The Role of Collaborative Reflection on Shaping Engineering Faculty Teaching Approaches

Over the last several years, engineering faculty and learning scientists from four universities worked in collaboration to develop educational materials to improve the quality of faculty teaching and student learning. Guided by the How People Learn (HPL) framework, engineering faculty worked in collaboration with learning scientists to develop learner‐centered, student‐focused instructional methods. In consultation with learning scientists, engineering faculty carried out educational inquiry in their classrooms aimed at investigating student learning and enhancing instruction. In this paper we discuss the extent to which faculty engaged in these collaborative endeavors and how their teaching approaches differed as a result of their level of engagement. Study findings reveal the role that collaborative reflection plays in shaping teaching approaches. Results from this study provide insights for researchers and other practitioners in engineering and higher education interested in implementing engineering faculty development programs to optimize the impact on teaching.     

Effects of Faculty Interaction and Feedback on Gains in Student Skills*

Previous research has identified several variables that affect students' course satisfaction and gains in learning outcomes. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with insights about the relationships between faculty‐student interaction and students' perceptions of selected skills and attitudes. This study specifically examined the relationships between engineering faculty teaching practices, classroom climate, and students' perceptions of their gains in communication skills, problem‐solving skills, occupational awareness, and engineering competence in a curriculum emphasizing engineering design activities. Data were gathered from more than 1,500 students taking the first‐year design course offered at 19 campuses of the Penn State system over a period of two years. The results suggest that faculty interacting with and providing constructive feedback to students were significantly and positively related to students' self‐reported gains in several design and professional skills. These relationships remained after controlling for student demographic characteristics and campus location. Recommendations regarding specific teaching practices are provided.     

Gender Differences in Elements of the Undergraduate Experience that Influence Satisfaction with the Engineering Major and the Intent to Pursue Engineering as a Career

Background Groups within and outside of educational institutions are interested in factors that influence satisfaction among students enrolled in the engineering major as well as elements within the college environment that shape students' intentions to work in engineering in the future and whether these elements differ by gender. Purpose (Hypothesis ) This study identified gender differences on indicators of the undergraduate experience including faculty‐related and student‐related variables as well as measures of satisfaction with the institutional environment that are related to satisfaction with the engineering major and intent to pursue a career in engineering ten years from now. Design /Method The mixed methods approach used for this investigation involved nine institutions with engineering undergraduate degree programs. An online questionnaire was administered to undergraduate students enrolled in engineering. Qualitative data was collected through focus group interviews with students at each of the nine participating institutions. Results Findings reveal that satisfaction with the engineering major does not translate directly to pursuing a career in engineering, particularly among women. In terms of elements of the undergraduate experience, some types of interactions with faculty and peers have both short‐ and long‐term impacts on interest in engineering as a major and as a career. Conclusions Creating learning environments that emphasize care and respect for students as well as overseeing student interaction during group work can make a difference in students' satisfaction in the engineering major and in interest in engineering as a career, particularly for women.     

Introducing Cooperative Learning through a Faculty Instructional Development Program

Cooperative Learning was officially introduced in the College of Engineering at San Jose State University in 1995 with a two‐day workshop. The Faculty Instructional Development Program in the college maintains interest in the subjsect and provides support for instructors who use Cooperative Learning, through workshops and informal discussions (Conversations on Teaching). This paper discusses the effectiveness of the program in introducing, promoting, and implementing Cooperative Learning among the faculty and students in the college of engineering. A variety of performance criteria have been used in this assessment, some faculty‐centered and some student‐centered. The results indicate that although a relatively small percentage of faculty have chosen to adopt Cooperative Learning as a teaching tool in their courses, the impact on student attitudes and learning is significant, making the effort worthwhile.     

Civil Engineering Education in a Visualization Environment: Experiences with VizClass

VizClass, a university classroom visualization environment, was developed to bridge the gap between high‐tech engineering practice and low‐tech engineering pedagogy. It contains a suite of digital whiteboards, a three‐dimensional stereoscopic display, and specialized software for engineering visualization. Through observations, interviews, surveys, and examination of student work, we investigated student and teacher attitudes toward VizClass and its effect on teaching and learning processes. Observed benefits of teaching in the new environment include increased ability of faculty to visually explain complex problems, increased ability of students to conceptualize engineering problems, and increased engagement of students in after‐class collaboration.     

Comparing the Undergraduate Experience of Engineers to All Other Majors: Significant Differences are Programmatic

Background The authors partnered with the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to examine how persistence within the engineering major and engagement of undergraduate students in engineering compare to other majors. Purpose (Hypothesis ) We explored three research questions: How do engineering students rate their college engagement compared to students in other majors? How do engineering persisters, non‐persisters, and migrators compare in terms of collegiate engagement, time on task, and enriching educational experiences? What college engagement factors predict persistence in engineering? Design /Method Data are from nearly 12,000 students who completed the NSSE survey in their first and senior years as undergraduates. Surveys were analyzed using ANOVA and Chi‐square calculations to determine whether differences emerged in three dimensions of student engagement based on students' self‐reported major. Due to the large sample, effect size was used to determine statistical significance. Binary logistic regression was used to identify factors that predict persistence among first year students and seniors in engineering. Results Results show that engineering majors are similar to non‐engineering majors on most variables. However, engineering majors reported significantly higher gains in practical competence and higher order thinking, but the lowest means on reflective learning and gains in general education. Engineering majors reported significantly more time preparing for class and less time participating in educationally enriching experiences. Conclusions We conclude that different educational outcomes between majors are the result of programmatic differences. The packed engineering curriculum requires students to make trade‐offs between gaining practical/marketable skills and participating in educationally enriching activities. We question this trade‐off and suggest alternative approaches.     

Undergraduate Student Competitions

This study explored student competitions for undergraduate engineering and engineering technology students to determine which institutions consistently win and what factors support their winning, and to obtain some insights into the benefits for students. Forty‐four student competitions for engineering and technology students were identified, and the first, second, and third place institutions from 2001 to 2003 were tabulated. Although one institution would often win a particular competition, no institution was a consistent winner for all competitions. Advisers of winning institutions reported that their institutions won consistently because of a dedicated faculty advisor and/or the close alignment of the competition with the institution's curriculum. Also important are a tradition of winning, the quality of the students, and (for hands‐on competitions) the availability of resources. Additional research is needed to determine if student competitions increase student learning.     

A Teaching Workshop for Engineering Faculty

A quality engineering education is of utmost importance to undergraduate students seeking an engineering degree. Providing a quality education to these students is the responsibility of engineering faculty. The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Utah State University (USU), in cooperation with the officers of the student chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), has developed a series of six lessons focusing on teaching skills and faculty performance in the classroom. This series of lessons, known as the “Undergraduate Teaching Workshop”, is an effort to improve the teaching of the department faculty, and thereby the undergraduate education of its students. The lessons that make up this workshop range from student concerns to the use of learning resources and equipment. This paper discusses the workshop format and the experience we had with the workshop as it was conducted within our department.     

Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom‐Based Practices

Educators, researchers, and policy makers have advocated student involvement for some time as an essential aspect of meaningful learning. In the past twenty years engineering educators have implemented several means of better engaging their undergraduate students, including active and cooperative learning, learning communities, service learning, cooperative education, inquiry and problem‐based learning, and team projects. This paper focuses on classroom‐based pedagogies of engagement, particularly cooperative and problem‐based learning. It includes a brief history, theoretical roots, research support, summary of practices, and suggestions for redesigning engineering classes and programs to include more student engagement. The paper also lays out the research ahead for advancing pedagogies aimed at more fully enhancing students' involvement in their learning.     

Improving the quality of student learning: a systems approach

The study of engineering student learning is only really beneficial when examined in real-life settings. Students have their own, sometimes reactionary ideas about what affects the quality of their learning. Learning does not take place in convenient isolation and has to be understood in terms of cognition, behaviour, affect and context. Engineering undergraduate education must be seen as fitting into the general system known as `Higher Education', where teaching and learning are inextricably linked. Students may be initiated into the type of learning required of them, but this can be negated by unsupportive teaching elsewhere in the curriculum. In an attempt to describe at least the factors internal to the individual, the authors suggest some of the contextual dimensions affecting how students operate in an engineering learning environment     

Integrating Undergraduate Research into Engineering: A Communications Approach to Holistic Education

This paper describes the Research Communications Studio (RCS), a structured approach for teaching undergraduate researchers to do authentic written, oral, and graphical communications tasks while they are learning to do research. In the RCS, small groups of undergraduate researchers meet weekly with a communications faculty member, an engineering graduate student mentor, and a communications graduate research assistant. The project is built upon social constructivist theory that recognizes the interdependence between communication, cognitive development, and metacognition. It investigates knowledge construction within a small‐group context of distributed cognition, the concept that each group member's expertise is available to other group members. Data from surveys indicate that engineering faculty members, graduate student mentors, and undergraduate participants were very positive about the progress participants made in cognitive development and communications abilities. Analysis of participants' reflective writings shows the development of metacognitive abilities necessary for self‐directed, life‐long learning.     

Faculty Perspectives Regarding the Undergraduate Research Experience in Science and Engineering

This study examined the perceptions of 155 science and engineering faculty at a mid‐size university with a very extensive undergraduate research program. The faculty thought the undergraduate research experience provided important educational benefits to the students, in good agreement with results from a recent alumni survey. The faculty who supervised undergraduates for a longer period of time and who modified their research program to accommodate undergraduates perceived a greater enhancement of important cognitive and personal skills. Undergraduate research was also believed to provide important mentoring and teaching experience for graduate students who worked with undergraduate research assistants.     

Bringing Adjunct Engineering Faculty into the Learning Community

Adjunct faculty can offer enrichment to an engineering program by bringing practical experience and by introducing relevant industrial applications and problems to the classroom. The industrial perspective of adjunct faculty often manifests itself through an emphasis on communication and presentation skills, and concern for customer needs. Students observing these attributes come away with a better appreciation for the demands of the engineering workplace. Adjunct faculty members can also provide important linkages for developing industrial affiliate programs, co‐op activities, and employment opportunities for graduates. Nevertheless, the position of adjunct faculty is tenuous, subject to shifting enrollments, negative student perception, and limited connectivity with the mainstream issues of the academic department. Adjunct faculty who teach in engineering programs will almost always come with excellent technical credentials, but they will have little or no teacher training or knowledge of learning principles and cognitive psychology. With limited time on campus, adjunct faculty have little opportunity to improve their teaching skills and methods, resulting in a “sink or swim” environment. At the Colorado School of Mines (CSM), we have evolved a regimen of strategies to ensure the quality of the educational program and to support the teaching effectiveness and professional commitment of adjunct faculty. These strategies have improved student and faculty satisfaction with adjunct faculty, and indeed have improved adjunct faculty self‐satisfaction. These strategies are described in the current paper.     

A Multimodal Exploration of Engineering Students' Emotions and Electrodermal Activity in Design Activities

Background

This exploratory study uses multimodal approaches to explore undergraduate student engagement via topic emotions and electrodermal activity (EDA) in different engineering design method activities and with different instructional delivery formats (e.g., lecture vs. active learning).

Purpose/Hypothesis

The goal of this research is to improve our understanding of how students respond, via engagement, to their engineering design activities during class. This study hypothesizes that students would experience no self‐reported mean changes in topic emotions from their preassessment scores for each engineering design topic and instructional format nor would electrodermal activities (EDA) associate to these topic emotions throughout the design activities.

Design/Method

Eighty‐eight freshmen engineering students completed online pretopic and posttopic emotions surveys for five engineering design activities. A subset of 14–18 participants, the focal point of this study, wore an EDA sensor while completing the surveys and participating in these sessions.

Results

Preliminary findings suggest that EDA increased for individual and collaborative active learning activities compared to lectures. No significant changes in EDA were found between individual and collaborative active learning activities. Moderate negative correlations were found between EDA and negative topic emotions in the first engineering design activity but not across the rest. At the end of the semester, active learning activities showed higher effect sizes indicating a re‐enforcement of students' engagement in the engineering design method activities.

Conclusion

This study provides initial results showing how multimodal approaches can help researchers understand students' closer‐to‐real‐time engagement in engineering design topics and instructional delivery formats.     

The Theme Course: Connecting the Plant Trip to the Text Book

A plant trip provides subjects for team projects and lecture examples in a sophomore chemical engineering course, thus becoming a unifying “theme” for the course. The “theme” structure is intended to improve student mastery of course material by helping students relate different course topics to one another via real equipment and processes. Here, performance in a subsequent junior chemical engineering course by students from the “theme course” is compared with performance by students who took the sophomore course in a traditional lecture‐homework‐exam format. Theme course graduates claim better retention of concepts from the sophomore course, though their scores on exam questions testing their knowledge, comprehension, and application of these concepts did not differ significantly from that of students from the traditional course. Theme course graduates did earn higher grades in the junior course, due to better performance on exam questions requiring higher level skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Students were enthusiastic about the course structure, and expressed excitement about learning from “real life.” Thus the “theme” structure results in early student success in the skills necessary for engineering design, and generates student enthusiasm for engineering.     

Improving Learning in First‐Year Engineering Courses through Interdisciplinary Collaborative Assessment

This paper describes a feedback process that assessed first‐year engineering student learning using a mastery exam. The results were used to improve learning and teaching in first‐year courses. To design the initial exam, basic knowledge and concepts were identified by instructors from each of the host departments (Chemistry, Math, Physics and Computer Science). In 2004, the 45‐item exam was administered to 191 second‐year engineering students, and in September 2005, the revised exam was administered to the next class of second‐year engineering students. The exam was analyzed using Item Response Theory (IRT) to determine student abilities in each subject area tested. Between exam administrations, workshops were conducted with the four department instructor groups to present exam results and discuss teaching issues. The exam provided a learning assessment mechanism that can be used to engage faculty in science, mathematics, and engineering in productive linkages for continual improvement to curriculum.     

The Relationships between Students' Conceptions of Learning Engineering and their Preferences for Classroom and Laboratory Learning Environments

This study developed a survey entitled Conceptions of Learning Engineering (CLE), to elicit undergraduate engineering students' conceptions of learning engineering. The reliability and validity of the CLE survey were confirmed through a factor analysis of 321 responses of undergraduate students majoring in electrical engineering. A series of ANOVA analyses revealed that students who preferred a classroom setting tended to conceptualize learning engineering as “testing” and “calculating and practicing,” whereas students who preferred a laboratory setting expressed conceptions of learning engineering as “increasing one's knowledge,” “applying,” “understanding,” and “seeing in a new way.” A further analysis of student essays suggested that learning environments which are student‐centered, peer‐interactive, and teacher‐facilitated help engineering students develop more fruitful conceptions of learning engineering.     

Faculty as a Critical Juncture in Student Retention and Performance in Engineering Programs

Large numbers of students depart from engineering programs before graduation. For example, in fields such as engineering and computer science, students have commented on the inaccessible or unapproachable nature of faculty. To evaluate this problem, this study gathered data across four research universities. Using structural equation modeling, it measured environmental effects, i.e., academic integration or faculty distance on (a) self‐efficacy, (b) academic confidence and (c) self‐regulated learning behaviors effort, critical thinking, help‐seeking and peer learning, and (d) GPA. Results showed that faculty distance lowered self‐efficacy, academic confidence and GPA. Conversely, academic integration had a positive effect on self‐efficacy, which in turn had strong positive effects on effort and critical thinking. Consequently, ongoing educational reform efforts must encourage engineering faculty to understand the significance of their student/professor relationships and seriously undertake measures to become personally available to students.     

Applying James Stice's Strategy to Teach Design to Sophomore Mechanical Engineering Undergraduates

The James Stice strategies for teaching problem‐solving and improving student learning have been adopted in the development of a sophomore‐level “Materials, Manufacturing & Design” course. The curriculum, the assessment method, and the results of student evaluation over a three‐year period are described. Correlation between assessments by two faculty members (in the form of design project written‐report and oral‐presentation grades) and students self‐assessment (in the form of a retrospective survey employing a Likert‐type scale and student written comments) show that the Stice strategies are successful in teaching engineering design to sophomores.