BACKGROUND
Economic globalization, rapid advances in technology and cognitive science, and a worldwide movement toward outcomes-based program accreditation increasingly require changes in the traditional model of engineering education design and delivery. As yet, no validated framework exists for designing instructional development programs that would equip engineering educators to make those changes. Existing programs consequently vary considerably in scope and effectiveness across countries and institutions.
PURPOSE
This article reviews the content and structures of instructional development programs around the world and to formulare a robust framework for designing and delivering effective programs for engineering educators.
SCOPE/METHOD
Literature on the design, implementation, and evaluation of instructional development programs is reviewed and summarized. Five criteria drawn from Raymond Wlodkowski's theory of adult learner motivation (expertise of instructors, relevance of content, choice in application, praxis [action plus reflection], and groupwork) are proposed as a framework for designing engineering instructional development programs, and the framework is applied to formulate recommendations for making programs effective. Research questions that should be explored to validate the framework are suggested.
CONCLUSION
Wlodkowski's five-factor theory of adult learner motivation provides a good framework for the design of engineering instructional development programs. The criteria are compatible with the cognitive science-based How People Learn instructional model and also with recommendations of faculty development authorities. Making engineering instructional development effective at an institution will require applying the criteria to program design and delivery and creating an institutional expectation of faculty participation in the programs.
KEYWORDS : instructional development, faculty development, staff development
INTRODUCTION
University Faculties: Unprepared Practitioners of a Highly Skilled Profession
University* faculty* members face a broad range of challenges over the course of their careers. Laursen and Rocque (2009) identify career stages at which they need to acquire different skill sets to meet those challenges: early career (teaching, advising, research, negotiation, and time management skills); mid-career (leadership and administration, collaboration, and outreach skills), and later career (the skill to identify and evaluate possible changes in career direction).
For which of those challenges are new and experienced faculty members systematically prepared? Throughout most of the history of higher education, the answer has been "none." In die past ha\f-centwy,faculty development* programs have become available on many campuses, but unfortunately many faculty members are still expected to learn how to do everything their job requires by trial and error. While there is much to be said for experiential learning, it is not terribly efficient. Studies by Boice (2000) show diat for 95% of new faculty members it takes four to five years of trial and error to become fully productive in research and effective in teaching - and in teaching, the ones making the errors (the instructors) are not the ones paying for them (their students). Boice also found, however, that die other 5% - the "quick starters" - are effective in their first 1-2 years, and die actions that distinguish quick starters from their colleagues can be identified and taught. That is to say, a good faculty development program can cut several years off the normal faculty learning curve.
Given diat finding, why is it not routine for engineering faculty members to participate in faculty development programs and for dieir administrators to encourage them to do it? The answer depends on which developmental areas are being discussed. Possible areas for faculty development include teaching, disciplinary research, educational research, learning the institutional culture, administration at the department and college* levels, and changing activities and priorities at the mid- and late-career levels. For all of these areas but teaching, most faculty members do not participate in development programs because programs in those areas do not exist at their institutions.
On the other hand, faculty development programs diat focus on improving teaching and learning (instructional development* programs) can be found at many universities, but participation of faculty members in them is often low except in countries where it is mandatory (Groccia, 2010, p. 13), and many who do attend discount the relevance of die programs to them - sometimes unfairly, sometimes not. There are several reasons for this state of affairs. One is that many faculty members whose students perform inadequately do not acknowledge that die quality of dieir teaching may have anything to do with it. If dieir students get mediocre grades* and/or give them low ratings, they argue that the students are incompetent or unmotivated, or that as instructors they maintain rigorous standards and high ratings only go to easy graders. Also, many instructors are unaware that alternatives exist to the traditional lecture-based approach with which they were taught. As long as they believe they are teaching appropriately and poor student performance and low ratings only reflect deficiencies in the students, they have no incentive to get involved in instructional development.
Exacerbating the problem in engineering is diat instructional development on most campuses is commonly provided by social scientists (generally education and psychology faculty members) to campus-wide audiences. In the absence of discipline-specific examples it is easy for engineers to dismiss program content as irrelevant to their courses*, subjects, students, and problems. Programs given specifically to engineering faculty members by teaching experts with engineering backgrounds are more likely to attract and influence larger audiences, but they require an investment diat engineering administrators and campus centers may be unwilling or unable to make. In short, there is generally neither a meaningful incentive for engineering faculty members to participate in instructional development nor a meaningful reward for any improvements in teaching that may result from their participation.
The Case for Faculty Development in Engineering
Providing faculty development in engineering has always been a good idea, but the need for it has taken on new urgency in the past two decades (Adams 8c Felder, 2008). Here are some of the driving forces:
* Outcomes-based program accreditation. A large and growing number of engineering schools have adopted outcomes-based accreditation, including schools in the United States (ABET, 2010) and countries that are participants in the Bologna Process (2010) and the Washington Accord (International Engineering Alliance, 2009). Equipping engineering students with the skills for specified outcomes such as effective communication and teamwork requires teaching and assessment methods not traditionally found in engineering education and unfamiliar to most engineering educators (Felder 8c Brent, 2003).
* Anticipated shortfalls in engineering graduation rates. In many countries in the world, graduation rates in engineering fall well below anticipated demands for new engineers, for reasons having to do with both recruitment and retention (Jain, Shanahan, 8c Roe, 2009). A common myth among engineering faculties is that engineering dropouts are the weakest students, but research has shown that the academic profile of those leaving engineering in the U.S. is indistinguishable from that of those staying, and many well-qualified students leave because they are dissatisfied with the quality of the teaching they have experienced (ASEE, 2009; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). High-quality teaching is essential to retain qualified engineering students in the numbers required to meet current and future needs for engineers.
No comments:
Post a Comment