Estimates of use of research-based instructional strategies in core electrical or computer engineering courses

IEEE Transactions on Education

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 393-399

  Froyd, Jeffrey E ^a   Borrego, Maura ^b   Cutler, Stephanie ^b   Henderson, Charles ^c   Prince, Michael J ^d  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Change in engineering education; diffusion of innovations; faculty adoption; faculty awareness; research based instructional strategies (RBISs); teaching

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ENGINEERING COURSE; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS; ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING; ENGINEERING SCIENCE; FACULTY ADOPTION; FACULTY AWARENESS; INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY; STUDENT LEARNING;

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; RESEARCH; SURVEYS;

TEACHING;

EID: 84887828557     PISSN: 00189359     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1109/TE.2013.2244602     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. M. D. Svinicki, Learning and Motivation in the Postsecondary Classroom. Bolton, MA, USA: Anker, 2004.
2. S. A. Ambrose,M. W. Bridges, M. DiPietro,M. C. Lovett, and M. K. Norman, How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
3. National Research Council, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Expanded ed. Washington, DC, USA: Nat. Acad. Press, 2000.
4. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics, Phys. Rev. Special Topics, Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 3, pp. 020102-020101-020102-020114, 2007.
5. L. Springer, M. E. Stanne, and S. S. Donovan, Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis, Rev. Educ.l Res., vol. 69, pp. 21-51, 1999.
6. C. C. Bonwell and J. A. Eison, Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Washington, DC, USA: George Washington Univ. Press, 1991.
7. D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, and K. A. Smith, Cooperation in the College Classroom, 3rd ed. Edina, MN, USA: Interaction, 2006.
8. M. J. Prince, Does active learning work A review of the research, J. Eng. Educ., vol. 93, pp. 223-231, 2004.
9. J. Duffy, C. Barry, L. Barrington, and M. Heredia, Service-learning in engineering science courses: Does it work, presented at the ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo., Austin, TX, USA, 2009.
10. E. J. Coyle, L. H. Jamieson, andW. C. Oakes, Integrating engineering education and community service: Themes for the future of engineering education, J. Eng. Educ., vol. 95, pp. 7-11, 2006. (Pubitemid 43773552)
11. L. T. Tien, V. Roth, and J. A. Kampmeier, Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course, J. Res. Sci. Teaching, vol. 39, pp. 606-632, 2002.
12. C.H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Amer. J. Phys., vol. 69, pp. 970-977, 2001.
13. G. M. Novak and E. T. Patterson, Just-in-time teaching: Active learning pedagogy with WWW, presented at the IASTED Int. Conf. Comput. Adv. Technol. Educ., Cancun, Mexico, 1998.
14. M. J. Prince and R. M. Felder, Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases, J. Eng. Educ., vol. 95, pp. 123-128, 2006.
15. L. H. Jamieson and J. R. Lohmann, Innovation with impact: Creating a culture for scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education, Amer. Soc. Eng., Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
16. L. H. Jamieson and J. R. Lohmann, Creating a culture for scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education, Phase 1, Amer. Soc. Eng. Educ., Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
17. R. T. Blackburn, G. R. Pellino, A. Boberg, and C. OConnell, Are instructional improvement programs off-target, Current Issues Higher Educ., vol. 1, pp. 32-49, 1980.
18. W. J. Lammers and J. J. Murphy, A profile of teaching techniques used in the university classroom: A descriptive profile of a US public university, Active Learning Higher Educ., vol. 3, pp. 54-67, 2002.
19. J. Thielens and W., The disciplines and undergraduate lecturing, presented at the Annu.Meeting Amer. Educ. Res. Assoc.,Washington, DC, USA, 1987.
20. M. T. Hora and C. Anderson, Perceived norms for interactive teaching and their relationship to instructional decision-making: A mixed methods study, Higher Educ., vol. 64, pp. 573-592, 2012.
21. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, The impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States, Phys. Rev. Special Topics, Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 5, pp. 020107-020101-020107-020109, 2009.
22. J. E. Froyd, A. Beach, C. Henderson, and N. Finkelstein, Improving educational change agents efficacy in science, engineering, and mathematics education, in Integrating the Sciences and Society: Challenges, Practices, and Potentials, H. Hartman, Ed. London, England: Emerald Group, 2008, vol. 16, pp. 227-255.
23. J. E. Froyd, P. C. Wankat, and K. A. Smith, Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education, Proc. IEEE, vol. 100, pp. 1344-1360, 2012.
24. J. E. Froyd, The engineering education coalitions program, in Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Press, 2005, National Academy of Engineering, Ed..
25. E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: Free Press, 2003.
26. J. Feser, M. Borrego, R. L. Pimmel, and C. K. Della-Piana, Results from a survey of National Science Foundation Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES) program reviewers, presented at the ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo., San Antonio, TX, USA, 2012.
27. C. Henderson, N. Finkelstein, and A. Beach, Beyond dissemination in college science teaching: An introduction to four core change strategies, J. Coll. Sci. Teaching, vol. 39, pp. 18-25, 2010.
28. M. J. Prince, M. Borrego, S. Cutler, C. Henderson, and J. E. Froyd, Use of research-based instructional strategies in core chemical engineering courses, Chem. Eng. Educ., vol. 47, pp. 27-37, 2013.
29. C. Henderson, M. H. Dancy, and M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process, Phys. Rev. Special Topics, Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 8, pp. 020104-020101-020104-020115, 2012.
30. B. L. Yoder, Engineering by the numbers, Amer. Soc. Eng. Educ., Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
31. D. Ebert-May, What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs, BioScience, vol. 61, pp. 550-558, 2011.
32. M. H. Dancy and C. Henderson, Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty, Amer. J. Phys., vol. 78, pp. 1056-1063, 2010.
33. C. Henderson, Promoting instructional change in new faculty: An evaluation of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop, Amer. J. Phys., vol. 76, pp. 179-187, 2008.
34. S. Sudman, Mail surveys of reluctant professionals, Eval. Rev., vol. 9, pp. 349-360, 1985.
35. R. M. Groves, Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys, Public Opinion Quart., vol. 70, pp. 646-675, 2006.
36. R. Ferber, The problem of bias in mail returns: A solution, Public Opinion Quart., vol. 12, pp. 669-676, 1948.
37. S. Cutler, M. Borrego, C. Henderson, M. J. Prince, and J. E. Froyd, A comparison of electrical, computer, and chemical engineering facultys progressions through the innovation-decision process, presented at the Frontiers Educ. Conf., Seattle, WA, USA, 2012.
38. M. Borrego, J. E. Froyd, and T. S. Hall, Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments, J. Eng. Educ., vol. 99, pp. 185-207, 2010.