State of Evaluating the Effectiveness of Teaching Development Programs for Students in Engineering

Jutshi Agarwal; Samieh Askarian; Gregory Bucks; Teri Murphy

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Publication Date: August 23, 2022
Start Date: June 26, 2022
End Date: June 29, 2022
Conference Session: Graduate Studies Division Technical Session 2
Page Count: 14
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--41208
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/41208
Download Count: 390

Paper Authors

biography

Jutshi Agarwal University of Cincinnati

visit author page

Jutshi Agarwal is a Doctoral candidate (graduation date: July 2022) in Engineering Education at the University of Cincinnati. She has a Master's degree in Aerospace Engineering from University of Cincinnati and a Bachelor's degree in Aerospace Engineering from SRM University, India. Her research areas of interest are graduate student professional development for a career in academia, preparing future faculty, and using AI tools to solve non-traditional problems in engineering education. She has published in several international conferences.

visit author page

biography

Samieh Askarian University of Cincinnati

visit author page

Samieh Askarian Khanamani is a Ph.D. student at the Department of Engineering Education, University of Cincinnati. She has 10 years of experience as Vice-Principal in elementary school in Iran. She has a bachelor's degree in project management Engineering from Payamnoor university and a Master's degree in Civil Engineering from Azad University. Her research area of interest lies in informal preK-12 education to strengthen the engineering pipeline.

visit author page

biography

Gregory Bucks University of Cincinnati

visit author page

Gregory Bucks joined the Department of Engineering Education at the University of Cincinnati in 2012. He received his BSEE from the Pennsylvania State University in 2004, his MSECE from Purdue University in 2006, and his PhD in Engineering Education in 2010, also from Purdue University. His research interests lie in first-year pedagogy and program assessment as well as conceptual understanding of fundamental computing concepts.

visit author page

author page

Teri Murphy University of Cincinnati

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

There is a significant dearth of literature on the teaching training available to engineering graduate students, both as student instructors (more commonly teaching assistants) and as future faculty. Even when scholars have implemented and written about teaching professional development (TPD) for students, the focus has been on the practices involved in the TPD program. Such studies have more frequently lacked structured, evidence-based information to measure whether these programs have been effective. Moreover, there is no framework to understand what success of a TPD program for engineering graduate students should mean. This also makes it difficult for program managers to justify the introduction or continued implementation of TPD for students in engineering because there is often a disconnect between the opinions of program managers and policymakers. In this study, we gathered data from academic leaders, including heads of departments and directors of engineering programs, to understand their opinions in this area. The research question explored in this study is: What are the opinions of academic leaders about the evidence needed to measure the effectiveness of a teaching professional development program for graduate students in engineering? The study aims to understand what policymakers at educational institutions of engineering consider as information needed or the type of data that needs to be collected so that such programs can be evaluated in a more structured and justifiable manner.  

Multiple frameworks for evaluation of Teaching Assistant Teaching Professional Development (TA TPD) programs were studied to understand what STEM education researchers recommend as evidence-based evaluation of such programs. In this study, one such framework was used to compare open-ended responses to questions on a survey sent to engineering academic leaders (e.g., heads of departments and directors of engineering programs) in the United States. Two of the questions in the survey focused on the opinions of respondents about the evidence needed to measure the effectiveness of the TPD in their institution. Qualitative analysis included categorizing responses into themes from the selected framework and comparing differences between respondents’ own opinion and their perceptions of the opinions of their colleagues. Findings showed that a majority of respondents and their colleagues intend to rely on end-of-course student feedback for such evaluations. Literature on the reliability of student evaluations is presented and recommendations made for alternative methods of TPD program evaluations.  

Citation
Format

Agarwal, J., & Askarian, S., & Bucks, G., & Murphy, T. (2022, August), State of Evaluating the Effectiveness of Teaching Development Programs for Students in Engineering Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN. 10.18260/1-2--41208

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - There is a significant dearth of literature on the teaching training available to engineering graduate students, both as student instructors (more commonly teaching assistants) and as future faculty. Even when scholars have implemented and written about teaching professional development (TPD) for students, the focus has been on the practices involved in the TPD program. Such studies have more frequently lacked structured, evidence-based information to measure whether these programs have been effective. Moreover, there is no framework to understand what success of a TPD program for engineering graduate students should mean. This also makes it difficult for program managers to justify the introduction or continued implementation of TPD for students in engineering because there is often a disconnect between the opinions of program managers and policymakers. In this study, we gathered data from academic leaders, including heads of departments and directors of engineering programs, to understand their opinions in this area. The research question explored in this study is: What are the opinions of academic leaders about the evidence needed to measure the effectiveness of a teaching professional development program for graduate students in engineering? The study aims to understand what policymakers at educational institutions of engineering consider as information needed or the type of data that needs to be collected so that such programs can be evaluated in a more structured and justifiable manner.   

Multiple frameworks for evaluation of Teaching Assistant Teaching Professional Development (TA TPD) programs were studied to understand what STEM education researchers recommend as evidence-based evaluation of such programs. In this study, one such framework was used to compare open-ended responses to questions on a survey sent to engineering academic leaders (e.g., heads of departments and directors of engineering programs) in the United States. Two of the questions in the survey focused on the opinions of respondents about the evidence needed to measure the effectiveness of the TPD in their institution. Qualitative analysis included categorizing responses into themes from the selected framework and comparing differences between respondents’ own opinion and their perceptions of the opinions of their colleagues. Findings showed that a majority of respondents and their colleagues intend to rely on end-of-course student feedback for such evaluations. Literature on the reliability of student evaluations is presented and recommendations made for alternative methods of TPD program evaluations.   
AU  - Jutshi Agarwal
AU  - Samieh Askarian
AU  - Gregory Bucks
AU  - Teri Murphy
CY  - Minneapolis, MN
DA  - 2022/08/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - State of Evaluating the Effectiveness of Teaching Development Programs for Students in Engineering
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/41208
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--41208
ER  -