Search

In Colombia, as in the US, higher education institutions are charged with the twofold responsibility of training well-rounded professionals and pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Faculty enact this dual responsibility through their teaching and research duties, among other job-related functions. Also like in the US, research has increasingly become the foremost function of faculty at most prominent Colombian universities. As the emphasis on research increased, teaching became regarded as a simpler activity that requires less effort and resources. Moreover, while discussions about the importance of quality teaching and the need to better train faculty to enact their teaching function are common, promotion and rewards systems at Colombian universities fail to reflect a real commitment to quality teaching. Research has taken precedence over teaching, and often is perceived as the only scholarly function of faculty. While this continued perception cannot be attributed to a single reason, I hypothesize that how faculty conceive of their teaching role impacts our ability to make a compelling case for the scholarly nature of teaching. Testing this hypothesis requires a systematic approach to exploring faculty’s conceptions of teaching within a context. To that aim, I pose this research question: What are conceptions of teaching held by Colombian engineering faculty interested in improving their teaching? I advance a framework for exploring conceptions of teaching drawing from Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and previous scholarly works on faculty’s conceptions and beliefs about teaching. Drawing upon this framework, I explore the beliefs, practices, and contextual factors of Colombian engineering faculty at three institutions. While these faculty members differ in terms of their disciplinary backgrounds, teaching experience, and research activity—both disciplinary and educational, they all share an interest in improving their teaching practice. This exploration first takes an analytic approach to identify the pieces that constitute participants’ conceptions of teaching, and then knits those pieces together to look at participants as wholes. The literature on conceptions of teaching has usually classified them between traditional teacher-centered to more sophisticated student-centered views. However, I believe that there is a continuum worth exploring defined by these extreme views. In fact, I argue that there are multiple continua—or dimensions—that merit exploration. Such dimensions include perceptions about the role of teachers, the role of students, the nature of knowledge, the purpose and means of assessment, and the outcomes of education—previously explored in the relevant literature—and views of the interaction between college teaching and research—a dimension distinctive of the present study. My findings suggest that while the role of the teacher and of students, and the nature of knowledge can be described by the teacher- to student-center and knowledge-transmission to knowledge-construction continua, the latter three dimensions are better described along different scales. Moreover, while there are certain correlations between these dimensions (e.g., perceptions of the role of the teacher as a guide correlate with perceptions of a more active role of the students) none of them alone can accurately describe the nuances of an individual’s conception of teaching. Conceptions of teaching uncovered and characterized in this multidimensional way can inform professional development programs that go beyond the diffusion of pedagogical innovations to a perspective transformation among participants. Specifically, my findings corroborate that changes in faculty views of assessment toward more formative stances foster positive transformations in faculty’s overall conception of their teaching role and duties. My findings also suggest that faculty members intrinsically interested in improving their teaching constitute the seed to start educational reform. Community-building efforts to bring together these faculty should, in the long term, help transform the views of academic administrators, thus fostering lasting reform in the perception and recognition of teaching as a scholarly function of faculty.

First year engineering (FYE) programs are gaining popularity across universities in the United States. In addition to providing general engineering knowledge and skills to undergraduate freshmen, FYE programs also provide students with diverse opportunities to help them select the engineering discipline they will further pursue. The 2014 cohort of the FYE program of a large Midwestern university was the sample used for a two-phased study. The aim of the study was to understand how students make informed decisions of which engineering major to pursue and to help FYE administration to improve the resources they provide students. The first phase of the study focused on understanding the sources of information students used to make their decision. A preliminary analysis of student surveys indicated that the most important activity they are performing to select a major is “Self-Led Exploration” (SLE) of engineering disciplines. This paper focuses on the second part of the study, which aims to qualitatively answer the research question: How do students’ value beliefs influence their decision of which engineering major to pursue? Answers to open ended questions from FYE surveys also served to inform this second study. Moreover, a brief examination of both the interviews and the surveys suggested a possible overlapping between the sources students used to inform their decision and the reasons why they selected a particular major. From that overlap, a secondary research question emerged: What is the relation between students’ value beliefs of the engineering disciplines and the type of sources they use to inform their decision of a major? To analyze our transcripts we used Eccle’s expectancy-value theory. We hypothesize that students’ value beliefs, how well a task aligns with their personal values, goals, and needs, influences their career choice and the type of resources they use to inform themselves.

This study explores the sources of information that first year engineering students use to decide which engineering major to pursue for their undergraduate studies. The purposes of this study are twofold: (1) to understand how students make an informed decision of which engineering major to pursue and (2) to help the First Year Engineering (FYE) program administration improve the informational resources they provide the students. This study was framed within the FYE population of a large Midwestern university and was commissioned by the FYE program. FYE administration conducts regular student surveys for feedback and improvement purposes. We analyzed different survey data collected over a period of one year and found out that students identified “Self-Led Exploration of Engineering Disciplines” (SLE) as the single most important source of information in selecting a major. SLE is a broad, ill-defined term, which students may interpret differently. Hence, we developed a qualitative study to investigate how students perform SLE. We conducted individual interviews with 12 students enrolled in the FYE Program. These students were selected so that they were representative of the entire student population in terms of gender. The qualitative findings of this study reinforce that the students are basing their decision of a major using SLE. These findings also helped us unpack the meaning of SLE, and we further came up with 6 different types of SLE. Finally, our findings also indicated that direct interaction with people was highly valued by the students while selecting a major.