Informal Learning in Engineering

With new technological developments and non-curricular resources and opportunities, sites of engineering work and learning have expanded. There is now a greater need to better understand how students learn engineering across different contexts, both formally designed and informal opportunities. In this paper we present a review of current literature on informal learning in engineering and outline a framework, drawn from the situated learning paradigm, for better understanding informal learning within engineering. We present findings from preliminary empirical research we have undertaken. Our review and preliminary studies provide evidence for the efficacy of informal opportunities for improving engineering learning. Finally, we discuss directions for future theoretical and empirical work. Introduction Successful education and training of engineers is essential for the long term growth of the economy and continuous improvement of our quality of life. Experts agree that we need to produce an innovative and creative workforce, one that is able to “work smarter,” lead, engage with new domains and new group configurations, and utilize technology-mediated learning environments in innovative ways [36, 37]. Even professional engineers agree that if they want to be successful in the 21st century, they need to acquire technical excellence, innovative thinking, and the ability to work in fast changing dynamic environments [7, 36]. To provide engineering students the opportunity to gain these skills, there is a call for a fundamental retooling of how we educate engineers [38]. Scholars and practitioners engaged with these efforts agree that several barriers to change exist at the institutional level but are increasingly optimistic about reform [2, 36, 37]. The optimism comes from the recognition that advances can be made in engineering education by changing not just access to content and data but also the manner in which education is organized [36, 37]. One alternate mechanism that is now accepted as central to revising the current model of education is emphasizing and improving learning that occurs in informal settings [3, 15]. Researchers have found that through their lifetime people only spend about 14% of their time in formal learning environments and even when people are part of formal environments they undertake significant learning through informal activities [3, 20]. Although efforts to understand learning in informal environments have a significant lineage in science education, with a few exceptions, they have not yet made their way into engineering education. Therefore, improving and increasing informal learning opportunities to advance engineering education is an untapped opportunity. The lack of research on informal learning within engineering education was highlighted in the EE2020 report, which raised the question, “How can formal education be better integrated with informal and lifelong learning by engineering graduates?” [37, p. 177]. The recently released report on Discipline-based Educational Research (DBER) [44] further argues that it is “important to augment current understanding of which field activities generate different kinds of learning and which teaching methods are most effective for different audiences, settings, expected learning outcomes, or types of field experiences. DBER scholars also should explore K-12, graduate, and informal education, as appropriate.” Similarly, a recent workshop report on Lifelong Learning released by the NAE also accepted that what was missing from the workshop discussion “but necessary to consider” are “the implications of communities of interest in lifelong learning and also semiand informal communities of practice [17, pg. 15].” This report further stated that “When considering whether non-traditional learning processes; e.g., informal learning, can achieve credibility, the key is certification [17, pg. 13]”. Therefore, though there is significant interest and momentum in understanding, improving, and assessing informal engineering learning, student learning in informal settings has received limited attention from engineering educators [11, 43]. Engineering Education Research Related to Informal Learning The term “informal” within the scholarly literature has had a checkered history and the idea captured by the term “informal learning” [3, 13] is shared by many other terms that have emerged as a contrast against didactic teaching in formal environments [6, 10, 18, 22]. These include – “lifelong learning” [1, 10, 19], “non-formal learning” [18], and “self-directed learning” [29, 34]. Scholars who have studied informal learning see it in different ways. In the domain of science education research is directed towards investigation of interest-driven learning of science in out-of-school settings museums or out-of-school groups, science camp and enrichment programs [3, 20, 25]. We are aware of these debates surrounding informal learning and are cognizant that one of the goals of our studies will be to investigate students’ understanding of out-of-class and non-coursework related learning. In other words, how do students’ conceive of their experiences? In the past decade the engineering education community has undertaken substantial research projects, as evident in articles published in engineering education journals, to develop a knowledge base about persistence, retention, identity, and cognitive issues such as misconceptions. Several strands from this work have implications for examining informal engineering learning. One strand in particular, professional engineering work, for instance, has looked extensively at informal learning in the workplace. [23] have shown conclusively that learning on the job is a more critical than all the technical knowledge engineers bring with them to their jobs. They investigated engineers’ knowledge use through a field study of structural engineers where they isolated 1072 episodes of knowledge use. They then constructed a “knowledge profile” that revealed temporal patterns in the frequency with which the engineers used each knowledge type. Two-thirds of the knowledge engineers used was practice-generated i.e. generated and acquired on their job through informal means. The development of identity is also shaped by the opportunities for activities and participation available to students. Many nonformal activities shape student identity. However, the overall “climate” of engineering programs often does not support diverse identities. Research on retention and persistence makes clear that diverse opportunities and diverse supports are needed for successful engineering education. One of the major research programs that has shaped our thinking and research study is the Academic Pathways Study (APS) undertaken by scholars from multiple institutions under the aegis of the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE) [9]. Although not exclusively, APS has examined and reported on many informal activities in which engineering students participate and discusses students’ self-report of their participation. The study found that students, classified as, “High Involvement” and “Low Involvement” were opposite on measures related to engaging in engineering and non-engineering activities, formal as well as informal [9, p. 45]. Students in the Low Involvement Group were far less involved with engineering and nonengineering activities and were less motivated, less confident, and less satisfied with the overall college experience; the groups were the same on course-related measures such as GPA, academic involvement in engineering classes, and sense of curricular overload. The study also found that students in the Engineering-focused Group dedicated more of their extracurricular involvement on engineering activities as compared to those in Non-Engineering-focused Group. Furthermore, the students in the Engineering-focused Group were highly motivated to study engineering to contribute to the greater social good (in addition to psychological motivation), whereas those in the Non-Engineering-focused Group indicated far less social good motivation. Several other important findings of relevance can be synthesized from the APS study. The study reports that student involvement and engineering knowledge gains is related to participation in extracurricular activities; women tend to participate more in extracurricular activities (both engineering and non-engineering). Throughout their college careers, women tend to be more involved in extracurricular activities (both engineering and non-engineering) and ascribe more importance to these activities than do men. Women are also more likely than men to report taking administrative leadership positions in student organizations. Another study within engineering education that relates to informal learning is the National Engineering Students’ Learning Outcomes Survey (NESLOS) survey. This survey was used to collect data for three experiences: undergraduate research (N=250), capstone design (N=120), and industry internships (N=60), and comparative analysis revealed that statistically significant differences in many of the outcomes existed when comparing the three experiences as well as gender differences [40, 41]. A comparison of undergraduate research and industry experiences found that most students participated in these learning experiences as rising juniors and seniors but the majority of the participants (about 70%) only participated in either industry internships or undergraduate research. Once students selected to participate in undergraduate research or industry internships, most of them also continued participating in the same type of experience. Students participating in industry experiences are more likely to stay in industry after graduation (72%), while most students participating in undergraduate research are more likely to attend graduate school (75%). These findings suggest that early on (prob