Contributors Michael Alley, The Pennsylvania State University; Cindy Atman, University of Washington; David DiBiasio, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Cindy Finelli, University of Michigan; Heidi Diefes‐Dux, Purdue University; Anette Kolmos, Aalborg University; Donna Riley, Smith College; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University; Maryellen Weimer, The Pennsylvania State University; Ken Yasuhara, University of Washington Background Although engineering education has evolved in ways that improve the readiness of graduates to meet the challenges of the twenty‐first century, national and international organizations continue to call for change. Future changes in engineering education should be guided by research on expertise and the learning processes that support its development. Purpose The goals of this paper are: to relate key findings from studies of the development of expertise to engineering education, to summarize instructional practices that are consistent with these findings, to provide examples of learning experiences that are consistent with these instructional practices, and finally, to identify challenges to implementing such learning experiences in engineering programs. Scope/Method The research synthesized for this article includes that on the development of expertise, students' approaches to learning, students' responses to instructional practices, and the role of motivation in learning. In addition, literature on the dominant teaching and learning practices in engineering education is used to frame some of the challenges to implementing alternative approaches to learning. Conclusion Current understanding of expertise, and the learning processes that develop it, indicates that engineering education should encompass a set of learning experiences that allow students to construct deep conceptual knowledge, to develop the ability to apply key technical and professional skills fluently, and to engage in a number of authentic engineering projects. Engineering curricula and teaching methods are often not well aligned with these goals. Curriculum‐level instructional design processes should be used to design and implement changes that will improve alignment.

Instructors often incorporate self-and peer evaluations when they use teamwork in their classes, which is common in management education. However, the process is often time consuming and frequently does not match well with guidance provided by the literature. We describe the development of a web-based instrument that efficiently collects and analyzes self-and peer-evaluation data. The instrument uses a behaviorally anchored rating scale to measure team-member contributions in five areas based on the team effectiveness literature. Three studies provide evidence for the validity of the new instrument. Implications for management education and areas for future research are discussed.

No abstract

Background Ample research provides evidence about the influence of effective teaching practices on student success. Yet the adoption of such practices has been slow at many institutions. Efforts to bridge the gap between research and practice are needed.Purpose We describe an institutional change plan we developed to bridge this research-topractice gap. Our plan is grounded in research and theories about faculty motivation and organizational change, and we designed it using local evidence from the University of Michigan College of Engineering.Design/Method We collected local data from three sources to provide context for our institutional change plan. First, faculty focus groups allowed us to determine factors that influence faculty adoption of effective teaching practices. Second, classroom observations allowed us to ascertain current teaching practices. Third, a student survey allowed us to identify teaching practices perceived by students to enhance their success. We used this local evidence with a "who/what/how" decision-making process to design our change plan. ResultsOur institutional change plan for accelerating the adoption of effective teaching practices comprises a faculty action plan and an administrative change plan. Although still evolving, there is evidence of the success of both parts.Conclusions Local evidence is critical in our change plan. Change agents wishing to bridge the research-to-practice gap at their own institutions can design a plan that adapts our process and integrates relevant research and theory with their own local data.

Background Despite the evidence supporting the effectiveness of active learning in undergraduate STEM courses, the adoption of active learning has been slow. One barrier to adoption is instructors’ concerns about students’ affective and behavioral responses to active learning, especially student resistance. Numerous education researchers have documented their use of active learning in STEM classrooms. However, there is no research yet that systematically analyzes these studies for strategies to aid implementation of active learning and address students’ affective and behavioral responses. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review and identify 29 journal articles and conference papers that researched active learning, affective and behavioral student responses, and recommended at least one strategy for implementing active learning. In this paper, we ask: (1) What are the characteristics of studies that examine affective and behavioral outcomes of active learning and provide instructor strategies? (2) What instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning do the authors of these studies provide? Results In our review, we noted that most active learning activities involved in-class problem solving within a traditional lecture-based course (N = 21). We found mostly positive affective and behavioral outcomes for students’ self-reports of learning, participation in the activities, and course satisfaction (N = 23). From our analysis of the 29 studies, we identified eight strategies to aid implementation of active learning based on three categories. Explanation strategies included providing students with clarifications and reasons for using active learning. Facilitation strategies entailed working with students and ensuring that the activity functions as intended. Planning strategies involved working outside of the class to improve the active learning experience. Conclusion To increase the adoption of active learning and address students’ responses to active learning, this study provides strategies to support instructors. The eight strategies are listed with evidence from numerous studies within our review on affective and behavioral responses to active learning. Future work should examine instructor strategies and their connection with other affective outcomes, such as identity, interests, and emotions.

The authors describe three initiatives designed to increase the academic achievement and retention of historically underrepresented students (including females and underrepresented students of color) in engineering.

The diversity of engineering education research provides an opportunity for cross‐fertilization of ideas and creativity, but it also can result in fragmentation of the field and duplication of effort. One solution is to establish a standardized taxonomy of engineering education terms to map the field and communicate and connect research initiatives. This report describes the process for developing such a taxonomy, the EER Taxonomy. Although the taxonomy focuses on engineering education research in the United States, inclusive efforts have engaged 266 individuals from 149 cities in 30 countries during one multiday workshop, seven conference sessions, and several other virtual and in‐person activities. The resulting taxonomy comprises 455 terms arranged in 14 branches and six levels. This taxonomy was found to satisfy four criteria for validity and reliability: (1) keywords assigned to a set of abstracts were reproducible by multiple researchers, (2) the taxonomy comprised terms that could be selected as keywords to fully describe 243 articles in three journals, (3) the keywords for those 243 articles were evenly distributed across the branches of the taxonomy, and (4) the authors of 31 conference papers agreed with 90% of researcher‐assigned keywords. This report also describes guidelines developed to help authors consistently assign keywords for their articles by encouraging them to choose terms from three categories: (1) context/focus/topic, (2) purpose/target/motivation, and (3) research approach.

She actively pursues research in engineering education and assists other faculty in their scholarly projects. She also is past Chair of the Educational Research and Methods Division of American Society of Engineering Education and guest co-editor for a special issue of the International Journal of Engineering Education on applications of engineering education research.