Search for: All records

Scholars agree that reciprocity is a cornerstone of service‐learning and community engagement (SLCE); however, engagement with this concept varies widely in practice and across disciplines. To enhance the potential of SLCE to fulfill its promise for societal impact, engineering education must understand how reciprocity is achieved, recognize barriers that inhibit its progress, and identify strategies for how it can be strengthened.

We performed this review to understand the ways reciprocity is articulated in the engineering SLCE literature. Drawing from these articulations, we examined the extent of engagement with reciprocity toward providing insights into the design and assessment of SLCE efforts for reciprocity.

We performed a systematic literature review on engineering SLCE at institutes of higher education. Following an established approach to identify and synthesize articles, we developed deductive codes by distilling three well‐articulated orientations of reciprocity. We then analyzed the operationalization of reciprocity in the literature.

The literature demonstrated varying degrees of reciprocity. Minimally reciprocal efforts centered university stakeholders. In contrast, highly reciprocal partnerships explicitly addressed the nature of engagement with communities. Findings provide insights into the breadth of practice within reciprocity present in engineering SLCE. Further, analysis suggests that our codes and levels of reciprocity can function as a framework that supports the design and evaluation of reciprocity in SLCE efforts.

Our review suggests that to enact more equitable SLCE, researchers and practitioners must intentionally conceptualize reciprocity, translate it into practice, and make visible the ways in which reciprocity is enacted within their SLCE efforts.

Much of researchers’ efforts to foster wider implementation of educational innovations in STEM has focused on understanding and facilitating the implementation efforts of faculty. However, student engagement in blended learning and other innovations relies heavily on students’ self-directed learning behaviors, implying that students are likely key actors in the implementation process. This paper explores the ways in which engineering students at multiple institutions experience the self-directed selection and implementation of blended learning resources in the context of their own studies. To accomplish this, it adopts a research perspective informed by Actor-Network Theory, allowing students themselves to be perceived as individual actors and implementors rather than a population that is implemented upon.

A thematic analysis was conducted in two parts. First, analysis identified sets of themes unique to the student experience at four participant institutions. Then, a second round of analysis identified and explored a subset of key actors represented in students’ reported experiences across all institutions. The findings show clear similarities and differences in students’ experiences of blended learning across the four institutions, with many themes echoing or building upon the results of prior research. Distinct institutional traits, the actions of the instructors, the components of the blended learning environment, and the unique needs and preferences of the students themselves all helped to shape students’ self-directed learning experiences. Students’ engagement decisions and subsequent implementations of blended learning resulted in personally appropriate, perhaps even idiosyncratic, forms of engagement with their innovative learning opportunities.

The institutional implementation of blended learning, and perhaps other educational innovations, relies in part on the self-directed decision-making of individual students. This suggests that instructors too hold an additional responsibility: to act as facilitators of their students’ implementation processes and as catalysts for growth and change in students’ learning behaviors. Developing a greater understanding of students’ implementation behaviors could inform the future implementation efforts of faculty and better empower students to succeed in the innovative classroom.