Work in Progress: Rethinking How We Teach in Engineering Through a Course Redesign Initiative

Stephanie Laggini Fiore; Shawn Patrick Fagan; David Brookstein

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Publication Date: June 24, 2017
Start Date: June 24, 2017
End Date: June 28, 2017
Conference Session: Retention
Tagged Division: Educational Research and Methods
Page Count: 7
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--29177
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/29177
Download Count: 524

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Stephanie Laggini Fiore Temple University

visit author page

Stephanie Fiore is the Senior Director of the Center for the Advancement of Teaching at Temple University, responsible for developing excellence in teaching by supporting faculty in implementing evidence-based teaching practices. Stephanie has 30 years of teaching experience, as well as deep experience in mentorship of faculty, curriculum development and academic program management. Her current research focuses on how to improve student success by redesigning courses to align with what we know about how people learn.

visit author page

biography

Shawn Patrick Fagan Temple University

visit author page

Shawn Fagan is the Director of the Center for Academic Advising and Student Affairs in the College of Engineering at Temple University. He received his Bachelor of Science in Education from The Pennsylvania State University, Master of Sport Administration from Belmont University and Master of Business Administration from Saint Leo University. He is currently pursuing a Doctor of Education in Higher Education at Temple University. He oversees the day-to-day operation of the College of Engineering’s student academic support and advising services.

visit author page

biography

David Brookstein Temple University

visit author page

David Brookstein is Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies and Professor of Instruction in Mechanical Engineering at the Temple University College of Engineering. He received his Bachelor of Textile Engineering from Georgia Tech and his Sc.D. in Mechanical Engineering from MIT. He is a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He was responsible for re-imagining and leading the college-wide capstone senior design course Currently he is the College -wide Coordinator of ABET accreditation. Prior to joining Temple University in 2014 he was Dean of the School of Engineering and Textiles at Philadelphia University.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

WIP: Rethinking How We Teach in Engineering Through a Course Redesign Initiative

One of the key concerns in Engineering disciplines is the ability to retain students who begin college with the intention of entering an Engineering field. In their study on why undergraduates leave STEM disciplines, Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt identified disappointment among engineering majors in their learning experiences as one of the major factors leading students to drop out. “All four of the most highly-ranked factors contributing to switching decisions reflect some aspect of teaching...concerns about pedagogical effectiveness, advising, assessment practices, and curriculum structure, pervade all but seven of the twenty-three issues” (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997, p. 34). Other researchers have reached similar conclusions and attributed this disappointment to poor teaching and mentoring.

The College of Engineering has been participating in a new initiative at Temple University - Project SOAR (Student-Oriented Active Redesign) - aimed at improving student retention in courses with high DFW rates (grades of “D”, “F” or “W”). While the traditional university response reacts to the problem by providing support interventions for struggling students (tutoring, peer mentoring, etc.) in creating Project SOAR, we chose to reframe the problem proactively so that we address possible underlying issues around course content, course design, and/or course pedagogy. Two courses in Engineering participated in this inaugural project, including Engineering Statics. From Fall 2012 to Fall 2015, the DFW rate in Engineering Statics far exceeded the university average, sometimes reaching rates as high as 48.4% (approximately eight times the university average).

Faculty members involved in the project attended a 3-week intensive Course Redesign Institute led by the Center for the Advancement of Teaching, followed by private consultations with faculty developers, and training sessions with instructional technology specialists. They committed to applying the principles they acquired in these interventions to redesigned courses piloted in Fall 2016. Some of the changes applied to the Engineering Statics course for this first iteration of the redesign include opportunities for more practice and feedback, the power of a positive syllabus, implementation of the principles of Universal Design for Learning, and how active-learning interventions (such as setting up more collaborative activities) can make an impact on student learning. Most interesting is that, as a direct result of involvement in SOAR, the College of Engineering is exploring implementation of more sweeping changes to the introductory Engineering curricular sequence.

The study attached to the project aims to examine any change in the DFW rates, but also shifts in student beliefs of self-efficacy and growth mindset, that is, their belief that they can learn the material and succeed in the course, and that they can overcome obstacles they may face. Of particular interest might be the qualitative research that looks at differences in feelings of competence and conceptual understanding among students who have previously failed the course and then taken it again in the new form. Future SOAR studies will track students as they progress through college to measure their persistence in the major as compared to those who took Statics in its original form. This paper will detail the interventions, the study, and any preliminary results available from the pilot of the redesigned Statics course.

Citation
Format

Fiore, S. L., & Fagan, S. P., & Brookstein, D. (2017, June), Work in Progress: Rethinking How We Teach in Engineering Through a Course Redesign Initiative Paper presented at 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. 10.18260/1-2--29177

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - WIP: Rethinking How We Teach in Engineering Through a Course Redesign Initiative

One of the key concerns in Engineering disciplines is the ability to retain students who begin college with the intention of entering an Engineering field. In their study on why undergraduates leave STEM disciplines, Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt identified disappointment among engineering majors in their learning experiences as one of the major factors leading students to drop out. “All four of the most highly-ranked factors contributing to switching decisions reflect some aspect of teaching...concerns about pedagogical effectiveness, advising, assessment practices, and curriculum structure, pervade all but seven of the twenty-three issues” (Seymour &amp; Hewitt, 1997, p. 34). Other researchers have reached similar conclusions and attributed this disappointment to poor teaching and mentoring.

The College of Engineering has been participating in a new initiative at Temple University - Project SOAR (Student-Oriented Active Redesign) - aimed at improving student retention in courses with high DFW rates (grades of “D”, “F” or “W”). While the traditional university response reacts to the problem by providing support interventions for struggling students (tutoring, peer mentoring, etc.) in creating Project SOAR, we chose to reframe the problem proactively so that we address possible underlying issues around course content, course design, and/or course pedagogy. Two courses in Engineering participated in this inaugural project, including Engineering Statics. From Fall 2012 to Fall 2015, the DFW rate in Engineering Statics far exceeded the university average, sometimes reaching rates as high as 48.4% (approximately eight times the university average). 

Faculty members involved in the project attended a 3-week intensive Course Redesign Institute led by the Center for the Advancement of Teaching, followed by private consultations with faculty developers, and training sessions with instructional technology specialists. They committed to applying the principles they acquired in these interventions to redesigned courses piloted in Fall 2016. Some of the changes applied to the Engineering Statics course for this first iteration of the redesign include opportunities for more practice and feedback, the power of a positive syllabus, implementation of the principles of Universal Design for Learning, and how active-learning interventions (such as setting up more collaborative activities) can make an impact on student learning. Most interesting is that, as a direct result of involvement in SOAR, the College of Engineering is exploring implementation of more sweeping changes to the introductory Engineering curricular sequence.

The study attached to the project aims to examine any change in the DFW rates, but also shifts in student beliefs of self-efficacy and growth mindset, that is, their belief that they can learn the material and succeed in the course, and that they can overcome obstacles they may face. Of particular interest might be the qualitative research that looks at differences in feelings of competence and conceptual understanding among students who have previously failed the course and then taken it again in the new form. Future SOAR studies will track students as they progress through college to measure their persistence in the major as compared to those who took Statics in its original form. This paper will detail the interventions, the study, and any preliminary results available from the pilot of the redesigned Statics course.
AU  - Stephanie Laggini Fiore
AU  - Shawn Patrick Fagan
AU  - David Brookstein
CY  - Columbus, Ohio
DA  - 2017/06/24
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Work in Progress: Rethinking How We Teach in Engineering Through a Course Redesign Initiative
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/29177
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--29177
ER  -