Student Experiences in a Structural Engineering Course:  Responses of Violation and Grief When a Novice Instructor Implements Project-Based Learning

Jillian Seniuk Cicek; Marcia R Friesen; Sandra Ingram; Douglas Warren Ruth

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Seattle, Washington
Publication Date: June 14, 2015
Start Date: June 14, 2015
End Date: June 17, 2015
ISBN: 978-0-692-50180-1
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: Student Experiences and Motivation: ERM Roundtable
Tagged Division: Educational Research and Methods
Tagged Topic: Diversity
Page Count: 16
Page Numbers: 26.1417.1 - 26.1417.16
DOI: 10.18260/p.24754
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/24754
Download Count: 618

Paper Authors

biography

Jillian Seniuk Cicek University of Manitoba orcid.org/0000-0002-3349-9704

visit author page

Jillian Seniuk Cicek is a Ph.D. Candidate in Engineering Education in the Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, Canada. She is a research assistant for the Center for Engineering Professional Practice and Engineering Education in the Faculty of Engineering. Her research areas include outcomes-based teaching and assessment, and student-centered instruction. She is involved in the University of Manitoba Faculty of Engineering’s curriculum improvement process.

visit author page

author page

Marcia R Friesen P.Eng. University of Manitoba

biography

Sandra Ingram University of Manitoba

visit author page

Sandra Ingram, Ph.D., is a SSHRC award-winning scholar and Associate professor in Design Engineering, Associate Chair (NSERC Design Engineering) and adjunct professor in Biosystems Engineering at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. Dr. Ingram is responsible for teaching the technical communication course in the faculty as well as an integrated approach to communications in the Biosystems Engineering department. Her research interests include professional skills in engineering, internationally educated engineers, co-operative education programs, women in engineering, and post-graduate training of engineers

visit author page

author page

Douglas Warren Ruth

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Teaching Structural Engineering Using Project-Based Learning:The Social Constructionist Nature of Teaching, Learning and Assessment: A Case StudyThis research paper presents a collective case study conducted to investigate theinteractional nature of teaching, learning and assessment in a structural engineeringcourse that was redesigned using a project-based pedagogy. Time, place and participantsbound the case. The unit of analysis was the course, a third-year structural engineeringcore, taught in winter 2013 and winter 2014 by one instructor at a single university. Thescope of this study encompassed an instructor’s planned pedagogical approaches andeducational objectives, and his implementation of the course as experienced andperceived by the instructor, two cohorts of students in two consecutive course offerings,and one set of teaching assistants. The study focused on participants’ perceptions andexperiences of learning goals, content, learning methods and assessment in the project-based course, but did not involve direct assessment of students’ learning outcomes. Datacollection methods included a student survey, focus groups, interviews and coursework,as well as interviews with each the instructor and teaching assistants. A thematic analysiswithin each cohort and across both cohorts was conducted to inform assertions. The casewas unique in the fact that the instructor, an experienced professional engineer withextensive industry background, was new to the academic role and to teaching, and theinstructional design was planned as a departure from the previous offerings of the courseas a traditional lecture-tutorial format with isolated, individualized assessments. Findingsshowed that students’ perceptions and experiences could not be separated from having anovice instructor deliver the course. Students, teaching assistants, and the instructor’sexperiences and perceptions were all relatively different, lending the analysis of the datato a social constructivist interpretation. In this theoretical view, experiences andperceptions of teaching, learning and assessment are contextualized within participants’understandings of the course objectives, the amount of coursework, the type ofinstruction that they experience, and the level of control or lack of control that they haveover their own learning. The findings of this study speak to the need to create a culture ofmentorship to support new instructors within the engineering faculty.ERM DIVISION CALL FOR PAPERSThe Educational Research and Methods Division (ERM) seeks Paper, Special Session, and Workshop proposals on topics related to ERM'ʹs primary objective, to promote scholarly research on engineering education. Topics include teaching, learning, assessment and evaluation; broadening participation, and other aspects related to engineering education practice and research; disseminating findings; and enhancing the status of teaching and engineering education research in the university and beyond. There are three types of submissions: • Papers: Manuscripts that further the Division objective stated above. Papers must include relevant prior work and literature citations, methodology, and research/assessment results. All Papers will be “publish-‐‑to-‐‑present,” meaning: • A favorable peer-‐‑review of a submitted abstract will lead to an invitation to submit a full paper. A favorable peer review of a submitted paper will lead to acceptance. • Only accepted papers will be considered for inclusion in a Conference podium or poster session. • Presentation of the paper at the Conference is required for publication of the paper in the Conference proceedings. All categories of papers could be assigned to either a podium or poster session. • All abstracts and papers must be submitted through ASEE’s Monolith System • Special Sessions: 90-‐‑minute sessions with non-‐‑traditional formats occurring during the regular Conference program that explore a topic in depth. Special Sessions should have explicitly stated learning goals that cannot be met in a traditional paper presentation. Special sessions are 90 minutes in length. They do not require a paper submission. A maximum of two Special Sessions will accepted for the Conference program. • Workshops: Full day or half-‐‑day sessions on the Sunday of the Conference that equip attendees to learn about a topic and apply the knowledge to their own setting. Guidelines for EvaluationAbstracts and PapersThe ERM Division uses a blind review process when reviewing abstracts and papers, and it is the authors’ responsibility to ensure that the requirements for blind review are met. Authors’ names and institutions should not be included in the texts, file names, and file properties of submitted manuscripts. Abstracts should follow the ASEE Abstract Format guidelines (http://www.asee.org/conferences-‐‑ and-‐‑events/conferences/annual-‐‑conference/2013), and should contain sufficient information for reviewers to judge whether the full paper will meet the Division’s evaluation criteria. ERM welcomes papers from a variety of epistemological, methodological, and theoreticaltraditions including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.There are four categories of paper submissions: Research, Evidence-basedPractice, Synthesis or Other.1) Research Papers -‐‑ Research papers should present new findings, situate their contributions in a context of prior findings and models, describe methodology, present results, and discuss implications of the work and/or future directions for research. 2) Evidence-‐‑based Practice Papers – Practice papers should analyze (e.g., provide design rationale, support with evidence, demonstrate achievement of intended outcomes) one or more engineering education practices (including teaching approaches and uses of instructional technologies, institutional strategies to support student success, etc...), 3) Synthesis Papers – Synthesis papers (such as meta-‐‑analyses) should study previous literature to uncover relationships, generate patterns, discern trends, etc. Based on the synthesis, papers may suggest innovative methodologies or unconventional approaches. 4) Other -‐‑ Papers that do not fit the previous three categories. The criteria for abstract review is the same for all paper categories. The abstract should address the motivation and background of the work, methodology (including assessment methods), research/assessment results, and conclusions and significance. Literature citations should not be included in the abstract. Authors’ names or institutional names should not be included in the abstract, filename, or document properties. It is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the requirements for blind review are met. Full manuscripts of papers will be evaluated based on the extent to which applicable criteria shown below are met. Papers that fail to meet all of the criteria may still be considered acceptable based on potential to further the ERM Division objective. General evaluation criteria for all paper types: • The manuscript is complete. Authors should not expect to make substantial changes in a manuscript following its acceptance. • The study is likely to interest a broad group of engineering education researchers and/or practitioners. • The work builds upon relevant references and bodies of knowledge. • The findings or ideas presented are generalizable or transferable to other settings. • The manuscript is clear and coherent. • The study is original and innovative. • The study advances engineering education research and/or practice. 1. Research Papers 1. Background/literature review is situated in previous work. 2. Research methodologies are valid and reliable or trustworthy and credible and are based on previously established methods or newly developed and validated methodologies. Findings are generalizable or transferable. 3. Analysis and interpretation methods are grounded in the literature 2. Evidence-‐‑based Practice Papers 1. Includes background and/or literature review. 2. Methodologies are valid and reliable or trustworthy and credible. Findings are generalizable or transferable. 3. Analysis and interpretation methods are grounded in the literature 3. Synthesis Papers a. Integration of existing literature is compelling to the engineering education community. b. Ideas presented “push the envelope” of the state of the art in engineering education. 4. Other – These papers will be evaluated based on general criteria listed above.

Citation
Format

Seniuk Cicek, J., & Friesen, M. R., & Ingram, S., & Ruth, D. W. (2015, June), Student Experiences in a Structural Engineering Course: Responses of Violation and Grief When a Novice Instructor Implements Project-Based Learning Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24754

TY - CPAPER
AB - Teaching Structural Engineering Using Project-Based Learning:The Social Constructionist Nature of Teaching, Learning and Assessment: A Case StudyThis research paper presents a collective case study conducted to investigate theinteractional nature of teaching, learning and assessment in a structural engineeringcourse that was redesigned using a project-based pedagogy. Time, place and participantsbound the case. The unit of analysis was the course, a third-year structural engineeringcore, taught in winter 2013 and winter 2014 by one instructor at a single university. Thescope of this study encompassed an instructor’s planned pedagogical approaches andeducational objectives, and his implementation of the course as experienced andperceived by the instructor, two cohorts of students in two consecutive course offerings,and one set of teaching assistants. The study focused on participants’ perceptions andexperiences of learning goals, content, learning methods and assessment in the project-based course, but did not involve direct assessment of students’ learning outcomes. Datacollection methods included a student survey, focus groups, interviews and coursework,as well as interviews with each the instructor and teaching assistants. A thematic analysiswithin each cohort and across both cohorts was conducted to inform assertions. The casewas unique in the fact that the instructor, an experienced professional engineer withextensive industry background, was new to the academic role and to teaching, and theinstructional design was planned as a departure from the previous offerings of the courseas a traditional lecture-tutorial format with isolated, individualized assessments. Findingsshowed that students’ perceptions and experiences could not be separated from having anovice instructor deliver the course. Students, teaching assistants, and the instructor’sexperiences and perceptions were all relatively different, lending the analysis of the datato a social constructivist interpretation. In this theoretical view, experiences andperceptions of teaching, learning and assessment are contextualized within participants’understandings of the course objectives, the amount of coursework, the type ofinstruction that they experience, and the level of control or lack of control that they haveover their own learning. The findings of this study speak to the need to create a culture ofmentorship to support new instructors within the engineering faculty.ERM DIVISION CALL FOR PAPERSThe Educational Research and Methods Division (ERM) seeks Paper, Special Session, and Workshop proposals on topics related to ERM&#39;ʹs primary objective, to promote scholarly research on engineering education. Topics include teaching, learning, assessment and evaluation; broadening participation, and other aspects related to engineering education practice and research; disseminating findings; and enhancing the status of teaching and engineering education research in the university and beyond. There are three types of submissions: • Papers: Manuscripts that further the Division objective stated above. Papers must include relevant prior work and literature citations, methodology, and research/assessment results. All Papers will be “publish-‐‑to-‐‑present,” meaning: • A favorable peer-‐‑review of a submitted abstract will lead to an invitation to submit a full paper. A favorable peer review of a submitted paper will lead to acceptance. • Only accepted papers will be considered for inclusion in a Conference podium or poster session. • Presentation of the paper at the Conference is required for publication of the paper in the Conference proceedings. All categories of papers could be assigned to either a podium or poster session. • All abstracts and papers must be submitted through ASEE’s Monolith System • Special Sessions: 90-‐‑minute sessions with non-‐‑traditional formats occurring during the regular Conference program that explore a topic in depth. Special Sessions should have explicitly stated learning goals that cannot be met in a traditional paper presentation. Special sessions are 90 minutes in length. They do not require a paper submission. A maximum of two Special Sessions will accepted for the Conference program. • Workshops: Full day or half-‐‑day sessions on the Sunday of the Conference that equip attendees to learn about a topic and apply the knowledge to their own setting. Guidelines for EvaluationAbstracts and PapersThe ERM Division uses a blind review process when reviewing abstracts and papers, and it is the authors’ responsibility to ensure that the requirements for blind review are met. Authors’ names and institutions should not be included in the texts, file names, and file properties of submitted manuscripts. Abstracts should follow the ASEE Abstract Format guidelines (http://www.asee.org/conferences-‐‑ and-‐‑events/conferences/annual-‐‑conference/2013), and should contain sufficient information for reviewers to judge whether the full paper will meet the Division’s evaluation criteria. ERM welcomes papers from a variety of epistemological, methodological, and theoreticaltraditions including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.There are four categories of paper submissions: Research, Evidence-basedPractice, Synthesis or Other.1) Research Papers -‐‑ Research papers should present new findings, situate their contributions in a context of prior findings and models, describe methodology, present results, and discuss implications of the work and/or future directions for research. 2) Evidence-‐‑based Practice Papers – Practice papers should analyze (e.g., provide design rationale, support with evidence, demonstrate achievement of intended outcomes) one or more engineering education practices (including teaching approaches and uses of instructional technologies, institutional strategies to support student success, etc...), 3) Synthesis Papers – Synthesis papers (such as meta-‐‑analyses) should study previous literature to uncover relationships, generate patterns, discern trends, etc. Based on the synthesis, papers may suggest innovative methodologies or unconventional approaches. 4) Other -‐‑ Papers that do not fit the previous three categories. The criteria for abstract review is the same for all paper categories. The abstract should address the motivation and background of the work, methodology (including assessment methods), research/assessment results, and conclusions and significance. Literature citations should not be included in the abstract. Authors’ names or institutional names should not be included in the abstract, filename, or document properties. It is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the requirements for blind review are met. Full manuscripts of papers will be evaluated based on the extent to which applicable criteria shown below are met. Papers that fail to meet all of the criteria may still be considered acceptable based on potential to further the ERM Division objective. General evaluation criteria for all paper types: • The manuscript is complete. Authors should not expect to make substantial changes in a manuscript following its acceptance. • The study is likely to interest a broad group of engineering education researchers and/or practitioners. • The work builds upon relevant references and bodies of knowledge. • The findings or ideas presented are generalizable or transferable to other settings. • The manuscript is clear and coherent. • The study is original and innovative. • The study advances engineering education research and/or practice. 1. Research Papers 1. Background/literature review is situated in previous work. 2. Research methodologies are valid and reliable or trustworthy and credible and are based on previously established methods or newly developed and validated methodologies. Findings are generalizable or transferable. 3. Analysis and interpretation methods are grounded in the literature 2. Evidence-‐‑based Practice Papers 1. Includes background and/or literature review. 2. Methodologies are valid and reliable or trustworthy and credible. Findings are generalizable or transferable. 3. Analysis and interpretation methods are grounded in the literature 3. Synthesis Papers a. Integration of existing literature is compelling to the engineering education community. b. Ideas presented “push the envelope” of the state of the art in engineering education. 4. Other – These papers will be evaluated based on general criteria listed above.
AU - Jillian Seniuk Cicek
AU - Marcia R Friesen P.Eng.
AU - Sandra Ingram
AU - Douglas Warren Ruth
CY - Seattle, Washington
DA - 2015/06/14
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Student Experiences in a Structural Engineering Course: Responses of Violation and Grief When a Novice Instructor Implements Project-Based Learning
UR - https://peer.asee.org/24754
DO - 10.18260/p.24754
ER -