More Like this

1. Engineering Faculty Members’ Perceptions of University Makerspaces: Potential Affordances for Curriculum, Instructional Practices, and Student Learning

   Lenhart, C. st ( October 2020 , IJEE International Journal of Engineering Education)

   null (Ed.)

   We detail an exploratory study of faculty members’ perceptions of activities associated with undergraduate engineering programs in university-based makerspaces. Our study examines the affordances and constraints faculty perceive regarding teaching and learning in these spaces and, specifically, how makerspaces support engineering faculty members in accomplishing the goals and expectations they have for undergraduate students’ learning and development. We found that makerspaces inspired faculty members’ curricular and instructional innovations, including design of new courses and implementation of practices meant to result in more team-based and active learning. Faculty perceived student activities in makerspaces as fostering of student agency and development of engineering skills, knowledge, and affect. Faculty also identified concerns related to the teaching of engineering in these spaces, including the need to change their instructional practices to more fully engage students and to balance the sophisticated tools and resources with the rigor of completing complex engineering tasks. We use structuration theory to illuminate how faculty act, rationalize, and reflect on their teaching practices and goals in relation to structures present in university-based makerspace. Our study is intended to inform faculty and administrators working to engage students through interactions in makerspaces or similar innovations, and to consider how access to and impact of these structures support undergraduate engineering education. 

   more » « less
2. Student Development at the Boundaries: Makerspaces as Affordances for Engineering Students’ Development

   https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063058  

   Choi, Yoon Ha ; Bouwma-Gearhart, Jana ; Lenhart, Cindy A. ; Villanueva, Idalis ; Nadelson, Louis S. ( March 2021 , Sustainability)

   null (Ed.)

   University-based makerspaces are receiving increasing attention as promising innovations that may contribute to the development of future engineers. Using a theory of social boundary spaces, we investigated whether the diverse experiences offered at university-based makerspaces may contribute to students’ learning and development of various “soft” or “21st century” skills that go beyond engineering-specific content knowledge. Through interviews with undergraduate student users at two university-based makerspaces in the United States we identified seven different types of boundary spaces (where multiple communities, and the individuals and activities affiliated with those communities, come together). We identified students engaging in the processes of identification, reflection, and coordination, which allowed them to make sense of, and navigate, the various boundary spaces they encountered in the makerspaces. These processes provided students with opportunities to engage with, and learn from, individuals and practices affiliated with various communities and disciplines. These opportunities can lead to students’ development of necessary skills to creatively and collaboratively address interdisciplinary socio-scientific problems. We suggest that university-based makerspaces can offer important developmental experiences for a diverse body of students that may be challenging for a single university department, program, or course to offer. Based on these findings, we recommend university programs and faculty intentionally integrate makerspace activities into undergraduate curricula to support students’ development of skills, knowledge, and practices relevant for engineering as well as 21st century skills more broadly. 

   more » « less
3. Student development at the boundaries: Makerspaces as affordances for engineering students’ development.

   *Choi, Y. H. ; Bouwma-Gearhart, J. ; Lenhart, C. A. ; & Nadelson, L. S. ( January 2021 , Sustainability)

   University-based makerspaces are receiving increasing attention as promising innovations that may contribute to the development of future engineers. Using a theory of social boundary spaces, we investigated whether the diverse experiences offered at university-based makerspaces may contribute to students’ learning and development of various “soft” or “21st century” skills that go beyond engineering-specific content knowledge. Through interviews with undergraduate student users at two university-based makerspaces in the United States we identified seven different types of boundary spaces (where multiple communities, and the individuals and activities affiliated with those communities, come together). We identified students engaging in the processes of identification, reflection, and coordination, which allowed them to make sense of, and navigate, the various boundary spaces they encountered in the makerspaces. These processes provided students with opportunities to engage with, and learn from, individuals and practices affiliated with various communities and disciplines. These opportunities can lead to students’ development of necessary skills to creatively and collaboratively address interdisciplinary socio-scientific problems. We suggest that universitybased makerspaces can offer important developmental experiences for a diverse body of students that may be challenging for a single university department, program, or course to offer. Based on these findings, we recommend university programs and faculty intentionally integrate makerspace activities into undergraduate curricula to support students’ development of skills, knowledge, and practices relevant for engineering as well as 21st century skills more broadly. 

   more » « less
4. Design Educators’ Conceptions of Prototyping in Engineering Design Courses

   Ali, Hadi ; Lande, Micah ( June 2019 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   This is a research study that investigates the range of conceptions of prototyping in engineering design courses through exploring the conceptions and implementations from the instructors’ perspective. Prototyping is certainly an activity central to engineering design. The context of prototyping to support engineering education and practice has a range of implementations in an undergraduate engineering curriculum, from first-year engineering to capstone engineering design experiences. Understanding faculty conceptions’ of the reason, purpose, and place of prototyping can help illustrate how teaching and learning of the engineering design process is realistically implemented across a curriculum and how students are prepared for work practice. We seek to understand, and consequently improve, engineering design teaching and learning, through transformations of practice that are based on engineering education research. In this exploratory study, we interviewed three faculty members who teach engineering design in project-based learning courses across the curriculum of an undergraduate engineering program. This builds on related work done by the authors that previously investigated undergraduate engineering students’ conceptions of prototyping activities and process. With our instructor participants, a similar interview protocol was followed through semi-structured qualitative interviews. Data analysis has been undertaken through an emerging thematic analysis of these interview transcripts. Early findings characterize the focus on teaching the design process; the kind of feedback that the educators provide on students’ prototypes; students’ behavior while working on design projects; and educators’ perspectives on the design course. Understanding faculty conceptions with students’ conceptions of prototyping can shed light on the efficacy of using prototyping as an authentic experience in design teaching and learning. In project-based learning courses, particular issues of authenticity and assessment are under consideration, especially across the curriculum. More specifically, “proportions of problems” inform “problem solving” as one of the key characteristics in design thinking, teaching and learning. More attention to prototyping as part of the study of problem-solving processes can be useful to enhance understanding of the impact of instructional design. Challenges for teaching engineering design exist, and may be due to difficulties in framing design problems, recognizing what expertise students possess, and assessing their expertise to help them reach their goals, all at an appropriate place and ambiguity with student learning goals. Initial findings show that prototyping activities can help students become more reflective on their design. Scaffolded activities in prototyping can support self-regulated learning by students. The range of support and facilities, such as campus makerspaces, may also help students and instructors alike develop industry-ready engineering students. 

   more » « less
5. Factors that influence STEM faculty use of evidence-based instructional practices: An ecological model

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281290  

   Sansom, Rebecca L. ; Winters, Desiree M. ; St. Clair, Bryn E. ; West, Richard E. ; Jensen, Jamie L. ( January 2023 , PLOS ONE)

   Dalby, Andrew R. (Ed.)

   Traditional teaching practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses have failed to support student success, causing many students to leave STEM fields and disproportionately affecting women and students of color. Although much is known about effective STEM teaching practices, many faculty continue to adhere to traditional methods, such as lecture. In this study, we investigated the factors that affect STEM faculty members’ instructional decisions about evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). We performed a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with faculty members from the Colleges of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering who took part in a professional development program to support the use of EBIPs by STEM faculty at the university. We used an ecological model to guide our investigation and frame the results. Faculty identified a variety of personal, social, and contextual factors that influenced their instructional decision-making. Personal factors included attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy. Social factors included the influence of students, colleagues, and administration. Contextual factors included resources, time, and student characteristics. These factors interact with each other in meaningful ways that highlight the hyper-local social contexts that exist within departments and sub-department cultures, the importance of positive feedback from students and colleagues when implementing EBIPs, and the need for support from the administration for faculty who are in the process of changing their teaching. 

   more » « less