Search

Since Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC 2000) was first introduced as the standard for American engineering education programs, most discussion in the literature has focused on how to assess Outcomes 3a-3k (specific outcomes or abilities engineering students must acquire as defined by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology) and relatively little has concerned how to equip students with the skills and attitudes specified in those outcomes. This paper seeks to fill this gap. Following an overview of EC 2000 and an attempt to clarify the confusing array of terms that it has introduced into the accreditation process, the paper addresses two primary questions: (1) How can learning objectives, learning assessment methods, and instructional techniques for individual courses be formulated to address each of the Criterion 3 outcomes? and (2) What might be done at the program and individual course levels to raise the level of achievement of the outcomes? In the procedure recommended in the paper, once a program faculty has defined the program educational objectives, outcomes, and outcome indicators, it should: (1) identify the core (required) courses that address the outcomes; (2) define observable learning objectives for each core course that address the relevant program outcomes; and (3) select methods to assess the objectives. (Observable objectives involve action verbs like list, explain, calculate, model, design, and critique, as opposed to more abstract words like learn, understand, and appreciate. Some objectives can be assessed using written problem-solving tests; others cannot.) The courses should then be taught so as to maximize the likelihood that students capable of achieving the objectives will in fact do so. The paper provides resources to support this process, including illustrative learning objectives and instructional methods that address Outcomes 3a-3k. The methods suggested in the paper have all been used extensively and are well supported by educational research. (Evidence for this claim is provided by numerous references cited in the paper.) The intention is for course instructors to browse through the suggestions and select learning objectives and teaching and assessment methods that address their program outcomes and are compatible with their teaching philosophies and levels of experience. As time goes by, they should periodically review their assessment results, revisit the suggestions, and consider modifying their teaching and assessment methods in an effort to improve the level of achievement of the objectives. Appended are: Illustrative Learning Objective for EC 2000 Outcomes 3a-3k; Teaching Methods that Address Outcomes 3a-3k; Cooperative Learning Methods that address outcomes 3a-3k; and Problem-Based Learning Methods that Address Outcomes 3a-3k. (Contains 91 references.) (Author/YDS)

SUCCEED (Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering Education)is an 8-campus coalition of engineering schools formed in 1992 under the sponsorship of the National Science Foundation. In 1997, members of SUCCEED's faculty development and program assessment teams designed a faculty survey of instructional practices and attitudes regarding the climate for teaching on the Coalition campuses. The respondents were asked about the frequency with which they used various teaching techniques (including active learning, team homework, and technology-assisted instruction), their involvement in faculty development programs, and the effects of those programs on their teaching. They were also asked to rate the importance of teaching quality to themselves, their colleagues, and their department, college, and university administrators and in the faculty reward system in their campus. The survey was first administered late in 1997 and a modified version was administered late in 1997. (A third administration will take place in the spring of 2002.) The 1999 survey was sent by e-mail to 1621 faculty e-mail addresses, and a follow-up survey was sent a month later to non-respondents. After blank surveys and duplicates were eliminated from the returns, 586 valid and usable surveys remained, a return rate of 36%. Of those, 75 were excluded from most analyses (except for demographic summaries) because the respondent had not taught undergraduates in the prior 3 years. The demographic profile of the respondents closely matched that of the full faculty with respect to sex, rank, position, engineering discipline, and participation in SUCCEED-sponsored activities. This report summarizes results from the 1999 administration of the survey and itemizes significant differences among groups (sex, rank, position, years of service, SUCCEED involvement, prior attendance at teaching seminars, and Carnegie classification). When possible, the data are compared with the data from the 1997 survey administration to examine changes in faculty teaching practices and attitudes in the intervening 2 years. Survey instrument and survey summary by institution are appended. (Contains 73 tables and 12 figures.) (Author/MM)

Questions teaching effectiveness in higher education and focuses on five points for the appraisal of teaching effectiveness: (1) educational goals; (2) performance criteria; (3) assessment process; (4) evaluation process; and (5) educational scholarship. Explains how to evaluate teaching effectiveness. (Contains 14 references.) (YDS)

Explains the status of undergraduate instruction at research institutions in the past half century and discusses effective teaching strategies and methods. Lists components to create a positive teaching climate for instructors. (Contains 28 references.) (YDS)

Discusses the importance of the first few days of a new college course, and offers teachers suggestions for getting off to a good start, including pre-class preparation, establishing and meeting expectations, establishing student-professor and student-student communication mechanisms, and motivating interest in the course material. (MSE)

Describes a sequence of five experimental courses in chemical engineering that are designed to meet the needs of students with various learning styles. The courses use a variety of teaching methods and are designed to develop and enhance creative problem-solving. (DDR)

Discusses dimensions of a learning style model and proposes instructional methods that should reach students who span the spectrum of learning styles. (PR)

Presents a succinct overview of the book "The Effective, Efficient Professor" (P. Wankat) that presents a wealth of strategies and techniques for successful faculty members. Sections of the book focus on time management, teaching, students, and scholarship and service. Includes some practical tips from the book ranging from instructional guidelines to the use of instructional technology and office hours. (DLH)

Discusses the quality of tests and makes suggestions for developing a better test. (YDS)

Offers ideas for getting students at remote sites to collaborate when attending lectures in a synchronous course, working through lessons in an asynchronous course, and doing homework in either distance mode. (ASK)

Discusses a scenario about offending student behaviors in a classroom during lecture, specifically focusing on a sleeping student. Presents a list of responses for possible solutions to these behaviors from a brainstorming session. Makes recommendations to teachers for what to do in that kind of situation. Provides two Internet addresses for "Random Thoughts" columns on the World Wide Web. (YDS)

Discusses ways to make faculty portfolio programs more effective. (MKR)