The Foundations project is to enact a transformation to the adoption of evidence-based teaching and learning practices in all core mathematics, science, and engineering science courses taken by engineering students in their first two years, with approximately 600 students now entering engineering each year. The project provides support to enable the faculty who teach these critical core courses to understand and adopt evidence-based practices, iteratively redesign their courses, assess the impact of pedagogical changes, and target deep and transferable learning within and across disciplinary domains. Strategies to support faculty change include ongoing discussions of the principles of teaching and learning and discipline-based education research; trained peer assistants to facilitate active-learning pedagogies in lectures and recitations; and advocacy with colleagues to catalyze diffusion beyond these early courses.
The project has engaged three cohorts of faculty, with each cohort receiving summer support for three years beginning summer 2016 (N=9), 2017 (N=5), and 2018 (N=5). These are faculty members who teach the core Calculus, Chemistry, Physics and Biology courses, together with the foundational computer programming, and engineering science courses in Engineering Thermodynamics, Engineering Mechanics, and Electrical Circuits. All thirteen of the core courses have so far been impacted to some degree. The faculty engaged to date are heavily weighted towards teaching stream, but our theory of action anticipates these being the champions to effect diffusion through sharing their experiences and successes with the tenure-stream faculty who tend to teach upper-level courses.
A central goal of the project is to understand student perceptions of the teaching environments that lead to improved learning. Student feedback is sought at the midpoint and at the end of the course. Beginning in the Spring of 2017 and continuing through Spring 2019, six items were added to the university-administered end-of-course evaluation for each of the core courses. The items are intended to provide feedback to faculty on student perceptions of the course. The first four items asked students about their motivation to learn the course material (i.e. Interest, professor made it interesting, prerequisite, good grade), and the remaining two items asked about opportunities for active participation and awareness of cross-course connections (a primary focus of the Foundations project).
At approximately the midpoint of the semester (Fall 2018 to present), students were asked, via a five-minute on-line survey, the extent to which they agree on a scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with statements about Professor and course relevance (e.g., It is clear to me how this course is related to my other courses), Active learning opportunities (e.g., Students have opportunities to work in pairs or groups to solve problems during class), and Strategies for help seeking (e.g., talk to instructor, look online, talk to my friends).
In this paper, we report results of student feedback (midterm and end-of-course) for all core courses by faculty group: Group 1--Those who completed their 3-year commitment; Group 2--Those who have participated for less than three years; and Group 3--Non participants (but eligible to participate). For the midterm survey, preliminary analysis shows differences by faculty group on professor and course relevance (professor brings material to life; cross-course connections clear) and active learning opportunities (e.g., work in pairs to solve problems, peer assistants provide in-class help) they experienced. Responses were more positive for Faculty Group 1 than Group 2 which were more positive than Group 3. However, all students, regardless of their professor, sought help online or from their friends rather than T.A.'s, faculty, tutors or peer assistants; No faculty group differences. For the six items appended to the end-of-course evaluation, preliminary analysis indicates responses varied by faculty group on items about active learning, awareness of cross course connections, and professor makes the course interesting. Responses were more positive for Faculty Group 1 than Group 2 which were more positive than Group 3. Gender comparisons will also be reported.
This project is supported by the National Science Foundation EHR/DUE IUSE:EHR Program under Grant No. XXXXXXX
Are you a researcher? Would you like to cite this paper? Visit the ASEE document repository at peer.asee.org for more tools and easy citations.
