Search

Higher education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines has been in a turbulent period for several decades. Pressures for reform include declining STEM student enrollments, high attrition rates from STEM curricula, and the rise of powerful alternative teaching strategies shown by cognitive science and educational research to promote learning and curricular retention better than traditional teaching methods do. In addition, research has shown that online and face-to-face courses on average produce comparable learning outcomes, and hybrid courses that combine the best features of both are more effective than either face-to-face or online courses by themselves. Motivated by these and other pressures, many faculty members have adopted the new teaching methods, and distance education had become widespread well before the 2020 coronavirus pandemic forced most educators at all levels to teach online. As might be expected, however, many faculty members and administrators have resisted change, arguing that the traditional approach has always worked well and needs no major revision. Before the pandemic, most STEM courses were still being taught using the traditional methods, and many course instructors are eager to return to them. These different responses to calls for education reform have led to heated debates among university instructors and administrators regarding how STEM curricula and courses should be designed, delivered, and assessed, and the role technology should play in all three functions. This essay outlines two competing paradigms on each of these issues--the traditional paradigm, which has long dominated STEM education, and the emerging paradigm, which has become increasingly common in the last 30 years but is still not predominant at most universities and colleges. The essay concludes with speculation about the eventual outcome of the competition.

This two-part series describes the structure of the stoichiometry course at North Carolina State University. The course had a variety of learning objectives, and several nontraditional pedagogies were used in the course delivery. The first paper outlined the course structure and policies, the preparation given to the teaching assistants who played an integral part in the course delivery, and the course assignments. This paper summarizes the methods used in the course instruction and assessment. (For Part 1, see EJ829445.) (Contains 1 table.)

This two-part series describes the structure of the stoichiometry course at North Carolina State University. The course had a variety of learning objectives, and several nontraditional pedagogies were used in the course delivery. This first paper outlines the course structure and policies, the preparation given to the teaching assistants who played an integral part in the course delivery, and the course assignments. The next one describes the methods used for classroom instruction and assessment. (For Part 2, see EJ829453.)

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)

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)

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)

Higher education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines has been in a turbulent period for several decades. Pressures for reform include declining STEM student enrollments, high attrition rates from STEM curricula, and the rise of powerful alternative teaching strategies shown by cognitive science and educational research to promote learning and curricular retention better than traditional teaching methods do. In addition, research has shown that online and face‐to‐face courses on average produce comparable learning outcomes, and hybrid courses that combine the best features of both are more effective than either face‐to‐face or online courses by themselves. Motivated by these and other pressures, many faculty members have adopted the new teaching methods, and distance education had become widespread well before the 2020 coronavirus pandemic forced most educators at all levels to teach online. As might be expected, however, many faculty members and administrators have resisted change, arguing that the traditional approach has always worked well and needs no major revision. Before the pandemic, most STEM courses were still being taught using the traditional methods, and many course instructors are eager to return to them. These different responses to calls for education reform have led to heated debates among university instructors and administrators regarding how STEM curricula and courses should be designed, delivered, and assessed, and the role technology should play in all three functions. This essay outlines two competing paradigms on each of these issues—the traditional paradigm, which has long dominated STEM education, and the emerging paradigm, which has become increasingly common in the last 30 years but is still not predominant at most universities and colleges. The essay concludes with speculation about the eventual outcome of the competition. [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]

The article offers the teaching method which uses handouts with gaps when catching up the class schedule that have fall behind for a week and the three things to remember such as the lecturing on the material, the using of active learning to fill in the gap, and giving it as an homework exercise.

The article discusses several powerful teaching strategies for chemical engineering educators. Topics covered include asking students to brainstorm, troubleshoot in courses, and training students to critically think about possibilities that expert scientists and engineers think about. Also mentioned is urging students to send links to videos and pictures that show course-related concepts.

The authors recommend the book "How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching," by S. A. Ambrose, M. W. Bridges, M. C. Lovett, M. DiPietro and M. K. Norman for its instructional materials on cognitive science. They discuss teaching strategies that incorporate the research principles which include data collection, learning goal challenge and construction of activities that provide feedback on student skills.

The article examines the link between research and teaching among faculty and their students in U.S. universities. It is argued that the requirement to have teachers conduct research as condition for their promotion and tenure has hurt the quality of education. While research productivity is an important qualification in teaching, its connection to undergraduate education has not been established. Proposals to strengthen the link between research and teaching are presented as well as the promotion of excellence in both research and teaching.

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.