Search

SUCCEED (Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering Education) is an eight-campus coalition of engineering schools formed in 1992 under the sponsorship of the National Science Foundation. In 1997, a faculty survey of instructional practices and attitudes regarding the climate for teaching on the Coalition campuses was designed and administered. This report presents the results from the third and last survey administration in 2002, following the 1997 (ED428607) and 1999 (ED461510) surveys. 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 on their campus. The 2002 survey was sent by e-mail in March 2002 to 1589 faculty e-mail addresses, and a follow-up survey was sent a month later to non-respondents. 375 valid and usable surveys were returned, a return rate of 24%. Of those, 46 were excluded from most analyses (except for demographic summaries) because the respondent had not taught undergraduates in the prior three 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 2002 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 and 1999 survey administrations to examine changes in faculty teaching practices and attitudes in the intervening years. While SUCCEED's faculty development effort cannot claim exclusive credit for the increased use of the instructional methods it has sought to promote from 1997-2002, it clearly had a major effect in accomplishing the increase, and the faculty who adopted or increased their use of the new methods overwhelmingly believed that the effects of the changes on their teaching were positive. From the point of view of the survey respondents the climate for teaching on their campuses moderately but steadily declined during the period 1997-2002 and there was consistently little support for the use of innovative teaching methods or high quality teaching. Two appendices provide: (1) Survey Instrument; and (2) Survey Summary by Institution. (Contains 105 tables and 6 figures.)

This report presents findings of a survey of engineering college faculty at eight participating institutions in SUCCEED (Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering Education) concerning their use of various instructional methods, their prior involvement in instructional development programs, and their perceptions about institutional support for teaching on their campuses. Findings of the survey responses (n=503, or 32 percent) were analyzed and organized according to the following aspects: participation in faculty development programs and discussions of teaching; use of instructor-centered teaching methods; use of active learning; use of group assignments, team projects, and writing assignments; use of various methods of communicating with students; and rated importance of teaching quality. Analysis also looked at inter-institutional differences, differences by professorial rank, and sex differences. Findings indicated a moderate level of involvement by respondents in attending teaching seminars and implementing nontraditional teaching practices, such as using team activities in and out of class, giving writing assignments, and using e-mail and the World Wide Web. Respondents tended to believe that teaching is more important to them than it is to their colleagues and administrators and that it counts for relatively little in the faculty incentive and reward structure. The questionnaire is appended. (DB)

A longitudinal study of a cohort of engineering students has been conducted at North Carolina State University since 1990. The students were taught five chemical engineering courses in five consecutive semesters using several nontraditional instructional methods, including cooperative (team-based) learning. As part of the longitudinal study, procedures were adapted or devised for implementing cooperative learning in courses that stress quantitative problem solving. These procedures are summarized in this report. The objectives of the report are to offer ideas for using cooperative learning effectively in technical courses, to give advance warning of the problems that might arise when cooperative learning is implemented, and to provide assurances that the eventual benefits to both instructors and students amply justify the perseverance required to confront and overcome the problems. The report is divided into sections that include: (1) "Introduction: Elements of Cooperative Learning"; (2) "In-Class Exercises"; (3) "Out-Of-Class Exercises"; (4) "Issues and Answers"; and (5) "Conclusion." Contains 20 references. (LZ)

Many are aware that factors other than academic talent help to determine a student's success or failure in school A 4-year longitudinal study including 87 men and 34 women at North Carolina State University examines gender differences in students' academic performance, persistence in chemical engineering, and attitudes toward their education and themselves. Although the pre-engineering academic credentials of women entering college often exceeded those of men, these women did not score any higher in technical classes than men. Women students also attributed poor performance to their lack of ability, while men usually attributed it to lack of hard work or being treated unfairly. The critical question of why these women earned lower grades in chemical engineering courses and exhibit lower confidence levels of themselves could not be answered with any real degree of certainty; however, the following measures were suggested to help circumvent the disadvantage of women relative to men entering engineering school: (1) provide engineering students with female role models/mentors; (2) strengthen organizations that can provide career guidance and emotional support to women students; (3) use cooperative learning in engineering courses; and (4) educate professors and academic advisors to the problems and needs of women students. (ZWH)

Describes a faculty development program designed specifically for engineering faculty and implemented on an eight-campus coalition of engineering schools. Reports that, in the five years of the program's existence, a large percentage of the faculty has participated and adopted proven but nontraditional teaching practices. Offers suggestions to faculty developers, such as keeping programs practical and emphasizing disciplinary relevance. (Contains 13 references.) (AUTH/EMH)

Common faculty concerns about implementing student-centered learning are discussed, and useful techniques for addressing them are offered. Issues include budgeting in-class activity time, losing control of the class, uncompleted assignments, student understanding of open-ended problems, student dislike or abuse of group work, and helping at-risk students become involved. (MSE)