New Directions for Teaching and Learning

Background Engineering

Faculty members should adopt effective pedagogical approaches in order to maximize student learning. The beliefs of faculty members about instructional practice are an important construct in determining what and how they teach.



Purpose

This study investigates the effect of faculty members’ involvement in model-eliciting activities on their beliefs about classroom instruction. This study is guided by the following research question: How do faculty members’ beliefs about teaching, learning, and assessment change through the use of model-eliciting activities (MEAs)?



Design/Method

Using a multicase study design, four engineering faculty members from across the United States were studied while they developed, implemented, and assessed MEAs. Data were collected from sources including semistructured interviews about teaching beliefs and practices, a demographics and academic background survey, and biweekly surveys on MEA implementation and beliefs. Yearly interviews were coded using a rubric that classifies beliefs on a scale from instructor-centered to student-centered.



Results

Over the course of the three-year study, the beliefs of all four faculty members shifted towards a more student-centered view of teaching. The faculty members indicated that they were able to emphasize teamwork, real-world practice, problem-solving skills, timely feedback, constructed knowledge, communication, active learning, formative assessment, and the discipline of engineering through the use of MEAs.



Conclusions

This study provides evidence that developing and implementing MEAs can help both experienced and beginning faculty members change their beliefs toward a student-centered view of instruction.

Changes in Faculty Members' Instructional Beliefs While Implementing Model-Eliciting Activities.

The CEAB accreditation requirement of graduate attributes and continual improvement processes (GACIP) has been a pervasive topic in the annual CEEA conference proceedings since 2010. The proceedings are a rich primary source of work being done in Canadian tertiary institutions. This narrative review of the literature consolidates and discusses the relevant CEEA papers for 2010-2017 in a manner that is useful to leadership and decision-makers at accredited faculties of Engineering nationwide.
Four guiding research questions were asked of this literature: (1) What general frameworks are being implemented as accredited faculties of Engineering across Canada approach GACIP?; (2) What are the specific activities and methods of one or more of the GACIP steps?; (3) What are the roles and responsibilities of people involved?; and (4) What perspectives are taken in response to the CEAB accreditation criteria, including concerns, issues, and benefits? A qualitative content analysis was conducted on 106 papers meeting selection criteria. Emergent topics were used to form the discussion.

https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/download/13736/9070

Approaches to graduate attributes and continual improvement processes in faculties of engineering across canada: a narrative review of the literature

New institutionalism predicts a global convergence in how higher education is organized. This convergence might be expected to intensify in professional education given accreditation requirements of professional bodies. Engineering presents an opportunity to study how international mobility agreements facilitate the development and normative diffusion of global norms in accreditation. This paper investigates how changing logics of accreditation influence the academic organization of engineering schools in Canada. Using three case studies of Canadian universities, we show how regulative and normative institutional pressures influence decisions by engineering schools to take visible action to demonstrate their conformity to global norms, while still pursuing local missions. Our findings contribute to understanding the complex mediation processes between professions and universities, and they represent a critique to dominant rationalist perspectives on quality assurance mechanisms in higher education.

Do global norms matter? The new logics of engineering accreditation in Canadian universities

Can we map university-wide graduate attributes to specific program requirements? Can we develop and manage an integrated assessment process? In this article, we present a seven-month long project where we attempted to map generic university graduate attributes (UGAs) to required engineering program graduate attributes in a large Canadian research institution. The purpose of the project was to explore the intersection of the UGAs with engineering graduate attributes, evaluate the accreditation process, develop a mapping process, and examine management strategies for assessing both sets of graduate attributes, all the while keeping the continual improvement process attractive to students, instructors, and administrators. Using a modified dialectical inquiry, two groups worked on the mapping process: one from engineering, the other from social sciences (Education and Arts), to ensure objectivity of comparison. Both forward and backward mapping took place. Results demonstrated that, although generic, UGAs may not necessarily capture specific professional program graduate attributes. The study also highlighted the need for more revisions and updates of UGAs by including various stakeholders who can substantially contribute to the implementation and assessment of UGAs.

/pdf/intersecting-roadmaps-resolving-tension-between-profession-72qb239b5d.pdf

Intersecting Roadmaps: Resolving Tension Between Profession-Specific and University-Wide Graduate Attributes

This paper describes and compares the different approaches of seven Canadian institutions to the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) requirements for continuous quality improvement using graduate attributes. Program approaches are compared by: program objectives & management, indicators, curriculum mapping, assessment & data collection and curriculum improvement. The significant differences include approaches to curriculum mapping, data collection and curriculum improvement.

https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/download/4642/4624

A Comparison of Institutional Approaches to CEAB Graduate Attribute Requirements

This work presents the use and evaluation of model-eliciting activities (MEAs) in a first year engineering course. These MEAs are problems presented in class that require students to create a model of a system as part of the solution to a complex open-ended problem, and integrate technical, professional, and programming skills in a specific context. Three MEAs were used in the 2011-2012 academic year. Students perceived learning gains as a result of the MEAs, and improvements were observed in students’ ability to create a mathematical model, and in making effective arguments. A proposal for a more detailed study of how students solve MEAs is presented.

/pdf/evaluating-integrative-model-eliciting-activities-in-first-3iahced8qr.pdf

Brain Frank

Papers

A Comparison of Institutional Approaches to CEAB Graduate Attribute Requirements

Evaluating integrative model eliciting activities in first year engineering