An official website of the United States government
Wedeveloped an instructional development workshop for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) instructors in higher education to promote their adoption of active learning. Our workshop design was based on a proposed framework for motivating adult learners consisting of five elements: (1) expertise of presenters, (2) relevance of content, (3) choice in application, (4) praxis, and (5) group work. We assessed the participating instructors’ attitudes (i.e., motivation to use active learning and intentions and motivation to use strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning) immediately before and after the workshop and again five to six months later. We also assessed participants’ satisfaction with the workshop. Analyses of our data provided evidence of a change in participants’ motivation to use active learning and both their intentions and motivation to use strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning following the workshop. Our quantitative findings and thematic analysis of survey results support the use of the proposed framework for designing instructional development workshops for STEM faculty. The results also show short-term instructional development workshops can be effective and suggest caution in extrapolating immediate post-workshop assessment to the longer-term.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on September 10, 2026
Observations on the Influence of Experiential Teamwork and Competitive Activities on Student Perceptions, Engagement, and Motivation in the Context of a K-12 STEM Workshop
Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the impact of active learning and competition on student engagement, motivation, and learning in a STEM-focused summer workshop. This was achieved through exposing K-12 high school students to experiential activities related to concepts within the realm of medicine and engineering. The research question asked was whether these instructional approaches could enhance student interest and effectiveness in understanding complex biomedical and engineering concepts and achieving the intended goals. Methods The workshop, conducted at Michigan Technological University, involved four distinct classes: Wound Healing, Robotic Arm Construction, C-section Simulation, and Engineering Design. Each class included an interactive lecture, a teamwork activity, and a competitive component. Student engagement, motivation, and perceptions of the teaching style were assessed through questionnaires, and statistical analysis was performed to identify significant differences across the classes. Results The study showed that the Wound Healing and Engineering Design classes, which fostered positive peer interaction the most along with longer time to achieve the tasks, led to higher student engagement and motivation compared to the Robotic Arm and C-section classes. Significant differences were observed in how students perceived the teaching style, with Wound healing and engineering design classes showing more effective instructional approaches. The variability in responses obtained suggests that while competition and active learning were helpful, their effectiveness depended on the complexity and structure of the activities and their relevance to the students’ interests. Conclusion STEM workshops for high school students are most effective when they balance active learning with structured competition, align task complexity with appropriate pre-scaffolding, and incorporate clear, collaborative goals. Future educational strategies should focus on using instructional approaches that aim to align the expectations of students with those of the instructors in order to maximize the effectiveness of STEM outreach programs.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2301649
- PAR ID:
- 10659292
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Biomedical Engineering Education
- ISSN:
- 2730-5937
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This research paper examines faculty perceptions of and approaches towards fostering students’ motivation to learn engineering at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs). By aligning learning experiences with what motivates Hispanic or Latinx students, the resulting higher student motivation could increase the sense of belonging for underrepresented populations in engineering, ultimately improving student retention and persistence through meaningful instructional practices. Motivation to learn encompasses individuals' perspectives about themselves, the course material, the broader educational curriculum, and their role in their own learning [1]. Students’ motivation can be supported or hindered by their interactions with others, peers, and educators. As such, an educator’s teaching style is a critical part of this process [2]. Therefore, because of the link between a faculty member’s ability to foster student motivation and improved learning outcomes, this paper seeks to explore how engineering faculty approach student motivation in their course designs at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Humans are curious beings naturally drawn to exploration and learning. Self Determination Theory (SDT), popularized by Ryan and Deci, describes the interconnection of extrinsic (external) and intrinsic (internal) motivators, acknowledging the link between student’s physiological needs and their learning motivations [1], [3]. SDT proposes that students must experience the satisfaction of competence, autonomy, and relatedness for a high level of intrinsic motivation. Further, research indicates that appropriately structured, highly autonomy-supportive teaching styles that foster intrinsic motivation are associated with improved student outcomes [2]. However, further research is needed to observe how faculty prioritize students’ innate needs and how they seek to foster student motivation in tangible ways within their engineering classrooms. Therefore, this paper seeks to answer the following research question: What educational supports do engineering faculty at HSIs propose to embed in their curricula to increase their students’ intrinsic motivation? To answer this question, thirty-six engineering educators from thirteen two- and four-year HSIs from across the continental United States were introduced to the SDT and approaches for supporting students’ intrinsic motivation during a multi-institutional faculty development workshop series. Participants were asked to reflect on and prototype learning experiences that would promote intrinsic motivation and fulfill students’ needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy to learn engineering [1]. Data were collected through a series of reflection worksheets where participants were asked to describe their target stakeholders, define a course redesign goal, and generate possible solutions while considering the impact of the redesign on student motivation. Qualitative analysis was used to explore participant responses. Analysis indicates that the participants were more likely to simultaneously address multiple motivational constructs when attempting to improve student motivation, rather than addressing them individually. Some of these approaches included the adoption of autonomy-supportive and structured teaching styles. As a result of this research, there is potential to influence future faculty development opportunities at HSIs and further explore intentional learning experiences that promote and foster intrinsic motivation in the engineering classroom.more » « less
-
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
-
The Improving Student Experiences to Increase Student Engagement (ISE-2) grant was awarded to Texas A&M University by the National Science Foundation, through EEC-Engineering Diversity Activities (Grant No. 1648016) with the goal of increasing student engagement and retention in the College of Engineering. The major component of the intervention was a faculty development program aimed to increase active learning, improve classroom climates, and decrease implicit bias and deficit thinking. Faculty teaching first- and second-year Engineering courses participated in the ISE-2 faculty development program, with the first cohort (n = 10) in Summer 2017 and the second cohort (n = 5) in Summer 2018. This paper describes the content of each of these components of the faculty development program and provides access to a Google drive (still in development at the time of the abstract) with resources for others to use. The faculty development program consisted of three workshops, a series of coffee hour conversations, and two deliverables from the participants (a teaching plan at the conclusion of the summer training and a final reflection a year following the training). Anchoring the program was a framework for teaching in a diverse classroom (Adams & Love, 2009). Workshop 1 (early May) consisted of an overview of the ISE-2 program. During the first workshop, faculty were introduced to social cognitive biases and the behaviors that result from these biases. During this workshop, the ISE-2 team shared findings from a climate study related to the classroom experiences of students at the College of Engineering. Workshop 2 (mid-May) focused on how undergraduate students learn, provided evidence for the effectiveness of active learning strategies, and exposed faculty participants to active learning strategies. Workshop 3 (early August) integrated the material from the first two workshops as faculty participants prepared to apply the material to their own teaching. Prior to each workshop, the faculty participants were provided with pre-workshop readings to familiarize them with some of the content matter. Coffee hour conversations—informal discussions between the participating faculty and the ISE-2 team centered around a teaching topic selected by participants—were conducted on a near-weekly basis between the second and third workshops. Handouts and worksheets were provided at each coffee hour and served to guide the coffee hour discussions. After the last workshop but before the Fall semester, faculty participants created a teaching plan to incorporate what they learned in the ISE-2 program into their own teaching. At the end of the academic year, the faculty participants are tasked with completing a final reflection on how ISE-2 has affected their teaching in the previous academic year. In this paper, we will report the content of each of the three workshops and explain how these workshops are related to the overarching goals of the ISE-2 program. Then, we will discuss how each of the coffee hour conversation topics complement the material covered in the workshops. Lastly, we will explore the role of the teaching plans and final reflections in changing instructional practices for faculty.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundActive learning, on average, increases student performance in STEM courses. Yet, there is also large variation in the effectiveness of these implementations. A consistent goal of active learning is moving students towards becoming active constructors of their knowledge. This emphasis means student engagement is of central importance. Thus, variation in student engagement could help explain variation in outcomes from active learning. In this study, we employ Pekrun’s Control–Value Theory to examine the impact of four aspects of course social and cultural environments on student engagement. This theory posits that social and cultural features of the course environment influence students’ appraisals of their ability to control their academic outcomes from the course and the value they see in those outcomes. Control and value in turn influence the emotions students experience in the course and their behaviors. We selected four features of the course environment suggested in the literature to be important in active learning courses: course goal structure, relevance of course content, students’ trust in their instructor, and perceived course competition. ResultsWe surveyed students in 13 introductory STEM courses. We used structural equation modeling to map how features of the course environment related to control, value, and academic emotions, as well as how control, value, and academic emotions influenced engagement. We found engagement was positively related to control and value as well as the emotion of curiosity. Engagement was negatively related to the emotion of boredom. Importantly, features of the course environment influenced these four variables. All features influenced control: goal structure, relevance, and instructor trust increased it, while competition decreased it. All features except competition were related positively to value. Relevance and instructor trust increased curiosity. Goal structure, relevance, and instructor trust all reduced boredom, while competition increased it. ConclusionOverall, our study suggests that the way instructors structure the social and cultural environment in active learning courses can impact engagement. Building positive instructor–student relationships, reducing course competition, emphasizing mastery and the relevance of the course to students can all increase engagement in course activities.more » « less
