The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development of Engineering Education as a Rigorous Discipline: A Study of the Publication Patterns of Four Coalitions
Abstract
A combination of publication analysis and faculty interviews was employed to study four NSF‐sponsored engineering education coalitions as a case study of the recent history of engineering education. Current calls within the engineering education community for increased rigor can be understood in terms of the ways similar disciplines have emerged. In science education, for example, time was needed to develop consensus on important research questions, accepted methods, and standards of rigor. The abstracts of 700 publications listed on active engineering education coalition Web sites were analyzed over time by type of intervention, population of focus, and product. A picture consistent with other reports of coalition contributions emerged. Early focus was on freshman courses and integrating across disciplines, with teamwork, design and other active learning activities. Students and course improvement remained the dominant focus, but efforts increased over time in assessment, faculty development, and research. Interviews with coalition leaders and leading authors supplement the publication analysis and describe how coalition work helped lay the foundation for more rigorous engineering education research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Garfield, E. (1972) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.178.4060.471 · Cited by 2,788 · cited 1×
“The traditional measure of the impact of research is the number of times a work is cited by others [47].”
BackgroundQualitative Analysis on Stage: Making the Research Process More Public
Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x031007028 · Cited by 1,362
Hargens, L. L. (2000) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657516 · Cited by 211
Cited by
Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research Methods in Engineering Education
Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01005.x · Cited by 770
Self-citationQuality in Interpretive Engineering Education Research: Reflections on an Example Study
Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2013) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20029 · Cited by 458
Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01056.x · Cited by 451
Self-citationBorrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2015) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20069 · Cited by 124
Self-citationComputing Education Research Today
Fincher, S. A., Tenenberg, J., Dorn, B., Hundhausen, C., McCartney, R., & Murphy, L. (2019) · The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research · doi:10.1017/9781108654555.003 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Borrego, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-18
- ISSN
- 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-9830
- OpenAlex
- W2016216520
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 29.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development of Engineering Education as a Rigorous Discipline: A Study of the Publication Patterns of Four Coalitions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00911.x
- The paper
- Borrego, M. (2007). Development of Engineering Education as a Rigorous Discipline: A Study of the Publication Patterns of Four Coalitions. Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00911.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.