Background: Engineering competition teams (ECTs) allow college students to learn about and practice leadership within a technical domain, yet we know little about the mechanisms by which leadership development occurs within these teams. This paper explores how ECT participation contributes to students' leadership identity development (LID). Purpose: This paper addresses the following research questions: RQ1: How does the ECT experience contribute to students' relational LID? RQ2: What other factors influence ECT participants' LID? RQ3: Does the ECT experience provide opportunities for LID that are different from those provided by other experiences? Design: This paper reports the second phase of a mixed-methods study. ECT members participated in individual semistructured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed via an interpretivist approach using deductive and constant comparative methods. The analysis employed the LID model as the primary theoretical construct. Results: ECTs contributed to most participants' LID. Factors affecting the extent of development included project complexity, team practices related to the claiming and granting of a leadership identity, positional leadership experience, involvement with other organizations, and preconceptions of leadership. Compared with other experiences, ECTs placed more emphasis on leadership based in expertise. Technical competence was considered a key attribute of ECT leaders. Conclusions: ECTs enhanced the LID of most participants, helping them understand leadership as a relational process. The LID model offers promise for designing engineering leadership development programs.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Laboratory-based learning plays an important role in the introductory Ergonomics course at the University of Oklahoma. Qualitative analyses of technical reports over several semesters revealed repeated problems. Students were unfamiliar with academic publications, did not know how to report results, and had difficulty interpreting results. In addition to these problems, other difficulties arose. Students felt overwhelmed. Some developed a dislike for the field of human factors. Several cited the labs as the source of their dissatisfaction. To address these problems, we adopted a new approach to conducting the laboratory portion of the course. We sought to increase student engagement, support learning through scaffolding, increase the rate and quantity of feedback, and provide team-development opportunities. Students' performance in data analysis and technical writing improved over the previous year and throughout the semester. Satisfaction with the course as a whole and the laboratory section in particular improved. We are pleased with the results and plan to continue refining the course design. We hope that this article will inspire discussion of effective techniques in ergonomics laboratory instruction.Laboratory-based learning plays an important role in the introductory Ergonomics course offered by the School of Industrial Engineering at the University of Oklahoma (OU). In addition to providing students the opportunity to gain experience with ergonomics methods, the lab exercises are designed to simulate activities typical of professional industrial engineering practice. This helps students understand the role of ergonomics in a systems context. For many years, the Ergonomics course followed the same format. Students attended lectures three hours per week and attended laboratory sessions on alternating weeks. Working in teams, students conducted five experiments and presented the results in the form of technical reports and executive summaries.Qualitative analyses of the reports over several semesters revealed repeated problems. First, students were unfamiliar with academic publications and the concept of a peer-reviewed journal. They could search Google and Wikipedia for answers, but they did not know how to use campus library resources to find research articles. If they did find a relevant article, they usually did not know how to summarize the results and apply them to their own experiments.Second, students did not know how to report results. Their papers often lacked summary statistics. Figures and tables frequently stood alone, with no accompanying explanation in the text.Third, students had great difficulty analyzing their results. Incorrect interpretations of data were frequent, and students struggled to explain the reasons for and the applicability of results obtained in their experiments.Finally, the papers often lacked cohesion. Students would assign the writing of each section to a different group member. As a result, the problem statement, results, and discussion did not follow a logical flow. In ...