Exploring the Social and Cultural Dimensions of Learning for Recent Engineering Graduates during the School-to-Work Transition

Abstract

The school-to-work transition is a challenging period for engineering graduates. In contrast to most engineering curricula, workplace learning involves organizations, people, cultures, and a range of non-technical and technical elements. Where many researchers have focused on skills gaps across school and work, we focus here on contexts gaps, or shifts in learning processes across organizational settings. Using reflective journals and semi-structured interviews, we explored significant learning events during recent engineering graduates’ school-to-work transition. Using theories of organizational socialization, we characterize significant experiences related to social and cultural dimensions of participants’ new organizational roles. Newcomers in this study reported learning related to, for example, forming relationships, learning local language, interacting with power structures, and other features of their organizations. Results offer points of contrast in which we compare learning processes and highight critical differences across school and workplace settings. Findings suggest that engineering educators should consider the broad spectrum of learning that takes place as graduates transition to their new professional roles. By better understanding the role of context in organizational learning, educators can more effectively prepare recent graduates for contemporary practice and develop a deeper appreciation for the interconnectedness of the social, cultural, and technical dimensions of engineering work.

KEYWORDS:

• Social and cultural learning
• qualitative methods
• school-to-work transition
• professional formation
• engineering education

Acknowledgement

This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number 1607811. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Mann, A Study of Engineering Education; Grinter, “Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education”; NAE, Educating the Engineer of 2020; American Society of Mechanical Engineers Center for Education, “Vision 2030.”

2 Paretti, “Teaching Communication in Capstone Design”; Jonassen, “Engineers as Problem Solvers”; Buch, “Ideas of Holistic Engineering Meet Engineering Work Practices.”

3 Paretti et al., “Process Matter(s)”

4 Jonassen, Strobel, and Lee, “Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering..”

5 Rooney et al., “Using Practice Theory to Investigate Professional Engineers’ Workplace Learning”; Reich et al., “Engineers’ Professional Learning”

6 Bucciarelli, “An Ethnographic Perspective on Engineering Design.”

7 Anderson, Courter, McGlamery, Nathans-Kelly, & Nicometo, “Understanding Engineering Work and Identity.”

8 Trevelyan, “Reconstructing Engineering from Practice.”

9 Trevelyan, The Making of an Expert Engineer.

10 Lang et al., “Industry Expectations of New Engineers”; Rugarcia et al., “The Future of Engineering Education I.”

11 Jonassen, “Engineers as Problem Solvers.”

12 Riley, “Engineering and Social Justice”; Faulkner, “Dualisms, Hierarchies and Gender in Engineering.”

13 Faulkner, “Dualisms, Hierarchies and Gender in Engineering”; Faulkner, “Nuts and Bolts and People’.”

14 Kotys-Schwartz, Besterfield-Sacre, and Shuman, “Informal Learning in Engineering Education”; Polmear, Chau, and Simmons, “Ethics as an Outcome of Out-of-Class Engagement across Diverse Groups of Engineering Students”; Simmons, Polmear, and Lord, “Impactful for Whom?”; Stevens et al., “Becoming an Engineer.”

15 Cairns, “Learning in the Workplace: Communities of Practice and Beyond.”

16 Margaret, The SAGE Handbook of Workplace Learning.

17 Korte, Brunhaver, and Sheppard, “(Mis) Interpretations of Organizational Socialization,” 192.

18 Trevelyan, “Are We Accidentally Misleading Students about Engineering Practice?”

19 Korte, Brunhaver, and Sheppard, “(Mis) Interpretations of Organizational Socialization.”

20 Clark et al., “Academic Pathways Study”; Sheppard et al., “Engineering Pathways Study”; Brunhaver et al., “Professional Engineering Pathways Study”

21 Korte, Sheppard, and Jordan, “A Qualitative Study of the Early Work Experiences of Recent Graduates in Engineering.”

22 Sheppard et al., “Work in Progress—Engineering Pathways Study”

23 Martin et al., “Engineering Graduates' Perceptions of How Well They Were Prepared for Work in Industry.”

24 Ford et al., “Transitioning from Capstone Design Courses to Workplaces”; Gewirtz et al., “New Engineers’ First Three Months”; Howe et al., “Women’s Experiences in the Transition from Capstone Design Courses to Engineering Workplaces.”

25 Stevens, Johri, and O’Connor, “Professional Engineering Work”; Bauer et al., “Newcomer Adjustment during Organizational Socialization.”

26 American Society of Mechanical Engineers Center for Education, “Vision 2030”; Clough, “The Engineer of 2020”; Trevelyan, “Reconstructing Engineering from Practice.”

27 Brunhaver et al., “Bridging the Gaps between Engineering Education and Practice”; Wisniewski, “Novice Engineers and Project Management Communication in the Workplace.”

28 See, for example, Hora et al.’s critique of universities as site of job training. They argue in part that narratives about skills gaps allow corporations to shift the responsibility and expense of employee development onto universities. Within engineering, Walther and Radcliffe’s nuanced critique highlights goal conflicts and differences in definitions of competence that generate tension between universities and workplaces.

29 Stevens, Johri, and O’Connor, “Professional Engineering Work”; Bauer et al., “Newcomer Adjustment during Organizational Socialization”; Hora, Beyond the Skills Gap; Walther and Radcliffe, “The Competence Dilemma in Engineering Education.”

30 Jesiek, Buswell, and Nittala, “Performing at the Boundaries”

31 e.g., Trevelyan, “Reconstructing Engineering from Practice.”; Anderson et al., “Understanding Engineering Work and Identity.”, Trevelyan, The Making of an Expert Engineer.

32 Paretti et al., “Board# 116: Collaborative Research: From School to Work”; Lutz and Paretti, “Into the Workplace”; Lutz and Paretti, “Exploring School-to-Work Transitions through Reflective Journaling.”

33 Beddoes, “Examining Privilege in Engineerig Socialization Through the Stories of Newcomers.”

34 Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, “Organizational Socialization.”

35 Chao et al., “Organizational Socialization”; Allen et al., “Taking Stock of Two Relational Aspects of Organizational Life”; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., “Support, Undermining, and Newcomer Socialization”; Lu and Tjosvold, “Socialization Tactics”; Beus et al., “Adjusting to New Work Teams.”

36 Lutz, “Into the Workplace.”

37 Lutz and Paretti, “Into the Workplace.”

38 Lutz and Paretti, “Into the Workplace”; Wallin, “From Tissue Engineering to Engineering Education Research”; Wallin and Adawi, “The Reflective Diary as a Method for the Formative Assessment of Self-Regulated Learning.”

39 Beddoes, “Examining Privilege in Socialization.”

40 Wieder and Zimmerman, “The Diary: Diary Interview Methods.”

41 Wieder and Zimmerman, “The Diary.”

42 Lutz, “Into the Workplace.”

43 Rossman and Rallis, Learning in the Field.

44 https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report/chapter-3/s-e-workers-in-the-economy/employer-size

45 Collins, “Engineering Graduate Preparedness for the Workplace”; American Society of Mechanical Engineers Center for Education, “Vision 2030”; Clough, “The Engineer of 2020.”

46 Jesiek, Buswell, and Nittala, “Performing at the Boundaries.”

47 Lutz, “Into the Workplace.”

48 Molesworth, Nixon, and Scullion, “Having, Being and Higher Education”; Bunce, Baird, and Jones, “The Student-as-Consumer Approach in Higher Education and Its Effects on Academic Performance.”

49 Arnold, Coombs, and Gubler, “Career Anchors and Preferences for Organizational Career Management.”

50 Graduate students, however, may encounter parallel ethical dilemas in their research.

51 Lutz, Canney, and Brunhaver, “‘I Wish I Could Do More’.”

52 https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2020-2021/

53 Gewirtz and Paretti, “Becoming After College.”

54 Seymour and Hewitt, Talking about Leaving; Ohland et al., “Persistence, Engagement, and Migration in Engineering Programs”; Lichtenstein et al., “Retention and Persistence of Women and Minorities along the Engineering Pathway in the United States”; Stevens et al., “Becoming an Engineer.”

55 Foor, Walden, and Trytten, “‘I Wish That I Belonged More in This Whole Engineering Group’.”

56 Weidler-Lewis, “Transformation and Stasis.”

57 One exception might be capstone design courses, though even there students rarely occupy the role George describes.

58 Gewirtz and Paretti, “Becoming After College.”

59 Foor, Walden, and Trytten, “‘I Wish That I Belonged More in This Whole Engineering Group’”; Stevens et al., “Becoming an Engineer”; Martin, Simmons, and Yu, “The Role of Social Capital in the Experiences of Hispanic Women Engineering Majors.”

60 Lee and Matusovich, “A Model of Co-Curricular Support for Undergraduate Engineering Students.”

61 Wenger, Communities of Practice.

62 Kunda, Engineering Culture.

63 Gewirtz & Paretti, “Becoming After College.”

64 Foor, Walden, and Trytten, “‘I Wish That I Belonged More in This Whole Engineering Group’.”

65 Korte, “How Newcomers Learn the Social Norms of an Organization”; Korte, “Learning How Things Work Here.”

66 Friedensen, Rodriguez, and Doran, “The Making of ‘Ideal’Electrical and Computer Engineers.”

67 Korte, “How Newcomers Learn the Social Norms of an Organization.”

68 Kumar and Hsiao, “Engineers Learn ‘Soft Skills the Hard Way’”; Schuhmann, “Engineering Leadership Education.”; Lingard and Barkataki, “Teaching Teamwork in Engineering and Computer Science.”

69 Beddoes, “Examining Privilege in Socialization.”

70 Carmeli, Brueller, and Dutton, “Learning Behaviours in the Workplace”; Wenger, Communities of Practice.

71 Jesiek, Buswell, and Nittala, “Performing at the Boundaries.”

72 Paretti et al., “When the Teacher Is the Audience.”

73 Paretti, “Teaching Communication in Capstone Design.”

74 Lave and Wenger, Situated Learning.

75 Tonso, “‘Plotting Something Dastardly’”; Redish, “Introducing Students to the Culture of Physics.”

76 Wenger, “Communities of Practice.”

77 Gewirtz and Paretti, “Becoming After College.”