Faculty Perceptions of Academe's Evaluation System

524

342

The purpose of this research review is to open dialog about quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education research. Our position is that no particular method is privileged over any other. Rather, the choice must be driven by the research questions. For each approach we offer a definition, aims, appropriate research questions, evaluation criteria, and examples from the Journal of Engineering Education. Then, we present empirical results from a prestigious international conference on engineering education research. Participants expressed disappointment in the low representation of qualitative studies; nonetheless, there appeared to be a strong preference for quantitative methods, particularly classroom‐based experiments. Given the wide variety of issues still to be explored within engineering education, we expect that quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches will be essential in the future. We encourage readers to further investigate alternate research methods by accessing some of our sources and collaborating across education/social science and engineering disciplinary boundaries.

Section: B Embedded Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Watkins, 2005) to nearly a full page (Morell et al, 2001;Raju and Sankar, 1999). Most included one or two paragraphs discussing student attitudes and intervention logistics (Campbell et al, 2002;Lee et al, 1997;Weisner and Lan, 2004).…”

Section: B Embedded Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research Methods in Engineering Education

Borrego¹,

Douglas²,

Amelink³

2009

524

342

“…The other common Faculty topic dealt with the cultural and institutional attitude towards engineering education scholarly activities. In 1997, Lee, Castella, et al reported that an extensive survey identified a discrepancy between the current academic reward system and faculty's preference for a flexible system rewarding research, teaching and service activities [16]. Other papers reported on tenure, balancing research and teaching activities, the effect of industrial experience on teaching, and the availability of professional development resources.…”

Section: Results-partmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking Stock: An Analysis of the Publishing Record as Represented by the Journal of Engineering Education

Whitin

Sheppard

2004

The Journal of Engineering Education emerged in the engineering education community in 1993 as a continuation of the American Society of Engineering Education's journal, Engineering Education. The Journal of Engineering Education was to play a role in the broadening of engineering education culture by helping to bring the scholarship of engineering education to the same level of respect and recognition in the faculty reward system as traditional scholarship in engineering sciences. In doing so, the journal hoped to keep pace with and encourage the significant changes in engineering education needed to prepare for the challenges of 21st century practice. This paper discusses the engineering education environment as reflected in six years of papers published in the Journal of Engineering Education from 1996 to 2001. Topics of papers are identified, along with changes and trends in these topics during the six-year period. In addition, characteristics of particularly convincing papers are enumerated and discussed. This paper is offered as a summary and review of this six-year body of work on engineering education and should aid the engineering education community in reflecting on the success of the Journal in promoting and encouraging the scholarship of teaching. I. INTRODUCTIONIn 2000, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching* embarked on an ambitious research effort to study preparation for the professions in four fields-law, engineering, the clergy and teacher preparation. These studies are collaborations with educators and practitioners in each profession with the aim to better understand and describe the state of professional education in each field. The Carnegie Foundation's ongoing study of engineering is entitled Taking Stock: A Look at Engineering Education at the Turn of the Century and Beyond. It aims to describe and analyze both typical and exemplary approaches to teaching and learning engineering at the outset of the new century. The views into the education of engineers that emerge from this work will complement other activities in the engineering community such as adoption of new ABET EC2000 standards for accreditation and the National Academy of Engineering's Study of the Engineer in 2020 [2].In the initial year of Taking Stock several "mini-studies" were undertaken in order to use published data to gain insights into engineering education at the national level. National Science Foundation reports [23,24] were reviewed and synthesized into the publications "Students Entering and Exiting the Engineering Pipeline-Identifying Key Decision Points and Trends" [13] and "Descriptions of Engineering: Student and Engineering Practitioner Perspectives" [35]. In addition, papers published in the last six years of the Journal of Engineering Education (henceforth referred to as the Journal) were reviewed; this current paper is a review and summary of these six years of publications in the Journal. This is not the first review of Journal publications since its introduction in 1993. In 1999 a ...

“…This finding is consistent with current literature that describes the university rewards structure for research universities as heavily weighted on research productivity, especially in schools of engineering. [31][32][33][34] The tenure and promotion barrier largely excludes the participation of non-tenured faculty in industrial outreach, and limits participation by tenured associate professors.…”

Section: Barriers To Faculty Participation In Industrial Outreachmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Instructional Benefits from Faculty Participation in Industrial Outreach

McKinnis

McNamara

Kuczek³

et al. 2001

During the past twenty years, universities have significantly expanded their community service and outreach roles, including the addition of industrial outreach programs. This development has caused a need for an increased understanding of the nature and results of faculty participation in industrial outreach. This study of nineteen university-based outreach programs and 107 participating faculty found that participating faculty perceive positive impacts and outcomes for the educational and research missions of the university from their industrial outreach. Although positive perceptions and outcomes were identified, the faculty participating in this study identified barriers that must be addressed to expand the participation of faculty in industrial outreach.