Student perceptions of instructional change in engineering courses: A pilot study

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages

  Borrego, Maura J ^a   Prince, Michael J ^b   Nellis, Christopher Evan ^a   Shekhar, Prateek ^a   Waters, Cindy ^c   Finelli, Cynthia J ^d  

^a State University   (United States)

^b BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NC AandT State University   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; TEACHING;

COLLEGE CLASSROOM; ENGINEERING CLASS; ENGINEERING COURSE; GROUP DISCUSSIONS; INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY; STUDENT LEARNING; STUDENT PERCEPTIONS; UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING STUDENTS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84905192216     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (66)

1. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. 3rd ed. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company; 1991.
2. Mazur E. Peer Instruction: A User's Manual. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1997.
3. Gafney L, Varma-Nelson P. Peer-Led Team Learning: Evaluation, dissemination, and institutionalization of a college level initiative Springer; 2008.
4. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education. 2004;93(3):223-231.
5. Seymour E, Hewitt NM. Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1997.
6. Tobias S. They're not dumb, they're different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation; 1990.
7. Smith K, Sheppard S, Johnson D, Johnson R. Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education. 2005;94(1):87-101.
8. Prince M, Felder RM. Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education. 2006;95(2):123-138.
9. Angelo T, Cross P. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1993.
10. Blackburn R, Lawrence J. Faculty at work. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1995.
11. Friedrich K, Sellers S, Burstyn J. Thawing the chilly climate: Inclusive teaching resources for science, technology, engineering, and math. In: Robertson D, Nilson L, eds. To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009.
12. Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R, et al. Scientific Teaching. Science. 2004;304(5670):521-522.
13. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). Innovation with Impact: Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education. Washington, DC: Author;2012.
14. National Research Council. Discipline-Based Educational Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press;2012.
15. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC 2012.
16. Hora MT, Ferrare JJ, Oleson A. Findings from classroom observations of 58 math and science faculty. 2012; http://tdop.wceruw.org/Document/Research- report-Observations-of-STEMFaculty-Spring2012.pdf.
17. Cutler S, Borrego M, Hendersen C, Michael P, Froyd J. A Comparison of Electrical, Computer, and Chemical Engineering Faculty's Progression through the Innovation-Decision Process. Frontiers in Education Conference; 2012; Seattle, WA.
18. Hendersen C, Dancy M, Niewiadomska-Bugaj M. The Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Introductory Physics: Where do Faculty Leave the Innovation-Decision Process? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research. 2012;8(2):020104.
19. Dancy MH, Hendersen C. Experiences of new faculty implementing research-based instructional strategies. Paper presented at: AAPT 2011 Physics Education Research Conference 2012; Melville, NY.
20. Dancy MH, Hendersen C, Turpen C. How do faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction. in preparation.
21. Hendersen C, Dancy MH. Barriers to the Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies: The Influence of Both Individual and Situational Characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research. 2007;3(2):020102-020101 to 020102-020114.
22. Finelli CJ, Richardson KM, Daly SR. Factors that influence faculty motivation to adopt effective teaching practices in engineering. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition; 2013; Atlanta, GA.
23. Froyd J, Borrego M, Cutler S, Hendersen C, Prince M. Estimates of use of research based instructional strategies in core electrical or computer engineering courses. IEEE Transactions on Education. In Press.
24. Prince M, Borrego M, Hendersen C, Cutler S, Froyd J. Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Core Chemical Enginering Courses. Chemical Engineering Education. In Press.
25. Weimer M. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass; 2013.
26. Lake D. Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-based course compared with the same course utilizing group discussion. Physical Therapy. 2001;81:896-902.
27. Yadav A, Lundeberg M, Subedi S, Bunting C. Problem-based learning in an undergraduate electrical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education. 2011;100(2):253-280.
28. Alvarado C, Dominguez A, Rodriguez R, Zavala G. Paper presented at the Physics Education Research Conference. 2011; http://www.compadre.org/Repository/ document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=11824&DocID=2673.
29. Gaffney JDH, Gaffney ALH, Beichner RJ. Do they see it coming? Using expectancy violation to gauge the success of pedagogical reforms. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research. 2010;6(1).
30. Hitt GW, Isakovic AF, Fawwaz O, et al. Secondary implementation of interactive engagement teaching techniques: Choices and challenges in a Gulf Arab context. 2013.
31. Koermer CD, Petelle JL. Expectancy Violation and Student Rating of Instruction. Communication Quarterly. 1991;39(4):341-350.
32. Armbruster P, M. Patel, S El-Johnson, & M. Weiss. Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education. 2009;8(3):203-213.
33. Carlson K, Winquist J. Evaluating an active learning approach to teaching introductory statistics: A classroom workbook approach. Journal of Statistics Education. 2011;19(1):1-23.
34. Wilke RR. The effect of active learning on student characteristics in a human physiology course for non majors. Advances in Physiology Education. 2003;27(4):207-220.
35. Oakley BA, Hanna DM, Kuzmyn A, Felder RM. Best practices Involving teamwork in the classroom: Results from a survey of 6435 engineering student respondents. IEEE Transactions on Education 2007;50(3):266-272.
36. Hoffman E. Successful application of active learning techniques to introductory microbiology. Microbiology Education. 2001;2(1).
37. Reddy IK. Implementation of a pharmaceutics course in a large class through active learning using quick- Thinks and case-based learning. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2000;64(4):348-354.
38. Leckie RM. Engage Students with Active learning Strategies. n. d.; www.serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/intro/activelearning.html.
39. Arce P. The colloquial approach: An active learning technique. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 1994;3(3).
40. Richardson D, Birge B. Teaching physiology by combined passive (pedagogical) and active (andragogical) methods. Advances in Physiology Education. 1995;13(1).
41. O'Brocta, Swigart S. Student perceptions of a top 200 mediation course utilizing active learning techniques. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 2013;5.
42. Goodwin L, Miller JE, Cheetham RD. Teaching freshmen to think: Does active learning work? Bioscience. 1991;41:719-722.
43. Bacon D, Stewart K, Silver W. Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education. 1999;23(5):467-488.
44. Hall SR, Waitz I, Brodeur DR, Soderholm DH, Nasr R. Adoption of active learning in a lecturebased engineering class. ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Educaton Conference; 2002; Boston, MA.
45. Brent R, Felder RM. Analysis of fifteen years of the National Effective Teaching Institute. ASEE Annual Conference; 2009.
46. Rangachari P. Design of a problem-based undergraduate course in pharmacology: implications for the teaching of physiology. The American Journal of Physiology. 1991;260(6 Pt 3):S14-S21.
47. Kvam P. The effect of active learning methods on student retention in engineering statistics. The American Statistician. 2000;54(2).
48. Armstrong JS. Are student ratings of instruction useful? American Psychologist. 1998;53(11):1223-1232.
49. Arum R, Roksa J. Academically Adrift. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2011.
50. Moffett BS, Hill KB. The transition to active learning: A lived experience. Nurse Educator. 1997;22(4):44-47.
51. Johnson VE. Grade Inflation: A Crisis in College Education. Springer; 2003.
52. Gocsik K. Active Learning in the First-Year Writing Classroom. 2004; http://www.dartmouth.edu/writing/materials/faculty/pedagogies/active.shtml. Accessed 12 May 2013.
53. Higbee M, Burney JM. Facing the Elephant: Overcoming Faculty Fears of Active Learning. Network for Academic Renewal Conference 2011; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source= web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aacu. org%2Fmeetings%2Fgeneraleducation%2Fgened2011%2Fdocuments%2FCS49.ppt&ei= DHKPUYesN9Pj4AOrIHgBw&usg=AFQjCNFgC6vOwaPC65A15Lb7ITqdyDQvqQ&sig2= 5cVGsRqpOL3vdTZBjJ2sFA&bvm=bv.46340616, d.dmg.
54. Felder RM. Hang in there: Dealing with student resistance to learner-centered teaching. Chemical Engineering Education. 2011;45(2):131-132.
55. Felder RM, Brent R. The National Effective Teaching Institute: Assessment of impact and implications for faculty development. Journal of Engineering Education. 2010;99(2):121-134.
56. Felder RM, Brent R. Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching. 1996;44(2):43-47.
57. Michael J. Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching. 2007;54(1):42-47.
58. Van Barneveld A, Strobel J. Reports from teaching practice: experiences and management of tensions encountered with PBL implementations in the early years of undergraduate engineering education. Research in Engineering Education Symposium; 2011; Madrid, Spain.
59. Bentley FJB, Kennedy S, Semsar K. How not to lose your students with concept maps. Journal of College Science Teaching. 2011;41(1):61-68.
60. Donohue S, Richards L. Factors affecting student attitudes toward active learning activities in a graduate engineering statistics course. 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education conference; October 18-21, 2009, 2009; San Antonio, TX.
61. Frey JH, Oishi SM. How to Conduct Interviews by Telephone and in Person. London: Sage; 1995.
62. Wimmer RD, Dominick JR. Mass Media Research: An Introduction. Belmont, MA 1997.
63. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Describing & Measuring Undergraduate Stem Teaching Practices, A Report from a National Meeting on the Measurement of Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teaching. December 17-19, 2012.
64. Oatey A. The Strengths and Limitations of Interviews as a Research Technique for Studying Television Viewers.
65. Daly SR, Finelli CJ, Al-Khafaji AB, Neubauer MJ. Student perspectives of faculty classroom practices. Paper presented at: ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition 2012; San Antonio, TX.
66. Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1998.