Cited by 574Career Development and DiversityScience Education and PerceptionsEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

Identity, Critical Agency, and Engineering: An Affective Model for Predicting Engineering as a Career Choice

Open access
Godwin, Allison, Potvin, Geoff, Hazari, Zahra, Lock, Robynne·2016·Journal of Engineering Education

Abstract

Background: Prior to college, many students have no experience with engineering, but some ultimately choose an engineering career. Women choose engineering at lower rates than men. This article uses critical engineering agency (CEA) to understand first‐year students' attitudes and self‐beliefs to predict the choice of an engineering career. Purpose/Hypothesis: We investigated how first‐year students' math and physics identities and students' beliefs about the ability of science to improve the world predict choice of engineering as a career and whether these beliefs differ by gender. Design/Method: The data were from the Sustainability and Gender in Engineering survey distributed during fall 2011 ( N = 6,772). Structural equation modeling was used to understand first‐year students' affective beliefs for predicting engineering career choice. Results: Math and physics identities are important for predicting engineering choice at the beginning of college. Recognition from others and interest in a subject are positive predictors of physics and math identities. Students' performance/competence beliefs alone are negative predictors of engineering career choice but are mediated by interest and recognition from others. Student identities and agency beliefs are significant predictors of engineering career choice, explaining 20% of the variance. We also found gender differences in students' math and physics identities and agency beliefs. Conclusions: This article emphasizes the importance of students' recognition beliefs and the importance of agency beliefs for women in predicting engineering career choice.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jee.20118

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a study of engineering choice, recognition was found to be the most important construct of identity in predicting a choice of a career in engineering.

    “in a study aimed at understanding the impact of physics and mathematics identities on engineering choice, recognition was found to be the most important construct of identity in predicting a choice of a career in engineering (Godwin, Potvin, Hazari, and Lock 2016).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [49]49. Godwin, A., & Potvin, G. (2014). Modeling engineering choice using student attitudes and self- beliefs. Proceedings of the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/Publications/OnlinePaperRepository/tabid/10250/Default.aspx
  2. [55]55. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W. J., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (2001). Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Harvard University Press.
  3. [84]84. Potvin, G., Beattie, C., & Paige, K. (2011). Towards the measurement of undergraduate students' physics identity. Presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers Summer Conference, Omaha, NB.
  4. [87]87. Potvin, G., Paige, K., & Beattie, C. (2012). Building a valid and reliable assessment of physics identity. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual International Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
  5. [104]104. Tennant, A., & Pallant, J. F. (2012). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) as a supplementary statistic to determine fit to the Rasch model with large sample sizes. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 25(4), 1348-1349. Retrieved from http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt254d.htm

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • Florida International University (US)
  • East Texas A&M University (US)
Venue
Journal of Engineering Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-04
Volume
105
Issue
2
Pages
312-340
ISSN
  • 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-9830
OpenAlex
W2342731957
Cited by
574
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 110 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4
FWCI
93.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Engineering Education (publishedVersion)
  • Purdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Science Foundation (1036617)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
engineering career choice, math identity, physics identity, gender differences, first-year students, affective beliefs, competence beliefs, women in engineering, self-belief

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