Frontiers in education, October 21-24, 2021. Conference name logo. Illustration.

Pre-conference workshops

Four workshops are being offered on Saturday, October 8, 2022 (only for in-person delegates).

Workshop registration is restricted to conference attendees; therefore, to sign up for the workshops, check your e-mail for the registration link or contact Workshops with limited space are filled on a first come, first served basis.

Pre-conference workshop 1:
Equity and Inclusion in Peer Reviewing: Grand Challenges for Engineering Education Researchers

Author and presenter: Lisa Benson, Clemson University 
Co-authors: Rebecca Bates (Minnesota State University, Mankato), Kristina Edstrom (KTH), Cindy Finelli (University of Michigan), Karin Jensen (University of Illinois Urbana Champaign), Evan Ko (University of Illinois Urbana Champaign), Gary Lichtenstein (Quality Evaluation Designs)

Goals and Alignment with Conference  Theme: This  workshop  aims to help individuals  write constructive and insightful reviews for scholarly work in engineering education research while  considering aspects of diversity, equity and inclusion in the work. The topic, goal and activities of this workshop align with the conference theme of “Grand Challenges in Engineering Education” as it will help participants identify and overcome the challenges involved with equitable and inclusive peer review practices in engineering education research.

Description of Workshop: Peer reviewers are liaisons between a journal and members of its  professional community and are thus crucial for creating an inclusive experience for authors. The  process of peer review has been routinely criticized in academia for lack of quality reviews and   reviewers, and reviews that are personal, biased and not constructive. Prior work has shown that failures in the peer review process contribute to exclusion, preventing new scholars, ideas, and methods from entering a field and thwarting the advancement of knowledge. These effects are particularly harmful to scholars from marginalized groups in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Peer reviewing can promote equity and inclusion in our scholarly community by providing feedback to authors on aspects of their manuscripts such as bias-free language, treatment of vulnerable populations, and positionality of authors and reviewers.

The workshop will lead participants through a discussion of the review process and how peer review can help build an equitable and inclusive scholarly community. Through interactive discussions and small group activities, participants will explore the role of peer review, quality criteria for scholarship in engineering education, equitable and inclusive practices when applying those criteria in the peer review process such as providing positionality statements. Recent editorials focused on anti-racism in academic publishing will be discussed. These editorials include recommendations for reviewers to consider to promote anti-racism in the peer review process and take action against exclusionary practices in engineering education research.

Qualification of Workshop Facilitators:

  • Lisa Benson, Professor, Engineering and Science Education, Clemson University; Editor, Journal of Engineering Education
  • Rebecca Bates, Chair, Integrated Engineering Department, Minnesota State University, Mankato
  • Kristina Edstrom, Associate Professor, Engineering Education Development, KTH; Editor, European Journal of Engineering Education
  • Cindy Finelli, Professor, Engineering Education, University of Michigan; Deputy Editor, European Journal of Engineering Education
  • Karin Jensen, Teaching Associate Professor, Bioengineering, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign
  • Evan Ko, Undergraduate Research Assistant, Materials Science and Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign
  • Gary Lichtenstein, Principal and Founder, Quality Evaluation Designs

Lisa Benson, Rebecca Bates and Karin Jensen are co-investigators on a project funded by the National Science Foundation (“Collaborative Research: Building a Community of Mentors in Engineering Education Research Through Peer Review Training,” NSF Award # EEC- 2037807, -2037788 and -2037797) focused on developing peer review training programs. Evan Ko is an undergraduate research assistant and Gary Lichtenstein is the external evaluator on the project. Together they have developed workshop materials focused on issues related to equity and inclusion in the peer review process and the particularly challenging aspect of racism in academic publishing. Kristina Edstrom, Lisa Benson and Cindy Finelli are editors of two leading journals in this field. They have previously collaborated on developing workshops and collaboratively conducted multiple workshops for peer reviewers.

Workshop Activities and Agenda:

The session will begin with group introductions that are intentionally designed to help participants network and establish a sense of trust, allowing participants to share ideas, pose questions and present counterpoints in an open and respectful environment.  Activity 1 will involve individual reflection, small group discussions and a whole group discussion focused on identifying common themes in the peer review process, aspects of a high-quality peer review, and how peer reviewing contributes to equity and inclusion in engineering education research. A discussion will follow that focuses on positionality and accounting for bias in the peer review process. Activity 2 will involve participants reading three sample reviews and small group discussions of the strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement for each review. This will be followed by an open discussion about putting anti-racism into action as a peer reviewer, with particular focus on gathering input from the international perspectives of the participants. This will be followed by an open discussion of issues related to inclusive practices in peer reviewing, again focusing on cultural differences in reviewing practices and expectations. The session will wrap up with providing a list of resources and instructions for signing up to be reviewers for engineering education journals.

0:00 – 0:15: Introductions
0:15 – 0:45: Activity 1: Brainstorm about reviewing 0:45 – 1:15: Positionality in peer reviewing
1:15 – 1:45: Activity 2: Review a review
1:45 – 2:30: Anti-racism in reviewing 2:30 – 3:00: Q and A; wrap up Anticipated Audience:

Experienced reviewers as well as those who are interested in taking on review assignments for the first time are welcome to attend. Current members of editorial boards for engineering education journals may also be interested in attending to heighten their awareness of issues related to equity, inclusion and racism in engineering education scholarship. This also provides a networking opportunity for those new  to the engineering education research community.

Take-away Skills and Knowledge:

We anticipate that participants will be able to:

  • Explain different quality criteria for scholarship in engineering education, and how they can be applied in peer review
  • Highlight aspects of a manuscript that a reviewer could focus on to help authors improve their manuscripts and help editors make fair and equitable decisions
  • Describe positionality statements and how they contribute to equity and inclusion in the peer review process
  • Identify ways to enact anti-racism in the peer review process
  • Enroll as reviewers for one or more engineering education journals

Pre-conference workshop 2:
Level-up: Expand Undergraduate Research Capacity (and Serve Faculty) through Vertically Integrated Projects


  • Jack Bringardner, Tandon School of Engineering, New York University, New York, USA,
  • Han-Chieh Chao, Office of the President, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan, R.O.C.,
  • Edward J. Coyle, Vertically Integrated Projects Program, Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, USA,
  • Brigita Dalecka, Science and Innovation Center, Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia,
  • Talis Junha, Vice-Rector for Research, Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia,
  • Stephen Marshall, Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde. Glasgow, Scotland,
  • Nichole Ramirez, College of Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.
  • Neveen Shlayan, Electrical & Computer Engineering, The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, New York City, USA,
  • Lelanie Smith, Engineering, Built Environment and IT, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa,
  • Julia Sonnenberg-Klein, Vertically Integrated Projects Program. Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, USA,

Abstract—The Level-up workshop will challenge exclusive and exclusionary models for undergraduate research experiences, and it will give participants tools to expand undergraduate research to serve all students. The model and associated tools are adaptable, and they have been implemented in 44 colleges and universities of varying sizes, settings and missions in 12 countries.


The goal of the Level-up workshop is to:

  • Challenge exclusive and exclusionary models for traditional undergraduate research experiences.
  • Familiarize participants with the Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) model, which can scale to serve all students and benefits faculty and students.
  • Give participants the tools needed to establish large-scale, long-term undergraduate research programs with the VIP model.


Alignment with FIE Values

The proposed workshop challenges established practices in undergraduate research, which aligns with the second FIE value of innovation, new approaches, and challenging established practices [1].

The workshop is also strongly aligned with the first FIE value, “Collaborative, supportive, and inclusive community: encouraging mentorship and professional growth, promoting global discourse and collaboration, and appreciating multi-disciplinary approaches” [1, Para. 3] The VIP model involves multidisciplinary student teams, relies on peer-mentorship, and supports student professional growth. At the faculty and administrator level, the VIP Consortium is a peer-network of VIP directors built on peer-to-peer learning that enables international collaborations. The workshop facilitators demonstrate this dedication to peer-to-peer learning, with facilitators from 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Conventional undergraduate research cannot serve all students. It is typically reserved for students of higher academic rank (such as 4th year students) and students with high grade point averages [2]. The limited number of opportunities serve only a fraction of students [3], resulting in competition and selective screening.  In a series of surveys with approximately 11,100 respondents, Russell, Hancock, and McCullough found that students who participated in undergraduate research were typically juniors and seniors with high grade point averages.  While many programs target historically underserved populations [4], this has not changed inequity in participation rates [5].

The workshop will present an alternative to conventional undergraduate research designed to serve all students, VIP.  The session will include key findings (access and equity, student learning gains, scalability), will provide participants with the tools needed to establish pilot and full-scale programs, and will connect participants with the 44-institution VIP Consortium. 


The workshop will involve two blocks of lecture, broken up by three participatory activities (Table 1).  Two activities will be small group discussions, and one will involve rotation through stations in the room, with different discussion prompts and facilitators at each station.

  • Welcome and introductions (10-15 min)
  • Environment for undergraduate research at participants’ institutions (Small groups, 12 min)
  • Overview of the VIP model and the wider context of undergradaute research (Presentation, 25 min)
  • Opportunities (Rotate through stations, 16 min)
  • Break (10 min)
  • VIP program mechanics  (Presentation, 20 min)
  • Variations in implementations (Mini-presentations, 25 min)
  • Obstacles, allies, & low-hanging fruit (Small groups, 12 min)
  • Wrap-up (Question & Answer, 10 min)


After participating in the workshop, attendees will:

  • Understand aspects of the VIP model that make it cost effective, scalable and sustainable.
  • Have a framework and tools to implement large-scale long-term project-based undergraduate research courses at their institutions.
  • Have identified obstacles, allies, and opportunities for success.
  • Have access to resources that support implementation (processes, course descriptions, effective practices, etc.).
  • Know VIP Directors from institutions of varying sizes and mission, who can provide guidance.

Facilitator Qualifications

The workshop will be facilitated by VIP Directors from 7 institutions, which are presented in alphabetical order by institution.

  1. Neveen Shlayan, The Cooper Union: Neveen Shlayan is Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and VIP Program Director at The Cooper Union (CU), a comprehensive institution located in New York, New York in the United States.

The CU is unique within the Consortium because it has a unionized faculty. The CU established their VIP program in 2019, and Shalayan can share insights from a new program’s perspective and as a program with unionized faculty (a novel context).

  1. Ed Coyle and Julie Sonnenberg-Klein, Georgia Institute of Technology:
    Ed Coyle developed the VIP model in 2001 at Purdue University, leads the VIP Program at Georgia Tech, and is Chairman of the VIP Consortium Board of Directors. Coyle also co-developed the Engineering Projects in Community Service program at Purdue University, for which he and his colleagues received the Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education.
    Georgia Tech has the largest VIP Program across the consortium, with over 80 VIP teams, 100 instructors, 1,500 students each semester, and serving 25% of Atlanta campus undergraduates by the time they graduate.
    Julie Sonnenberg-Klein is Assistant Director of the Georgia Tech VIP Program. She handles VIP program policy and assessment at Georgia Tech, and she advises early-stage VIP programs.  Sonnenberg-Klein holds a Master’s degree in Education, and is a doctoral candidate at Georgia State University in Education Policy Studies.
  2. Nichole Ramirez, Purdue University: Nichole Ramirez is Assistant Director of the VIP Program at Purdue University. She handles VIP program assessment and student professional development, and she holds a PhD in Engineering Education.
    The VIP model originated at Purdue, making it the longest-running program in the Consortium. In Purdue’s VIP Program, students participate in supplemental professional development including VIP-provided and campus-provided programming, which is a unique attribute within the Consortium. 
  3. Han-Chieh Chao, National Dong Hwa University: Han-Chieh (Josh) Chao is President of National Dong Hwa University (NDHU). In addition to overseeing the establishment of a VIP Program at NHDU, he also oversaw the establishment of the VIP Program at National Ilan University while president there.
    NDHU in unique, in that the three of its programs employ the VIP model: the π-Project Based Learning program (the original proof-of-concept program for the model); the Break/Redefine/Imagine/Catalysis/Kindle (BRICK) program; and the traditionally-branded VIP Program [6]. While the programs draw on varied funding sources and operate individually, they operate well in parallel.
  4. Jack Bringardner, New York University: Jack Bringardner is Assistant Dean for Academic and Curricular Affairs at New York University, and VIP Site Director. He is campus representative to the American Society for Engineering Education, and an Executive Board Member of ASEE’s First-Year Programs Division.
    The NYU VIP Program was established in 2016, and in the last 6 years, it has grown from 4 teams and 25 students to 34 teams and 500 students. With their active involvement in ABET accreditation preparation on their campus, the NYU VIP program has set an example for other VIP Programs in the Consortium.
  5. Talis Junha and Brigita Dalecka, Riga Technical University:
    Talis Junha is the Vice-Rector (Vice President) for Research, a Professor of Water Engineering and Technology, and VIP Program Director at Riga Technical University (RTU) in Riga, Latvia. Since 2018, Juhna has led the wastewater VIP team which is developing an EcoMachine, a concept that involves wastewater post-treatment and aquaculture production.
    RTU was the first institution to establish a VIP Program in continental Europe. Their program stands out within the Consortium in three notable ways: it offers scholarships to their VIP students, it has joint teams with another university (Riga Stradins University), and their VIP teams involve high school students.
    Brigita Dalecka holds a PhD in Biotechnology and is a senior researcher at RTU Water Research and Environmental Biotechnology Laboratory. Along with scientific activities, Brigita has been a member of the RTU Science and Innovation team, coordinating the activity of the Vertically Integrated Project and the EIT RawMaterials Baltic Hub. Brigita has also been actively involved in activities related to public education and information increasing the awareness of the impact of science on society.
  6. Lelanie Smith, University of Pretoria
    Lelanie Smith is the VIP Program Coordinator, Head of Community Engagement projects, and Project Lead for Integrated Curriculum Activities in Engineering, Built Environment and IT at the University of Pretoria (UP) in Pretoria, South Africa.
    The UP VIP Program is the first established in Africa. Engineering Curricula in South Africa are prescriptive and fixed, so the VIP model was adapted to operate as a co-curricular program. Instead of counting VIP as an elective (which was not an option), VIP is offered as a voluntary program or through the use of containment modules that facilitate project based learning. This is a novel adaptation of the VIP model, which is of particular interest to institutions with highly prescriptive programs of study.
  7. Stephen Marshall, University of Strathclyde
    Stephen Marshall is a Professor in Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Director of the Hyperspectral Imaging (HSI) Centre, and Academic Director for the VIP Program at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland. Steve led the establishment of the VIP Program at the University of Strathclyde, and he is mentoring emerging VIP Programs in Europe and North Africa.
    The Strathclyde VIP program is built around the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs). The program won the 2019 UK and Ireland Green Gown Award in Student Engagement for “innovative and inspiring sustainability work taking place in universities and colleges to create a brighter future for their students” [7].


Pre-conference workshop 3:
Promoting Technology Adoption Among Engineering Faculty

Author and presenter: Michelle Jarvie-Eggart (Michigan Technological University)
Co-authors: Alfred Owusu Ansah (Michigan Technological University) , Shari Stockero (Michigan Technological University)

Workshop Facilitators & Qualifications:

  • Facilitator 1 is currently researching technology adoption among engineering faculty under a project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The main project goals include developing an understanding of the factors that support or inhibit engineering faculty technology acceptance.
  • Facilitator 2 has been a graduate research assistant on the project, and a co-author on all project publications to date.


Amidst the 4th industrial revolution’s fast-pace of technological change, engineering faculty face a grand challenge of keeping the technologies we teach current and up to date. Many faculty struggle to find the time and resources to adopt new engineering technologies unless they hold a direct significance for their research. Thus, new technologies which may be important for practicing engineers may be overlooked in engineering programs.

Technology adoption has been widely studied within information systems, and several models have been developed to predict technology adoption. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [2] and its revision, the TAM2 [3], predicts the intention to use a technology based on its Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use. The TAM does not predict all variability within intention to use a technology [4-8], but still remains the most applied model for predicting faculty use of instructional technologies[9]. Constructs from the TAM2 were combined with other behavioral models [10-11] to create the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [12], later revised to the UTAT2 [13], which added additional constructs, including facilitating conditions, or  users’ perceptions of the supports available for adopting the technology. In this study,  constructs from TAM2 [3] and UTAUT2 [12] , along with other potentially relevant constructs identified in the literature including time [14-15], were used as a framework for the qualitative analysis of transcripts from interviews of 21 engineering faculty at a Midwestern, USA, technological focused university.

Engineering faculty were interviewed about technology adoption via Zoom during the 2020/21 academic year. Analysis of the transcript data used analytic induction to allow for the codes to be grounded in prior theory while still allowing new observations and theory to emerge from the data [16,17]. Preliminary (deductive) codes were based upon the TAM2 [3], the UTAUT2 [13], additional codes drawn from the  literature, as well as prior, as yet unpublished, work with focus groups on the researchers’ campus. The inductive coding that followed allowed new codes to emerge from the data [17]. Data presented at the workshop will include an overview of the coding results.

Workshop Goals

Participants in this workshop will view the results of the qualitative research performed in this project. General results will be reviewed, followed with a deep dive into the results for the facilitating conditions that affect engineering faculty’s technology adoption (digital resources, non-digital Resources, time, and peers & mentors) as well as the faculty members’ suggested interventions to promote technology adoption among them.

Workshop participants will be divided into groups to discuss the results and actively brainstorm ways in which these solutions, and others, could be implemented on their own campuses and departments. Based on preliminary results, we anticipate that break out rooms may include topics such as:

  • developing campus directories for technological expertise
  • targeting strategic technologies for campus-wide support
  • building communities of practice around programming languages and high use software on your campus
  • funding mechanisms for teaching time release to learn new technologies
  • novel methods of reducing the burden of updating instructional materials with technology updates (new version releases)
  • integrating technological play into research and teaching
  • models for funding faculty technology training experiences

Within each breakout discussion, participants will be provided with a shared Google doc for note taking in response to discussion prompt questions. Participants will spend 25 minutes discussing one topic of their choice, brainstorming and recording ideas for implementation on their own campuses. Each breakout discussion cycle will be followed by a 20 minutes reporting session, where a spokesperson for the breakout discussion will provide a high level summary of discussion points to the workshop. Then, participants will be asked to pick a second discussion topic, and complete a second discussion and reporting cycle, building upon the documented ideas provided in the Google doc. As results from this workshop may be added to the existing project data, an Institutional Review Board request for human subjects research will be submitted at our university prior to the workshop. Participants will be informed of the intent of the use of the workshop results for future publications and given the chance to withdraw from the workshop if they do not want to participate. Thus, informed consent will be assumed of all who participate.

Workshop Timeline

15 Minutes: Explanation of workshop and consent to participate
30 Minutes: Presentation of research results
25 Minutes: Breakout discussion 1
20 Minutes: Break out discussion  1 reporting
25 Minutes: Breakout discussion 2 (“yes and”)
20 Minutes: Break out discussion  2 reporting
15 Minutes: Summary wrap up

Total time: 2.5 hours

Anticipated Audience

Although the research was targeted towards engineering faculty, it may be broadly applicable to any STEM faculty and university administrators. In order to ensure that the workshop is conducted effectively, the number of participants shall be limited to 50.


At the end of this workshop, attendees will be able to

  1. Describe what resources facilitate faculty members’ adoption of new technologies
  2. Describe strategies and interventions that will enhance the adoption of new technologies
  3. Propose steps that they will take to implement interventions that may enhance the adoption of new technologies within the context of their home institutions

Pre-conference workshop 4:
Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis to Study Psychological Experience within Engineering Education

Presenters: James Huff (Harding University) and Amy Brooks (Oregon State University)

Abstract—In this workshop, we introduce participants to the tacit and often hidden skills of doing interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to understand lived experience in engineering education. With the growth of IPA research in engineering education, this workshop will sharpen the skills of participants who come with experience in qualitative research and provide practical guidance to participants who may be novices to qualitative research. The workshop is characterized by an interactive style, in which participants collectively analyze a transcript excerpt from an interview with an engineering student regarding their experience of shame. To strengthen the translation of the workshop, the session is intentionally facilitated by both an expert in conducting IPA research and a highly trained engineer who is at the beginning stages of doing IPA.


In this pre-conference workshop, we guide participants through the process of leveraging intentional techniques to interpret psychological experience in engineering education by using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). A growing body of research has used IPA to investigate identity [1, 2], emotion [3], well-being [4], and cognition [5, 6] in the context of engineering education [7]. In this workshop, which is adapted and significantly modified from a special session that was the awarded the Helen Plants Award at a previous Frontiers in Education conference [8], the facilitators guide participants into the tacit and implicit processes of conducting high-quality interviews and transcript analysis using IPA [9, 10]. This workshop leverages the first facilitators’ background with practicing and mentoring others in IPA and the second facilitators’ immediate background of transitioning to IPA research from a traditional engineering discipline. The goals of this workshop are aligned with the Frontiers in Education Conference to enhance the infrastructure of engineering education research throughout international contexts.


The proposed session focuses on three specific areas, which are described as follows.

  1. Psychological Experience The session will focus on psychological experience as a lens to identify under-explored phenomena in the participants’ own contexts (e.g., psychological journeys of identity; emotion in engineering education). After the participants engage in an indepth process of analyzing a common experience of shame, based on an excerpt from an interview transcript, we will invite the participants to consider psychological experiences that are often invisible in their own institutional contexts.
  2. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis The session will introduce participants to IPA as a methodology that is committed to understanding the lived experience of particular phenomenon (e.g., becoming an engineer) while also recognizing that the researcher plays an interpretive role in generating such understanding. Throughout the session, the participants will gain an introduction to doing IPA to systematically interpret a transcript through multiple iterations of understanding a text. They will begin by an initial reading for superficial comprehension and end with connecting the transcript to experiential and psychological patterns.
  3. Conducting Quality Research The session will provide a space for participants to think through how they actually analyze text from a common interview transcript. To foster this development for researchers, we will share an excerpt from a transcript in a recent investigation related to how students experience professional shame in the context of engineering education research. Using this common source of data, we will guide participants through multiple layers of interpretation of this text. Toward the conclusion of the session, we will demonstrate how our exercise relates to the assurance of quality in interpretive research [11, 12]. This work was supported through funding by the National Science Foundation under a CAREER Grant (No. 2045392). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


In the workshop, we intend for participants to form small groups of 4-6 persons. The workshop will incorporate a blend of activities for individual persons, small groups, and the entire assembly. As facilitators, we will rotate among multiple groups to provide guidance, as needed, during the structured tasks of the session. While we will provide a detailed itinerary pending acceptance of this abstract, we will generally immerse participants into conducting detailed transcript analysis on an actual interview transcript excerpt and then guide participants through an interactive process where they can trace in-depth analysis to producing experiential knowledge claims.


  1. Welcome and Group Introductions
    (00:00 – 00:15): We will welcome everyone and review the learning goals. We will then organize the participants into small groups and facilitate introductions within these groups. During this time, we will also hand out all materials related to the session.
  2. Defining Terms: Psychological Experience and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
    (00:15 – 00:25): We provide a brief explanation of these terms but then quickly immerse them into doing IPA to examine psychological experience. This activity corresponds to the steps of analysis detailed in Huff et al. [1]. The intent here is to foster learning among the participants in IPA through shared experience before considering theoretical features of these terms. Throughout the activity, we will wander the room to provide feedback on the various stages of interpretation.
  3. IPA Activity: Reading an Interview Excerpt
    (00:25 – 00:35): We will begin by having the facilitator and a participant acting out a portion of a real interview transcript from our study on identity development. The particular transcript is an authentic account of a student’s experience of shame in the context of engineering education. We begin by reading the transcript to discuss how the transcript is a representation of a real event, both for the researcher and the participant.
  4. IPA Activity: Individual Reflection of the Transcript
    (00:35 – 00:45): After the interview is read, the excerpt will have certainly elicited some personal connections from the workshop participants. We will use this time to allow participants to bracket off these personal responses by reflectively, writing them down, and then forgetting about them—for the time being.
  5. IPA Activity: Descriptive Comments
    (00:45 – 00:55): We will give participants the opportunity to individually describe what they see in individual copies of transcript. What are significant features of the transcript? What is the play-by-play among the text? Each participant will do so in a designated color of ink in the wide right-hand margin.
  6. IPA Activity: Linguistic Comments
    (00:55 – 01:05): We then will give participants the opportunity to document how the participant is using language. Each participant will do so in a different color of ink in the righthand margin of the paper.
  7. IPA Activity: Conceptual Comments
    (01:05 – 01:15): Having considered the description and linguistics of the transcript, the participants will now ask conceptual questions of the transcript. This prepares the analysts to consider how the transcript might relate to broader psychological themes from literature.
  8. IPA Activity: Connecting to Broader Patterns of Experience
    (01:15 – 01:25): We will close this portion of the session by guiding participants to connect sections of the transcript to broader psychological patterns of experience. Participants will note these in the left-hand margin.
  9. Break (01:25 – 01:40): Coffee break for participants.J. Group Reflection on Activity
    (01:40 – 01:55): After individuals have completed the analysis activity, we will discuss their reflections of the common activity in two layers: first among small groups and then among the entire assembly.
  10. How Does Analysis Relate to Knowledge Claims?
    (01:55 – 02:05): Following the activity, we will give an overview of how we would use IPA to compare particular findings in the excerpt from the particular interview to psychological themes in other interviews. Specifically, we will examine how such detailed analysis can result in relevant knowledge claims through peer-reviewed publications.
  11. Thinking Through Quality
    (02:05 – 02:25): Using the shared analysis activity as a guide, we will walk the participants through the Q3 Framework as a general form of considering quality in their own investigations.
  12. Relevance of Psychological Experience
    (02:25 – 02:35): We will close the session by inviting participant to consider questions of psychological experience that may be relevant investigations in their own institutions. Responses will be written down and shared.
  13. Final Group Discussion
    (02:35 – 02:50): The session will close with a brief group discussion with the group identifying how they can apply what they have learned into their own investigations.


We anticipate an audience of those interested in qualitative research in engineering education, especially Ph.D. students and faculty researchers who conduct or supervise qualitative studies. Such an audience would include researchers that are new to qualitative investigations. It would also include advanced qualitative researchers who are looking to hone their skills or find others with similar interests. We also anticipate that this session will draw those who are interested in examining experiential features of engineering education through a psychological lens. Finally, we intend for this session to attract researchers outside of engineering education who are interested in developing skills in IPA.


The primary learning goal of this session is for participants to develop a robust foundation to investigate psychological experience using IPA. We expect that this session will demystify features of interpretive analysis that are seldom made explicit, giving participants confidence to dive further into understanding IPA or other qualitative approaches. The secondary learning outcome of this session is for participants to identify not only strong textual resources to support their investigation into IPA but also a community by which they can continue to develop as interpretive researchers after the conference concludes.


Dr. James Huff is Associate Professor of Engineering Education and Honors College Senior Faculty Fellow at Harding University. He conducts transdisciplinary research on identity that lies at the nexus of applied psychology and engineering education. A winner of the NSF CAREER award (No. 2045392), Dr. Huff has mentored numerous undergraduate students, doctoral students, and academic professionals from more than 10 academic disciplines in using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as a qualitative research method to examine identity in a variety of contexts. Additionally, he has offered multiple workshops in using IPA and regularly consults other investigators in how they apply the methodology.

Dr. Amy Brooks is a Postdoctoral Scholar in engineering education within the Oregon State University School of Civil and Construction Engineering. Her past research broadly focused on global issues related to sustainable waste management and plastic pollution. She recently shifted her focus toward the field of engineering education where she is utilizing IPA to examine faculty experiences with professional shame with supervision by Dr. Huff. We leverage her insight as an advanced novice in the field of IPA research to communicate the translatability of the approach to others who are beginning qualitative research after being trained as engineers. As a member of Huff’s Beyond Professional Identity research lab, she currently co-mentors an undergraduate students who using IPA in engineering education research investigations.


Academic Conferences
Phone + 46 (0) 18 67 10 03
(for practical questions about your registration)

(for questions about abstract submission)

Academic Conferences. Logotype.

Important dates


February 14, 2022
Abstract Submission Deadline

March 7, 2022
All Acceptance Communications

April 25, 2022 (Extended deadline)
Preliminary Paper, Special Session and Panel Summary Papers, and Workshop Outlines, Submission Deadline​

June 10, 2022
Notification of Paper Revision Requirements and Final SSPCW Acceptance Communication

July 5, 2022 (Extended deadline)
Revised Paper Submission (major revisions)

July 18, 2022 (Extended deadline)
Peer Review Final Acceptance Communication

August 1, 2022 (Extended deadline)
Final Camera-Ready Paper Submission & Copyright Deadline

October 8-11, 2022