Examining a Novel Theory-to-practice Effort in Engineering Education through Multiple Theoretical Lenses of Systems and Change

In the past, the engineering education community has focused primarily on developing evidencebased best practices and fundamental theories of teaching and learning. An emerging focus, embodied in initiatives like the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (RED) program, is on achieving systemic, sustainable, and scalable change, that is, the translation of theory to impact practice. Current models for engineering education units within universities have achieved goals to develop fundamental theory, making engineering education into a viable discipline. Alternative institutional models for engineering education are beginning to emerge that explore new avenues for achieving widespread, transformational impacts on educational practice. This paper describes a novel, next generation approach to translating theory to practice, and transforming an institutional culture through an integrated focus on building community and shared capacity around the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) and educational research in a college of engineering. When organizing a departmental or programmatic effort, logistical decisions can dominate and obscure the underlying organizing theory for the effort. Consistent with NSF’s calls for a greater understanding of theories of change, we connect the explicit and implicit organizing philosophies underpinning the innovative approach to enacted institutional plans and approaches. We draw on Henderson’s theoretical models of Institutional Change in higher education to clarify the chosen approach to transformation. We also draw on a complex systems perspective as a guiding philosophy to conceptualize change in the interconnected human, institutional, and social structures of our engineering college, and on boundary spanning to address the ways that communication across knowledge domains can be enacted and supported. The anthropologically inspired methodology explores institutional artifacts, structure, and guiding philosophies for their explicitly stated or implicitly enacted theories. As a collaboration between insiders (founders and longtime participants) and relative outsiders (a new participant), the innovative approach could be both described from experience and examined anew, and could explore both planned intentions and enacted realities. Guiding principles, made explicit in PROGRAM founding documents and written reflections of organizers, include “plant a lot of seeds” and “people are the drivers of change.” An organizing structure includes administrative and faculty roles with dual focuses on developing research and translating to practice. Several opportunities for engagement between researchers and

[1]  Petra Wächter Thinking in systems – a primer , 2011 .

[2]  Prateek Shekhar,et al.  The Variation of Nontraditional Teaching Methods Across 17 Undergraduate Engineering Classrooms , 2017 .

[3]  P. K. Imbrie,et al.  The future of engineering education , 2002, 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education.

[4]  Jeffrey E. Froyd,et al.  Fidelity of Implementation of Research‐Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS) in Engineering Science Courses , 2013 .

[5]  K. Smith,et al.  Conducting Rigorous Research in Engineering Education , 2006 .

[6]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems , 2005, MIS Q..

[7]  Mary Besterfield-Sacre,et al.  Changing Engineering Education: Views of U.S. Faculty, Chairs, and Deans , 2014 .

[8]  Maura Borrego,et al.  Increasing the Use of Evidence‐Based Teaching in STEM Higher Education: A Comparison of Eight Change Strategies , 2014 .

[9]  Maura Borrego,et al.  Development of Engineering Education as a Rigorous Discipline: A Study of the Publication Patterns of Four Coalitions , 2007 .

[10]  Ervin Laszlo,et al.  The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time , 1996 .

[11]  Ann F. McKenna,et al.  The Role of Collaborative Reflection on Shaping Engineering Faculty Teaching Approaches , 2009 .

[12]  E. László The systems view of the world: The natural philosophy of the new developments in the sciences , 1975 .

[13]  C. Henderson,et al.  Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature , 2011 .

[14]  Roger Hadgraft,et al.  Educational Practice and Educational Research in Engineering: Partners, Antagonists, or Ships Passing in the Night? , 2013 .

[15]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[16]  Rebecca Brent,et al.  Engineering Instructional Development: Programs, Best Practices, and Recommendations , 2011 .

[17]  Lynita K. Newswander,et al.  Engineering Education Research: Discipline, Community, or Field? , 2009 .

[18]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[19]  David Obstfeld Social Networks, the Tertius Iungens Orientation, and Involvement in Innovation , 2005 .

[20]  D. Knight,et al.  The positive influence of active learning in a lecture hall: an analysis of normalised gain scores in introductory environmental engineering , 2017 .

[21]  Maura Borrego,et al.  Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations: A Survey of Awareness and Adoption Rates in U.S. Engineering Departments , 2010 .