发表机构
Florida International University; Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance; University of Miami（佛罗里达国际大学; 缅因数学与科学联盟; 迈阿密大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本综述系统分析了2007至2022年间85篇工程身份调查论文，发现研究集中于高等教育且男性样本偏多，并偏好特定理论框架，指出了定量研究中的年龄和性别差距及其影响。
AI 中文摘要
在过去几年中，工程身份研究在教育研究界日益受到重视，其动力源于“身份”与广泛期望的结果（如职业追求和STEM大学专业选择）之间的联系。然而，关于工程身份的定量研究仍然有限，大多数研究侧重于定性研究。本系统性文献综述考察了2007年至2022年间发表的85篇研究论文，重点关注与工程身份相关的调查测量工具。综述结果显示：a）研究集中在高等教育阶段，K-12学生代表性不足；b）调查样本中男性性别比例偏高。分析还揭示，若干理论框架常被用于操作化工程身份，但偏好使用工程身份发展量表、物理身份量表和批判性工程能动性框架。基于我们的分析，我们考虑了以下两方面的后果：1）定量工程身份研究中现存的年龄和性别差距；2）在年龄和性别类别内部及跨类别中对特定身份框架的偏好。我们讨论了这些可能的后果如何指向工程身份调查研究中的重点领域。
英文摘要
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.
