Table Page Table 2-1 Participants' Pseudonyms, Positions, and Department Affiliations ............................... Table 3-1 Proposed Program Elements and corresponding Program Features ............................. Table 3-2 Institutional and Demographical Data on Program Participants .................................. Table 3-3 Mentee Participant Numbers and Demographic Information ...................................... Table 3-4 Mentor Participant Numbers and Demographic Information ....................................... Table 3-5 Model Summary and Element Descriptions ................................................................. CHAPTER 1. Introduction 1.1 Research Context
The landscape of engineering education is undergoing significant transformation as educators increasingly recognize the importance of integrating Evidence-Based Instructional Practices (EBIPs) into their teaching methodologies. EBIPs refer to teaching strategies that are grounded in research and have been shown to enhance student learning outcomes. These practices encompass a variety of instructional techniques, including active learning, formative assessments, and collaborative learning, which aim to promote deeper understanding and engagement among students (Freeman et al., 2014). The adoption of EBIPs is supported by a growing body of literature that highlights their efficacy in improving academic performance, increasing student retention, and fostering critical thinking skills (Prince, 2004;Wieman & Gilbert, 2015).
Despite the compelling evidence for their effectiveness, the sustained implementation of EBIPs remains a significant challenge within engineering education. Many faculty members encounter barriers such as inadequate training, limited resources, and institutional resistance that hinder their ability to consistently apply these practices in their classrooms (Brownell & Tanner, 2012;Henderson & Dancy, 2007). Additionally, while initial attempts at adopting EBIPs may yield positive results, faculty often struggle to maintain these practices over time, leading to a reversion to traditional, lecture-based teaching methods (Henderson et al., 2011). This inconsistency raises critical questions about the support structures necessary for effective EBIP implementation and the factors influencing faculty success and persistence in adopting these practices.
To gain a more comprehensive, context-focused understanding of the challenges and successes associated with EBIP adoption, this thesis examines interviews with faculty members across various engineering disciplines. These interviews reveal a spectrum of experiences, highlighting both the specific obstacles faculty face-such as departmental culture and lack of institutional support-and the effective strategies they have employed to overcome these challenges. Insights from these interviews not only illuminate the barriers to EBIP adoption but also underscore the role of faculty agency and adaptability in navigating the complexities of instructional change.
This research further investigates the experiences of engineering faculty participating in a mentorship program designed to facilitate the adoption of EBIPs. By providing tailored support and fostering a collaborative environment, the program seeks to enhance faculty confidence, motivation, and agency in adopting EBIPs. Previous literature has indicated that mentorship can significantly influence teaching practices by offering emotional support, facilitating professional growth, and encouraging reflective practices (Gormally et al., 2014;Van Schaik, 2021). This study aims to explore the extent to which mentorship impacts the adoption of EBIPs, particularly in the face of institutional barriers and individual challenges.
Overall, while the potential benefits of EBIPs in engineering education are well-documented, the challenges associated with their sustained implementation necessitate a deeper understanding of the factors that contribute to successful adoption. Through this study, insights into the dynamics of mentorship and the iterative nature of the EBIP adoption process will be elucidated, ultimately informing faculty development programs and institutional policies that promote effective teaching practices in engineering education. The findings will contribute to the broader discourse on faculty development in STEM, emphasizing the need for adaptive approaches that consider the diverse experiences and contexts of engineering educators.
This research project originated from an exploration of the challenges and successes experienced by engineering faculty during the adoption of EBIPs. Initially, exploratory interviews were conducted with 69 engineering faculty members to gather insights into their experiences with EBIP adoption. These interviews provided a foundational understanding of the barriers faced by faculty, such as insufficient training, institutional support, and time constraints, as well as the strategies they employed to overcome these challenges. The findings from this initial phase underscored the necessity of targeted support mechanisms to facilitate the long-term integration of EBIPs into engineering curricula.
Building on the insights gained from these exploratory interviews, the project transitioned to the mentorship phase. This phase was designed to provide engineering faculty with disciplinespecific support aimed at promoting the adoption and sustained use of EBIPs. In this program, mentors collaborated with mentees in various formats, including small groups and one-on-one or two-on-one sessions, over an academic term. This collaborative structure fostered a supportive learning environment where mentees could receive personalized guidance, share experiences, and collaboratively problem-solve the challenges encountered in implementing EBIPs. The emphasis on sustained interaction between mentors and mentees aimed to create a culture of continuous improvement and reflective practice, essential for the successful adoption of innovative teaching strategies.
The mentorship program, along with the initial exploratory interviews, was funded by the National Science Foundation's Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) initiative, through grant numbers 2111052 and 2111087. This funding enabled the project to investigate effective methods for enhancing teaching practices in engineering education, ultimately contributing to the larger goal of improving student learning outcomes in STEM disciplines. By systematically examining the mentorship approach and its impact on EBIP adoption, this research aims to provide actionable insights that can inform future faculty development initiatives and institutional policies designed to support effective teaching practices in engineering education.
This thesis is structured to provide a comprehensive exploration of the adoption and sustained implementation of EBIPs in engineering education, focusing on the experiences of faculty members involved in a mentorship program. Chapter 1 serves as an introductory overview, outlining the significant themes and research context that will be addressed throughout the subsequent chapters. It establishes the critical need for effective teaching practices in engineering education and highlights the barriers to the sustained use of EBIPs.
Chapter 2 presents a conference paper that was showcased at the American Society for Engineering Education conference in June 2024 in Portland, OR. This chapter focuses on three selected participants from the pool of 69 individuals who underwent initial interviews as part of the larger research project. Through semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis, it examines the specific challenges and successes these faculty members encountered in adopting EBIPs. Although these three cases are classified as "success stories," they also illuminate the context-specific obstacles that the participants had to navigate in their teaching practices.
Chapter 3 consists of a manuscript submitted to the Journal of Engineering Education, which is currently under review as of October 2024. This chapter investigates the impact of a discipline-
specific, long-term mentorship program designed to facilitate the adoption and sustained use of EBIPs among engineering faculty. Employing constructivist grounded theory, this research produced a conceptual model that illustrates the influence of mentorship on faculty members' instructional practices. Chapter 4 synthesizes the key findings from Chapters 2 and 3, offering a broader discussion of the material. It highlights the implications for faculty development and provides actionable recommendations that can enhance the support structures necessary for the effective implementation of EBIPs in engineering education. Collectively, these chapters contribute to a deeper understanding of the dynamics surrounding EBIP adoption and the critical role of mentorship in fostering innovative teaching practices within the discipline. CHAPTER 2. Bridging the Gap: Exploring Real-Life Experiences of Engineering Faculty in Implementing EBIPs Stephanie Adams, Dr. Shane Brown, Aturika Bhatnagar, Dr. Prateek Shekhar, Dr. Jeffery Knowles American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Conference Presented: June 25, 2024 2.1 Abstract This Work-In-Progress paper presents early research findings from a project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), aimed at Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE).
This study, part of the larger IUSE project, focuses on the integration of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) among engineering faculty members. This investigation into EBIPs in engineering classrooms is motivated by the observed disparity between faculty interest and their actual adoption rates. The research objectives center on examining the real-life experiences of engineering faculty as they implement innovative teaching methods, such as EBIPs, in their courses, aiming to gain a better understanding of the limited integration of these practices. This paper shares initial insights derived from exploratory interviews with engineering faculty regarding their adoption of EBIPs. This report highlights three engineering faculty (n=3) who have generally experienced success in implementing EBIPs within their classrooms. These patterns emerged through initial thematic analysis of their interview transcripts. This analysis emphasizes the significance of instructors' openness to experimenting with customized EBIPs suited for their unique teaching environments. Faculty who observed increased student engagement utilized realworld applications facilitated by extensive experience and institutional support. This study's findings point to the importance of adaptable teaching methods, emphasizing the need for instructors to tailor EBIPs to their specific teaching contexts. These results underscore the importance of individualized strategies for effectively adopting EBIPs into educational settings.
As a part of the NSF IUSE project, this paper seeks to explore the limitations and successes of engineering faculty implementing EBIPs. Although earlier research indicates a willingness and interest among faculty to incorporate new instructional practices into their courses (Borrego & Henderson, 2014), they also highlight a deficiency in the success of such adoption (Borrego et al., 2010;Henderson & Dancy, 2007). Barriers to adopting EBIPs include inadequate preparation time, content coverage concerns, unsupportive colleagues or departmental culture, limited professional development opportunities, negative student reactions, and misalignment with instructor reward structures (Andrews et al., 2022;Prince et al., 2013). Instructors commonly cite a lack of time, especially the initial commitment required to transition from traditional lecture-focused methods, as a key obstacle to instructional change (Carroll et al., 2023;Sturtevant & Wheeler, 2019). In order to turn daunting barriers into instructional successes, engineering faculty and teaching training centers need to be intentional in planning for EBIP implementation success. However, there is a lack of research and information addressing what specific strategies lead to success in EBIP adoption for specific teaching contexts, including both in-class activities and out-of-class preparation and motivation.
To address these challenges, our research investigated proactive measures engineering faculty and teaching training centers can employ which are aimed at enhancing the successful adoption of EBIPs. To achieve this goal, data were collected which fit under any of the following criteria: (i) hindrances experienced by engineering faculty in adopting EBIPs, (ii) support that was given or measures the faculty took that helped implement EBIPs, and (iii) what type(s) of EBIP the faculty member utilized. This data was collected from engineering faculty members from various American institutions. From this data, faculty success stories were examined and evaluated for commonalities and specific success strategies.
As a part of the NSF IUSE project, interviews with 69 engineering faculty members representing 47 distinct institutions, including both research and teaching institutions, were conducted. For this work-in-progress paper, we present findings from data collected from three professors (n=3) who exemplified successful adoption of EBIP despite encountering barriers. These participants were selected after the completion of all initial interviews, based on their demonstrated ability to navigate obstacles and achieve successful EBIP adoption. Among them, two held non-tenured track teaching positions, while the third was a tenured professor. All three were affiliated with R1 institutions, albeit in different departments, and taught courses with varying enrollment.
Pseudonyms were assigned by the authors to provide participant anonymity (viz.
Table 2-1).
Data collection involved employing semi-structured interviews with participants (Miles et al., 2014). Each participant engaged in a pilot interview, as well as one to two subsequent interviews.
Each interview focused on exploring the participant's experiences with attempting and integrating new instructional practices into their courses, utilizing open-ended questions to encourage freeflowing discussion and researcher reflexivity. Despite the semi-structured nature of the interviews, the interviewer also followed an interview protocol to extract information on specific topics from the participants (Saldaña, 2013). These topics encompass teaching experience, EBIP selection, the implementation processes, and plans for future course revisions. Sample question prompts from the pilot interview protocol are provided below:
1. What motivated you to try a new EBIP?
2. Can you describe the process you used to implement that EBIP?
3. In your view, how did this new instructional practice go for your students?
4. What helped you implement or keep using that EBIP?
5. What could have helped you not stop using that EBIP?
Follow-up interviews were conducted to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing EBIP implementation, as well as to learn about the specific barriers and successes experienced by each participant. The initial subsequent interview with each participant took place three to four months after the pilot interview. This timing allowed the participant to integrate new EBIPs into their course(s), assess their effectiveness, and plan for future revisions. Victor and Michael completed one more subsequent interview, four and five months later than their initial subsequent interviews, respectively. These third interviews, like the second, focused on evaluating the challenges and successes they had encountered with EBIP adoption within their contexts since the previous interview. Additionally, these sessions allowed participants to elaborate on initial responses, ensuring a nuanced understanding, and enabling researchers to confirm the reliability of the data. Similar to the pilot interview, these interviews were semi-structured to allow for organic discourse but also utilized the use of an interview protocol for the researcher to ensure specific topics were touched on. Sample question prompts from the subsequent interview protocol are provided below:
1. Are there any interesting comments or stories you want to share about implementing EBIPs from this current term?
2. Can you think of any barriers you might be facing?
3. What was most challenging about implementing EBIPs?
4. What successes have you had with using EBIPs?
All the interviews were conducted virtually and then machine transcribed and checked for accuracy.
The eight interview transcripts were analyzed by the primary author and then the analysis was reviewed by co-authors. The data analysis process involved multiple rounds of coding of the transcripts. In the initial explorative and flexible round, codes were generated to capture a broad range of themes and patterns emerging from the participants' responses (Saldaña, 2013). Then, dramaturgical coding, a method of analyzing the participants' experiences, was employed in the second round, specifically focusing on these experiences, including successes and challenges, to illuminate the narrative aspects of their EBIP adoption. (Charmaz, 2014). Additionally, thematic analysis was incorporated. The analysis aimed to discern trends for each participant across their various interviews, providing a comprehensive understanding of the evolving dynamics and experiences throughout their specific EBIP adoption process (Nancy et al., n.d.).
Across the three participants, nine interviews were conducted, resulting in 353 minutes of audiorecorded data. Charles, Michael, and Victor, all faculty members at R1 universities, demonstrated diverse faculty experiences in implementing EBIPs. Each educator emphasized integrating reallife examples, occasional competitive elements, and engagement techniques to enhance student participation in their respective classes. However, they encountered unique challenges: Charles grappled with finding suitable examples for complex subjects, Michael faced difficulties in evaluating group work, and Victor navigated issues related to student engagement in the classroom as well as semester-long projects. Despite these challenges, all participants highlighted the significance of tailored strategies and a commitment to continuous pedagogical improvement. They each touched on the need for external training in new teaching strategies and the need for motivation, both personal and departmental, in discovering and using new EBIPs. The trends observed with each participant are discussed below. 2.4.1 -Case #1: Charles Charles's adoption of EBIPs is characterized by a holistic approach that attempts to seamlessly integrate their extensive research background into their teaching philosophy. They prioritize equipping students with essential knowledge for research projects, employing a structured teaching methodology that includes organized lectures, independent problem-solving assignments, and engaging debates in classes like Energy Technology and Policy. Charles leverages their expertise in combustion and fluid mechanics to better engage his students through practical examples, fostering interdisciplinary education and critical thinking skills among students. His commitment extends beyond the classroom, with active participation in academic administration and a reflective perspective on their transformative journey from a theoretical student to a faculty member engaged in both research and teaching. Despite these successes with EBIP implementation, Charles faced notable barriers when adopting new practices and activities. One significant challenge was finding appropriate examples for complex subjects, particularly in areas such as thermodynamics and fluid dynamics: "The challenges… and barriers are more from a scientific point of view, it's coming up with the ideas." He emphasizes the importance of practical demonstrations, like the dice rolling activity in a statistics and probability class, to make abstract ideas more tangible. However, the scarcity of quantitative and relatable examples for his thermodynamics and fluid dynamics classes posed a considerable obstacle. Charles suggested that learning from other educators or colleagues would prove helpful in improving EBIP adoption, but there is a lack of collaboration: "A repository of good examples [would be useful] … Finding good examples that are not too complex… is hard." He shares that, from his perspective, there is a lack of instructors and institutions sharing their teaching practices, partially due to competition within academia: [Sharing ideas] would work only among friends. Unfortunately, we're not going to have one institution sharing teaching practices too much with others because that's our bread and butter, that's how we get paid. Additionally, the lack of adequate financial incentives from institutions to invest time and effort in refining teaching methods creates a motivation disparity between research and teaching priorities held by instructors. Charles' insights underscore the importance of recognizing and rewarding innovative teaching methods as a possible solution to the challenges posed by motivation disparity. Amidst these challenges, Charles' implementation of EBIPs has witnessed notable successes. The incorporation of collaborative, open-ended problems in his teaching has enhanced his students' understanding of course materials, allowing them to dive deeper into the subject matter. His ability to seamlessly integrate engineering and policy perspectives in classes like Energy Technology and Policy fostered engaging debates among students, providing them with a comprehensive understanding of real-world challenges in an environment they can enjoy and engage with. "[They started with] two-minute presentations. Then they asked questions and rebuttals to the other team… That was awesome. They all got excited!" Charles shared his belief that letting students explore topics they find interesting and personally engaging increases their enthusiasm and participation in the course material. Additionally, the practical examples drawn from his combustion and fluid mechanics experience contribute to the accessibility of intricate concepts for students. Additionally, Charles vouches that success in implementing EBIPs lies in the teacher's motivation, the recognition of its transformative impact on students, and the creation of an environment that values and supports innovative teaching methods. 2.4.2 -Case #2: Michael Michael, an experienced educator with a background in chemical engineering and bioengineering, has devoted a decade to teaching and improving a variety of classes, employing a high-structure course design philosophy. His teaching methods include pre-class content acquisition, active learning, clicker questions, group work, and frequent formative assessments (such as quizzes). Michael places a strong emphasis on brief focused in-class activities and has undertaken extensive projects like the YouTube project. The YouTube project requires students to choose and watch a video and then devise a thermodynamic-related problem from the video's situation, aiming to engage students in real-world problem-solving scenarios. Despite Michael's commitment to EBIPs, challenges arose in implementing them, particularly in the context of the YouTube video project. Difficulties included evaluating group work and providing comprehensive feedback, prompting Michael to seek support for seamlessly integrating teamwork and problem-solving skills into their teaching methodology. This challenge was compounded by resource limitations, specifically in terms of allocating additional teaching assistants or graders for project assessments, "I just don't think I execute it well. And honestly, I don't enjoy it… Like having to grade 30 of these and give feedback, like I don't have fun doing that versus the in-class experience of the briefer types of active learning." In the fall, Michael taught a class with about 140 students, approximately double the usual class size he taught, leading to grading challenges more extensive than in previous terms. His uncertainties about the educational value of the YouTube video project in the larger class context resulted in its exclusion for that semester. Michael also highlighted the barriers of insufficient motivation and training which further hindered his desire and ability to find and adopt new and additional EBIPs into his classroom: I think that the motivation to initiate [EBIPs] is the hard part for me. If our teaching center had [collaborative guidance], I'd sign up and I'd probably be more likely to go to [the trainings]. I think that having a group of… external folks with different points of view would be even more exciting just because … I think [external viewpoints] could bring some uniqueness to the [class experience] for the students. These insights suggest a significant gap in communication and responsiveness between instructors and the teaching center, as Michael's needs for collaborative guidance were not met. His decision to give up, realizing that the teaching center couldn't address his specific needs, implies a potential lack of awareness among instructors about alternative resources. It underscores the importance of the teaching center diversifying its resources and making them more easily accessible to serve a broader range of instructors' requirements. Michael's emphasis on the value of collaborative training, despite not having easy access to it, highlights the need for resources to be readily available and easily navigable for instructors seeking to enhance their teaching practices. As mentioned before, in the fall Michael faced the unique challenge of teaching a significantly larger thermodynamics class with about 140 students. Despite initial concerns, the class proved to be Michael's most successful thermodynamics course up to that point, establishing a lively learning setting with exceptional attendance. The use of clickers for real-time assessments and group quizzes contributed to the positive outcomes, replacing a formal group project due to grading We're focused on a project, and we have first-year students that have different skills… and commitments. Some students are more committed than others. I have senior students crying because they feel that the group is not responding as they want.
These student differences can lead to hard situations relating to time commitment and investment in the project. Simultaneously, the Probability and Statistics class, with an enrollment of nearly 140 students, faced time constraints that prevented the exploration of alternative teaching methods.
This notably included the challenge of implementing an approach where students derive general formulas through their own thinking, with some faculty guidance during class, given the extensive nature of the course topics. To address these challenges, Victor implemented strategies such as creating smaller project groups and promoting teamwork in the lab class.
Victor, drawing insights from workshops and peer observations at the teaching center at his university, emphasized the necessity of tailored strategies for each class. Recognizing the When a student had a question, they put a green [card] on their desk and the instructor knew that the student needed help or support… [The student] can focus on their problem and know that someone will see the color and will stop, rather than hand-raising when they cannot write.
Victor's proactive commitment to enhancing the learning experience and adopting new EBIPs is highlighted through his active involvement in conferences and workshops. By actively participating in these events, Victor indicated that he gained valuable insights into innovative teaching practices.
The initial phase of this research project has provided valuable insights into faculty barriers and successes associated with adopting EBIPs and revising their courses. The findings of this study carry relevant implications within the field of engineering education. Common themes emerged, highlighting the complex nature involved when faculty members introduce new teaching approaches. All three participants expressed a desire for external support and training tailored to implement EBIPs in their courses, revealing a knowledge gap between theoretical awareness and practical application (Brooks et al., 2022). Additionally, needing both personal and institutional motivation for EBIP adoption, revealed a significant motivation disparity that influences instructional decisions (Brooks et al., 2023). Finally, each of the participants individually highlighted student-related barriers that impacted the adoption and continuation of EBIPs.
First, the identified knowledge gap between the academic research in engineering education and the integration of EBIPs into classrooms underscores the necessity of targeted professional development programs. Faculty members express a longing for training that focuses on innovative teaching methods, with positive feedback stemming from experiences in workshops and conferences dedicated to such practices (Knowles et al., 2023). To bridge this gap, there is a crucial need for training initiatives or mentorship programs that equip educators with the skills and support required to effectively implement innovative teaching approaches.
Addressing Furthermore, participants identified implementation barriers related to students and the classroom.
The logistical challenge of large class sizes was a common obstacle faced by all three participants in their efforts to integrate new EBIPs (Yerushalmi et al., 2007). Additionally, Charles and Victor highlighted student resistance to new instructional practices as a significant barrier. Overcoming these challenges requires a comprehensive approach that addresses both faculty training and student engagement to successfully implement EBIPs in engineering education (Bullard & Felder, 2007;Shekhar & Borrego, 2017).
Moving forward, sustaining, and expanding mentorship programs will be crucial in fostering a culture of continuous learning and support among faculty members. These programs can pair experienced educators proficient in EBIPs with those seeking guidance, creating opportunities for collaborative problem-solving and the sharing of effective teaching strategies (Borrego et al., 2010). Concurrently, professional development initiatives should persist, focusing on hands-on training that equips faculty members with practical skills to seamlessly integrate innovative teaching methods into their specific engineering courses. By providing ongoing support and fostering a sense of community, these programs can contribute to closing the identified knowledge gap between academic research and the practical implementation of EBIPs (Friedrich et al., 2008;Sabelli & Dede, 2013).
Addressing the motivation disparity among faculty members remains paramount for the sustained adoption of EBIPs. Institutions should implement targeted strategies to boost faculty motivation, recognizing and rewarding innovative teaching practices at both the individual and departmental levels. This could include incentives, promotions, and acknowledgment of achievements in innovative pedagogy. Simultaneously, efforts should be directed towards creating more engaging classroom spaces. This could include establishing classroom environments with reduced sizes to help alleviate a logistical barrier identified in the study. Strategies to motivate students to engage with new instructional practices, such as active learning and collaborative projects, should also be explored. This involves integrating student feedback and designing courses that captivate and inspire, ultimately fostering a positive and dynamic learning environment that aligns with the goals of EBIPs. As these future steps unfold, a holistic approach encompassing faculty support, motivation strategies, and student engagement initiatives will contribute to the broader goal of enhancing the quality of engineering education through the effective integration of evidence-based practices.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the participants who generously shared with us their time and insights and to the NSF for their funding that supports the IUSE project. This work is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation through grant number 2111052. The opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the National Science Foundation.
Evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) significantly enhance student learning outcomes and engagement in engineering education (Freeman et al., 2014;Passow & Passow, 2017).
However, their adoption is often hindered by time constraints, inadequate training, and institutional cultures that prioritize research over teaching innovation (Borrego et al., 2010;Brownell & Tanner, 2012). Addressing these barriers is essential for improving engineering education and better preparing students for their careers.
To tackle these challenges, a mentorship program was developed to provide faculty with targeted support for adopting EBIPs in courses like Mechanics of Materials and Circuits. This program pairs experienced educators with faculty seeking to implement EBIPs, offering weekly meetings and fostering community. This collaborative environment helps faculty navigate the complexities of adopting innovative teaching practices while building a supportive network among peers. While numerous workshops and initiatives aim to accelerate EBIP adoption (Carroll et al., 2023), research on how mentorship programs specifically address faculty barriers is limited. This study aims to develop a conceptual model illustrating how a structured, discipline-specific mentorship program supports engineering faculty in overcoming challenges associated with EBIP adoption. Using Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory approach, the research analyzes faculty experiences to identify key factors that facilitate successful implementation. By examining mentorship's role in bridging the gap between research and practice, this study provides insights into effective faculty development strategies and fills a critical gap in understanding how mentorship can enhance EBIP adoption in engineering education.
Effective teaching in engineering education is crucial for fostering student engagement and skill development. EBIP adoption improves student performance and attitudes toward STEM subjects (Albuquerque et al., 2023), with student-centered approaches like active learning and formative assessments significantly enhancing learning outcomes (Ross et al., 2017). However, barriers such as time constraints, inadequate training, and institutional challenges hinder widespread use (Brownell & Tanner, 2012). Faculty need support to overcome these obstacles, particularly in engineering education (Hughes et al., 2023). While professional development programs promote EBIP adoption, most research focuses on short-term workshops, with limited studies on the impact of longer-term mentorship (Carroll et al., 2023). This study aims to develop a conceptual model illustrating how a structured mentorship program can help faculty navigate these challenges and successfully implement EBIPs.
EBIPs are proven teaching methods that enhance student learning outcomes by prioritizing active learning, engagement, and critical thinking over traditional lecture-based approaches (Brooks et al., 2023). In engineering education, these strategies foster both technical knowledge and essential professional skills, creating dynamic learning environments that support comprehensive student development (Adams et al., 2024;Jordan et al., 2015). Extensive research demonstrates that EBIPs significantly boost student performance and engagement. Active learning, for example, improves exam scores and reduces failure rates (Freeman et al., 2014), while formative assessments enhance comprehension and instructional quality (Bubou et al., 2017). Adaptive learning further personalizes education, contributing to student satisfaction and achievement.
Common EBIPs include active learning, formative assessment, and adaptive learning. Active learning strategies, such as Think-Pair-Share and Collaborative Learning, promote teamwork and critical problem-solving (Felder et al., 2014;Hsieh & Knight, 2008). Formative assessments, like Concept Inventories and Minute Papers, provide continuous feedback, helping instructors adjust teaching based on student understanding (Bubou et al., 2017). Adaptive learning uses technology to tailor instruction to individual student needs, enhancing teaching effectiveness (Felder et al., 2014). By integrating EBIPs, educators help students develop key skills like problem-solving, communication, and teamwork, preparing them for the complex demands of engineering practice (Passow & Passow, 2017).
The successful adoption of EBIPs in engineering education largely depends on faculty buy-in, reflecting their recognition of the value of these practices and their ability to overcome implementation barriers. Froyd et al. (2013) found that while engineering faculty generally possess positive attitudes toward EBIPs, practical challenges-such as time constraints, insufficient training, and institutional reward structures favoring research over teaching innovation-often hinder their adoption. This suggests that belief in the benefits of EBIPs does not always translate into effective practice. Furthermore, Finelli et al. (2014) highlighted that faculty motivation to adopt EBIPs is influenced by a complex interplay of personal, contextual, and institutional factors. Research by Stains et al. (2018)demonstrated that engineering faculty who utilized active learning strategies reported improved student engagement and enhanced problem-solving skills among their students. Additionally, a survey by Pelletreau et al. (2018) indicated that faculty valued EBIPs for promoting critical thinking, fostering collaboration, and providing authentic learning experiences reflective of real-world engineering challenges. These findings underscore the need for targeted support and mentorship programs to help faculty overcome barriers and effectively implement EBIPs, ultimately enhancing student learning outcomes. 3.3.4 -Barriers to EBIP Adoption in Engineering Despite the recognized benefits of EBIPs, engineering faculty face significant challenges in their implementation. A primary obstacle is time constraints, as faculty juggle research, administrative duties, and course preparation, leaving little opportunity to explore new teaching methods (Davis et al., 2013). Additionally, a lack of training and resources hinders EBIP adoption. Most engineering Ph.D. programs do not include coursework on teaching or curriculum development, leaving faculty feeling unprepared to implement EBIPs effectively (Henderson & Dancy, 2007).
Institutional and departmental cultures can further inhibit EBIP adoption. Research productivity often takes precedence over teaching innovation in tenure and promotion decisions, discouraging faculty from dedicating time to improving their teaching (Seymour & Fry, 2016). Resistance from colleagues who view new methods as untested can also create challenges (Davis et al., 2013). Structural barriers, such as large class sizes and fixed classroom layouts, complicate the use of active learning strategies (Finelli et al., 2014).
Another challenge is the "research-to-practice gap," as faculty struggle to translate educational research into effective classroom practices due to a lack of discipline-specific resources (Borrego et al., 2010). Overcoming established teaching habits requires not just knowledge but also sustained support (Hughes et al., 2023). A discipline-specific approach to mentorship is vital due to the unique challenges faced in engineering. Borrego et al. (2010) found that while engineering department chairs recognize educational innovations, low adoption rates indicate that awareness alone is insufficient; faculty require targeted support for effective implementation.
Mentors with engineering experience can offer contextualized guidance, providing practical strategies for implementing EBIPs while addressing discipline-specific concerns (Carroll et al., 2022). Such strategies may include maintaining rigorous technical content or managing large class sizes, common in engineering courses. By sharing relevant examples and addressing unique classroom challenges, mentors can bridge the gap between awareness and EBIP adoption.
The diverse sub-disciplines within engineering present various teaching contexts that necessitate tailored mentorship approaches. This highlights the need for discipline-specific research and targeted faculty development initiatives to ensure effective EBIP implementation across engineering disciplines.
Previous studies show that EBIPs improve student outcomes, engagement, and workforce
preparedness, yet adoption in engineering education remains limited (Froyd et al., 2013).
Barriers include time constraints, insufficient training, lack of resources, and institutional cultures that prioritize research over teaching (Brownell & Tanner, 2012;Henderson & Dancy, 2007). Engineering faculty face additional challenges, such as complex technical content and large class sizes. Despite high awareness of educational innovations, actual implementation rates remain low (Borrego et al., 2010), highlighting a gap between knowledge and practice.
Mentorship programs tailored to engineering educators can address these barriers by providing discipline-specific guidance and practical strategies for integrating EBIPs (Carroll et al., 2022).
Such programs offer contextualized support, helping faculty navigate the challenges unique to engineering courses and build confidence in using innovative pedagogies. Effective programs pair experienced educators with faculty seeking to implement EBIPs.
Mentors should possess both pedagogical expertise and discipline-specific knowledge to provide sustained support throughout the adoption process (Felder et al., 2014).
Discipline-specific mentors are particularly important in providing insights on adapting EBIPs to various contexts, whether it involves project-based learning in design courses or flipped classroom techniques in theoretical settings (Henderson et al., 2011;Jamison et al., 2014). This tailored mentorship directly addresses the unique challenges encountered across diverse engineering sub-disciplines.
Regular mentor-mentee meetings are essential for building rapport, offering feedback, and collaboratively solving problems. Finelli et al. (2014) emphasize the value of local evidence in driving institutional change, suggesting that mentorship should address both EBIP theory and practical strategies to bridge the research-to-practice gap (Borrego et al., 2010).
A key benefit of mentorship is the sense of community it fosters, promoting ongoing professional development. Unlike brief workshops, long-term mentor-mentee relationships provide support for discussing challenges, sharing resources, and refining teaching practices, significantly boosting mentee confidence (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). This mentorship setting facilitates membership through shared professional identity, mutual influence in teaching practices, integration and fulfillment of needs via collaborative problem-solving, and shared emotional connection through ongoing support.
Resource availability is crucial for success. Mentors should provide mentees with relevant materials, research, and tools for implementing EBIPs (Felder & Brent, 2010). Passionate, wellprepared mentors with relevant teaching experience are essential for overcoming resistance to change and enhancing EBIP adoption and effectiveness, ultimately improving student learning outcomes in engineering education (Henderson et al., 2011).
Based on key proposed elements, the PIs and research faculty on this project developed and Experienced engineering educators paired with faculty seeking to adopt EBIPs (1:1 or 2:1 ratio) (Felder et al., 2014) Structured, long-term mentorship Consistent mentorship meetings scheduled over the course of a full academic term (10-15 weeks) (Felder et al., 2014) Regular, scheduled meetings and opportunities for feedback and collaboration
Weekly meetings with a focus on feedback and collaboration between mentors and mentees (45-60 minutes) (Finelli et al., 2014) Focus on both theoretical aspects and practical implementation strategies tailored to specific engineering disciplines Discipline-specific mentorship that allows for relevant examples of EBIP adoption in specific courses (Borrego et al., 2010;Jamison et al., 2014)
Mentors sharing physical and digital resources to support EBIP implementation (Henderson et al., 2011) Opportunity to build a sense of community for faculty within various contexts
Weekly group meetings for sharing experiences and building repertoire with other faculty (McMillan & Chavis, 1986) Sustained, context-specific support
Weekly meetings between discipline-specific mentors and mentees for targeted support and encouragement (Henderson et al., 2011) Tailored guidance and immediate feedback addressing specific challenges faced by engineering faculty
Individually focused interactions between mentees and mentors, accompanied by accountability of consistent meetings (Henderson et al., 2011) The mentorship program involved pairing mentees with faculty mentors possessing expertise in the mentee's specific teaching area or subject matter (Felder et al., 2014), resulting in a mentorto-mentee ratio of 1:1 or 2:1 in some cases. This allowed for long-term personalized guidance that addressed the unique challenges faced by engineering faculty and provide context-specific support essential for successfully adopting educational innovations (Henderson et al., 2011).
Mentor-mentee groups met virtually for focused discussions lasting 45-60 minutes weekly throughout a single academic term (10 or 15 weeks, depending on the mentee's institution).
During these meetings, mentees recapped their experiences implementing EBIPs, reflected on outcomes, discussed both challenges and successes, and goals for the upcoming weeks and brainstormed strategies with their mentors for incorporating EBIPs into their teaching practices.
The mentors shared various physical and digital resources tailored to specific engineering topics to support the EBIP implementation (Felder & Brent, 2010), and bridge the gap between theory and practice (Jamison et al., 2014).
The program design provided opportunities for building a sense of community among participants (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Regular interactions allowed mentees and mentors to form professional relationships, encouraging the exchange of ideas, experiences, and challenges, while offering emotional and professional support.
Overall, the iterative process of implementation, reflection, and planning facilitated continuous Table 3-2).
Mentor recruitment for the program relied on the research team's networks and the careful selection of individuals committed to implementing EBIPs, with strong teaching skills and technical expertise (Borrego et al., 2013). The core group included the two PIs and a research faculty member, ensuring leadership by those closely involved in the program's development (Eby et al., 2008). To expand the mentor pool, additional individuals with subject matter expertise and interest in innovative teaching were recruited (Ragins & Kram, 2008). Three experienced mentees from earlier cohorts also transitioned into mentor roles. This approach resulted in eight mentors with diverse backgrounds (see Table 3-4). This study employs a constructivist grounded theory approach, utilizing Charmaz's (2014) methods to highlight the iterative nature of data collection and analysis (Miles et al., 2014).
Grounded theory (GT), as defined by Corbin and Strauss (2015), provides a systematic method for developing theories based on empirical data, aligning with Glaser and Strauss's (1967) foundational principles of generating theory from field data. This constructivist GT framework is used to explore the mentorship program's impact on EBIP adoption among engineering faculty, aiming to develop a conceptual model that captures the mechanisms of successful adoption.
By refining data collection in response to ongoing analysis, the approach remains responsive and adaptive, allowing for an in-depth examination of the phenomena. The constructivist paradigm emphasizes participants' active roles in shaping their realities within social and cultural contexts (Charmaz, 2014). This perspective aligns with GT's focus on deriving theory from lived experiences (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Through participant observation and semi-structured interviews, the study investigates the mentorship program's context, uncovering diverse perspectives and enabling themes to emerge organically while exploring social processes that influence faculty engagement with EBIP adoption.
GT is a suitable approach for developing a conceptual model that explains how mentorship programs help faculty overcome barriers to adopting EBIPs in engineering education. A conceptual model systematically represents relationships between concepts to explain a phenomenon (Soulliere et al., 2001). GT is ideal for constructing such models because it is grounded in empirical data and reveals patterns and relationships directly from participants' experiences (Qureshi & Ünlü, 2020). This alignment between GT and conceptual model development makes it particularly useful for exploring mentorship dynamics.
GT's strength in model construction is demonstrated across various fields. For example, Yang et al. (2023) used constructivist GT to analyze patient experiences in cardiac rehabilitation, illustrating how GT helps uncover relationships and develop comprehensive models. Busby et al. (2023) applied GT to develop a clinical reasoning model in physical therapy education, while Pitney and Ehlers (2004) used it to create a mentoring model in athletic training. Watson et al. (2012) and Weissensteiner et al. (2009) similarly developed models of student motivation and talent development, respectively. These examples underscore GT's versatility and rigor in constructing models in educational and professional settings, despite their focus outside engineering education. Stuckey et al. (2019) established a precedent for using GT in mentorship program settings, developing a conceptual model in nursing education that identified key factors such as relationship building, goal setting, and ongoing support. Stuckey et al.'s approach is particularly relevant to this study, as current research on barriers to EBIP adoption is limited by methodological shortcomings and insufficient contextual depth. Studies by Borrego et al. (2010)
and Henderson and Dancy (2007) relied on predetermined frameworks, oversimplifying the complex, context-specific challenges faced by engineering faculty, thereby hindering the nuance of findings in specific contexts.
To address these limitations, GT provides a bottom-up approach to understanding the challenges of adopting EBIPs in engineering education. Unlike methods relying on predefined categories, GT emphasizes collecting rich qualitative data and systematic analysis to develop theories (Charmaz, 2014;Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This inductive process reveals unexpected insights from engineering faculty's experiences, identifying subtle, context-specific barriers often overlooked by structured methods and ensuring theories accurately reflect the complexities of EBIP adoption.
The primary researcher's individual conduct of the GT analysis is well-supported by foundational theorists. Glaser and Strauss (1967) emphasize immersion in data for developing theoretical sensitivity, while Charmaz (2014) underscores the researcher's active role in meaning-making. Recent publications, including Clement et al. (2023) and Mohajan and Mohajan (2022), affirm that individual coding captures participants' complex experiences more effectively than team-based approaches.
Applying GT to study the EBIP mentorship program is justified despite the researcher being part of a larger team. The program was developed based on prior literature and implemented in Spring 2023, before the researcher joined in Fall 2023. This temporal separation allows for a fresh perspective that adheres to GT methodology, enhancing theoretical sensitivity and fostering a deeper understanding of the program's impact on addressing barriers to EBIP adoption in engineering education.
GT methodology, as outlined by Qureshi and Ünlü (2020), consists of seven fundamental principles that this study adhered to as follows:
Broad Research Focus: The study began with a broad aim to develop a conceptual model explaining how the mentorship program helps mentees overcome barriers to adopting EBIPs.
This descriptive and explanatory approach allowed for flexible exploration without predetermined questions, following methodologies from Charmaz (2014), Glaser (1978), Glaser and Strauss (1967), and Urquhart ( 2013). This open-ended approach fosters a deeper understanding of the mentorship program's impact, ensuring that the resulting conceptual model is firmly grounded in empirical data and the lived experiences of participants.
Delaying Literature Review: Traditional GT, as advocated by Glaser (1978), suggests postponing the literature review until later stages of the research process. More recent approaches recommend cautiously integrating existing literature (Charmaz, 2014;Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The primary researcher engaged with the literature in a manner that allowed emerging themes to effectively guide concept development, striking a balance between informed inquiry and open-ended discovery while avoiding any bias that might arise from preconceptions.
Simultaneous Data Collection and Analysis: This principle involves continuously comparing emerging codes and themes during the data-gathering process. Urquhart (2013) asserts that this keeps researchers grounded in the data while developing robust theories. In this study, the researcher engaged in this iterative process, consistently comparing themes across various datasets, which facilitated a nuanced understanding of the mentorship program's impact on EBIP adoption among engineering faculty.
Constant Comparison: A fundamental principle of GT (Charmaz, 2014;Glaser & Strauss, 1967), constant comparison was applied throughout the study. The researcher compared new data with previously collected data, identifying patterns and variations (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
This iterative approach ensured that the emerging theory remained firmly grounded in empirical data, effectively capturing the complexities of the mentorship process in engineering education while simultaneously situating findings within existing theories and frameworks. Such a comprehensive methodology enhances the robustness and relevance of the study's conclusions.
Keeping Memos: Memo writing is essential in GT, linking data collection with theory development (Charmaz, 2014). Memos capture insights and reflections that facilitate the exploration of emerging concepts (Bryman, 2012;Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The researcher maintained memos throughout the analysis, documenting similarities, differences, and patterns.
This practice provided a retrospective view of theory development and was invaluable for refining categories and constructing the final model, ensuring a clear audit trail of the analytical process.
Theoretical Sensitivity: Theoretical sensitivity is essential in GT for interpreting data meaningfully (Charmaz, 2014;Glaser, 1978). It involves keeping an open mindset during data collection, allowing ideas to emerge without preconceptions (Urquhart, 2013). The primary researcher followed this approach, letting data guide themes and exploring information that didn't fit initial patterns. Revisiting assumptions and participant contexts led to grounded theories that accurately reflected experiences. By integrating theoretical sensitivity, memoing, and constant comparison, the researcher deepened their understanding of mentorship and EBIP adoption, consistent with both classic and constructivist GT (Charmaz, 2014;Glaser, 1978).
Theoretical Sampling: Theoretical sampling in GT focuses on selecting participants to enhance theoretical understanding, aiming for saturation-when no new insights arise (Charmaz, 2014;Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In this study, all mentors and mentees were included, except for two unavailable for follow-up interviews. This comprehensive inclusion captured diverse perspectives on mentorship and EBIP adoption. Though slightly diverging from traditional theoretical sampling due to participant limitations, the approach effectively suited the study's context. The iterative analysis confirmed data saturation, ensuring that the conceptual model grounded in participants' experiences reflected the complexities of the EBIP mentorship program (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
The mentee cohort (n=26) included engineering faculty with diverse academic backgrounds, teaching experiences, and institutional affiliations from both teaching-focused and researchintensive universities. All but two mentees, who were unavailable for follow-up interviews, were included. Mentees represented various tenure statuses, including tenure-track, tenured, and teaching-focused careers (see Table 3-3). Eight mentors (n=8), with expertise in the mentees' course areas, provided guidance. Five mentors were affiliated with R1 research institutions, while three were from teaching-focused universities, representing tenured, tenure-track, and teaching professor/instructor positions (see Table 3-4).
The study included all available participants from the EBIP mentorship program, aligning with GT's goal to develop theories grounded in data, not generalizability (Charmaz, 2014;Corbin & Strauss, 2015). This approach reflects theoretical sampling, focusing on context-specific phenomena (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). GT provides detailed insights into particular situations, offering explanations that inform further research or practice, rather than universally generalizable findings (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007;Urquhart, 2013).
In this study, the inclusion of all available participants supported the achievement of theoretical saturation, even with a relatively small sample size. With no other individuals available to provide input on this specific program, the full range of experiences and perspectives was captured. As Morse (Morse, 2015) argues, saturation in GT concerns the adequacy of data to support emerging theories, not the sample size. Thus, the comprehensive inclusion of participants offers a strong foundation for developing a grounded theory explaining EBIP adoption through mentorship in this context.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with both mentees and mentors in the EBIP mentorship program, enabling rich accounts of their experiences (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).
This data collection method aligns with GT principles, particularly Charmaz's constructivist approach ( 2014). The semi-structured format balances consistency and flexibility, allowing for the exploration of emerging themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Open-ended questions encouraged participants to share in-depth experiences while enabling the researcher to probe areas of interest.
Mentee interviews, lasting 45 to 60 minutes, focused on perceptions of the mentorship program and its impact on EBIP adoption, addressing topics such as motivations, mentor interactions, EBIP implementation, challenges faced, and overall reflections. Mentor interviews of similar duration examined their motivations, experiences, mentoring strategies, and program effectiveness. This comprehensive approach aligns with GT's goal of gathering nuanced data for theoretical development (Charmaz, 2014).
The flexibility of semi-structured interviews facilitated theoretical sampling, allowing the researcher to adjust questions and explore emerging concepts-an essential aspect of GT methodology (Charmaz, 2014;Glaser & Strauss, 1967). By incorporating multiple perspectives from both mentees and mentors, the study provided a comprehensive understanding of the contexts involved in the research (Charmaz, 2014).
All interviews, conducted virtually with participant consent, were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using MaxQDA. Adhering to constructivist GT methodology (Charmaz, 2014;Corbin & Strauss, 2015), the analysis involved multiple rounds of coding to identify emerging themes and patterns. Mentee interviews served as the primary dataset for constructing the conceptual model, while mentor interviews provided triangulation, enhancing the insights derived from the mentee perspective.
The analysis began with initial coding, where the researcher conducted a detailed examination of the transcripts, identifying and labeling key concepts and actions, such as "challenge of time management" and "success of student engagement." Following this, focused coding categorized the most significant or frequent initial codes, including "discipline-specific support" and "clear communication strategies." Throughout this process, constant comparison was employedcomparing data with data, codes with codes, and codes with data (Charmaz, 2014;Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Theoretical coding was then utilized to identify relationships between categories and integrate them into a coherent narrative, such as the connection between "lack of preparation time" and "mentor-provided resources." Memo-writing played a crucial role in this process, enabling the researcher to explore emerging concepts, draw comparisons, and develop theoretical ideas, thereby facilitating deeper analytical thinking and robust theory construction (Charmaz, 2014).
The conceptual model was constructed through an iterative process of coding and analysis.
Codes were organized into common themes, further refined to establish connections among mentee and mentor narratives. This process adheres to GT methodology, focusing on developing theoretical models based on empirical data (Charmaz, 2014;B. Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Core categories and their interrelationships were identified, a key aspect of GT analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Codes were considered salient when they demonstrated "fit and relevance" to the emerging theory, as described by Charmaz and Thornberg (2021) in their work on quality in GT.
This approach ensured that the codes not only described the data accurately but also provided meaningful insights into the mentorship process and its impact on EBIP adoption. The salience of codes was determined through constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling, and memo-writing, allowing for the identification of patterns and relationships that were both empirically grounded and conceptually rich. The resulting model synthesizes data-driven insights and theoretical sensitivity, providing a nuanced understanding of how mentorship influences the adoption of EBIPs in this specific context.
To ensure quality, trustworthiness, and ethical integrity in this study, several measures were implemented. Following Charmaz and Thornberg's (2021) recommendations, the primary researcher conducted constant comparative analysis and memo writing to maintain reflexivity and transparency. Results checking involved team members familiar with the project but not part of the interviews or analysis, enhancing the findings' credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Ethical guidelines were followed by obtaining informed consent, protecting participant confidentiality, and ensuring data security (Creswell & Poth, 2024). These measures collectively strengthened the study's dependability and confirmability, enhancing overall rigor.
This model (see Figure 3-1) outlines the process for implementing EBIPs in engineering classrooms as part of the mentorship program (see
Table 3-5). It begins with intrinsic buy-in, where mentees recognize the value of EBIPs and commit to participating. Next, mentees and mentors collaboratively select appropriate EBIPs during the negotiation phase. Preparation challenges, such as time constraints or resource limitations, may arise, but mentors work closely with mentees to develop strategies that help them overcome these obstacles and attempt their first EBIP adoption.
The initial adoption attempt can lead to either a challenging or successful implementation, defined by the mentee within their own context. In cases of challenging adoption, implementation challenges, such as student engagement or technical issues, may surface. Unlike linear preparation challenges, implementation challenges are cyclical, recurring with each new attempt. Mentees reflect on these difficulties with their mentors, refining their strategies to overcome obstacles. During this phase, some mentees may switch to a different EBIP if the original one proves ineffective for their classroom or teaching style. This iterative process allows mentees to adapt and improve their approach to EBIP adoption, ensuring they are better prepared for future attempts and ultimately increasing the likelihood of successful implementation in their teaching practices.
After further adoption attempts, the mentee may revisit the implementation challenges loop if needed, but all mentees ultimately found success with an EBIP, thanks to their mentor's guidance. Successful implementation leads to enhanced student engagement and performance.
Mentees and mentors then reflect on the experience to consolidate learning and plan future improvements. The process concludes with the potential for continued EBIP adoption beyond the mentorship program. Mentor-mentee collaboration is key to overcoming challenges, reflecting on experiences, and supporting sustained growth in EBIP adoption. The process also includes strategic planning and goal-setting. As participant P14 described:
At the beginning, we set up three EBIPs I wanted to try and loosely picked a concept to tie them to. We spent the bulk of our time looking ahead to the next one we were going to do and starting to plan.
This structured approach demonstrates how the negotiation phase lays the groundwork for subsequent implementation efforts, creating a roadmap for EBIP adoption throughout the mentorship program. Through these collaborative discussions, mentees gain tailored support that enhances their readiness for effective implementation in their classrooms.
Preparation challenges pose significant barriers to EBIP adoption, with mentees identifying obstacles such as time constraints, personal motivation, professional resistance, and resource limitations. Time investment is a primary concern, as Participant P13 shared, "I haven't had time to incorporate the types of hands-on stuff that I've seen. It just seemed too elaborate [to prepare]." Similarly, P05 mentioned the difficulty of generating ideas, saying, "It takes me so much longer to think of ideas and figure out how to do them."
Resource limitations also complicate EBIP implementation. Participant P05 voiced frustration with "trying to figure out how to do it low cost and cheap enough for the funds," highlighting the need for creative problem-solving. These challenges reveal the complexities faculty face in preparing for EBIP adoption, emphasizing the importance of support and resource access.
Professional and institutional barriers can further complicate the process. Participant P01 shared:
My biggest barrier… was I actually didn't get promoted. All the emotional things associated with that made me question the point of trying these new active learning processes if I am only going to be evaluated by staff with student evaluations.
Similarly, P05 highlighted the divisive nature of differing teaching approaches within departments, stating, "In our department, there are different camps of learning styles and groups.
It is a little divisive, and not everyone is a fan of this learning style."
Strategies to overcome preparation challenges play a crucial role in EBIP adoption, with mentors offering tailored support to address mentees' specific obstacles. A key strategy is resource provision, where mentors provide ready-to-use materials, saving mentees time. Participant P06 shared, "I asked [my mentor] if [they] can provide some resources... [they] sent a lot of resources that I could just apply to the class." This allows mentees to focus on implementation instead of creating materials.
Collaboration on content presentation is another important strategy. Mentors help mentees anticipate student difficulties and design effective teaching approaches. Participant P05 said, "It's helpful to have that mentor because they know where students will struggle… like when applying a load in different ways."
Encouragement and emotional support from mentors also boost mentees' confidence. As P18 described, "At first, I was in a full crisis frustration state, and [my mentor] was very encouraging, sharing some of [their] past experiences." This reassurance helps mentees overcome hesitations.
Additionally, mentors assist in refining lesson plans. Participant P09 recalled, "They were really great at… taking materials I had already prepared and creating additional prompts for students."
The impact of these strategies is significant. As Participant P02 noted, "If I hadn't had [my mentor], [EBIP adoption] wouldn't have happened last semester." This highlights the essential role mentors play in supporting mentees through the challenges of EBIP adoption.
After addressing preparation challenges with various strategies, mentees move on to implementing their chosen EBIPs in the classroom. This transition marks a crucial point in the adoption process, where the support and strategies provided by mentors come into play. It is important to note that the EBIP adoption attempt is not an emerging theme or category within the model; rather, it is an essential action that every mentee must encounter during the adoption process.
Implementation challenges pose significant hurdles in the EBIP adoption process, as faculty face obstacles during the actual integration of new instructional practices. Participants identified four key challenge areas: student-centered, teaching and instruction, technical or logistical, and timerelated issues.
Student-centered challenges are prominent, often involving student engagement and participation in EBIP activities. Participant P18 noted, "Half of the class was responding really well to the plan, but the other half wasn't," highlighting the difficulty of ensuring consistent engagement.
Similarly, P24 shared, "Some students misunderstood the purpose of the [digital interactive] questions... thinking they were just for attendance." Such misunderstandings can lead to disengagement and resistance.
Teaching and instruction challenges arise when instructors struggle with adapting to new routines or lack experience in managing large classes. P24 explained, "I didn't use [EBIPs] extensively because... I didn't have the flexibility or capability to control a classroom of 40 people." This illustrates how inexperience can hinder effective EBIP implementation.
Technical or logistical challenges, such as technology limitations, can present significant obstacles for instructors attempting to implement EBIPs. For example, P22 faced difficulties when their interactive engagement software failed to accommodate their large class size, resulting in excluding some students from the EBIP and disrupting the planned activities. This issue prevented P22 from using this interactive EBIP during that class session and required time during class prep to adapt to this limitation.
Time-related constraints are another common barrier, as instructors often struggle to fit EBIP activities into their lecture or lab schedule while still covering essential course content. This challenge can lead to a reduction in EBIP usage or compromises in the depth of engagement.
P13's experience highlights this issue: "[The lecture is] just really quick. Because I thought about, well, I'll ask them to scoot their desks around, but there was no time for that. 50 minutes is so fast. That was challenging." These challenges illustrate the complexities of applying EBIPs in practice, suggesting that instructors need ongoing support, mentorship, and flexible, contextspecific strategies to help them adapt EBIPs to their unique teaching environments.
After a challenging or unsuccessful attempt at adopting a new teaching practice, the mentee reflects thoroughly on the experience. This reflection helps them identify specific challenges and understand the factors that contributed to the setback, providing insights into areas for improvement. By analyzing what went wrong, the mentee enhances their ability to overcome future obstacles. Whether facilitated by a mentor or driven by their own intuition, this reflective process empowers the mentee to approach similar challenges with greater resilience, fostering a mindset of continuous growth and adaptation.
3.6.9 -Strategies to Overcome Implementation Challenges
Strategies for overcoming implementation challenges during EBIP adoption are diverse and tailored to each mentee's specific obstacles. These strategies include both mentor-assisted approaches and mentee-initiated actions to address various challenges encountered in the process.
Mentor-assisted strategies are pivotal in overcoming hurdles. Mentors help mentees acquire or adapt resources after unsuccessful EBIP attempts, guiding them in selecting EBIPs that better fit their classes. They also encourage persistence in EBIP adoption and assist in refining approaches based on reflections.
To address student-centered challenges, enhancing communication and interaction with students Collaboration with mentors helps mentees tackle technical and logistical challenges, creating backup plans for technology failures or alternative activities for unexpected obstacles. Overall, both mentor-assisted and mentee-initiated strategies illustrate the dynamic nature of overcoming challenges in EBIP adoption. Ongoing collaboration is crucial for refining implementation strategies, enabling effective integration of EBIPs into teaching practices.
After strategizing to overcome implementation challenges, mentees reattempt EBIP adoption in their classrooms. This iterative process may involve multiple cycles of implementation, reflection, and adjustment, which are not explicitly represented as "possible repeat" in the model.
Instead, this path illustrates how some mentees may navigate the central triangle more than once.
If new implementation challenges arise during these subsequent attempts, mentees continue collaborating with their mentors and leveraging their insights to refine their approach. This ongoing cycle of trial, reflection, and improvement persists until a successful EBIP adoption attempt is achieved, showcasing the dynamic nature of mentorship support.
Successful implementation of EBIPs can be displayed in various ways, shaped by the diverse goals and contexts of mentees. Success is defined by participants' own perceptions, in line with the GT approach used in this study.
One key indicator of success is increased student engagement. Participant P21 shared, "I feel like the students were really receptive this year [with the new EBIPs]." P06 added, "Whenever I see the students asking questions and discussing with each other, I feel like it's a success." These insights highlight how successful EBIP adoption fosters more interactive and engaged learning environments. Improved class performance is another significant measure of success. P11 reported, "When I compared exam results from previous semesters with this year, I saw some better results or better grades." Similarly, P01 experienced a dramatic decrease in DFW (drop, fail, or withdraw) rates: "I went from a 40% DFW rate to 20% or less." These outcomes illustrate the positive impact of EBIPs on student achievement. Enhanced conceptual understanding also indicates success. P18 reflected, "When we finished that group activity, I felt that everyone understood the core concepts of the class," something they hadn't experienced in prior years. P16 similarly noted, "[The students are] very comfortable identifying what's an ideal inductor and what's a practical inductor," underscoring how EBIPs improve comprehension. Increased student feedback and interaction further signal successful implementation. P15 shared, "The most rewarding [thing] is when I see the student more engaged… they are actually learning something." This engagement often boosts attendance. P26 remarked, "This term has probably been the highest participation of any term I've had." Finally, increased instructor confidence is a hallmark of success. P13 expressed this satisfaction, saying, "It feels good to have a great quarter… Students felt good about it, they learned. It was good." These varied indicators demonstrate how successful EBIP implementation enhances both student learning and instructors' teaching experiences, leading to a more effective and satisfying educational environment. 3.6.12 -Successful Adoption Reflection Reflecting on successful EBIP adoption is a crucial step that enhances mentee learning and growth. This process allows mentees to consolidate their successes, learn from challenges, and consider ways to improve their teaching practices. It goes beyond celebrating success by deepening their understanding of what contributed to that success and how it can be sustained. Mentors play a key role in this reflection process. They collaborate with mentees to analyze their experiences, extract key lessons, and refine EBIPs for continued use. P05 shared how their mentor's encouraging and supportive approach was pivotal: [My mentor] was very encouraging, and [they were] always like, 'Well, how did it go? Oh, my gosh, tell me about it!'... And when things didn't always go so well, [they] would say, 'Oh, how can we change that?'... [Their] honesty was very helpful... having someone that you can open up to and be honest was very instrumental to my mentorship journey.
This enthusiasm validated the mentee's efforts and fostered a positive environment where challenges could be openly discussed. The mentor's willingness to acknowledge setbacks and share their own experiences created a space for honest reflection, promoting mentee growth.
In addition to encouragement, mentors provide valuable insights through shared experiences.
P18 described their mentor's approach as empowering:
We discuss a lot of things. At some point, I was telling [them] this is teacher's therapytalking about your problems and reflecting... This method emphasizes reflective dialogue, with the mentor guiding rather than directing the mentee. By sharing experiences instead of prescribing solutions, the mentor empowers the mentee to take ownership of their learning.
Reflecting on successful EBIP adoption is a collaborative process that revisits the journey, celebrates successes, and examines contributing factors. This reflection fosters continuous improvement and innovation in teaching practices, helping mentees build on their success.
After the mentorship program concluded, many mentees expressed a commitment to applying the insights and strategies they gained in future courses. For example, P19 stated, "I will use [the new resources and EBIPs] in all courses in the future," demonstrating strong intent to integrate these resources across their teaching. Similarly, P15 noted, "Not only for this class, but I think for the next fall, I'm going to implement something that I learned from this process ... to another class," indicating eagerness to extend the lessons from the mentorship. P20 also expressed a forward-looking approach, saying, "I think that I'm going to try this fall semester to implement the [project-based EBIP I was developing with my mentor]."
Additionally, some mentees anticipated exploring new EBIPs and expanding their teaching repertoire. P01, P04, and P23 expressed interest in continuing professional development through additional teaching programs, reflecting the mentorship program's lasting impact and their increased confidence to explore innovative teaching methods.
While this study provides valuable insights into EBIP adoption within a specific mentorship program, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. As a GT study focused on a particular context, the findings are not generalizable. The theory generated is grounded in the experiences of participants within this program and may not be directly applicable to all mentorship or EBIP adoption scenarios (Charmaz, 2014;Drisko, 2024). This limitation aligns with the principles of GT, which emphasize deep, contextual understanding over broad generalizability or applicability (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The study's focus on "core" engineering courses further constrains its scope. Faculty teaching more specialized or advanced courses, or those in other engineering disciplines, may encounter different challenges, and the model developed here may not fully capture the nuances of EBIP adoption in these contexts. This highlights the need for additional research across a wider range of course types and disciplines to develop a more comprehensive understanding of EBIP adoption in higher education.
Additionally, the sample size of 26 participants, while appropriate for a GT study (Creswell & Poth, 2024;Morse, 2015;Urquhart, 2013), may not capture the full range of experiences related to EBIP adoption and mentorship. Future research could benefit from mixed methods approaches or exploring various institutional and mentorship settings to enhance the transferability of the findings.
The mentorship program offered varied experiences for faculty, with the mentor-mentee relationship significantly affecting its impact. While all mentees found the program valuable, its benefits depended on factors like prior teaching experience and personal alignment with mentors.
Experienced faculty, such as P23 and P10, noted that while they gained insights, they needed more tailored support. P23 felt more experienced than their mentor and desired clearer expectations, while P10, a tenured professor, found the information helpful but not novel. These reflections highlight that even seasoned instructors benefit from mentorship when it is tailored to their specific needs.
Less experienced faculty, like P13 and P24, reported transformative outcomes. P13 credited the mentorship with helping them implement changes they might not have attempted alone, while P24 valued the feedback and idea-sharing. These experiences align with research emphasizing the importance of support for early-career instructors adopting EBIPs (Bathgate et al., 2019).
The mentor-mentee relationship was key to success. Positive dynamics, like P05's friendship with their mentor, fostered deeper engagement, echoing findings on the importance of collaborative relationships in higher education (Bhatt & Singh, 2023;Nowell, 2022). Ultimately, the model's effectiveness is rooted in GT, reflecting participants' diverse experiences.
The challenges and successes mentees faced when adopting EBIPs were shaped by their unique teaching contexts, aligning with the GT approach of this study. Unlike faculty development literature that often relies on theoretical models, this research allowed participants to share their personal experiences.
Most mentees were conventional engineering faculty, not experts in engineering education research. Their challenges included inadequate training, limited resources, institutional barriers, and difficulty integrating EBIPs with technical content-common issues in the literature on active learning adoption (Brownell & Tanner, 2012;Henderson & Dancy, 2007). However, they also cited successes, such as improved student engagement, learning outcomes, and conceptual understanding, which align with known benefits of EBIPs (Schettig et al., 2023;Sukackė et al., 2022). These findings highlight the importance of faculty perspectives in understanding EBIP implementation.
What sets this study apart is the depth of mentees' reflections on their challenges. For example, P05 discussed the difficulty of finding affordable materials, while P21 noted the time-intensive nature of preparing EBIPs. P01's experience of lacking departmental support illustrated the need ensured that the chosen strategies aligned with instructors' comfort levels and the unique characteristics of their courses and students. For example, P01, facing challenges like limited institutional support and student burnout, worked with their mentor to adapt EBIPs to meet these needs.
However, the study raises concerns about balancing EBIP fidelity with contextual adaptation.
While tailoring is essential, excessive modification may dilute the evidence-based principles of EBIPs. This highlights the need for mentors to guide instructors in maintaining core elements while making necessary adjustments. Future research could explore how mentors navigate this balance and develop guidelines for preserving EBIP integrity while allowing for personalization.
This study's findings align with existing research on faculty development and EBIP adoption, while offering new insights. Consistent with previous literature on faculty motivation (Brownell & Tanner, 2012), the study highlights the importance of intrinsic buy-in. However, it goes further by examining how intrinsic motivation evolves throughout mentorship.
A key insight is the interaction between intrinsic motivation and external support. Unlike prior studies that treat these factors separately, this research shows that external support can enhance intrinsic motivation. For instance, P09, who already had an interest in active learning, found their motivation amplified through mentorship. This suggests that effective faculty development programs should balance strong external support with nurturing faculty's internal drive, as both are crucial for sustained instructional change.
While mentees had varying levels of motivation, all exhibited some intrinsic desire to improve their teaching. However, because the study excluded those without motivation or external support, selection bias may have occurred, as participants likely had a pre-existing interest in improvement. This reflects a limitation in faculty development research, where voluntary participation can affect generalizability.
The study also uncovers the cyclical nature of EBIP implementation challenges, contrasting with previous research that portrays the process as linear (Henderson et al., 2011). The distinction
The study highlights the delicate balance between mentor support and mentee agency in the EBIP adoption process. While mentors provide crucial guidance and encouragement, the model emphasizes the importance of mentee autonomy in addressing challenges. This balance is evident in the experiences of participants P16 and P11. P16 benefited from a mentor who shared experiences rather than prescribed solutions, empowering them to develop their own reflective practices. Conversely, P11 found direct resources from their mentor invaluable, as they were interested in certain methods but lacked time to develop them independently. These contrasting experiences underscore the necessity for flexible mentoring approaches that cater to individual mentee needs, advocating for a collaborative approach to faculty development (Gormally et al., 2014). Future research should explore optimizing this balance between support and autonomy to foster skill development and professional agency among faculty members.
The findings regarding mentees' plans for ongoing EBIP use and professional development indicate promising potential for the long-term impact of this mentorship program. This aligns with growing calls in the literature for faculty development initiatives to encourage sustained changes in teaching practices rather than relying on one-time interventions (Henderson et al., 2011;Tinnell et al., 2019). Participants like P15, P19, and P20 expressed intentions to apply their newly acquired knowledge across multiple courses and future semesters, signaling a shift toward enduring instructional change.
This commitment addresses a significant concern in faculty development: the sustainability of instructional changes beyond initial adoption, as many efforts fail to produce lasting changes (Wieman & Gilbert, 2015). Additionally, participants such as P01, P04, and P23 expressed interest in pursuing further professional development opportunities, reflecting a mindset of continuous improvement. This aligns with the concept of "adaptive expertise" in teaching, where instructors master techniques and adapt their approaches to new challenges (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). Future research should include longitudinal studies tracking the actual implementation of EBIPs by participants over extended periods, providing insights into the factors that support or hinder long-term adoption.
The findings of this study reveal significant institutional barriers that hinder the adoption and sustained use of EBIPs in higher education. Participants expressed frustration over the lack of institutional recognition for innovative teaching methods, as departmental acknowledgment often relies on traditional metrics like student evaluations. Divisive attitudes toward different teaching approaches highlight a lack of consensus on the value of EBIPs among faculty. These barriers emphasize the need for broader institutional support and policies to incentivize faculty engagement with EBIPs (Austin, 2011).
To address these challenges, institutions should revise promotion and tenure guidelines to recognize instructional change efforts, creating a more comprehensive teaching portfolio that values effective EBIP use and its impact on student learning. Additionally, establishing mentoring programs can support faculty in their adoption efforts, fostering community among educators committed to improving teaching practices (Henderson et al., 2011;McMillan & Chavis, 1986).
Institutions should implement policies that provide protected time and resources for faculty engaging in instructional development, such as course release for EBIP training and funding for innovative teaching projects. By fostering an environment conducive to EBIP adoption, institutions can cultivate a robust culture of teaching excellence, benefiting both faculty and students.
This Additionally, the study highlights significant institutional barriers, such as how teaching innovation is often undervalued compared to research, emphasizing the need for systemic changes in how faculty are recognized and rewarded for their teaching efforts. These findings carry important implications for shaping faculty development programs and institutional policies, ultimately supporting the integration of EBIPs and fostering more effective, engaging learning environments for engineering students.
To build on this research, longitudinal studies are essential to track the long-term impact of One significant finding is that mentees encountered various challenges related to their unique teaching contexts, including insufficient training, limited resources, and difficulties in integrating EBIPs with technical content. These challenges resonate with issues documented in the literature on active learning adoption (Brownell & Tanner, 2012;Henderson & Dancy, 2007). However, despite these obstacles, mentees reported notable successes, such as enhanced student engagement and improved learning outcomes, consistent with known benefits of EBIPs (Schettig et al., 2023;Sukackė et al., 2022).
The study underscores the importance of mentees' reflections on their challenges, revealing personal experiences that go beyond conventional faculty development literature. For example, mentees expressed concerns about the lack of confidence in adopting new teaching methods, which was notably addressed through the mentorship program. Mentors provided essential emotional support and encouragement, highlighting the significance of self-efficacy in the adoption process-an aspect that is often overlooked in existing research.
Additionally, the study emphasizes the necessity of personalizing EBIP adoption to align with individual teaching styles and course needs. Mentees engaged in collaborative negotiation during mentorship meetings, ensuring that the chosen EBIPs resonated with their specific contexts.
However, it also raised concerns about maintaining the fidelity of EBIPs while allowing for contextual adaptation. This balance is crucial, as excessive modification could dilute the evidence-based principles of these practices.
The research further reveals a dynamic and iterative nature of the EBIP adoption process, contrasting with traditional linear models of instructional change. The findings illustrate that implementation challenges are cyclical, encompassing ongoing attempts, reflection, and refinement, which aligns more closely with faculty experiences than structured models like ADDIE or Guskey's Model of Teacher Change (Branch, 2009;Guskey, 2002).
Finally, the chapter identifies significant institutional barriers, such as the undervaluation of innovative teaching methods in favor of traditional metrics, and suggests the need for systemic changes in institutional policies. By advocating for broader recognition of teaching efforts and the implementation of supportive structures, the study provides valuable insights into fostering effective learning environments in engineering education. These findings contribute significantly to the understanding of EBIP adoption and offer a framework for future research and practical applications.
The exploration of EBIPs within engineering education through a structured mentorship program has yielded several key findings that underscore the complexities of adoption, the role of mentorship, and the need for institutional support. These findings are interlinked, presenting a comprehensive view of the factors influencing the successful integration of EBIPs into engineering curricula.
One significant finding is the recognition of the dynamic and iterative nature of the EBIP adoption process. Chapter 3 emphasizes that rather than following a linear progression, the journey of adopting EBIPs is characterized by continuous cycles of implementation, reflection, and refinement. This cyclical model aligns with Chapter 2's discussion on the challenges faculty face, which often resurface as they attempt to adapt their teaching strategies. For instance, while P18 initially struggled with student engagement, their subsequent iterations of applying EBIPs led to improvements over time. This highlights the importance of persistence and adaptability in achieving successful instructional change.
Another key finding is the critical role of mentorship in shaping the experiences and outcomes of mentees. The data from Chapter 3 reveal that mentors not only provide essential guidance and resources but also contribute to the emotional and psychological aspects of faculty development.
Mentees who received encouragement and validation from their mentors reported increased confidence and a greater willingness to adopt innovative teaching strategies. This supports the idea introduced in Chapter 2, where the emotional support provided by mentors was identified as a key factor in overcoming self-doubt and institutional barriers. The interplay between mentor support and mentee agency further illustrates that while mentorship is vital, the autonomy of faculty members in navigating their unique teaching contexts is equally important.
Moreover, both chapters underscore the necessity for personalized approaches in faculty
The findings from Chapters 2 and 3 of this thesis underscore the importance of structured mentorship programs in promoting the adoption of EBIPs among engineering faculty. These insights have several implications for faculty development and improvement, providing actionable points for singular professors, similar faculty development programs, and Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs).
Individual faculty members seeking to enhance their teaching practices should actively engage with more experienced professionals in their field and seek out collaborative opportunities that facilitate the exploration and adoption of EBIPs. They could consider forming peer learning communities where they can share experiences, discuss challenges, and collaboratively develop instructional strategies. This collegial approach not only fosters a supportive environment but also helps faculty remain accountable to their goals for instructional improvement. CTLs should prioritize creating a robust framework for mentoring and support that aligns with the unique challenges faced by engineering faculty, compared to more general advice. This could include offering workshops on effective EBIP implementation, strategies for overcoming common barriers, and ways to measure the impact of instructional changes on student learning outcomes within the engineering context. Furthermore, establishing partnerships between CTLs and academic departments can help tailor faculty development initiatives to departmental goals, ensuring relevance and buy-in from faculty members.
Overall, the implications of this research point to a multifaceted approach to faculty development. By prioritizing mentorship, tailored support, and collaborative learning, institutions can create a more conducive environment for the successful adoption of EBIPs, ultimately enhancing engineering education and student outcomes.
Building on the insights gained from Chapters 2 and 3, several avenues for future research can further enrich the understanding of EBIPs within engineering education. First, longitudinal studies examining the long-term impact of mentorship on the adoption of EBIPs are essential.
These studies could explore how sustained mentorship relationships influence faculty development over time, identifying factors that contribute to lasting changes in teaching practices.
Second, investigating the effectiveness of different mentorship models can provide deeper insights into best practices for supporting faculty in implementing EBIPs. Research could compare traditional mentoring approaches with peer mentoring or group mentoring formats to determine which models yield the most significant benefits for faculty engagement and student outcomes.
Additionally, exploring the role of institutional policies in shaping faculty experiences with EBIPs presents an important research opportunity. Future studies could assess how varying institutional cultures and policies affect faculty perceptions of support and resources for innovative teaching. This could inform the development of targeted strategies for institutions aiming to foster a culture of teaching excellence.