Improving Engineering Education: A Research‐Based Framework For Teaching

Instructional methods suggested to improve engineering education often follow primarily from personal experience and disparate research findings. While acknowledging the value of anecdotal evidence and individual studies, we advocate treating teaching as an ongoing scholarly practice where existing and new research is organized into a robust framework that produces a total effect greater than the sum of the independent parts. This paper describes the major components in a research-based framework for teaching and applies it to engineering education. While initially time intensive, this approach promotes an interplay of pedagogical decisions resulting in a synergism that best advances effective engineering education.

[1]  Jouni Viiri.  Teaching the Force Concept: A Constructivist Teaching Experiment in Engineering Education , 1996 .

[2]  W. Meyer,et al.  The informational value of evaluative behavior: Influences of praise and blame on perceptions of ability. , 1979 .

[3]  J. Ogborn.  Constructivist Metaphors of Learning Science , 1997 .

[4]  George D. Catalano,et al.  Some Ideas on the Teaching of Engineering Science: A Student Centered Approach , 1995 .

[5]  John E. Penick,et al.  Teacher Behavior Does Make a Difference In Hands-On Science Classrooms" , 1981 .

[6]  Mary Budd Rowe,et al.  Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be A Way of Speeding Up! , 1986 .

[7]  D. C. Phillips.  Coming to Grips with Radical Social Constructivisms , 1997 .

[8]  Michael P. Clough,et al.  Preparing and Hiring Exemplary Science Teachers , 1995 .

[9]  Margaret B Row.  Wait-Time and Rewards as Instructional Variables, Their Influence on Language, Logic, and Fate Control: Part One--Wait-Time. , 1974 .

[10]  Judith A. Langer,et al.  How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning. NCTE Research Report No. 22. , 1987 .

[11]  L. Resnick.  The 1987 Presidential Address Learning In School and Out , 1987 .

[12]  Frank P. Incropera,et al.  Revising a Mechanical Engineering Curriculum: The Implementation Process , 1996 .

[13]  D. Redfield,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research on Teacher Questioning Behavior , 1981 .

[14]  D. C. Phillips.  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism , 1995 .

[15]  J. Penick.  Teachers Make Exemplary Programs. , 1986 .

[16]  Ursula Casanova,et al.  Effective Schools: Teachers Make the Difference. , 1989 .

[17]  P. Matthews.  Problems with Piagetian Constructivism , 1997 .

[18]  J. Bordogna,et al.  An integrative and holistic engineering education , 1995 .

[19]  Robert Nola,et al.  Constructivism in Science and Science Education: A Philosophical Critique , 1997 .

[20]  V. Perrone.  How to Engage Students in Learning. , 1994 .

[21]  William C. Kyle,et al.  Textbook use and the biology education desired state , 1992 .

[22]  B. Olds,et al.  Real-World Problem Solving in Freshman-Sophomore Engineering. , 1995 .

[23]  Ok-choon Park,et al.  Hypermedia: functional features and research issues , 1991 .

[24]  G. Aikenhead,et al.  Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge , 1992 .

[25]  Mary Budd Rowe,et al.  Relation of wait-time and rewards to the development of language, logic, and fate control: Part II-Rewards , 1974 .

[26]  Mark R. Prausnitz.  COMET: An Open-Ended, Hands-On Project for ChE Sophomores. , 1998 .