Keywords: identity, language, design, talk-engineering
Trajectories of Knowledge and Action in Becoming an Engineer
This paper focuses on how the notion of a trajectory of identification can be traced between different timescales
and different sets of data that pertain to the student. The development of a specific student’s trajectory is
traced through his ability to talk-engineering along two different timescales: the entire four years of
undergraduate education and the final 10 week quarter that includes work on the senior design project.
| The kind of language that makes up the life worlds and social spaces of engineers, what is
referred to here as talk-engineering, has enabled researchers to perceive how engineering students construct
their own figured worlds.
|
Implications of this Case Study for Tracing Engineering Student Trajectories
The kind of language that makes up the life worlds and social spaces of engineers, what is referred to here as
talk-engineering, has enabled researchers to perceive how engineering students construct their own figured worlds.
The analysis in this paper suggests that the patterns of behavior along one student’s trajectory of identification
(where he uses talk-engineering) have enabled the team to trace his “trajectory of knowledge” (based on his
ethnographic interviews) to that of a “trajectory of action” (derived from his senior/fourth year design class
project). This analysis captured a glimpse of what this student perceives engineering to entail (along the
trajectory of knowledge) and of how he uses his engineering skills in real-time social interaction (along the
trajectory of action). Depending upon the timescale one chooses, trajectories of identification do not
necessarily end, but are transforming.
Methods and Background
This analysis is drawn from data collected as part of the Academic Pathways Study, a longitudinal,
multi-institution study designed to gain insight into learning and development within engineering education.
The ethnographic aspect of the Academic Pathways Study has worked with 16 engineering students on each of
four campuses involved in the study. Of the 16 students on each campus, eight students (4 female and 4 male)
were selected to participate in more intimate ethnographic work involving observations of classes, study groups,
and other on-campus activities. In a few cases, video and/or audio data was obtained from engineering students’
work on their senior design/capstone projects.
This study is based on results from longitudinal ethnographic interview texts and video data from senior design
and capstone projects. The focus of this paper is on one student at Large Public University (LPub)— a male
electrical engineering major—and how his trajectory of identification develops over time.
What We Found
During the first two years of engineering education at Large Public University (LPub), students take many
prerequisite courses to fill requirements in the College of Engineering. Many students must take these courses
without an assurance that they will be allowed to pursue an engineering major, since most must apply for
admission to a specific department before their junior year and risk being rejected. The student in this
study (“Colin”), however, was a direct admit to electrical engineering as a freshman and did not face this
situation.
The student’s trajectory of identification as an engineering student manifested in his year 1 interview in
terms of what engineering knowledge and practice entails. His understanding of engineering as a science was
somewhat stereotypical, he assumed that there was only one good design and that there would be more “engineering
leaders” in real engineering (referring to his observation during an introductory engineering class that there
were more followers than leaders). In Colin’s year 2 interview he began to be more specific in his understanding
of engineering as a science.
Besides references to engineering as a science in his first two years of interviews, Colin referred, more
importantly, to what he felt engineering knowledge was – that is to say that for Colin, there was coursework
that was more closely related to engineering than others and that more closely resembled something he could
see himself doing as an engineer.
A shift in Colin’s responses was noticed during his year 3 and 4 interviews. This shift emerged in his ability
to talk–engineering. In one interview in year 3, Colin “repairs” the interviewer's comments by correcting the
use of an engineering term. Colin’s ability to talk-engineering was not just a matter of him spouting off these
terms. Rather, Colin knew when to use talk-engineering as a discourse strategy through displaying his
understanding of these concepts. A shift in his use of technical engineering knowledge during his third year
was illustrated by a response during his interview where he displayed his understanding of a problem. This
illustrates how much Colin’s use of talk-engineering as an interactional strategy emerged in the trajectory of
identification that traces his stance as a knowledgeable person who could now talk-engineering.
In Colin’s fourth year interview his conceptual understanding of engineering was traceable. Where in his third
year he used technical jargon in talking engineering, Colin shifts in the fourth year in how he describes these
concepts by anthropomorphizing them. This suggests that this usage is evidence of how comfortable he was with
these topics as well as further evidence of his ability to talk-engineering.
What the team observed over time with Colin is an increasing use of what has been called talk-engineering in
his responses during ethnographic interviews. Colin’s presentation of himself as a knowledgeable person was
traced over time from when he first developed stereotypical images of engineering as a science in years 1 and
2 of his education, to his image of engineering as a science that became tied more to his coursework in years
3 and 4 when he built and designed things. This analysis has shown, through tracing Colin’s trajectory of
identification over time, how his identification practices as an engineering student developed such that
towards the endpoint of his trajectory he could talk-engineering.
Analysis then shifted from a year by year timescale to a single event that occurred during Colin’s senior
(fourth year) design project. This switch in timescale shows not only how the two timescales intersect, but
how they also reflect different aspects of Colin’s trajectory of identification. The focus of the analysis
of this event was to observe how he used talk-engineering during interaction with his peers.
In this example, Colin used talk-engineering to take an authoritative stance during group interactions as part
of his senior design project. Colin used talk-engineering to argue for a particular design for short circuit
protection. This ethnographic observation of Colin during his senior design group work added a new dimension
to the ethnographic interviews. In the interviews he made only mention of design, whereas in the group work
example he was actually observed not only implementing design, but using talk-engineering to take an
authoritative stance as well.
As the team traced Colin’s trajectory of identification over time, a change in his use of technical language
was noted—as his familiarity with this vocabulary became fluent he was able to use it mixed with ordinary
language. In tracing Colin’s trajectory of identification across the two time scales, the team suggests it
is possible to refer to one as a trajectory of knowledge and the other as a trajectory of action.
Authors: Andrew Jocuns and Reed Stevens
Source: Paper presented at the Sociolinguistic Symposium 17, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 3-5, 2008.
For a printable pdf of this research brief, click
here.
Brief created December 2008
Back to Research Briefs