A Systematic Literature Review of Survey Research on Engineering Identity

Amdad Ahmed Awsaf; Heidi Cian; Remy Dou

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.00013

A Systematic Literature Review of Survey Research on Engineering Identity

Amdad Ahmed Awsaf·Heidi Cian·Remy Dou

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Over the last several years, engineering identity research has gained prominence in education research circles, motivated by connections between "identity" and widely-desired outcomes such as career pursuits and selection of STEM college majors. However, quantitative research on engineering identity remains limited, with most studies focusing on qualitative research. This systematic literature review examines 85 research papers from 2007 to 2022, concentrating on survey measures related to engineering identity. Results of the review show a) a concentration of research at the postsecondary levels, with K-12 students underrepresented, and b) heavy male gender representation in survey samples. The analysis also revealed that several theoretical frameworks are frequently employed to operationalize engineering identity, but with a preference for the Engineering Identity Development Scale, the Physics Identity Scale, and the Critical Engineering Agency Framework. Drawing from our analysis, we consider the consequences of both 1) existing age and gender gaps in quantitative engineering identity research and 2) preferences of particular identity frameworks within and across age and gender categories. We discuss how these possible consequences point to focal areas in engineering identity survey-based research.

Explore related subjects

physics.ed-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Amdad Ahmed Awsaf, Heidi Cian, Remy Dou. 2026-07-12. A Systematic Literature Review of Survey Research on Engineering Identity. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00013

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Designing an AI Agent That Does Not Tutor: Design Rules for Socratic Probing in Introductory Physics

Instructors need to know whether a student understands a concept, not only whether the student can produce a correct answer, and the two have come apart: a student can paste a physics question into a chatbot and submit a fluent, correct answer without understanding it. We built a conversational AI agent for introductory mechanics that only probes. It is designed as an instrument that a correct answer alone should not pass. Its key measure is cave detection: identifying a correct first idea that the student abandons when a single variable of the scenario is changed. A single right-or-wrong item cannot see this. The agent asks a student to commit to a prediction about an everyday situation, explain it without physics vocabulary, and defend that explanation against a changed case built from the student's own words. It does not teach, hint, confirm, or correct, and it reports nothing until the end. Such an instrument works only if its replies give nothing away. LLM agents tend to leak evaluation: praise, word choice, reply length, and pacing reveal whether an answer was right, and a student who knows stops reasoning. We report design rules that suppress this leakage, derived from eight versions of the agent and more than 40 scripted simulation runs. The obvious fixes often made leakage worse: listing forbidden praise phrases increased praise, and a single worked example in the prompt spread into unrelated conversations. Each changed case had to alter exactly one variable; otherwise a changed answer could not be traced to a single idea. The evidence is simulation evidence only: no real students have used the agent, and the author wrote both the personas and the scoring rules. This paper reports design findings, not learning outcomes.

physics.ed-ph↗

arXiv2026

"I don't have a good metric for what other people think:" Unpacking the double empathy problem in neurodivergent physics problem-solving

Learning is a social act and requires communication between interlocutors. Learning also is a process that takes place in a socially constructed neuro-normative system. These neuro-normative systems can marginalize neurodivergent (i.e., autistic, dyslexic, epileptic) students, who oftentimes have non-normative socio-cognitive differences. In this paper, we investigate 3 neurodivergent physics students' experiences solving physics problems and in navigating physics culture. We use a Double-Empathy Problem lens to uncover how communication, particularly communication breakdowns, can manifest for neurodivergent students in physics. We find that the 3 neurodivergent students, experience communication breakdowns in their interactions with peers and instructors, and in interpreting problem statements. Furthermore, we find that participants experience fear of being misinterpreted or feeling as though they are viewed as stupid on account of communication breakdowns. We advocate for the need for a more neuro-inclusive physics culture and suggest actions that can be done by instructors to create more inclusive spaces in physics.

physics.ed-ph↗

arXiv2026

Integrative Thinking in Computational Physics Design Essays

This study investigates integrative thinking in undergraduate computational physics design essays (CPDEs) within an engineering design-based introductory physics laboratory. Integrative thinking refers to the interaction of science, mathematics, computation, design, and metacognitive reflection during problem solving. Using the Ways of Thinking for Engineering Design-based Physics (WoT4EDP) framework, we examine how levels of integrative thinking can be characterized and manifested across teams with different levels of academic performance. We analyzed CPDEs from 14 student teams in a first-semester calculus-based physics course. Teams were grouped into high-, middle-, and low-performing categories based on members' final examination performance, enabling comparison of integrative thinking across academic performance levels. CPDEs were analyzed using thick description and an analytic rubric characterizing three levels of integrative thinking: superficial, intermediate, and substantial. Findings illustrate variation in how students coordinate multiple ways of thinking within engineering design-based physics tasks and provide a structured lens for examining integrative thinking across levels of academic performance.

physics.ed-ph↗