career aspirations, societal impact, or ethical and philosophical exploration, yet schools often lack opportunities to cultivate these interests. Out-of-school experiences, such as internships, play a key role in skill development. The study suggests that framing ET careers as a means to address societal challenges, rather than focusing solely on skill acquisition, could better align engineering programs with student aspirations. This research emphasizes the need to consider sociocultural factors when designing ET pathways and calls for a broader integration of ethical considerations into engineering curricula. Ultimately, this work challenges traditional engineering education models and advocates for more flexible, forward- thinking approaches to preparing students for an ever-changing technological landscape.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 191–215.
Deming, D. J., & Noray, K. (2020). Earnings dynamics, changing job skills, and STEM careers. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(4), 1965–2005. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjaa021
Gottlieb, J. J. (2018). STEM career aspirations in Black, Hispanic, and White ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(10), 1365–1392. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21456
Rawhiya Jacob, S., Bailey, A., Bers, M. U., Burke, Q., Denner, J., Franklin, D., Leiny Garcia, Gomez-Zwiep, S., Hoadley, C., Hopkins, M., Howard, K., Howard, N., Israel, M., Kafai, Y. B., Okhee Lee, Montoya, J., Parker, M., Pozos, R., Proctor, C., … Warschauer, M. (2021). Computer Science for Multilingual Students Report from the AERA Educational Research Conference. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33417.83043
Nazar, C. R., Barton, A. C., Morris, C., & Tan, E. (2019). Critically engaging engineering in place by localizing counternarratives in engineering design. Science Education, 103(3), 638–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21500
Peppler, K. A., & Warschauer, M. (2011). Uncovering Literacies, Disrupting Stereotypes: Examining the (Dis)Abilities of a Child Learning to Computer Program and Read. International Journal of Learning and Media, 3(3), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/IJLM_a_00073
Perry, A. M. (2022). Why Computing? Motivations and Mathematics to Pursue Postsecondary CIS Education. Journal of Research in Technical Careers, 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.9741/2578-2118.1112 Puckett, C. (2019). Cs4some? Differences in Technology Learning Readiness. Harvard Educational Review, 89(4), 554–587. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.4.554
Rosenzweig, E. Q., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2022). Beyond utility value interventions: The why, when, and how for next steps in expectancy-value intervention research. Educational Psychologist, 57(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1984242
Saldaña, J. (2013). An introduction to codes and coding. In The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2nd ed., pp. 1–40). Sage.
Smit, R., Robin, N., & De Toffol, C. (2020). Explaining secondary students’ career intentions for technology and engineering jobs using an expectancy-value model. Frontiers in Education, 5, 39. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00039
Vakil, S., & McKinney De Royston, M. (2022). Youth as philosophers of technology. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 29(4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2022.2066134
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
