More Like this

1. Dimensions for Development and Implementation of Active Learning in Higher Education

   https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.114345  

   Yee, Sean P; Rogers, Kimberly C; Williams, Molly; Funk, Rachel; Smith, Wendy M (October 2024, IntechOpen)

   Carbonneau, Kira; Meltzoff, Katherine (Ed.)

   This chapter focuses on accessible active learning (AL) strategies that promote equitable and effective student-centered instruction for higher education. Although there is not a consensus definition of AL across disciplines, principles of AL include attention to student engagement with content, peer-to-peer interactions, instructor uses of student thinking, and instructor attention to equity. A variety of AL strategies vary in complexity, time, and resources, and instructors can build up repertoires of such teaching practices. The field needs cultural change that moves away from lecture and toward AL and student engagement as the norm for equitable and effective teaching. Although such cultural change needs to include instructor professional learning about AL strategies, it also needs attention to collective beliefs, power dynamics, and structures that support (or inhibit) equitable AL implementation. This chapter provides frameworks for sustainable change to using AL in higher education, as well as research-based findings around which AL strategies are easy on-ramps for novice instructors. This chapter also provides a few specific examples of structures that support AL—course coordination and peer mentoring—and provides questions one may pose in attempting to spur cultural change that centers AL. 

   more » « less
2. Leveraging Engineering Instructors’ Professional Development with Classroom Analytics

   Baran, E.; AlZoubi, D.; Karabulut-Ilgu, A. (January 2022, Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference)

   E. Langran (Ed.)

   Faculty professional development is known to be a key factor contributing to the effective implementation of evidence-based teaching in STEM classrooms. In this research, we developed TEACHActive, an innovative classroom analytics-driven professional development model that supports the reflective practices of engineering instructors in higher education. TEACHActive uses machine learning techniques within a camera-based classroom sensing system that tracks behavioral features of interest in classrooms. Following design-based implementation research, we rapidly enacted, tested, and revised the TEACHActive model with engineering instructors. This study reports the results of the first iteration completed in the spring semester of 2021. Specifically, we examined the TEACHActive implementation and deployment in engineering classrooms with the analysis of instructors’ perceived successes and challenges. The paper presents implications for using the classroom analytics-driven professional development with educators in higher education. 

   more » « less
3. Actively Assessing and Engaging With the Definition(s) of Active Learning

   Yee, S P; Park, J; Brummer, J; Smith, W M; Crooks-Monastra, J; Tepper, M; Rogers, K C (August 2025, Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education)

   Cook, S; Katz, B P; Melhuish, K (Ed.)

   Graduate student instructors (GSIs) in mathematics play a pivotal role in shaping undergraduate education and are the future of collegiate mathematics faculty. As part of their development, GSIs are expected to engage in teaching-focused professional development (TPD), particularly in evidence-based strategies like Active Learning (AL) methods. However, higher education is only beginning to explore how to effectively measure GSIs' growth in teaching skills through such TPD. This study examines the learning process of 47 novice GSIs from three universities, specifically focusing on their evolving understanding of AL before and after participating in TPD. By analyzing the GSIs' own definitions of AL, the research highlights changes in their knowledge and alignment with the intended TPD outcomes. The findings provide insight into the effectiveness of TPD on AL, while also offering recommendations for structuring future evaluations of TPD impact on GSI teaching knowledge and skills. 

   more » « less
4. Lessons Learned: Exploring Effective Student-centered Instructional Practices in Middle and Upper-level Engineering

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--47730  

   Wahed, Shabnam; Pitterson, Nicole; Case, Jennifer; Knight, David; Murzi, Homero (June 2024, ASEE Conferences)

   This lessons learned paper delves into the realm of effective student-centered teaching practices within middle and upper-level engineering classes, with the primary goal of enhancing students' acquisition of disciplinary knowledge. The research is anchored by a central inquiry: what student-centered teaching approaches do exemplary engineering faculty employ to promote knowledge-building in their courses, and how do these approaches align with their beliefs about teaching? To address the research question, the study employed the participatory action research (PAR) methodology, which prioritizes the invaluable input and expertise of participants. A diverse group of participants renowned for their teaching excellence was selected from five departments. A total of ten participants were chosen, and data was collected using a variety of methods, including classroom observations, analysis of course materials, surveys, and focus group discussions. Our observations across various courses have revealed common practices employed by instructors to foster effective learning environments. These practices encompass dynamic and diverse class introductions that utilize strategies like revisiting prior content, storytelling, and addressing student well-being to establish a strong foundation for the session. Throughout the class, instructors consistently maintained student engagement through techniques such as group activities, structured interactions, active problem-solving, and thought-provoking question-and-answer sessions. Visual aids and technology were integral in enhancing content delivery. Instructors also ensured the content was relatable by linking lessons to research findings, relatable examples, and familiar landmarks, grounding theoretical concepts in real-life relevance. Personalized support was a priority, with instructors offering targeted feedback to smaller groups and individual students, including one-on-one sessions for additional assistance. Some instructors introduced unique practices such as debate activities, involving students in decision-making processes, cross-course connections, and specialized problem-solving techniques. These diverse approaches collectively underscore the multifaceted strategies instructors employ to create engaging and effective learning experiences. Another significant initiative undertaken in our study involved organizing a summer workshop that provided a platform for instructors to convene and engage in collaborative discussions regarding their teaching practices and their top five teaching priorities. During this workshop, we also deliberated on the preliminary findings from our data collection. The instructors collectively emphasized the importance of getting students engaged in the learning process. We identified several overarching categories of priorities that held relevance for all instructors, including the establishment of personal relationships with students, the effective organization of course content and class activities, strategies for motivating students, and the integration of course content with real-world applications. During the lightning talk, we will share a comprehensive overview of the study's research findings as well as the importance of student-centered teaching practices in engineering education. 

   more » « less
5. A Rapid and Formative Response by the Engineering Education Faculty to Support the Engineering Faculty and Students Throughout the Extreme Classroom Changes Resulting from the COVID-19 Pandemic

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--36606  

   White, Lance; Jaison, Donna; Ray, Samantha; Brumbelow, Kelly; Fields, Sherecce; Barroso, Luciana; Watson, Karan; Hammond, Tracy (July 2021, 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access)

   This paper describes an evidence based-practice paper to a formative response to the engineering faculty and students’ needs at Anonymous University. Within two weeks, the pandemic forced the vast majority of the 1.5 million faculty and 20 million students nationwide to transition all courses from face-to-face to entirely online. Never in the history of higher education has there been a concerted effort to adapt so quickly and radically, nor have we had the technology to facilitate such a rapid and massive change. At Anonymous University, over 700 engineering educators were racing to transition their courses. Many of those faculty had never experienced online course preparation, much less taught one synchronously or asynchronously. Faculty development centers and technology specialists across the university made a great effort to aid educators in this transition. These educators had questions about the best practices for moving online, how their students were affected, and the best ways to engage their students. However, these faculty’s detailed questions were answerable only by faculty peers’ experience, students’ feedback, and advice from experts in relevant engineering education research-based practices. This paper describes rapid, continuous, and formative feedback provided by the Engineering Education Faculty Group (EEFG) to provide an immediate response for peer faculty guidance during the pandemic, creating a community of practice. The faculty membership spans multiple colleges in the university, including engineering, education, and liberal arts. The EEFG transitioned immediately to weekly meetings focused on the rapidly changing needs of their colleagues. Two surveys were generated rapidly by Hammond et al. to characterize student and faculty concerns and needs in March of 2020 and were distributed through various means and media. Survey 1 and 2 had 3381 and 1506 respondents respectively with most being students, with 113 faculty respondents in survey 1, the focus of this piece of work. The first survey was disseminated as aggregated data to the College of Engineering faculty with suggested modifications to course structures based on these findings. The EEFG continued to meet and collaborate during the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester and has continued through to this day. This group has acted as a hub for teaching innovation in remote online pedagogy and techniques, while also operating as a support structure for members of the group, aiding those members with training in teaching tools, discussion difficult current events, and various challenges they are facing in their professional teaching lives. While the aggregated data gathered from the surveys developed by Hammond et al. was useful beyond measure in the early weeks of the pandemic, little attention at the time was given to the responses of faculty to that survey. The focus of this work has been to characterize faculty perceptions at the beginning of the pandemic and compare those responses between engineering and non-engineering faculty respondents, while also comparing reported perceptions of pre- and post-transition to remote online teaching. Interviews were conducted between 4 members of the EEFG with the goal of characterizing some of the experiences they have had while being members of the group during the time of the pandemic utilizing Grounded theory qualitative analysis. 

   more » « less