In Search For Qualified Engineers: Construction Of The Best Engineering Traits (bet) Inventory

Running Head: Best Engineering Traits

In Search for Qualified Engineers: Construction of the Best Engineering Traits (BET) Inventory

Carlo Magno Marife Mamauag De La Salle University – Manila

Best Engineering Traits

2

In Search for Qualified Engineers: Construction of the Best Engineering Traits The role of engineers has much relevance in contributing to the growth and development of nations. The engineers are responsible for the development of big infrastructures such as buildings, roads, and machineries. Although engineering is a vast field, this study focused on measuring the constructs for civil engineers. Civil engineers can address problems related to housing, infrastructure, flooding, water crisis, pollution, urban traffic, and disaster mitigation. The most common specialization in the field of civil engineering are structural engineering, construction technology and management, hydraulics and water resources engineering, transportation engineering, and geotechnical engineering. In order to succeed in the field of civil engineering one needs to have a sufficient background in mathematics, physical and natural sciences. There is a great call to produce more graduates who are technically inclined and equipped with right abilities. Scinta (2006) reported that the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts the need for science and engineering graduates will grow by 26% of 1.25 million by 2012. The number of graduates in these fields, however, has remained relatively flat for two decades. A synthesis of the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) national survey on graduates from across the Philippines indicated that engineers are the highest paid and the most employable. Jonquieres (2006) reported that skills of the graduates from Asia do not match the needs of the world industry. A Duke University study has found that the degrees taken by many of the almost 1M new engineering graduates in China and India in 2004 were much less demanding than in the US and some

Best Engineering Traits

3

graduates were qualified to be a little more than technicians. In proportion to its population, the US actually conferred 55 per cent more computer science, IT and engineering degrees than China and almost four times more than India. Given this demand on engineers, the skills necessary to be a qualified engineer needs to be monitored. There is a need to construct a battery of measures that can validly screen in students who are qualified to be engineers. The assessment should start at the level of tertiary education to filter in the students who are qualified to take the course and raise the level of probability of their success in the field. Screening qualified engineers through paper and pencil tests is not new. In the Philippines, the Philippine Regulation Commission (PRC) screens engineers qualified to practice the profession by passing the licensure examination. All technical institutes in India administer the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE), an exam for admission and benchmark test for engineering graduates. Many countries perform the screening of students who are most qualified but in the Philippines, qualified engineers are all based on the admission exams of different universities which cannot be benchmarked from each other because of the lack of standard-based measures especially in the field of engineering. The purpose of this study is to construct a battery of measures to screen in students who are qualified to be future engineers. The series of test in the battery will include measures of attitude, achievement and aptitude. These battery of tests can serve as standardized admission tests and screening for qualified students who can take the engineering course.

Best Engineering Traits

4

The Civil Engineering Curriculum Civil Engineering is comprised of different specializations that include structural engineering, construction technology and management, hydraulics and water resources engineering, transportation engineering, and geotechnical engineering. Structural Engineering. This field provides technical support in the infrastructure development. There is opportunity for students to be trained in the planning, analysis, design, construction, inspection, rehabilitation, and preservation of structures which includes residential and office buildings, bridges, and a large variety of structures using various materials such as steel, concrete, and timber, taking into consideration technical, economic, environmental, and social aspects (DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006). Construction Technology and Management. This field prepares students for the effective planning and implementation of construction projects by giving them basic knowledge of construction materials and technology, and project management concepts. Project management includes topics in plans and specifications, cost engineering, accounting, and organization. The program also envisions that some graduates may immediately join their family construction business or may ultimately put up their own firms. Subjects that deal with estimating, bidding, marketing, business organization, economics, and strategy are tackled to prepare them for this prospect (DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006). Hydraulics and Water Resources Engineering. This field responds to the needs of the country in solving water resources related problems such as water

Best Engineering Traits

5

supply crisis, power shortage, insufficient food supply due to poor irrigation, water pollution, and disasters due to flood flows. It covers a broad field encompassing the following major sub-fields: analysis of water occurrences and flows, control of water, utilization of water, water quality analysis, watershed management and planning, and sedimentation in channels (DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006). Transportation Engineering. This field produces transportation and highway engineers who can provide technical support in the government’s program of improving and expanding the transportation system and infrastructures of the country such as the LRT, MRT, flyovers, skyways, airports, and harbors. It addresses issues related to transport planning, urban traffic engineering and management, and the design and construction of road pavements (DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006). Geotechnical Engineering. This field focuses on the study of the principles of soil mechanics in terms of physical properties, stability, flow of water in soils, settlements, deformations, bearing capacities, and the relationship to the analysis and design of foundations. It aims to develop Geotechnical Engineers who can solve problems on how to provide adequate foundation to various types of structures. A graduate in this program is expected to provide sound technical advice in arriving at a safe, economical, and practical design of foundations (DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006). The exemplified curriculum in civil engineering of different universities are reviewed to show the benchmarks on training different students who would be

Best Engineering Traits

6

civil engineers. The Civil Engineering programs in most Universities are designed to prepare the student for a productive career in government or the private sector, as well as for advanced graduate study. Most of the curriculum builds a sound foundation in basic sciences and mathematics, followed by courses in engineering science and design that provide a solid base for life-long professional learning. Engineering courses and laboratories provide an opportunity for students to experience those principles and standard practices that they will encounter in their careers. There is a pattern in the curriculum oriented to develop a student's ability to think logically and to apply the knowledge gained to the design and synthesis of complex civil engineering projects. Most programs provide an integration of design experience from the freshman year to the senior year. The senior courses provide a comprehensive design experience for students that encompasses ethical, societal, economic and safety issues. Engineering design, team problem solving and communication skills are emphasized throughout the curriculum. Civil engineering principles and practices are covered in courses dealing with fluid, solid, and soil mechanics; design of highways and other transportation facilities, including traffic control systems; design and construction of all types of structures; water resources (hydraulics and hydrology); and environmental studies, with emphasis on water supplies/treatment/distribution, wastewater collection/treatment/disposal, and solid/hazardous waste management. In the freshman and sophomore years, all civil engineering majors take an engineering and technology overview course, as well as courses in engineering

Best Engineering Traits

graphics and surveying. They also complete classes in calculus, chemistry, physics, English composition, public speaking, and electives in humanities and social sciences. During the junior and senior years, requirements focus primarily on civil engineering courses, with supplemental work in industrial and systems, chemical, mechanical, and electrical and computer engineering. Some of the required major courses include Water and Wastewater Treatment, Fluid Mechanics, Hydraulics, Structural Theory, Steel Design, Concrete Design, Soils, and Transportation. In some universities, students may can take tracks environmental, structural, geotechnical, transportation, or water resources engineering with the proper selection of electives. Civil Engineering Tests One of the widely known engineering test for students is the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) in India. The GATE is held every year across the country in over 100 cities. At present nearly 60,000 students take GATE every year. Candidates can choose a single paper of 3 hours duration to appear in GATE from different mathematics, science and technical disciplines. The GATE score of a candidate is a statistical performance index in the range 0 to 1000. It reflects the ability of a candidate, irrespective of the paper or year in which he/she has qualified. Candidates with same GATE score from different disciplines and/or years can be considered to be of equal ability (Vyom Technosoft, 2006).

7

Best Engineering Traits

8

The available standardized tests that measure whether a student is fit to take an engineering course are interest, vocational and aptitude tests. The most common measures are mechanical ability tests. These tests are particularly effective in requiring machinery, construction and certain engineering positions. Some standardized tests are Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test (Bennet, 1980). The BMCT consists of 68 items, each which require the application of a physical law or a mechanical operation. One study using the BMCT and several other instruments determined that the BMCT was best single predictor of job performance for a group of employees manufacturing electrochemical components (Muchinsky, 1993). A study by Ajobeje (2005) investigated the extent to which cognitive entry characteristics and continuous assessment measured or predicted student’s academic performance among Polytechnic Engineering Students. In particular, the study determined the relationship between WASC, PCEE, and semester Examination scores, and determined the contribution of year CPA and second year GGPA of the polytechnic engineering technology student. The score of cognitive entry characteristics, continuous assessment results and the results of the academic performance of the subject were assessed using correlation analysis, regression analysis and analysis variances. The results of the analysis revealed that both cognitive entry characteristics and continuous assessment results seem to have predictive strength on the academic performance of the subject. Continuous assessment shows higher predictive strength than cognitive entry characteristics.

Best Engineering Traits

9

Skills Necessary to be a Civil Engineer The study by Newport and Elms (1997) defined an effective engineer and investigated engineers in the workplace to determine what qualities make an engineer more effective than others. The data was gathered using questionnaires designed to measure the predominance of the qualities in engineering individuals. Qualities associated with mental agility, enterprise and interpersonal capability correlated most significantly with effectiveness. Effectiveness did not correlate with achievement in the tertiary education. The results showed that many of the qualities associated with effective engineer behavior are learnable and can be taught within an education program. Kubler and Forkes (2002) in their study came up with a profile for engineers who are suited for employment. Creating profiles for employability indicate the skills that typically can be developed through the study of different subjects. The researchers came up with a long list of skills expected of an engineering student anchored on the employers’ needs that include brain power, generic competencies, personal capabilities, subject specific knowledge and technical ability. On the other hand the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2000) also came up with a list of skills to benchmark engineers. They have included understanding based on mathematics, science and technology, integrated with business and management which can be acquired through education and professional formation. It was further stated that engineers must be able to exercise original thought, have good professional judgment and be

Best Engineering Traits

10

able to take responsibility for the direction of important tasks. The taxonomy in the study includes intellectual abilities, practical skills, and general transfer skills. The study by Magno (2003) recognizes that skills necessary to be good engineers are structured on the relationship between technical attitude and achievement on mathematics and science. In order to succeed in an engineering course the student needs to have technical inclinations that can be measured through an attitude test. In the study attitude towards technical education is measure through task value and expectancy. Task Value includes attainment value, intrinsic value, and utility value (Meece et al. 1982) and expectancies are the perceived probability for success (Meece et al. 1982). The results of the study showed a relationship between science achievement and task value but not on Mathematics. This supports the claims that engineering skills can be developed through an educational program and predicting the structure may not yet be evident without taking the actual engineering course. Subtests of the Best Engineering Traits (BET) Inventory Practical Inclination. One of the many skills that are important for engineers to acquire is practical inclination. This includes the disposition to use a wide range of tools, techniques and equipments; use of laboratory and workshop equipment to generate valuable data and materials, and; develop, promote and apply safe systems of work. Sternberg (2003) defines practical inclination as an intelligent factor which consist of subfactors on verbal, quantitative and figural:

Best Engineering Traits

11

Practical–Verbal: Everyday reasoning. Students are presented with a set of everyday problems in the life of an adolescent and have to select the option that best solves each problem. Practical–Quantitative: Everyday math. Students are presented with scenarios requiring the use of math in everyday life (e.g., buying tickets for a ballgame) and have to solve math problems based on the scenarios. Practical–Figural: Route planning. Students are presented with a map of an area (e.g., an entertainment park) and have to answer questions about navigating effectively through the area depicted by the map. Sternberg, Castejón, Hautamäki, and Grigorenko (2001) defined practical intelligence as adaptation to, shaping of, and selection of real-world environments. People high in practical intelligence are strong in using, implementing, and applying ideas and products. Laypersons have long recognized a distinction between academic intelligence (book smarts) and practical intelligence (street smarts). This distinction is represented in everyday parlance by expressions such as “learning the ropes” and “getting your feet wet.” This distinction also figures prominently in the implicit theories of intelligence held by both laypeople and researchers. Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, and Bernstein (1981) asked samples of laypeople in a supermarket, a library, and a train station, as well as samples of academic researchers who study intelligence, to provide and rate the importance of characteristics of intelligent individuals. Factor analyses of the ratings supported a distinction between academic and practical aspects of intelligence for laypeople and experts alike.

Best Engineering Traits

12

Analytical Interest. According to Clough (2004) engineering-based analytical thinking is more essential than ever in a growing range of pursuits. Peters (1998) refers analytical interest among engineers as technical thought and matrix thinking. The goal in analytical interest is to discover knowledge, and such thinking deals with concepts, hypotheses and theories, and abstractions. Scientific method is linear and hierarchical and aims to be independent of the thinker's personal and cultural value system so that results can be repeated by anyone. Santi and Higgins (2005) explained that engineering geologists or hydrogeologists can gain the technical knowledge and skills they need through experience and self-education. Part of this skill is analytical interest. Analytical thinking skills can be taught through a variety of exercises that enhance the geology curriculum without adding new topics, including in-class discussion questions, homework and laboratory problems, and add-ons to mapping and semester projects. Dunn (1982) described analytical thinkers to be linear sequential and logical. Analytic individuals capture and remember information best when it is presented in a step-by-step, methodical, sequential, little by little, leading toward an understanding of the concept or lessons presented. Analytics are usually persistent because they follow directions to complete a task and do things “sequentially.” They move from the beginning of a task to the end in a series of small, focused and goal-oriented steps.

Best Engineering Traits

13

Intellectual Independence. Intellectual independence can be defined as the ability of a learner to make knowledge claims independent of the traditional authorities of the teacher and textbook (Oliver & Nichols, 2001). Intellectual independence is that singular feature that makes science uniquely science. Only when humankind became aware that knowledge could be created as a result of the examination of empirical evidence, independent of the traditional authority of gods, muses, or kings, did science come to exist. In using intellectual independence in teaching, the main point for the teacher to keep constantly in mind is that his student is an investigator, seeking by means of his own efforts to find out what is truth-not a mere imitator or verifier of the results obtained by others. The conclusions reached must be deductions from the evidence observed, not statements memorized from a text or learned from a teacher. The laws and principles derived must be inferences warranted by the conclusions from the evidence. In describing an intellectual independent student, they should learn to trust his own powers and grow strong in the assurance of first-hand knowledge. He tests and observes for himself, and receives nothing upon mere authority. No other exercise so develops the freedom and confidence of independent thinking (Poteat, 1999). Poteat (1999) dissuaded teaching that would encourage students to accept assertions "upon mere authority." Assertiveness. Paterson (2000) defined assertiveness as the ability to express one’s needs, wants, and feelings directly and honestly and to see the needs of others as equally important. Social or generalized assertiveness is the

Best Engineering Traits

14

capacity to express the real self (Lieberman, 1972) without any sense of guilt (McFall & Lillesand, 1971). It is the ability to say "no" or "yes," as appropriate, to requests-to express positive/negative feelings and conveniently initiate, sustain or terminate a social discuss (Lazarus, 1973). Difficulties with assertiveness may even represent a core vulnerability for severe psychopathology and contribute to the maintenance of social and occupational impairment. Most cross-cultural studies of assertiveness have suggested that it is culture bound (Brown & Cross, 1991; Furnham, 1979; Garrison & Jenkins, 1986; Hall & Beil-Warner, 1978; Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983; Ness, Donnan, & Jenkins, 1983). Researchers have found differences that support the contention that there are cultural variations in the situational determinants of assertiveness (Hall & Beil-Warner; Zane, Sue, Hu, & Kwon, 1991) and in perceptions of assertive and aggressive behavior (Garrison & Jenkins, 1986). Yet, there is little research that has examined how behavioral definitions of assertiveness differ across cultural groups and the extent to which the definitions are similar. Such empirically based information could prove useful when assisting clients from different cultures to formulate assertive responses. A study by Yashioka (2000) administered a sample of 115 low-income African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian women who participated in 6 assertiveness role plays. A content analysis of their responses indicated that there are substantive differences in terms of what constitutes passive, assertive, and aggressive responses. On the other hand, Niikura (1999) investigated modes of self-expression as they reflect the quality of assertiveness among Japanese, Malaysian, Filipino, and U.S.

Best Engineering Traits

15

white-collar workers. The author collected respondents' answers to a questionnaire consisting of 33 items involving assertiveness related to modes of expression typical of the Japanese people. Several modes of expression considered specific to the Japanese people-styles of group-oriented behavior, younger people's courtesy toward older people, and the deference of the individual to group consensus-were also found among the Malaysian and the Filipino respondents. These behaviors were in contrast to those observed among the U.S. respondents. Engineering Aptitude Aptitude is variously defined as innate learning ability, the specific ability needed to facilitate learning a job, aptness, suitability, readiness, tendency, or natural or acquired disposition or capacity for a particular activity. Aptitude assessments are used to predict success or failure in an undertaking. For vocational/career guidance and planning they are used to measure different aptitudes such as general learning ability, numerical ability, verbal ability, spatial perception, and clerical perception. Objective aptitude tests are based on timed sub-tests. Engineers need to have aptitude on mechanical, structural spatial, logic and abstract reasoning. Mechanical. Measures the ability to understand the underlying principles behind machines. High scores in this test indicate proficiency in engineering and mechanical work. This is concerned with reasoning through mechanical problems in a logical way. It measures the ability to perceive and understand the relationship of physical forces and mechanical elements in practical situations.

Best Engineering Traits

16

This type of aptitude is important in jobs and training programs that require the understanding and application of mechanical principles. The individual who scores high in mechanical comprehension tend to learn easily the principles of the operation and repair of complex devices (Bennet, 1980). Structural Visualization. Space relations involves the ability to visualize and think in three dimensions or picture mentally the shape, the size and positions of objects when shown only a picture or pattern. The cognitive tests used to measure Spatial Visualization Ability include mental rotation tasks and cognitive tests like the VZ-1 (Form Board), VZ-2 (Paper Folding), and VZ-3 (Surface Development) tests (Downing, Moore, & Brown, 2005). Over the years, structural visualization has proven to be the most consistent aptitude found among engineers. Virtually all engineering specialties draw upon this core aptitude. People with structural visualization can envision how pieces of a 3D puzzle fit together or how something drawn as a blueprint will look when it's finished. Structural visualization is not in your hand's ability to fit the pieces together, but rather in your mind's ability to visualize objects from different perspectives, rotate them in your mind, and envision how the pieces fit together. This aptitude also provides the ability to classify pieces and understand how they relate to the whole, which is useful in many engineering tasks (Alonso & Norman, 1998). Logic. Involves the evaluation of arguments where individuals are tasked to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference, and to allow one to distinguish logical from flawed arguments (Hodges, 2001). Logic measures the

Best Engineering Traits

17

ability to make deductions that lead rationally to a certain probability or conclusion. Includes verbal evaluation, interpreting data and diagramatic series (Scriven, 1976). Abstract Reasoning. The ability to reason with visual configurations. The questions in this assessment contain patterns and series, which have to be completed. They are a non-verbal measure of reasoning ability and as such are regarded by many occupational psychologists as a good measure of raw intelligence. This aptitude is all about understanding processes and how they work - a critical skill needed by engineers. Analytical reasoning allows individuals to organize concepts, arrange ideas in a logical sequence, and classify things. It also helps you organize information to solve word problems in math, set up a science experiment, and plan work (Anastasi & Urbina, 2001) Engineering Achievement Engineering skills are emphasized not only among students taking this course but to lower years. Dr Ioannis Miaoulis, director of the National Center for Technological Literacy indicates that States should incorporate engineering questions into their science assessments. Miaoulis is on a mission to see that all students are required to take technology and engineering courses (Mohr, 2006). Related to this is the new blueprint outlining the content that students will encounter on the science version of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The said blueprint places too little emphasis on applying science to technology, engineering, and real-world problem-solving, and a number of critics contend (Cavanagh, 2005).

Best Engineering Traits

18

The report by Downie, Lucena, Moskal, and Parkhurst (2006) offers and tests an approach to conceptualizing the global competency of engineers. It begins by showing that the often-stated goal of working effectively with different cultures is fundamentally about learning to work effectively with people who define problems differently. The paper offers a minimum learning criterion for global competency and three learning outcomes whose achievement can help engineering students fulfill that criterion. It uses the criterion to establish a typology of established methods to support global learning for engineering students. It introduces the course, Engineering Cultures, as an example of an integrated classroom experience designed to enable larger numbers of engineering students to take the critical first step toward global competency, and it offers a test application of the learning criterion and outcomes by using them to organize summative assessments of student learning in the course. Honawar (2005) reported that US national businessman and political leaders are worried about the US schools' ability to stimulate student's interest in math and science which is the area of weakness that they say has led to the growing influence of Asian countries in the field of engineering and technology. Among the most common examples of the deficiency in education attainment are the results of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study that has for years found American high schoolers performing at levels lower than those of their peers in other developed countries. Some observers of international education say that comparing the US with foreign countries based on such test results may not always lead to accurate assumptions.

Best Engineering Traits

19

Shuster (2005) reported that high school students from the United States scored below international averages on a comprehensive test of applied mathematics and problem solving administered in 2003. The test, given to students 15 years of age in 40 countries, was administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an intergovernmental group representing 30 highly industrialized countries. The US students achieved an overall score of 483, the international average being 500. To account for possible statistical errors, each country received two rankings, and the United States place 25th and 28th. The test - the Program for International Student Assessment - had two main parts, mathematics literacy and problem solving.

Method Construction of the Attitude Scale Search for Content Domain. A review of literature was conducted to determine what specific personality and interests dominate most engineering students and engineers. Four clusters were identified based on the framework produced by Elton (1971) which is based on Holland’s Theory. The arrived areas are assertiveness, analytical interest, practical inclination, and intellectual independence. A survey was conducted to determine how these four areas are manifested among engineering students (see Appendix A). The survey was sampled out among 50 respondents through convenience sampling. Item Writing. The items were written based on the definition of the four concepts and the data that was generated from the survey. Various definitions of

Best Engineering Traits

20

the constructs were arrived at from previous studies and they were compared. The definition that suits the qualities of engineers in their profession are chosen as a guide in writing the items. The data strands from the survey were clustered in their commonalities and the ones that are fitted for every area (assertiveness, analytical interest, practical inclination, and intellectual independence). Most of the responses are geared towards these areas because each question into the survey are open-ended inquiring about each area. There were 60 items constructed for each area with a total of 240 items. Item Review. The 240 items were placed in a checklist and categorized according to each area. For each area the definition was provided in order to guide the item reviewer whether the items are within its limits. Each item is then judged whether it is accepted, rejected, or needs revision. The items were given to three experts in the field of testing, measurement and evaluation. The first two experts reviewed the items independently and gave their comments. After the revising the items according to the comments of the first two reviewers, the third reviewer decided which comment was acceptable in constructing the pool of items. It was further recommended to reverse some of the items for correction purposes. After the item review, the pre-test form was assembled to contain the 240 items (see Appendix B). The items that were rejected during the review were replaced with better items. Table 1 shows the table of specifications for the pretest form.

Best Engineering Traits

21

Table 1 Table of Specifications Area Practical Inclination Analytical Interest Intellectual Independence Assertiveness Total

Positive items 30 46 43 44 163

Negative Items 30 14 17 16 77

Total 60 60 60 60 60

Scaling Technique. The scaling technique used is a 4-point likert scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree). The likert scale is selected because the items reflect attitude and predisposes the individual to manifest the characteristics. The neutral scale was not included so that the students will really have to make a stand for each item and minimize them from “playing safe,” thus avoiding the tendency to choose the midpoint. Pilot Testing. The final form with 240 items was laid-out in a booklet form with a separate answer sheet. The cover of the booklet gives an elaborate description on what the test is all about and how to answer with a brief description. The positive and negative items were arranged interchangeable so that the respondents would not “fake good” the answers. The test is selfadministered and was given to 45 engineering students in a university who are in their second to third year of study. The respondents were given the instruments and they answered for about 30 to 40 minutes. Data Analysis. Item Analysis was conducted using Item Response Theory (IRT) Rasch Analysis. Before proceeding with the Rasch analysis, the dimensionality of the items were evaluated because unidimensionality is considered the most critical and basic assumption of Rasch models. An

Best Engineering Traits

22

exploratory factor analysis for ordered polytomous data by using the principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted. The items can be said to be roughly unidimensional if the first eigenvalue is relatively large in comparison to the second eigenvalue and if the second eigenvalue is not much larger than any of the other eigenvalues. Having satisfied the unidimensionality assumption, the two polytomous Rasch models were compared by first investigating whether scoring category transitions remained similar across all of the items.. The results with the PCA indicated that the scoring category transitions across many items were similar enough to support the selection of the Rasch. Next, the Rasch reliability indices were obtained from the four factors. The Rasch analogue to Cronbach's alpha is called "person separation reliability" which refers to the ability to differentiate persons on the measured variable and the replicability of person placement across other items measuring the same construct. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with values equal to or greater than .80 being regarded as acceptable. The scores of item separation reliability were compared, which refers to the ability to define a distinct hierarchy of items along the measured variable and the replicability of item placement within the hierarchy across other samples.

Best Engineering Traits

23

Proposed Construction of the Achievement Test Search for Content Domain. The different sequence of subjects that are taken by freshmen civil engineering students were gathered from different universities locally and abroad. The purpose of integrating the subjects is to come up with the common subjects taken by civil engineering freshmen students that will cover the items in the achievement test part of the battery. Item Writing. The items were written by different experts in the field of mathematics, sciences, and English. The areas that cover the items are algebra trigonometry, geometry, differential and integrated calculus, physics, chemistry and communications. The items were distributed in the revised bloom’s taxonomy and the appropriate time frame for each subject area was determined together with the percentage for each of the cognitive skills in bloom’s taxonomy. Table 2 shows the table of specifications of the items. A total of 200 items was formed. The number of items for each area and skill was determined by dividing the allotted time with total time and multiplied by the percentage and the total number of items. Table 2 Table of Specifications Areas Algebra Trigonometry Geometry Differential Calculus Integral Calculus Mensuration Physics Chemistry

Hours a week 180 180 360 180

Recall 5%

Understanding 15%

Application 25%

Analysis 20%

Evaluation 20%

Creating 15%

Total

1 1 2 1

3 3 5 3

5 5 9 5

4 4 7 4

4 4 7 4

3 3 5 3

18 18 36 18

180 180 180 360

1 1 1 2

3 3 3 5

5 5 5 9

4 4 4 7

4 4 4 7

3 3 3 5

18 18 18 36

Best Engineering Traits

Communications TOTAL

180 1980

1 10

3 30

5 50

4 40

4 40

24

3 30

Item Review. The items will be reviewed by experts in engineering, education and cognitive psychology. As well as experts in the construction of achievement tests. During the review the table of specifications will be shown and the corresponding items. The reviewers will judge whether the items are representative of the subject area and if the items really measure the cognitive skill placed. Pilot Testing. The instrument will be administered to 200 civil engineering freshmen students from high and low end universities. During the administration the instructions and time allotment will be followed based on the manual that will be constructed. Proposed Construction of the Aptitude Test Search for Content Domain. The areas that were included in the aptitude test were based on different standardized aptitude tests. The factors included are the ones prescribed for engineers. The areas include mechanical, structural visualization, logic and abstract reasoning. Item Writing. Then items will also be written by different experts in the field of mathematics, sciences, and Engineering. The areas that cover the items are mechanical, structural visualization, logic and abstract reasoning. The items will also be distributed in the revised bloom’s taxonomy and the appropriate units for each subject area will be determined together with the percentage for each of the cognitive skills in bloom’s taxonomy. Table 3 shows the table of specifications of the items. A total of 100 items will be formed. The number of items for each

18 200

Best Engineering Traits

25

area and skill was determined by dividing the allotted time with total time and multiplied by the percentage and the total number of items. Table 2 Table of Specifications Areas

Units

Mechanical Structural Visualization Logic Abstract Reasoning TOTAL

Understanding 15% 4 4

Application 25% 6 6

Analysis 20% 5 5

Evaluation 20% 5 5

Creating 15% 4 4

Total

5 5

Recall 5% 1 1

5 5

1 1

4 4

6 6

5 5

5 5

4 4

25 25

20

5

15

25

20

20

15

100

Item Review. The items will be reviewed by experts in engineering, education and cognitive psychology, as well as experts in the construction of aptitude tests. During the review, the table of specifications will be shown and the corresponding items. The reviewers will judge whether the items are representative of the subject area and if the items really measure the cognitive skill placed. Pilot Testing. The instrument will be administered to 200 civil engineering freshmen students together with the achievement test constructed from high and low end universities. During the administration the instruction sand time allotment will be followed based on the manual that will be constructed. Data Analysis for the achivement and aptitude tests. To describe the distribution of the scores, the mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, and skewness will be obtained. The reliability of the items were evaluated using the Kuder Richardson #20.

25 25

Best Engineering Traits

26

Item Analysis will be conducted using both Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT). In the CTT the item difficulty and item discrimination were determined using the proportion of the high group and the low group. Item difficulty is determined by getting the average proportion of correct responses between the high group and low group. The Item discrimination is determined by computing for the difference between the high group and the low group. The estimation of Rasch item difficulty and person ability scores and related analyses will be carried out. The provisional central estimates of item difficulty and person ability parameters, compares expected responses based on these estimates to the data, constructs new parameter estimates using maximum likelihood estimation, and then reiterates the analysis until the change between successive iterations is small enough to satisfy a preselected criterion value. The item parameter estimates are typically scaled to have M = 0, and person ability scores are estimated in reference to the item mean. A unit on this scale, a logit, represents the change in ability or difficulty necessary to change the odds of a correct response by a factor of 2.718, the base of the natural logarithm. Persons who respond to all items correctly or incorrectly, and items to which all persons respond correctly or incorrectly, are uninformative with respect to item difficulty estimation and are thus excluded from the parameter estimation process.

Best Engineering Traits

27

Results and Discussion Attitude Scale The attitude scale of the BET Inventory has four hypothesized factors (practical inclination, analytical interest, intellectual independence and assertiveness). The hypothesized factors are analyzed by describing its distribution, analyzed for reliability using the cronbach’s alpha, correlating the scores for convergent validity, determined the dimensions using joining tree clustering and principal components analysis and if the data set fits a four factor dimension using confirmatory factor analysis. The items that are acceptable are determined if the data fits the Rasch Model. The distribution of the scores for each factor is presented in Table 1. Table 1 Score Distribution of the BET

Practical Inclination Analytical Interest Intellectual Independence Assertiveness

N 45 45

M SE 2.28 0.02 3.00 0.04

SD 0.15 0.25

Skewness -0.57 -0.68

Kurtosis 0.86 0.96

45 45

2.22 0.02 2.45 0.02

0.16 0.15

-0.20 -0.64

1.34 2.20

The highest possible score that can be obtained in the attitude scale in the BET is 4.00 and the lowest is 1.00. Analytical interest was rated highly among the respondents than the other factors. The variances showed by the standard

Best Engineering Traits

28

deviation and standard errors are low indicating low dispersion of the scores. All the scores tend to be negatively skewed and the distribution tends to be mesokurtic for practical inclination and analytical interest but leptokurtic for intellectual independence and assertiveness. The Cronbach’s alpha obtained for the entire test is .94 indicating high internal consistency of the items. The Cronbach’s alpha for the factors practical inclination, analytical interest, intellectual independence, and assertiveness are .84, .91, .83 and .82 respectively all indicating high internal consistency. Table 2 Correlation Matrix

Practical Inclination Analytical Interest Intellectual Independence Assertiveness ** p<.01

Practical Inclination 1

Analytical Interest 0.56** 1

Intellectual Independence 0.51** 0.77** 1

Assertiveness 0.31** 0.54** 0.56** 1

The scores for each factor were summated and intercorrelated using Pearson r to prove the convergent validity of the test. All the four factors are significantly related to each other where coefficients are different form zero. The correlation coefficients range from moderate to high relationship. Very high relationship exists between analytical interest and intellectual independence. The significant and high correlation coefficients indicate that the factors are measuring the same construct because of the same positive magnitude evidenced with the scores.

Best Engineering Traits

29

A joining tree clustering was conducted to further study the factor structure of the attitude scale of the BET. As shown in Figure 1, the result of the tree clustering is consistent with the correlation matrix. Practical Inclination is closest to intellectual independence and they seem to converge with assertiveness. Analytical interest has the farthest proximity to the other three factors. Table 3 shows the Squared Euclidean distances among the four factors. Figure 1 Joining Tree Clustering Tree Diagram for Variables Single Linkage Euclidean distances

practical

intellectual independence

assertiveness

analytical interest

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5 Linkage Distance

Table 3 Squared Euclidean Distances

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Best Engineering Traits

Practical Inclination Analytical Interest Intellectual Independence Assertiveness

Practical Inclination 0

Analytical Interest 25.59 0

Intellectual Independence 1.19 29.08 0

30

Assertiveness 2.72 15.77 3.36 0

To explore further the factors of the attitude scale of the BET, principal components analysis was conducted. Given 25 iterations in the analysis, there are 35 factors extracted in the principal components analysis with eigenvalues greater than 1.00. However, the principal components analysis only puts together items with high correlation and not really looking into the content of the items (see Appendix C). The results of the principal components are with the factor loadings of the items are not the only basis for item selection in the final form of the test. The Goodness of fit for each items in the Rasch Model were also considered. Table 4 Eigenvalues for the BET Factors Componen t 1 2 3 4

Initial Eigenvalues % of Cumulative Total Variance % 49.93 21.34 21.34 14.38 6.14 27.48 12.93 5.53 33.01 12.03 5.14 38.15

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings % of Cumulative Total Variance % 26.37 11.27 11.27 24.17 10.33 21.60 23.49 10.04 31.64 15.24 6.51 38.15

Best Engineering Traits

Figure 2 Scree Plot

Scree Plot

50

Eigenvalue

40

30

20

10

0 147111122233344445556667777888999111111111111111111111111111111111122222222222 036925814703692581470369258147000011122233334445556666777888999900011122223 036925814703692581470369258147036925814703692

Component Number

The confirmatory factor analysis using the covariance approach and general least squares technique was used to prove the factor structure of the attitude scale for the BET. The parameter estimate loadings of each factor composing the BET construct are all significant with estimates .09, .22, .13 and .09 respectively for practical inclination, analytical interest, intellectual independence and assertiveness.

31

Best Engineering Traits

32

Figure 3 Factor Structure of Best Engineering Traits

.01

e1

e3

e2

1 Practical Inclination

.01

.01

e4

1

1 Analytical Interest

.09

.01 1

Intellectual Independence

.22

Assertiveness

.09

.13

1.00 Engineering Traits

Table 5 Parameter Estimates of the factors of other BET

analyticalinterest intellectualindependence assertiveness practical ** p<.01

<--<--<--<---

Engineering Traits Engineering Traits Engineering Traits Engineering Traits

Estimate .219** .133** .091** .091**

P .031 .020 .021 .022

CR 7.003 6.733 4.279 4.204

Best Engineering Traits

33

The estimates show that analytical interest and intellectual independence have the heaviest loadings on the BET. The assertiveness and practical inclination factors may have low eights but they are still considered significant p<.01.

Table 6 Error Estimates for Each Factor of the BET

Engineering Traits E1 E2 E3 E4 ** p<.05

Estimate 1.000 .014** .012 .006 .014**

SE

CR

P

.003 .006 .002 .003

4.350 2.015 2.435 4.334

.000 .044 .015 .000

The errors terms fro each factor in the model shows that the error for practical inclination and assertiveness are significantly different from zero. This shows that few variances occur in the scores for these factors. The factor structure of the BET have a rather good fit, χ2(8, N=45) = .889, p<.01. The BET with a four factor structure is a best fit model given a very low error of .000 using the RMSEA and having a baseline of .965 when other model are explored. The other fit indices (see Appendix D) are also consistent showing the data to be fit in the model (RMR=.99, Parsimony-adjusted=.333, NCP=.000, FMIN=.020, AIC=16.384, ECVI=.348, and HOELTER=456). In the Rasch Analysis, the scales for each item,are transformed into a dichotomy. The BET measure using the Rasch Model is interpreted by extreme

Best Engineering Traits

34

high and low manifestation of the characteristic with the probability of getting a high score is calibrated at 50%. Each item in the Rasch corresponds to a log value and the goodness of fit for each of the items are tested using a t-value. The t-values of items with 1.6 and below are considered to be fitted in the Rasch model and the items with very high t values are removed in the pool. In the analysis very few items are removed having high t-values. For Practical inclination, 8 items are removed, for analytical interest 19 items are removed, for intellectual independence 10 items are removed, and for assertiveness 8 items are removed. However it was decided that each factor needs to have equal weights and representation for the whole test in general. A total of 50 items were retained for each factor with items showing good content and low fit index. The final pool of items is composed of 200 items (see Appendix E). The item reliability obtained from the Rasch analysis is .37, .42, .41 and .36 respectively for practical inclination, analytical interest, intellectual independence, and assertiveness. Interpretation of BET Scores The scores obtained in the BET Inventory will be interpreted as follows: Scale Points

Continuum of Values

4 (SA)

3.50-4.00

Most likely to manifest the traits described in a particular subscale

3 (A)

2.50-3.49

Likely to manifest the traits described in a particular subscale

2 (D)

1.50-2.49

Unlikely to manifest the traits described in a particular subscale

Interpretation

Best Engineering Traits

1 (SD)

1.00-1.49

35

Least unlikely to manifest the traits described in a particular subscale

Reverse scoring must be done first for the negatively-stated items before final scoring will be computed. Mean scores per subscale will likewise be obtained. Low scorers in a particular subscale maybe advised for career guidance and counseling. High scorers, on the other hand, may indicate possession of desirable traits for someone to become an effective engineer.

Recommendations for Future Research Based on the initial item analysis performed for the BET Inventory, the following are recommended for further investigation and action: 1. Establish the relationship of the BET with the other components such as the achievement and aptitude tests 2. Develop parallel forms and test further its reliability 3. Conduct convergent validation of the test with the ISHI (Interest and Study Habits Inventory) 4. Get a bigger number of students to take the pre-testing of the aptitude and achievement components of the battery, probably in both low-end and high-end engineering schools 5. Test the BET with identified outstanding engineers to establish further its construct validity References Academic standards (2000). Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Ajobeje (2005). Cognitive entry characteristics and continuous assessment as predictors of academic performance among polytechnic engineering technology students. The African Symposium: An On Line Journal of African Educational Research Network. Alonso, D.L. and Norman, K.L. (1998). Apparency of contingencies in single panel and pull-down menus. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 49, 59 – 78. Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (2001). Psychological testing. New York: Prentice Hall. Bennet, G. K. (1980). Bennet mechanical comprehension test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Best Engineering Traits

36

Brown, N. W., & Cross, E. J. (1991). Capitalizing on personality differences of Black and White engineering students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 18(1), 43-50. Cavanagh, S. (2005). Experts disagree over what to include in revised NAEP. Education Week, 25, 10. Clough, W. (2004). Once an engineer, always an engineer. ASEE Prism, 13, 56. College of Engineering. (2006). www.dlsu.edu.ph Downey, G. L., Lucena, J. C., Moskal, B. M., Parkhurst, R. et al. (2006). The globally competent engineer: Working effectively with people who define problems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 107-113. Downing, R.E., Moore, J.L., and Brown, S.W. (2005). The effects and interaction of spatial visualization and domain expertise on information seeking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 195 – 209. Dunn, (1982). Hands-on approaches to learning styles: A practical guide to successful schooling. PA: Thompson House. Garrison, S., & Jenkins, J. O. (1986). Differing perceptions of Black assertiveness as a function of race. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 14(4), 157-166. Hall, J. R., & Beil-Warner, D. (1978). Assertiveness of male Anglo and Mexican American college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 175-178. Hodges, W. (2001). Logic. An introduction to Elementary Logic, Penguin Books. Honawar, V. (2005). U.S. Leaders Fret Over Students' Math and Science Weaknesses. Education Week, 25, 1-2. Jonquieres, G. (2006, June 3). Asia cannot fill the world's skills gap. Financial Times, p. 13 Kubler and Forkes (2002). Engineering subject centre: Student employability profile. The higher Education Academy. Lazarus, A. A. (1973). Assertive training: A brief note. Behavior Theory, 4, 697699. Lieberman, R. P. (1972). A guide to behavioral analysis and therapy. New York: Pergamon Press.

Best Engineering Traits

37

Lineberger, M. H., & Calhoun, K. S. (1983). Assertive behavior in Black and White American undergraduates. The Journal of Psychology 113, 139-148. Magno, C. (2003). The relationship between the attitude towards technical education and achievement in mathematics and science. An unpublished master’s thesis, Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. McFall, R. M., & Lillesand, D. B. (1971). Behavior rehearsal with modelling and coaching in assertion training. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 313-323. Meece, J., Eccles-Parsons, J et al. (1982). Sex Differences in Math Achievement: Toward a Model of Academic Choice. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 324-348. Mohr, P. (2006). NCTL: Engineering skills should be assessed. Education Daily, 39, 81. Muchinsky, P. M. (1993). Validation of intelligencer and mechanical aptitude tests in selecting employees for manufacturing jobs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 373-382. Ness, M. K., Donnan, H. H., & Jenkins, J. (1983). Race as an interpersonal variable in negative assertion. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 361-369. Newport and Elms (1997). Efective engineers. International Journal for Engineering Education, 13, 325-332. Niikura, R. (1999). Assertiveness among Japanese, Malaysian, Filipino, and U.S. white-collar workers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 690-700. Oliver, J. S. & Nichols, B. K. (2001). Intellectual independence as a persistent theme in the literature of science eduction: 1900-1950. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 49-58. Paterson, R. J. (2000). The assertiveness workbook. Oakland CA: New Harbinger Publications. Poteat, W. L. (1901). The laboratory as a means of culture. School Science, 1(6), 285-287. Santi, P. M. and Higgins, J. D. (2005). Preparing geologists for careers in engineering geology and hydrogeology. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 513-522. Scinta, C. (2006, July 26). U.S. firms search for technical talent. Wall Street Journal, p. B2D

Best Engineering Traits

38

Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shuster, L. A. (2005). U.S. Students Perform below Average on International Math and Problem-Solving Test. Civil Engineering, 75, 25. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A broad view of intelligence: The theory of successful intelligence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 139154. Sternberg, R. J., Castejón, J.L., Prieto, M.D., Hautamäki, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the sternberg triarchic abilities test in three international samples an empirical test of the triarchic theory of intelligence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 1-16. Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People's conception of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 3755. The Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) (2006). Wikipedia.com Vyom Technosoft (2006). The Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering Yoshioka, M. (2000). Substantive differences in the assertiveness of low-income African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Women. The Journal of Psychology, 134, 243-250. Zane, N. W. S., Sue, S., Hu, L., & Kwon, J. H. (1991). Asian American assertion: A social learning analysis of cultural differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 63-70. Appendix A Engineering Characteristics Survey Questionnaire 1. How do you show your expertise in different situations in being an Engineering student? 2. How do you apply engineering theories in your everyday life? 3. What are the instances that an Engineer needs to be assertive? 4. In what ways can an Engineer be independent in his intellectual thinking? 5. What do you think are other personality traits or characteristics that would make you an effective engineer?

Best Engineering Traits

39

Appendix B Items in the Pretest Form 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

I am inclined to fix broken things in the house. I hate to buy things in hardware stores. I love to help out anyone in fixing broken things at home. I am not good at estimating precisely sizes of any objects. I do manual computation if there is no available calculator. I am afraid to explore all the features of the computer because it might be damaged. I like to tinker with things. I cannot imagine myself driving a bulldozer in action. I use gadgets and machines to make my work easier. I am not bothered every time I see flooding as an effect of ill-constructed drainage systems. I make wise use of my body in any physical activity with my knowledge about the principles of force. My family does not rely on me to fix anything that goes wrong in the comfort room. I use available batteries and wires to produce light if there is no electricity. I cannot make a way if there is a leak in the water pipes. I am likely to prevent fire accidents through my knowledge of flame formation. I am not usually relied on to check appliances if something is wrong with it. I choose appliances with low power output to save on electricity. I cannot be expected to keep a complete set of tools in the house. I tend to measure the length of objects even without any ruler. My family does not expect me to fix broken objects. I am likely to easily size up any object without using any gadget at hand. I am not likely to pinpoint the damage that occurs in an appliance if it is broken. I am likely to estimate the velocity of a moving car when I cross the street. I do not know the brand of appliances that are durable. I know how to choose the right materials in building objects. I am less likely to improvise tools when building objects. I tend to predict the outcome of events using fundamental principles in engineering. There are a lot of broken objects in our house because I cannot easily remedy them. I find it easy to detect problems in defective appliances. I am least likely consulted by my relatives on any building construction. I like to fix defective objects in the house. It is unlikely for me to remedy water leaks from the ceiling during heavy rains. I take precautions given my knowledge on proper handling of appliances. I am least likely expected to fix anything that goes wrong with our electricity. I am likely to cut the pizza pie evenly across its radius. I do not care about bringing out solutions to disaster mitigation. I tend to calculate the amount of calories that I can burn after eating. I have little concern over the problems of the country’s housing industry. I am inclined to approximate the amount of heat required in cooking foods. I do not go around the lawn to check the house after a heavy rain. I am most likely the “handyman” at home. I do not know how to use variety of tools in the house. I know the good materials needed in constructing durable objects. I am not usually relied on to help build things in the house. I most likely know how durable a material is by its mere look and appearance. I do not know what to do with the car when it suddenly stops while driving.

Best Engineering Traits

47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

40

I like to handle building tents during outings and picnics. I have little involvement in planning our house renovation. I can easily operate new appliances in the house without reading their manuals first. I am less likely expected to fix a busted faucet or shower. I tend to inspect the drainage outside the house after a heavy rain. I do not tend to keep scrap materials for future use. I can use varied ways to fix clogged water drains. I can easily estimating the cost needed in building an object. I am unable to create an object with limited resources. I can jumpstart an object if there is faulty wiring. I am unlikely to be approached in operating electronic devices. I am expected to demonstrate the operation of any electronic devices. I am likely to throw away scrap materials than recycle them to build something else. I can use alternative materials to create an object. I like watching repairmen when they are fix something. I am not interested to know the processes involved in making a gadget. I enjoy looking at electronic gadgets in stores. I dislike inventing things. I enjoy doing computations. I do not rely on mathematical solutions in arriving at conclusions. I like subjects that use mathematical formulas and equations. I am not interested to watch shows that feature electronic gadgets. I like using formula to solve problems. I hate science fiction movies. I think that the scientific method is important in giving accurate data. I dislike learning anything about science. I find numbers exciting. I am not interested in watching car shows. I like thinking of different ways to quantify objects. I hate studying about the universe and the solar system. I love to collect tools and gadgets. I hate talking about buildings and construction. I can easily solve mathematical problems just by looking at the given parameters. I enjoy any math subject. I enjoy making models of objects. I like to help others who are poor in math. I enjoy teaching people who have difficulty in problem solving. I can easily visualize how a machine works. I am able to translate my imagination into physical objects. I love playing building blocks. I enjoy solving brainteasers and jig-saw puzzles. I enjoy looking for various ways to solve a problem. I like assessing the designs of others. I enjoy solving word problems. I enjoy using quantitative approaches in solving problems. I am interested to know how each of my body systems work. I enjoy using various softwares in solving a problem. I like creating computer programs that efficiently handle tasks that are timeconsuming. I enjoy using mathematical equations for varied purposes. I can easily detect any malfunction of a machine. I enjoy crossword puzzles. I find thinking “out of the box” difficult to do. I dislike explaining things in a scientific manner. I think that it is only through scientific reasoning that I could speculate how the world works.

Best Engineering Traits

101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153.

I enjoy following step-by-step procedure in completing tasks. I like generating conclusions using accurate facts. I am not interested in designing any product. I do not enjoy playing games of chance. I love doing tasks that engage me to use various strategies. I enjoy playing magic cubes. I love solving puzzles and mazes. I hate scrutinizing every detail of things. I love watching suspense and detective films. I appreciate the wonders of computers. I love to explore on new computer softwares. I enjoy surfing in using the internet . I do not enjoy building systems on how things work. I love science subjects. I hate to assemble anything. I enjoy computer games. I dislike playing with puzzles. I enjoy playing chess. I enjoy films that require me to analyze the story. I love playing strategy games. I gather necessary information before making decisions. I need not validate an accepted theory. I usually observe before making any judgment. I do not feel that discussing things helps clarify my ideas as well as those of others. I support my claims with facts and evidences. I am impressed with people who do not stand for their own belief. I enjoy exploring ideas than verifying data from others. I do not question some ideas even if they do not seem to work. I rely on textbooks for the information I need to do a task. I am not convinced with the outcomes of science and technology. I like to verify information before accepting them at face value. I do not find it necessary to ask questions about lessons from my teachers. I believe that an experiment is the best way to prove an assumption. I hate to challenge the beliefs of other people. I love to pursue an idea when others are against it. I do not enjoy classes where the teacher dominates the discussion. I rely on experts’ opinion rather than exploring on my own. I do not like to probe further into the explanation of my teacher for fear that I might flank in the course. I believe that there is a single right way of doing things. I usually do not expect rewards for performing well in class. I believe that any policy should be open for discussion before it gets implemented. I need not look for the scientific evidence when faced with unusual events. I believe that learning is acquiring accepted truths than rethinking knowledge in our own terms. I easily believe in what an authority figure is saying about things. I discern first on my own before consulting with others. I believe that students learn best if they agree with authority. I am confident that the directions I give are correct. I often feel that my personal opinion in an issue does not count at all. I make firm goals and decisions to obtain success in my chosen career. I believe that teachers and students do not need to have an academic discourse in the classroom. I fully trust my abilities in doing certain tasks. I enjoy solving problems without doubt in producing excellent solutions. I can anticipate problems that may arise in implementing projects.

41

Best Engineering Traits

154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205.

42

I can finish a task by myself. I can effectively give instructions in accomplishing a task. I am not easily swayed by the ideas of others. I love to solve mathematical problems by myself. I enjoy reasoning out technically with others. I can decide on my own during critical circumstances. I take chances and probabilities to pursue my idea even without the help of others. I support my ideas with knowledge-based information. I believe that I have the competency for an engineering course. I am certain I get a high score in a math intelligence test. I usually assess the accuracy of facts before I accept them. I believe in things that can demonstrate its usefulness in whatever I am doing. I conduct my own inquiry to find the truthfulness of things. I love to explore multiple sources to verify a fact. I believe that conclusions are valid only when based upon scientific observations. I think that the scientific method is the most accurate way in arriving at new knowledge. I support conclusions that I deduced from accurate evidences. I believe that the teacher is the ultimate source of knowledge. I do not resist tradition even when it hinders my development. I hate teachers that discourage students from arguing with their ideas in class. I challenge others to change their predetermined roles to produce alternative ones. I love to argue with others especially with people of authority. I am not comfortable to be working in a team. I prefer to work on my own first before I get derailed with the inefficiency of others. I like teachers who know how to facilitate learning in the classroom. I tend to be overly critical of the ideas of others. I can work with a team, but I need to do my tasks first before I get contaminated with how others work. I express my thoughts freely during discussions. I rather be nice to someone than face any confrontations. I love to actively participate in group activities. I am reluctant to express my opinions, especially when others do not seem to agree with me. I make sure I give my ideas in a discussion. I give up easily when engaging even in a simple debate with friends. I make sure to inform other people what needs to be done immediately. I feel uncertain about discussing new ideas. I like convincing people to follow my ideas. I can am submissive to the whims of others. I make sure that I contribute ideas during discussions. I tend to get the approval of others before my idea gets through. I take the risk of informing people about the problem even though I know it will hurt them. I have difficulty in responding to the arguments of others. I take a stand to defend my beliefs. I prefer to keep silent about what I think for fear that others might not like it. I usually support my claims so that others will accept my idea. I am confident that what I will say and do could be acceptable by others. If an opinion is flawed I can easily disagree with it. I feel that my participation is important in every project I undertake. I call the attention of others who are doing things the wrong way. I easily could express to others what bothers me. I make sure I finish what I am supposed to say before others get their way. I can tell other people to stop if they are annoying me. I cannot tolerate accepting rules and policies that are flawed.

Best Engineering Traits

206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240.

I can tactfully express my disagreement with the opinions of others without hurting their feelings. I enjoy arguing with others when necessary. I can easily tell others what I feel about them even at the expense of their feelings. I can confidently answer questions in order to get the position I want. I can easily voice out my opinion regarding a matter even to people of authority. I stand up to what I believe is right. I can point out the mistakes of others without hurting their feelings. I can defend my own viewpoints no matter what others say. I can advice anyone to go straight to the point when engaging in a discussion with me. I easily get frustrated when I am not given a chance to talk. I seldom take pride in my accomplishments. I am too dependent upon the opinions of others. I can easily discuss my ideas without showing disrespect with people of authority. I spend a lot of time planning that it leaves me too little time for implementing anything. I cannot easily accept the viewpoints of others. I tend to beat around the bush when I express my ideas. I get discouraged if my opinion is not solicited by my peers. I love to argue just for the sake of argument. I easily accept ideas at face value rather than ask more questions about them. I can easily tell my superiors if I cannot tackle a task long before they would discover that I have not done anything about it. I just keep quiet when someone argues with me. I easily show outbursts of temper. I say things in my mind even at the expense of hurting others. I can argue with anyone that women can be good engineers. I get easily overwhelmed when caught in a crowd of opposing ideas. I feel uncomfortable facing others whom I know do not like my ideas. I am described to be straight forward even with people whom I seldom deal with. I stand out in a crowd because of the brilliant ideas I give. I rather keep quiet when facing an uncomfortable situation than speaking up my mind. I love to hear from others what they think about my ideas. I speak up what easily comes to my mind without considering the feelings of others. I have difficulty in telling others what I feel when I am in an uncomfortable situation. I cannot stand pressure when faced with difficulty in doing a task. I am overly impatient with people who tend to argue with me. I cannot easily speak up for my rights even if others are already hurting my feelings.

Appendix C Factor Loadings 1 item1 item2 item3 item4 item5

43

Component 2 0.512935

3

4 0.481538 0.558332

0.46251

Best Engineering Traits

item6 item7 item8 item9 item10 item11 item12 item13 item14 item15 item16 item17 item18 item19 item20 item21 item22 item23 item24 item25 item26 item27 item28 item29 item30 item31 item32 item33 item34 item35 item36 item37 item38 item39 item40 item41 item42 item43 item44 item45 item46 item47 item48 item49 item50 item51 item52 item53 item54 item55

0.617517 0.538428

0.41187

0.542488 0.422346

0.533252 0.428465 0.536117 0.547442 0.838947 0.46466 0.530962 -0.43194

-0.6271

0.584475 -0.594

-0.47053 0.696474 -0.73988 0.535058 -0.55794 0.471739 0.609731

0.429233

0.440907 0.784736 0.572421 0.798228 0.501908 0.688884 0.48045 0.437115 -0.43194 -0.49855 0.405139 0.404042 -0.41849 0.523805 0.625485 -0.57386

-0.6271 0.461782

44

Best Engineering Traits

item56 item57 item58 item59 item60 item61 item62 item63 item64 item65 item66 item67 item68 item69 item70 item71 item72 item73 item74 item75 item76 item77 item78 item79 item80 item81 item82 item83 item84 item85 item86 item87 item88 item89 item90 item91 item92 item93 item94 item95 item96 item97 item98 item99 item100 item101 item102 item103 item104 item105

0.532365 -0.67231 0.609731 -0.40429 0.437033 0.507948 -0.61902 0.410656 0.507564 0.488117 0.551679

0.51305 0.407306 0.534759 0.489515

0.416114

0.484562 0.435028 0.40109 0.448181 0.417305 -0.51054 0.553948 0.441854 0.401046

0.477479 -0.55658 0.414102

0.451895 0.441032 0.417284

0.48341

0.518454 0.464253 0.476683 0.565831 0.514582 0.547287 0.528332 0.679795

0.4121

0.458825 0.589009 0.481184

0.498296

0.495203

45

Best Engineering Traits

item106 item107 item108 item109 item110 item111 item112 item113 item114 item115 item116 item117 item118 item119 item120 item121 item122 item123 item124 item125 item126 item127 item128 item129 item130 item131 item132 item133 item134 item135 item136 item138 item139 item140 item141 item143 item145 item147 item149 item151 item152 item153 item154 item155 item156 item157 item158 item159 item160 item161

0.443574 -0.40661

-0.54208

0.505033 0.760738 0.539781 -0.4636

-0.406

-0.53651 0.621547 -0.57042

-0.45689

0.443257 0.682689 0.584206 0.435767

0.453982 -0.60603 0.448807

0.481493 -0.62563 0.734402

-0.61172 -0.48082 -0.42072 0.598901 -0.43626

-0.71224

-0.62782 0.401974 0.471493 -0.45943 -0.40428

-0.43936 -0.56256

0.682725 -0.55777

0.402714

0.441529 0.457287 0.59465 0.620779 0.414337 -0.46537 0.476361 0.424969 0.610599 0.538209 0.615823

46

Best Engineering Traits

item162 item163 item164 item165 item166 item167 item168 item169 item170 item171 item172 item173 item174 item175 item176 item177 item178 item179 item180 item181 item182 item183 item184 item185 item186 item187 item188 item189 item190 item191 item192 item193 item194 item195 item196 item197 item198 item199 item200 item201 item202 item203 item204 item205 item206 item207 item208 item209 item210 item211

0.529086 0.410947 0.584676 0.57434 0.472081 0.49181 0.438345 0.500371 0.455313

0.446085

0.442211 0.631754

0.408025

0.738229 0.578598

0.409812

-0.69697 0.407655 0.422537

0.447876 -0.45628

0.564552

0.415401 -0.74792 0.455935 -0.6281 0.580962

0.411103 -0.53744

0.403861 0.40906

0.502361 0.456802 0.453943

0.453978 -0.5943 0.531564 0.541114

0.423452

47

Best Engineering Traits

item212 item213 item214 item215 item216 item217 item218 item219 item220 item221 item222 item223 item224 item225 item226 item227 item228 item229 item230 item231 item232 item233 item234 item235 item236 item237 item238 item239 item240

0.452338 0.487064 0.468505

0.407601 0.578371

0.431705 -0.49067

-0.51477 0.459647 -0.4131

-0.43017

-0.57292 0.444372 -0.63343 -0.54378 -0.60266 0.644436 0.402577 0.490669

0.514766 0.44202

-0.56307 -0.41329 -0.49257 -0.5043

-0.41057

Model Fit Summary CMIN NPAR 8 10 4

CMIN .889 .000 75.956

DF 2 0 6

P .641

CMIN/DF .444

.000

12.659

RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model

0.443199

0.560605 -0.68045

Appendix D

Model Default model Saturated model Independence model

-0.4432

RMR .001 .000 .014

GFI .990 1.000 .516

AGFI .948

PGFI .198

.194

.310

48

Best Engineering Traits

Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model

NFI Delta1 .988 1.000 .000

RFI rho1 .965 .000

IFI Delta2 1.015 1.000 .000

TLI rho2 1.048 .000

CFI 1.000 1.000 .000

Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model Default model Saturated model Independence model

PRATIO .333 .000 1.000

PNFI .329 .000 .000

PCFI .333 .000 .000

NCP Model Default model Saturated model Independence model

NCP .000 .000 69.956

LO 90 .000 .000 45.487

HI 90 4.878 .000 101.874

FMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model

FMIN .020 .000 1.726

F0 .000 .000 1.590

LO 90 .000 .000 1.034

HI 90 .111 .000 2.315

RMSEA Model Default model Independence model

RMSEA .000 .515

LO 90 .000 .415

HI 90 .235 .621

PCLOSE .671 .000

BIC 31.342 38.067 91.183

CAIC 39.342 48.067 95.183

AIC Model Default model Saturated model Independence model

AIC 16.889 20.000 83.956

BCC 18.940 22.564 84.982

ECVI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model

ECVI .384 .455 1.908

LO 90 .409 .455 1.352

HI 90 .520 .455 2.634

HOELTER Model Default model Independence model Minimization: .015

HOELTER .05 297 8

HOELTER .01 456 10

MECVI .430 .513 1.931

49

Best Engineering Traits

Miscellaneous: Bootstrap: Total:

50

.078 .000 .093

Appendix E Final Form 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

I like watching repairmen when they are fixing something. I gather necessary information before making decisions. I hate to buy things in hardware stores. I express my thoughts freely during discussions. I love to help out anyone in fixing broken things at home. I enjoy looking at electronic gadgets in stores. I need not validate an accepted theory. I rather be nice to someone than face any confrontations. I am not good at estimating precisely of any objects. I enjoy doing computations. I do not feel that discussing things helps clarify my ideas as well as those of others. I am reluctant to express my opinions, especially when others do not seem to agree with me. I am afraid to explore all the features of the computer because it might be damaged. I do not rely on mathematical solutions in arriving at conclusions. I support my claims with facts and evidences. I make sure I give my ideas in a discussion. I like to tinker with things. I like subjects that use mathematical formulas and equations. I am not impressed with people who do not stand for their own belief. I give up easily when engaging even in a simple debate with friends. I cannot imagine myself driving a bulldozer in action. I am not interested to watch shows that feature electronic gadgets. I enjoy exploring ideas than verifying data from others. I make sure to inform other people what needs to be done immediately. I use gadgets and machines to make my work easier. I like devising formulas to solve problems. I do not question some ideas even if they do not seem to work. I feel uncertain about discussing new ideas. I am not bothered every time I see flooding as an effect of ill-constructed drainage systems. I hate science fiction movies. I do not find it necessary to ask questions about lessons from my teachers. I like convincing people to follow my ideas. My family does not rely on me to fix anything that goes wrong in the comfort room. I think that the scientific method is important in giving accurate data. I believe that an experiment is the best way to prove an assumption. I am submissive to the whims of others. I use available batteries and wires to produce light if there is no electricity. I find numbers exciting. I hate to challenge the beliefs of other people. I take the risk of informing people about the problem even though I know it will hurt them.

Best Engineering Traits

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

51

I cannot make a way if there is a leak in the water pipes. I am not interested in watching car shows. I love to pursue an idea when others are against it. I have difficulty in responding to the arguments of others. I am likely to prevent fire accidents through my knowledge of flame formation. I like thinking of different ways to quantify objects. I do not enjoy classes where the teacher dominates the discussion. I prefer to keep silent about what I think for fear that others might not like my opinion. I am not relied on to check appliances if something is wrong with it. I hate studying about the universe and the solar system. I rely on experts’ opinion rather than exploring on my own. I support my claims so that others will accept my idea. I choose appliances with low power output to save on electricity. I love to collect tools and gadgets. I do not like to probe further into the explanation of my teacher for fear that I might flank in the course. I am confident that what I will say and do could be acceptable to others. I cannot be expected to keep a complete set of tools in the house. I hate talking about buildings and construction. I believe that there is a single right way of doing things. If an opinion is flawed, I can easily disagree with it. I tend to measure the length of objects even without any ruler. I can easily solve mathematical problems just by looking at the given parameters. I believe that any policy should be open for discussion before it gets implemented. I call the attention of others who are doing things the wrong way. My family does not expect me to fix broken objects. I enjoy any math subject. I need not look for the scientific evidence when faced with unusual events. I can easily express to others what bothers me. I am likely to easily size up any object without using any gadget at hand. I enjoy making models of objects. I believe that learning is acquiring accepted truths than re-thinking knowledge in our own terms. I make sure I finish what I am supposed to say before others get their way. I am not likely to pinpoint the damage that occurs in an appliance if it is broken. I enjoy teaching people who have difficulty in problem solving. I easily believe in what authority figure is saying about things. I can tell other people to stop if they are annoying me. I am likely to estimate the velocity of a moving car when I cross the street. I can easily visualize how a machine works. I discern first on my own before consulting with others. I cannot tolerate accepting rules and policies that are flawed. I do not know the brand of appliances that are durable. I am able to translate my imagination into physical objects. I believe that students learn best if they agree with authority. I can tactfully express my disagreement with the opinions of others without hurting their feelings. I am less likely to improvise tools when building objects. I had great fun with playing building blocks when I was young. I am confident that the directions I give are correct. I enjoy arguing with others when necessary. I tend to predict the outcome of events using fundamental principles in engineering. I enjoy solving brainteasers and jig-saw puzzles. I feel that my personal opinion in an issue does not count at all. I can easily tell others what I feel about them even at the expense of their feelings. There are a lot of broken objects in our house because I cannot easily remedy them.

Best Engineering Traits

94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146.

I enjoy looking for various ways to solve a problem. I make firm goals and decisions to obtain success in my chosen career. I can confidently answer questions to prove my stand on certain issues. I find it easy to detect problems in defective appliances. I like assessing the designs of engineers. I believe that teachers and students do not need to have an academic discourse in the classroom. I can easily voice out my opinion regarding a matter even to people of authority. I am least likely consulted by my relatives on any building construction. I enjoy solving word problems. I fully trust my abilities in doing certain tasks. I can point out the mistakes of others without hurting their feelings. I like to fix defective objects in the house. I enjoy using quantitative approaches in solving problems. I enjoy solving problems without doubt in producing excellent solutions. I can advice anyone to go straight to the point when engaging in a discussion with me. It is unlikely for me to remedy water leaks from the ceiling during heavy rains. I am interested to know how each of my body systems work. I can finish a task by myself. I easily get frustrated when I am not given the chance to talk. I am least likely expected to fix anything that goes wrong with our electricity. I enjoy using various softwares in solving a problem. I love to solve mathematical problems by myself. I take pride in my accomplishments. I am likely to cut the pizza pie evenly across its radius. I like creating computer programs that efficiently handle tasks that are timeconsuming. I enjoy reasoning out technically with others. I am too dependent upon the opinions of others. I tend to calculate the amount of calories that I can burn after each meal. I enjoy using mathematical equations for varied purposes. I can decide on my own during critical circumstances. I can easily discuss my ideas without showing disrespect with people of authority. I have little concern over the problems of the country’s housing industry. I can easily detect any malfunction of a machine. I take chances and probabilities to pursue my idea even without the help of others. I cannot easily accept the viewpoints of others. I am inclined to approximate the amount of heat required in cooking foods. I enjoy crossword puzzles. I believe that I have the competency of an engineering course. I tend to beat around the bush when I express my ideas. I am most likely the “handyman” at home. I find thinking “out of the box” difficult to do. I am certain I get a high score in a math intelligence test. I get discouraged if my opinion is not solicited by my peers. I do not know how to use a variety of tools in the house. I dislike explaining things in a scientific manner. I assess the accuracy of facts before I accept them. I love to argue just for the sake of argument. I know the good materials needed in constructing durable objects. I know that through scientific reasoning, I can speculate how the world works. I conduct my own inquiry to find the truthfulness of things. I easily accept ideas at face value rather than ask more questions about them. I am not relied on to help build things in the house. I enjoy following step-by-step procedure in completing tasks.

52

Best Engineering Traits

147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194.

53

I love to explore multiple sources to verify a fact. I can easily tell my superiors if I cannot tackle a task long before they would discover that have not done anything about it. I most likely know how durable a material is by its mere look and appearance. I like generating conclusions using accurate facts. I believe that conclusions are valid only when based upon scientific observations. I just keep quiet when someone argues with me. I do not know what to do with the car when it suddenly stops while driving. I love doing tasks that engage me to use various strategies. I think that the scientific method is the most accurate way in arriving at new knowledge. I say things in my mind even at the expense of hurting others. I like to handle building tents during outings and picnics. I enjoy playing with magic cubes. I support conclusions that I deduced from accurate evidences. I can argue with anyone that women can be good engineers. I have little involvement in planning our house renovation/ I love solving puzzles and mazes. I believe that the teacher is the ultimate source of knowledge. I get easily overwhelmed when caught in a crowd of opposing ideas. I can easily operate new appliances in the house without reading their manuals first. I hate scrutinizing every detail of things. I do not resist tradition even when it hinders my development. I feel uncomfortable facing others whom I know do not like my ideas. I am less likely expected to fix a busted faucet or a shower. I love watching suspense and defective films. I hate teachers that discourage students from arguing with their ideas in class. I am described to be straight forward even with people whom I seldom deal with. I tend to inspect the drainage outside the house after a heavy rain. I love to explore on new computer softwares. I challenge others to change their predetermined roles to produce alternative ones. I stand out in a crowd because of the brilliant ideas I give. I do not tend to keep scrap materials for future use. I do not enjoy building systems on how things work. I love to argue with others especially with people of authority. I rather keep quiet when facing an uncomfortable situation than speaking up my mind. I can use varied ways to fix clogged water drains. I love science subjects. I am not comfortable to be working in a team. I love to hear from others what they think about my ideas. I can jumpstart an object if there is faulty wiring. I hate to assemble objects. I prefer to work on my own before I get derailed with the inefficiency of others. I speak up what easily comes to my mind without considering the feelings of others. I am unlikely to be approached in operating electronic devices. I enjoy playing chess. I like teachers who know how to facilitate learning in the classroom. I have difficulty in telling others what I feel when I am in am uncomfortable situation. I am expected to demonstrate the operation of any electronic devices. I enjoy watching movies that require me to analyze the story.