Search

BACKGROUND Economic globalization, rapid advances in technology and cognitive science, and a worldwide movement toward outcomes-based program accreditation increasingly require changes in the traditional model of engineering education design and delivery. As yet, no validated framework exists for designing instructional development programs that would equip engineering educators to make those changes. Existing programs consequently vary considerably in scope and effectiveness across countries and institutions. PURPOSE This article reviews the content and structures of instructional development programs around the world and to formulate a robust framework for designing and delivering effective programs for engineering educators. SCOPE/METHOD Literature on the design, implementation, and evaluation of instructional development programs is reviewed and summarized. Five criteria drawn from Raymond Wlodkowski's theory of adult learner motivation (expertise of instructors, relevance of content, choice in application, praxis [action plus reflection], and groupwork) are proposed as a framework for designing engineering instructional development programs, and the framework is applied to formulate recommendations for making programs effective. Research questions that should be explored to validate the framework are suggested. CONCLUSION Wlodkowski's five-factor theory of adult learner motivation provides a good framework for the design of engineering instructional development programs. The criteria are compatible with the cognitive science-based How People Learn instructional model and also with recommendations of faculty development authorities. Making engineering instructional development effective at an institution will require applying the criteria to program design and delivery and creating an institutional expectation of faculty participation in the programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The National Effective Teaching Institute (NETI) is a three-day teaching workshop that has been given annually since 1991 in conjunction with the Annual ASEE Conference. Its goals are to improve the participants' teaching effectiveness, promote their engagement in scholarly teaching and educational scholarship, and motivate them to engage in instructional development on their campuses. To evaluate the impact of the NETI on its participants, a Web-based survey was administered to alumni of NETI offerings from 1993 to 2006. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS) The study was designed to test the hypothesis that the NETI met its stated goals, and to the extent that it did, to identify factors in the workshop's structure and delivery that might have contributed to its success. DESIGN/METHOD An online survey collected information regarding the participants' awareness and use of selected teaching strategies, their students' and their own ratings of their teaching, and their engagement in scholarly teaching, educational research, and giving their own teaching workshops and seminars. The validity of the survey structure is supplied by several published studies that compared sell-assessments of teaching with internal evaluations by trained observers. RESULTS The NETI has motivated many of its participants to adopt or increase their use of proven teaching strategies known to correlate with improved student learning; made them more student-centered, scholarly, and reflective in their teaching practice; and induced many of them to engage in instructional development and educational scholarship. CONCLUSIONS The NETI has satisfactorily met its goals. When integrated in the light of a theory of adult motivation, the results support the effectiveness of discipline specific faculty development for engineering educators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I Academicians have been arguing for decades about whether or not faculty research supports undergraduate instruction. Those who say it does—a group that includes most administrators and faculty members—cite many ways in which research can enrich teaching, while those on the other side cite numerous studies that have consistently failed to show a measurable linkage between the two activities. This article proposes that the two sides are debating different propositions: whether research can support teaching in principle and whether it has been shown to do so in practice. The article reviews the literature on the current state of the research- teaching nexus and then examines three specific strategies for integrating teaching and scholarship: bringing research into the classroom, involving undergraduates in research projects, and broadening the definition of scholarship beyond frontier disciplinary research. Finally, ways are suggested to better realize the potential synergies between faculty research and undergraduate education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students have different levels of motivation, different attitudes about teaching and learning, and different responses to specific classroom environments and instructional practices. The more thoroughly instructors understand the differences, the better chance they have of meeting the diverse learning needs of all of their students. Three categories of diversity that have been shown to have important implications for teaching and learning are differences in students' learning styles (characteristic ways of taking in and processing information), approaches to learning (surface, deep, and strategic), and intellectual development levels (attitudes about the nature of knowledge and how it should be acquired and evaluated). This article reviews models that have been developed for each of these categories, outlines their pedagogical implications, and suggests areas for further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As college students experience the challenges of their classes and extracurricular activities, most undergo a developmental progression in which they gradually relinquish their belief in the certainty of knowledge and the omniscience of authorities and take increasing responsibility for their own learning. At a high developmental level (which few reach before graduation), they recognize that all knowledge is contextual, gather and interpret evidence to support their judgments from a wide range of sources, and willingly reconsider those judgments in the light of new evidence. This paper reviews several models of intellectual development, discusses their applicability to science and engineering education, and defines the difficulties that confront instructors seeking to promote the development of their students. A companion paper formulates an instructional model for promoting development that addresses those difficulties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As college students experience the challenges of their classes and extracurricular activities, they undergo a developmental progression in which they gradually relinquish their belief in the certainty of knowledge and the omniscience of authorities and take increasing responsibility for their own learning. At the highest developmental level normally seen in college students (which few attain before graduation), they display attitudes and thinking patterns resembling those of expert scientists and engineers, including habitually and skillfully gathering and analyzing evidence to support their judgments. This paper proposes an instructional model designed to provide a suitable balance of challenge and support to advance students to that level. The model components are (1) variety and choice of learning tasks; (2) explicit communication and explanation of expectations; (3) modeling, practice, and constructive feedback on high-level tasks; (4) a student-centered instructional environment; and (5) respect for students at all levels of development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the new ABET accreditation system was first introduced to American engineering education in the middle 1990s as Engineering Criteria 2000, most discussion in the literature has focused on how to assess Outcomes 3a-3k 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. Its goals are to (1) overview the accreditation process and clarify the confusing array of terms associated with it (objectives, outcomes, outcome indicators, etc.); (2) provide guidance on the formulation of course learning objectives and assessment methods that address Outcomes 3a-3k; (3) identify and describe instructional techniques that should effectively prepare students to achieve those outcomes by the time they graduate; and (4) propose a strategy for integrating program-level and course-level activities when designing an instructional program to meet the requirements of the ABET engineering criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its program assessment activities, the Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering Education (SUCCEED) conducted a faculty survey of teaching practices, involvement in faculty development programs, and perceptions of the importance of teaching in the faculty reward system. The survey was first administered late in 1997 and a modified version was administered late in 1999. This paper summarizes results from the 1999 survey that address the two questions: (1) to what extent do engineering faculty write instructional objectives and use active and team-based learning?; and (2) how effective are faculty development programs at changing professors' teaching practices? The results indicate that well over half of the 1999 respondents were using the stated teaching methods, with most attributing their use of the methods to their participation in teaching workshops and seminars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Describes a classroom teacher's techniques in teaching effective listening to her second-graders. Definition of a good listener; Teacher being a model of an effective listener; Exhibiting good listening behavior; Class discussions; One-on-one conferences; Providing specific listening instruction; Providing opportunities to practice effective listening.