Search for: All records

Pedagogical innovation efforts in engineering education and other STEM fields highlight some of the inherent challenges and opportunities in the process of strengthening undergraduate education. While interactive pedagogical approaches involving peer teamwork and a mix of in-person and online resources have strengthened the quality of teaching/learning, few studies provide a close-up examination of how faculty members navigate the implementation of new learning systems developed in other institutional settings. In this paper we examine factors contributing to the lack of sustained adoption of an engineering learning system called Freeform in a new academic context. We found that while students lauded the learning system’s potential for deep learning practices, the lead instructor encountered several challenges in its implementation which precluded him from adopting the system in the long term. While the lead instructor recognized the pedagogical value of Freeform in helping students engage deeply with engineering concepts, he found its implementation to differ too greatly from his traditional teaching trajectory in addition to increasing his preparation workload and having other logistical barriers. Ultimately, Freeform was not compatible with the specific institutional culture of the engineering department where the study took place. We offer some potential solutions to ameliorate issues of compatibility when attempting to diffuse and implement pedagogical systems in different institutional contexts. 

Despite a large body of work devoted to understanding why instructors struggle to implement reformed instructional practices, researchers only understand part of the variation in instructor learning and implementation of the practices. This narrative inquiry case study explored how a mechanical engineering department adopted and adapted Freeform (Ff), which is a pedagogical system, that includes instructional resources and instructional ethos. Findings show that the department adopted Ff with a vision to standardize its dynamics course. The three instructors of four sections of the course had some shared and unshared mental models of engineering teaching and learning that somewhat aligned with the vision. While one instructor adopted all five critical components of Ff in her teaching, the other two instructors did not leverage all the components. The instructors shared some resources for the course and discussed their teaching with others but not sufficient to come to a consensus on the final exam. Consequently, the department could standardize the course materials, homework, quizzes, and schedule, but not the final exam. Via eliciting different dimensions of organizational learning that occurred at the mechanical engineering department, the research suggests ways to improve adopting reformed instructional practices. Moreover, our study contributes to the body of literature by revealing the complexity of instructors’ decision-making to adopt and adapt Ff and the relationship and interaction among disciplines of organizational learning in the context of teaching the dynamics course.