Search

A teamwork survey was conducted at Oakland University, Rochester, MI, in 533 engineering and computer science courses over a two-year period. Of the 6435 student respondents, 4349 (68%) reported working in teams. Relative to the students who only worked individually, the students who worked in teams were significantly more likely to agree that the course had achieved its stated learning objectives (p < 0.001). Regression analysis showed that roughly one-quarter of the variance in belief about whether the objectives were met could be explained by four factors: 1) student satisfaction with the team experience; 2) the presence of instructor guidance related to teamwork; 3) the presence of slackers on teams; and 4) team size. Pearson product-moment correlations revealed statistically significant associations between agreement that the course objectives had been fulfilled and the use of student teams and between satisfaction with teams and the occurrence of instructor guidance on teamwork skills. These and other results suggest that assigning work to student teams can lead to learning benefits and student satisfaction, provided that the instructor pays attention to how the teams and the assignments are set up. [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]

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]

An "autorating" (peer rating) system designed to account for individual performance in team projects was used in two sophomore-level chemical engineering courses in which the students did their homework in cooperative learning teams. Team members confidentially rated how well they and each of their teammates fulfilled their responsibilities, the ratings were converted to individual weighting factors, and individual project grades were computed as the product of the team project grade and the weighting factor. Correlations were computed between ratings and grades, self-ratings and ratings from teammates, and ratings received and given by men and women and by ethnic minorities and non-minorities. Incidences of "hitchhikers" (students whose performance was considered less than satisfactory by their teammates), "tutors" (students who received top ratings from all of their teammates), dysfunctional teams, and teams agreeing on a common rating were also determined. The results suggest that the autorating system works exceptionally well as a rule, and the benefits it provides more than compensate for the relatively infrequent problems that may occur in its use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 an on-the-job training of some chemical engineering students in North Carolina State University. Two Process Engineering-related tasks such the investigation of the declining efficiency of the hydride processing tower and the design of a distillation column for separation process were assigned to the trainees.

The author discusses the Crisis Clinic segment of the teaching workshops he conducts together with Rebecca Brent. He gives a scenario wherein a chemical engineering student named Charlie is in distress. He suggests that teachers do not let their students leave their office because they will miss their chance to help. Students should not be forced into counseling but instead be persuaded to avail of the service.

The article presents several mini-sermons that could help teachers in dealing with chemical engineering students. The author states that when using a proven teaching method that makes students uncomfortable, it is important for the teacher to let the students know the reason for doing it. The author emphasizes that the teacher needs to convince the students about the importance of learning.

The article offers insights on how chemical engineering teachers will enable their students to develop and improve a targeted skill. It recommends to write detailed learning objectives and give them to the students as study guides for examinations and as guidelines for other assignments such as project reports and oral presentation. It advises to use scoring rubrics to grade anything that involves subjective judgment on the part of the grader.