Background Many students may not respond strongly to instruction that they do not perceive as engaging. One pedagogical approach to help engage students involves the use of games. Educational games can provide students with a motivating and stimulating environment while providing them with immediate feedback to promote learning.Purpose This systematic review examines research focused on the implementation of games to teach undergraduate engineering students; it summarizes prevailing features and cites examples from a variety of engineering disciplines. Scope/MethodThe systematic review was conducted through a detailed search of Science Direct journals and the Scopus, Web of Science, Compendex/Inspec, and ERIC Education Research Abstract databases using terms pertinent to games in engineering education. A total of 191 papers was included after application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. After screening those to determine if assessment of student learning outcomes was performed, 62 papers were found suitable for more detailed analysis. ConclusionsResearch on the implementation of games in undergraduate engineering classrooms has shown that, despite diverse forms of assessment applied, there is a general trend that both student learning and attitudes are improved by game-based activities. However, since only a relatively small subset of the literature demonstrates a systematic, validated approach in assessment, significant opportunities remain for future research.Despite many advances in active learning techniques and their dissemination, the predominant method of student instruction remains the transmission model: information is a quantifiable resource, and the instructor's role is to transmit that information to learners, who must store and act upon it (Tishman, Jay, & Perkins, 1993). While the transmission model can be effective when teaching for understanding, it may be less effective in developing skills and providing experiences, such as communication, teamwork, and creativity.Recently, game-based learning has come to the forefront of potential pedagogical methods for educating students and providing them with the motivation and opportunities to practice Journal of Engineering Education V C 2016 ASEE.

Entrepreneurship has seen a significant growth in recent years as a topic taught within engineering curricula. This growth is due in part to technology continuing to drive innovation and the economy (Kauffman Panel on Entrepreneurship Curriculum in Higher Education, 2008). Today's engineers now need to be entrepreneurial in their thinking and actions to effectively contribute to the advancement of technological innovations. Engineering entrepreneurship not only shares the same origins of the more traditional venture creation-focused entrepreneurship but also represents a new discipline influenced by the practices of engineering and education. Our understanding of what exactly defines engineering entrepreneurship is still evolving because theory and research lags behind the significant growth of practice. Theoretical frameworks, research, and reviews of engineering entrepreneurship are needed to advance the understanding of this emerging discipline. This special issue is one such effort that aims to provide a platform for disseminating learning innovations related to the integration of content intended to impact engineering students' understanding of and experience with entrepreneurship. Papers published as a part of this issue specifically provide information pertaining to modifications made to curricula to assist with the development of entrepreneurial characteristics and an entrepreneurial mindset. The focus of these papers ranges from the individual course level (

No abstract

No abstract

Background: There is limited research exploring the experiences of engineering education scholars transitioning into faculty positions. It is an opportune time to explore these transitions because there is a growing number of scholars identifying with the community, a growing number of doctoral programs being developed, and growing interest in hiring people with engineering education expertise. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study is to examine the transitions experienced by our research team of early career engineering education faculty. We describe and systematically analyze our personal experiences to capture the significant events and isolating factors that impacted our transitions. Design/Method: We engaged in a multiphase, multi-method, longitudinal research design grounded in collaborative autoethnography and collaborative inquiry. We leveraged Transition Theory and a multiple case study approach to examine written reflections recorded monthly for two years and ultimately identify the incidents that were critical to defining our experiences within our new roles. Results: While we each held positions in different institutional contexts, we found ourselves negotiating our legitimacy as faculty members, researchers, educators, and administrators. Three themes emerged: 1) understanding the expectations of our roles, 2) establishing our visibility, and 3) fulfilling our own purpose within our institutions. In response to these experiences, we sought support from others within our institutional context and among the engineering education community. Yet, the success of this support-seeking strategy varied across our group. Conclusions: The results of this work signify a need to support early career engineering education scholars in the development of local support networks as well as in their attempts to negotiate their legitimacy in faculty positions. Continued education of administrators and faculty members on the differences between engineering education research and scholarship will be helpful in ensuring that early career engineering education faculty have the support and resources necessary to succeed as researchers and educational change agents.