No abstract

Background: Research has shown that active learning promotes student learning and increases retention rates of STEM undergraduates. Yet, instructors are reluctant to change their teaching approaches for several reasons, including a fear of student resistance to active learning. This paper addresses this issue by building on our prior work which demonstrates that certain instructor strategies can positively influence student responses to active learning. We present an analysis of interview data from 17 engineering professors across the USA about the ways they use strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning in their undergraduate engineering courses. Results: Our data reveal that instructor strategies for reducing student resistance generally fall within two broad types: explanation and facilitation strategies. Explanation strategies consist of the following: (a) explain the purpose, (b) explain course expectations, and (c) explain activity expectations. Facilitation strategies include the following: (a) approach non-participants, (b) assume an encouraging demeanor, (c) grade on participation, (d) walk around the room, (e) invite questions, (f) develop a routine, (g) design activities for participation, and (h) use incremental steps. Four of the strategies emerged from our analysis and were previously unstudied in the context of student resistance. Conclusions: The findings of this study have practical implications for instructors wishing to implement active learning. There is a variety of strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning, and there are multiple successful ways to implement the strategies. Importantly, effective use of strategies requires some degree of intentional course planning. These strategies should be considered as a starting point for instructors seeking to better incorporate the use of active learning strategies into their undergraduate engineering classrooms.

Academic dishonesty has become a serious problem at institutions of higher learning. This is particularly true in engineering where, according to previous research, engineering undergraduates are among the most likely to cheat in college. To investigate this concern, the authors embarked on a research project whose goal was to develop a better understanding of what students and faculty perceive as cheating and to use this knowledge to help instructors and institutions increase the level of academic integrity among students. The primary instrument for this project was a seven-page survey that was administered to 643 engineering and pre-engineering undergraduates at eleven institutions, ranging from community colleges to large research universities. This manuscript provides an overview of the descriptive data from the PACES-1 Survey organized around the following questions: what is student cheating and how often does it occur; why do students cheat; and what methods can be used to reduce or stop cheating?

BACKGROUNDEthics instruction is an important component of engineering undergraduate education, but little research has identified aspects of the undergraduate experience that contribute most to students' ethical development. Thus, an assessment of the impact of students' experiences on their ethical development is warranted. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS)We apply a conceptual framework to the study of engineering students' ethical development. This framework suggests that both formal curricular experiences and co-curricular experiences are related to students' ethical development. DESIGN/METHODUsing survey data collected from nearly 4,000 engineering undergraduates at 18 institutions across the U.S., we present descriptive statistics related to students' formal curricular experiences and their co-curricular experiences. Additionally, we present data for three constructs of ethical development (knowledge of ethics, ethical reasoning, and ethical behavior). RESULTSFor our sample, the quantity and quality of students' formal curricular experiences and their co-curricular experiences related to ethics was high. The levels of ethical knowledge and reasoning varied, as did ethical behavior. CONCLUSIONSOur data highlight opportunities for improving the engineering undergraduate/bachelor's level curricula in order to have a greater impact on students' ethical development. We suggest that institutions integrate ethics instruction throughout the formal curriculum, support use of varied approaches that foster high-quality experiences, and leverage both influences of co-curricular experiences and students' desires to engage in positive ethical behaviors. KEYWORDS:co-curriculum, curriculum, ethical development 470 Journal of Engineering Education 101 (July 2012) 3 INTRODUCTIONThe engineering profession requires the utmost ethical standards, and professional engineering societies across the globe are placing growing importance on ethics (e.g., Association of German Engineers, 2002; Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board, 2001; Engineers Australia, 2010; Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1999; National Society of Professional Engineers, 2010; and Royal Academy of Engineering, n.d.). Many engineering colleges and programs consider this emphasis on ethics education to be an essential component of the undergraduate/bachelor's level curriculum (we will use the term undergraduate to refer to students pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree), and colleges and universities have long made it a part of their missions to educate students about ethics. In fact, a recent study by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (2009) reveals that 59% of all campuses have goals related to ethical reasoning. The need to graduate engineers who have a keen sense of ethical and social implications of engineering work is further underscored in accreditation requirements. In the U.S., for example, standards established by ABET require that engineering graduates have "an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility" (ABET, ...

Background Calls for the reform of education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have inspired many instructional innovations, some research based. Yet adoption of such instruction has been slow. Research has suggested that students' response may significantly affect an instructor's willingness to adopt different types of instruction.Purpose We created the Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) instrument to measure the effects of several variables on student response to instructional practices. We discuss the step-by-step process for creating this instrument.Design/Method The development process had six steps: item generation and construct development, validity testing, implementation, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and instrument modification and replication. We discuss pilot testing of the initial instrument, construct development, and validation using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.Results This process produced 47 items measuring three parts of our framework. Types of instruction separated into four factors (interactive, constructive, active, and passive); strategies for using in-class activities into two factors (explanation and facilitation); and student responses to instruction into five factors (value, positivity, participation, distraction, and evaluation). ConclusionsWe describe the design process and final results for our instrument, a useful tool for understanding the relationship between type of instruction and students' response.

Background The importance of ethics education in professional engineering preparation programs is well established, yet student outcomes remain mixed despite the efforts of engineering educators. Purpose (Hypothesis) A long line of research has suggested that students and faculty often have different perceptions of educational efforts and practices. In this study, we consider this as a potential reason for the continued mixed results of engineering ethics education by examining differing perceptions of faculty and students about ethics education and identifying contributing factors to those differences. Design/Method We conducted focus groups and interviews with engineering undergraduate students, faculty, and administrators on 18 campuses. Transcripts were analyzed using both deductive and inductive analyses and constant comparison. We identified both themes of discrepancies between faculty/administrator and student perceptions and factors in the educational environment that contributed to those discrepancies. Results Discrepancies between the perceptions of faculty/administrators were seen in two forms. Faculty/administrators believed that ethics education encompasses teaching about laws, ethical codes, and other black‐and‐white solutions while also addressing more nuanced ethical dilemmas; students reported only experiencing the laws‐and‐rules approach. Students also did not see faculty as the positive ethical role models that faculty believed they are. Factors that contribute to both types of discrepancies are identified and reported. Conclusions This approach can be effective in examining difficulties in teaching engineering ethics. Educators should take steps to understand the different ways faculty/administrators and students perceive ethics education, and how factors in the educational environment contribute to differences in those perceptions.

Previous research indicates that students in engineering self-report cheating in college at higher rates than those in most other disciplines. Prior work also suggests that participation in one deviant behavior is a reasonable predictor of future deviant behavior. This combination of factors leads to a situation where engineering students who frequently participate in academic dishonesty are more likely to make unethical decisions in professional practice. To investigate this scenario, we propose the hypotheses that (1) there are similarities in the decision-making processes used by engineering students when considering whether or not to participate in academic and professional dishonesty, and (2) prior academic dishonesty by engineering students is an indicator of future decisions to act dishonestly. Our sample consisted of undergraduate engineering students from two technically-oriented private universities. As a group, the sample reported working full-time an average of six months per year as professionals in addition to attending classes during the remaining six months. This combination of both academic and professional experience provides a sample of students who are experienced in both settings. Responses to open-ended questions on an exploratory survey indicate that students identify common themes in describing both temptations to cheat or to violate workplace policies and factors which caused them to hesitate in acting unethically, thus supporting our first hypothesis and laying the foundation for future surveys having forced-choice responses. As indicated by the responses to forced-choice questions for the engineering students surveyed, there is a relationship between self-reported rates of cheating in high school and decisions to cheat in college and to violate workplace policies; supporting our second hypothesis. Thus, this exploratory study demonstrates connections between decision-making about both academic and professional dishonesty. If better understood, these connections could lead to practical approaches for encouraging ethical behavior in the academic setting, which might then influence future ethical decision-making in workplace settings.

This paper describes some strategies for the educator seeking to better his/her classroom effectiveness. It was inspired by one of the technical sessions of the 29 th Annual IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference in which over a dozen experienced college instructors engaged in a roundtable discussion of ways to improve a classroom environment. In this paper, those ideas are discussed and then supplemented with general advice and specific suggestions from the experience of the authors. The paper concludes with a bibliography of related reference material from a wide variety of educational sources.