Session 12a5 Faculty Teaching Practices in an Engineering Education ...

Session 12a5 Faculty Teaching Practices in an Engineering Education Coalition Catherine E. Brawner Research Triangle Educational Consultants Raleigh, NC 27612 Richard M. Felder, Department of Chemical Engineering Rebecca Brent, College of Engineering Thomas K. Miller, College of Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695 Rodney H. Allen COMP-AID Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Abstract – This paper discusses the findings from a survey of engineering faculty at the eight colleges of engineering that make up SUCCEED, one of the National Science Foundation’s engineering education coalitions. Faculty members were surveyed on their use of various teaching methods in their undergraduate classes. Findings show that faculty members who reported attending teaching seminars in their careers were more likely to use active learning methods regularly than those who had not attended any such seminars. Significant usage differences were also found based on the Carnegie classification of the respondents’ schools, their primary job function (teaching, teaching/research, or administration), their involvement in SUCCEED-sponsored activities, their rank, and their sex.

Introduction SUCCEED (Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering EDucation) is a National Science Foundation-sponsored engineering education coalition. SUCCEED was first funded in 1992 and began its second five-year award period with a mission of scaling up and institutionalizing the educational reforms developed and pilot-tested in its first five years. A major component of this effort is the design and implementation of a faculty development program. The program objectives are (1) to promote faculty adoption of nontraditional instructional methods and materials that have been proven effective by classroom research studies and (2) to improve institutional support for teaching at each of the eight SUCCEED campuses [1]. As the first step in assessing and evaluating the faculty development program, a baseline campus climate survey was sent to all engineering faculty members at the Coalition

schools during the 1997-1998 academic year. The survey asked respondents to answer questions about their teaching experiences and practices. Among other things, they were asked about their prior involvement with teaching beyond classroom instruction (e.g., attending workshops, or seminars dedicated to teaching improvement) and their frequency of use of various teaching techniques for undergraduate instruction. In this paper, we briefly describe the survey methodology and respondent profile and then report the use of various teaching techniques by the respondents, highlighting some of the significant differences among groups.

Methodology The survey was sent to roughly 1550 faculty members at the eight campuses who had electronic mail (e-mail) addresses. This sample encompasses virtually all engineering faculty at the member schools. The survey was administered to some faculty members via e-mail and to others via the World Wide Web during the period from December 1997 to February 1998. After it was determined that the response rate was better from those faculty members who had been sent the survey by e-mail than those who were asked to fill out the Web-based survey (14% to 8%), a second round was sent via e-mail only to all non-respondents in March 1998. There were 503 valid and useable surveys returned for a response rate of 32%. Respondents were representative of the underlying population with respect to their academic rank (assistant, associate, or full professor), and their engineering discipline (Civil and Environmental, Chemical, Ceramics and Materials, Computer Science, Electrical and Computer, Industrial and Systems, and Mechanical, Aerospace, and Ocean). Women were somewhat over-

0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 12a5-1

Session 12a5 represented in the sample (10.2% in the sample vs. 6.8% in the population); however, due to the small number of women engineering faculty this was not considered to be a problem. Data from the SUCCEED Faculty Development Survey were analyzed using standard statistical methods and practices. Responses were classified according to the respondents’ sex, rank, position, years of service, level of involvement with SUCCEED, prior attendance at teaching seminars, and Carnegie classification of the respondents’ schools [2]. Responses were tested to determine if there were any significant response differences within these categories. An alpha level of 0.05 was set for all tests of statistical significance and all reported findings are significant at that level or better. The data were analyzed using Chi-squared analysis and the Mann-Whitney U or Kruskal-Wallis H tests (the non-parametric equivalents of the t-test and analysis of variance). Complete results of the survey, including statistical analyses if the data, may be found in the full report.

Findings Respondent Profile Of the 488 respondents who indicated their sex, 10.2% were female and 89.8% were male. Table 1 displays the distribution of respondents by academic rank and current academic function. Table 2 displays the distribution of the respondents by engineering discipline. Just over a quarter (27%) stated that they had been faculty members for more than 20 years, a third had 10 to 20 years of service, a fifth had five to ten years of service, and a fifth had less than five years experience. Table 1: Respondent Rank and Academic Function

0.0 0.2 0.6 8.7 1.2 10.7

0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6

Total

0.0 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.8

Other

1.2 17.8 27.9 30.0 0.4 76.9

Admin.

2.0 0.8 2.8 3.6 0.6 10.0

Research

Teaching Research

Lecturer Assistant Associate Professor Other Total N = 494

Teaching

Rank

3.2 19.4 3.2 42.5 2.6 100

Eighty-five percent of respondents indicated that they had attended at least one seminar, workshop, or conference specifically related to teaching during their careers. Of these, 29% indicated that they had attended three to five

such conferences and a like number indicated that they had attended more than six. Over half (56%) had attended at least one teaching seminar in the academic year prior to the survey (1996-1997). Nearly two thirds of the respondents indicated that they did not know anything about SUCCEED or that they had heard of it but were not involved with it. About one fifth of the respondents reported that they had been actively involved with the coalition. This would indicate that SUCCEED participants were somewhat overrepresented in the sample; SUCCEED participation among coalition faculty is estimated to be about 10%. Table 2: Engineering Discipline of Respondents Discipline Civil and Environmental Chemical Ceramics and Materials Computer Science* Electrical and Computer Industrial and Systems Mechanical, Aerospace, and Ocean** All others*** N = 483

% 18.6 7.7 7.0 5.8 17.9 8.3 22.2 11.8

* Computer science is not in the college of engineering at all schools. These numbers only represent computer science faculty who are in the college of engineering. ** Ocean engineering is included in this category when it is combined with aerospace engineering in the same department. *** Includes Agricultural, Architectural, Biological/Agricultural, Bioengineering, Coastal/Oceanographic, Engineering Fundamentals, College of Engineering, Engineering Science and Mechanics, Engineering Technology, Mining and Minerals, Nuclear, and Textiles.

Use of Instructor-Centered Teaching Techniques “Instructor-centered” teaching methods are those that require little active student involvement. Faculty members were asked about their use of four instructor-centered methods: lecturing for most of a class session, showing overhead transparencies, using live or multimedia demonstrations, and addressing questions to the class as a whole. Table 3 shows how often these methods were used by survey respondents. Attending a teaching seminar during one’s career appears to reduce the frequency of use of some of the instructorcentered methods. Less than half (49%) of those who attended more than 10 teaching seminars during their careers reported that they lectured every class period compared with 62% of those who attended six to 10, 60% who attended three to five, 72% of those who attended one to two and 85% of those who had not attended any. Of the instructorcentered techniques, demonstrations can be an effective alternative to straight lecturing even though it keeps students in a relatively passive role. Those who had attended any career teaching seminars were more likely to incorporate


Session 12a5 with many cognitive and affective benefits. [3] Wilbert McKeachie, author of the popular reference Teaching Tips, states that if he had to name the single best instructional method, it would be students teaching other students [4]. Figure 1 shows that faculty members who have attended more teaching seminars in their careers are more likely to put students in groups for some or all of a class period at least once a semester. Table 4: In-class Activities

Table 3: Use of Instructor-Centered Teaching Techniques

3.4 13.8 23.3 17.5 42.0

1.3 6.4 11.8 20.8 59.7

Use computers in class

Every class Once/week Once/month Once/semester Never N = 464

Groups most of class

Groups for brief intervals

demonstrations into their classes at least once a semester than those who had not (more than 10, 93%; 6-10, 87%; 3-5, 88%; 1-2, 86%; none, 74%). There were no significant differences among groups in addressing questions to the entire class, something which 84% of respondents reported doing every class period. There were variations among other groups of interest with respect to lecture frequency and the use of overhead transparencies in class. Those who had never heard of SUCCEED (74%) and those who reported that they had heard of SUCCEED but weren’t involved (73%) were more likely to report that they lecture every class period than those who had been involved in SUCCEED in some way (Attended some SUCCEED activities but not active in it, 56%; Actively involved, 53%; Project leader, 48%). Those who classified themselves as teaching/research faculty (69%) were more likely to lecture every class period than those who classified themselves as either teaching faculty (55%) or administrators (54%). Also, faculty members at Research institutions (68%) were more likely to lecture every class period than those at Masters institutions (55%). Women (79%) were more likely to report showing overhead transparencies at least once a week than were men (55%).

1.1 3.8 3.2 11.1 80.8

100

Lecture

Overheads

Demos

Questions

Every Class Once/week Once/month Once/semester Never N = 468

65.8 29.3 2.6 1.0 1.0

24.7 32.8 20.5 14.9 7.0

3.4 16.8 33.5 32.5 13.8

83.9 12.9 2.1 0.6 0.4

In-Class Activities Active learning methods call upon all students to do things in class other than watching and listening to the professor and taking notes. In this survey, faculty members were asked whether they put students into pairs or small groups to answer questions or solve problems for brief intervals during class or for most of a class period and whether students had the opportunity to work on computer terminals during class. Table 4 shows how often the respondents used each of these activities in their classes. The education literature contains an abundance of evidence that students learn more by actively doing something than by passively watching and listening, and that working on structured activities in groups provides students

Percent

80 60

Groups brief interval

40

Groups most of class

20 0 0

1-2

3-5 6-10 >10

Career Teaching Seminars

Figure 1: Percent of faculty who put students into groups during class at least once a semester Assistant professors (68%), women (75%), and those who had been a part of SUCCEED activities, either actively or simply as attendees at a SUCCEED-sponsored event, (> 70%) were more likely to put students in groups for brief intervals at some point during the semester than associate professors (59%), full professors (53%), men (57%), or those who had not been involved with SUCCEED (≅ 50%). Also, faculty members at Masters institutions (67%) were more likely to do so than faculty members at Research institutions (56%). A similar pattern held for SUCCEED participants, women, and faculty members at Masters institutions when asked whether they put students in groups for most of the class period, although the percentages were lower.


Session 12a5 Having students work at computer terminals during class is another way to achieve active learning. Faculty members who attended more than ten teaching seminars in their careers (34%) were more likely to have students working on computer terminals during class than their colleagues who attended one to ten seminars (about 18%) and their colleagues who never attended one (10%). Faculty members from Masters institutions were more likely (30%) to have their students working on computer terminals during class at least once a semester than were their colleagues at research institutions (17%). Assignments Faculty members were asked about their practices with respect to assigning homework: how often they assigned homework to individuals, how often they permitted students to work in groups to complete homework assignments, and how often they required students to work in groups to complete homework assignments. In addition they were asked about other out-of-class activities that they assigned to their students, specifically team projects and writing assignments (exercises that require verbal explanations and not just calculations). Table 5 shows how often faculty members give these types of assignments. Table 5: Assignments Individual Homework

Team Option

Team Required

Writing Assignment

1-3 times/week 1-3 times/month 1-3 times/sem. Never Total N

54.6 31.7 6.6 7.1 467

24.2 17.2 24.2 34.4 454

9.7 10.1 25.2 55.1 465

7.1 26.0 44.6 14.5 465

In every course I teach In some, but not all, courses I teach Never Total N

Assign one major team project 23.8 51.9 24.2 466

There was little variation among groups in their propensity to assign individual homework. The only significant difference found was that those who attended three or more teaching seminars in the previous year (36%) were less likely to give individual homework assignments weekly than those who had attended one or two teaching seminars (60%) or no seminars (52%). Faculty members

who had attended any teaching seminars in their careers were more likely to allow students to work in teams to complete their homework (66%-70%) than were those who had never been to a teaching seminar, workshop, or conference (47%). Administrators (84%) were also more likely to offer their students the option of doing homework in teams than were their teaching (67%) or teaching/research (70%) counterparts. Faculty members who had not attended any teaching seminars were much less likely (19%) to ever require students to work in groups than those who had attended at least one teaching seminar in their careers (42%-56%). About 30% of those who reported participating at some level in SUCCEED required students to work in teams to complete their homework at least monthly, compared with 24% of those who had never heard of SUCCEED and 13% of those who had heard of SUCCEED but were not involved in it. The propensity of faculty members to assign team projects varied not only by the number of teaching seminars attended, but also by the faculty members’primary academic function and by the Carnegie classification of their school. The likelihood of faculty assigning a major team project in every course ranged from a low of 17% for those with no career teaching seminars to 39% of those who had attended more than 10 teaching seminars in their careers. Teaching faculty (69%) were less likely than teaching/research faculty (75%) or administrators (84%) to assign major team projects in some or all of the courses that they teach as were faculty members at Research institutions (73%) compared with those at Masters institutions (91%). The more teaching seminars that faculty members attended in the previous year, the more likely they were to give writing assignments at least monthly (no seminars, 32%; 1 seminar, 36%; 2 seminars, 41%; and 3 or more seminars, 47%); also, nearly all (95%) of those who attended at least three teaching seminars during the year gave a writing assignment at some point in the semester compared with 79% of those who did not attend any. Similarly, over 80% of those who attended any teaching seminars in their careers reported that they gave a writing assignment at some point in the semester compared with 74% of those who attended none. Communications Faculty members were asked about their use of e-mail and the World Wide Web to communicate with their students. (As this survey was delivered to faculty members both by email and the Web, the responses may overstate the use of these media by the faculty at large.) Nearly two thirds of respondents reported that they use electronic mail or the Web to communicate with students in their classes at some point in the semester, with about a quarter using each


Session 12a5 method weekly. Faculty members attended more than 10 career teaching seminars (78%) were more likely than anyone else (60%-66%) to use e-mail to communicate with their students. There were differences in the use of electronic media by academic rank and position of the respondent. Assistant (73%) and associate (69%) professors were more likely than full professors (59%) to use e-mail to communicate with their students at some point during the semester. Assistant (76%) professors were also much more likely than associate (61%) or full professors (58%) to use the Web as a communication medium. Teaching/research faculty (65%) and administrators (60%) were more likely to use the Web to communicate with their classes at some point during the semester than teaching faculty (48%); however, teaching (33%) and teaching/research (30%) faculty were more likely to use the Web weekly than their administrative counterparts (8%). Writing Course Objectives and Soliciting Feedback from Students Writing formal instructional objectives that state explicitly what students should be able to do after completing segments of a course has a positive impact on both the level and quality of learning [5]. Respondents were asked how often they write instructional objectives for their courses. Nearly four in ten said that they always do so, with an additional 20% responding that they usually do so. The number of seminars attended throughout the respondent’s career had a significant impact on whether respondents wrote instructional objectives for their courses. Seventy-four percent of those who attended 10 or more seminars in their careers always or usually wrote instructional objectives compared with only 47% of those who attended none. Respondents were also asked how often they gave their students explicit indications of what they (the students) should be able to do to demonstrate their mastery of course material. About 60% reported that they always or usually provided study guides to their students for tests and exams. There were no significant between-group differences in providing study guides for tests or exams. Although nearly all (98.8%) of the respondents solicited feedback from their students at least once a semester (undoubtedly through the perfunctory end of course evaluation), only 41% did so more often than that. Very few (4%) asked for feedback every class and an additional 10.7% did so at least once a week. Faculty members at Masters institutions were more likely to solicit feedback from their students more than once a semester (51%) than were their colleagues at Research institutions (39%), with more than 20% at the Masters institutions doing so at least weekly compared with only 13% at the Research institutions.

Conclusions Among the goals of the SUCCEED faculty development program is promoting faculty adoption of non-traditional instructional methods and materials that have been proven effective by classroom research. The purpose of the 19971998 SUCCEED Faculty Survey was to provide baseline data for monitoring progress toward meeting that and other goals. Future surveys are planned for the 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 academic years to determine the progress that the coalition has made in reaching these goals. Attending teaching seminars is often associated with the use of non-traditional teaching practices, such as using team activities in and out of class, giving writing assignments, and using e-mail and the World Wide Web for communicating with students. It appears that faculty members who are exposed to student-centered teaching techniques at workshops, seminars, and conferences are more likely to use these techniques in the classroom. An implication of these findings is that faculty members and their students can benefit from the faculty members’ attending such programs and implementing the techniques learned there. Several of the survey results suggest that the instructional changes sought by the coalition may be more likely to come from younger faculty members than from those with greater levels of experience. Assistant professors were more likely to put students into groups during class and more likely to communicate with their students using the Web or e-mail than were associate or full professors. These results highlight the importance of involving new faculty members in faculty development programs and of designing programs specifically for this faculty population. While these survey results are interesting, they must be viewed with a measure of caution. Although the overall response rate of 35% is not bad for a survey of this type, in all likelihood the responders are not truly representative of the total faculty population. We surmise that professors who place a high priority on teaching are more likely to respond to a survey on teaching practices than are professors who place a higher priority on research. We must also be cautious not to equate the associations found here with causality. Some of the significant differences found between groups may reflect underlying structural factors rather than true attitude differences between the groups. For instance, teaching faculty were found to assign fewer team projects than other faculty members, which could reflect a difference in the types of classes these faculty members tend to teach rather than a disinclination to assign team projects. The full report 1997-1998 Faculty Survey of Teaching Practices and Perceptions of Institutional Attitudes Toward Teaching is available from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. (Assignment of number pending). For more information about SUCCEED faculty development


Session 12a5 programs, please visit the SUCCEED web site at http://www.succeed.vt.edu.

Notes [1] The members of SUCCEED are: Clemson University, Florida A&M University-Florida State University College of Engineering (a joint program of the two institutions), Georgia Institute of Technology, North Carolina A&T State University, North Carolina State University, University of Florida, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. [2] Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1998: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/cihe/cihe-dc.htm. Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State, and Virginia Tech are classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as Research institutions while FAMU, NC A&T, and UNC-Charlotte are classified as Masters institutions. For the purposes of this report, the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering was classified as a Masters institution. [3] See, for example: Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A., Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co., 1998. [4] McKeachie, W, Teaching Tips, 10th edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1999. [5] Gronlund, N. E., How to Write and Use Instructional Objectives, 5th edition, New York: Macmillan, 1994.
