Search

After 30 years of failing to live up to the promises of its proponents, instructional technology has finally started to play an effective role in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. Asserts that students in courses delivered entirely with technology have begun to outperform students in traditional lecture-based courses, a trend that will most likely accelerate with time. (Author/MM)

Discusses the quality of instruction for communication skills and creative thinking skills in engineering education and the difficulties caused by the single-subject approach in different engineering majors. Provides alternative solutions to the problem such as irrelevant teaching methods, difficulties in implementing technology in classrooms, and the use of theoretical-based literature in engineering education. (Contains 79 references.) (YDS)

Describes the changes in teaching methods in engineering classrooms over the last 60 years and implementations by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) in curriculum not only of mathematics, science, and engineering fundamentals, but also communication and lifelong learning skills. Lists ABET Engineering Criteria required skills. (Contains 52 references.) (YDS)

Describes the successful aspects of a three-day workshop on teaching effectiveness for engineering professors. Discusses participants' comments and suggestions about administrative support, communication of fresh insights and perspectives, establishment of a participatory structure, and teaching/learning mismatches. (JJK)

Discusses eight steps to modify the way engineering schools operate. They include hiring some experienced engineers as faculty, incorporating peer and student review of teaching performance in faculty evaluations, reversing the tendency to make curricula increasingly narrow and specialized, and adopting a systems approach to engineering education. (JN)

Chemical engineering students were required to create an open-book final examination and to include questions reflecting analytical, synthetic (creative), and evaluative skills. Rationale for the assignment, sample student responses, and how the technique might be profitably adapted to any course on any subject are discussed. (JN)

Discusses the incompatibility of learning and teaching styles in engineering education which results in society's potential loss of excellent engineers. Provides teaching techniques to accommodate learning styles. (RT)

Suggests methods for achieving creativity, including divergent and convergent thinking, in engineering education. Discusses creativity exercises, creating an atmosphere hospitable to creativity, and identifying the creatively gifted. (YP)

Offers perspectives and specific ways of developing and nurturing critical and creative problem-solving skills with engineering students. Provides examples of exercises and approaches that aim in stimulating creativity and in providing understanding of course material. (ML)

Provides an introduction to the chemical engineering department at North Carolina State University. (BB)

Describes the structure of a course for improving oral communication skills of engineering students. Lists suggestions to speakers on preparation, organization, and presentation of material. Additional comments regarding critiques are stated. (RT)

Reports the teaching effectiveness workshop experiences for engineering professors. Lists several workshop titles and describes participants' responses. Provides suggestions for successful workshops. (YP)

Describes an undergraduate chemical engineering course which was designed at North Carolina State University to introduce the experimental side of chemical process technology. The course lectures, experiments, objectives, evaluation and information sources are also discussed. (HM)

A way in which to shift the focus away from lecture and the professor during class time to student-centered discussion groups is presented. An exercise used in a course on chemical process analysis that uses the group discussion method is included. (KR)

The author reflects on the concerns over the rigorous research movement on engineering education. He argues that theoreticians haves used a hierarchical model to sort inquiry about teaching and learning into different level. He claims that claims that applied research will not lead to impactful educational reform, instead it will take more fundamental scholarship. He suggests having a firm foundation in research and experience.

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]

Traditional engineering instruction is deductive, beginning with theories and progressing to the applications of those theories. Alternative teaching approaches are more inductive. Topics are introduced by presenting specific observations, case studies or problems, and theories are taught or the students are helped to discover them only after the need to know them has been established. This study reviews several of the most commonly used inductive teaching methods, including inquiry learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based teaching, discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching. The paper defines each method, highlights commonalities and specific differences, and reviews research on the effectiveness of the methods. While the strength of the evidence varies from one method to another, inductive methods are consistently found to be at least equal to, and in general more effective than, traditional deductive methods for achieving a broad range of learning outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides information on teaching engineering in the 21st-century. Description of a model of teaching engineering at the University of Bologna in Italy; Difference of U.S. engineering education from the model.

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]

Many recent studies demonstrate that cooperative learning provides a variety of educational advantages over more traditional instructional models, both in general and specifically in engineering education. Little is known, however, about the interactional dynamics among students in engineering work groups. To explore these dynamics and their implications for engineering education, we analyzed work sessions of student groups in a sophomore-level chemical engineering course at North Carolina State University. Using conversation analysis as a methodology for understanding how students taught and learned from one another, we found that group members generally engaged in two types of teaching-learning interactions. In the first type, transfer-of-knowledge (TK) sequences, they took on distinct teacher and pupil roles, and in the second, collaborative sequences (CS), they worked together with no clear role differentiation. The interactional problems that occurred during the work sessions were associated primarily with TK sequences, and had to do with students who either habitually assumed the pupil's role (constant pupils) or habitually discouraged others' contributions (blockers). Our findings suggest that professors can facilitate student group interactions by introducing students to the two modes of teaching interaction so group members can effectively manage exchanges of knowledge, and also by helping students distribute tasks in a way that minimizes role imbalances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents predictions made by the author about engineering education in 2024. Predictions discussed include increased likelihood of students working on assignments or projects in cluster groups or viewing a video or simulation or multimedia tutorial on tablet or laptop computer, migration of math primarily to graduate and undergraduate honors courses and its replacement with critical and creative thinking training, and more massive open online courses (MOOCs).

The article illustrates three different approaches to learning, namely, deep approach typified by student Michelle, Art's strategic approach and the surface approach of Rob. It cites the conditions to increase the adoption of a deep approach by students, including the student-perceived relevance of the subject matter, clearly stated instructional objectives, appropriate tests and reasonable workload. It also mentions the complaint of engineering faculty members that most engineering students use the surface approach.

The article discusses the preparation of those who will educate the engineers of the 21st century. Changes in the practice of engineering require changes in engineering education. Educators will have the opportunity to specialize in one of several roles including educational researcher and interdisciplinary educator.