Back to Table of
Contents
THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION'S ENGINEERING EDUCATION SCHOLARS WORKSHOP: STRATEGIES FOR THE NEW PROFESSOR
ABSTRACT
Engineering faculty members typically begin their careers with little training or experience in teaching methods, principles of cognition and student learning, course development, or assessment. In addition, many new professors find themselves isolated from their established mentoring support, confronted with new responsibilities, large classes, and inadequately prepared for their new role as teachers, advisors, mentors, and faculty members. The Engineering Education Scholars Workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation at Carnegie Mellon University was designed to address the needs of new and future engineering faculty members while introducing them to engineering education reform. The participants in the workshop came from diverse engineering and personal backgrounds and had been employed as Ph.D. students or full-time tenure track faculty for less than one year. The objectives of the workshop included immersion in active learning techniques; problem based learning; theories of cognition, retention, and intellectual transfer; use of technology in the classroom, techniques for constructing syllabi, and assessment of student learning. An intended sub-objective was to promote the development of a peer network between new faculty in diverse disciplines. In a series of group projects, brainstorming sessions and lateral interactions, the new faculty experienced the benefits of these teaching innovations firsthand. One year after the first workshop, the participants and organizers summarize the classroom experiences of the new faculty members and report on their implementation of innovative teaching techniques in their classrooms.
INTRODUCTION
The early years of the first tenure-track faculty appointment present many challenges for the new assistant professor. Coming from the focused research environment of Ph.D. dissertation work or postdoctoral position, new faculty members are thrust into a new and unfamiliar role with a wide range of responsibilities. The majority of graduate curricula focus primarily on performing research and provide little preparation for the teaching, advising and administrative responsibilities which are so critical to academic success.
The Engineering Education Scholars Workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) was designed to address the needs of new and future engineering faculty and to ease the transition from graduate student to professor. The first of five annual workshops was held July 21-26, 1996. Authors Ambrose and Davidson, both of CMU, were the workshop organizers. A detailed description of the workshop, the workshop participants, and the short-term evaluation of the program is provided elsewhere 1. Briefly, the participants, including authors Hornbuckle and van der Meulen, consisted of a diverse group of 30 engineering graduate students in the last 2 years of a doctoral program and first-year engineering faculty members. The workshop prepared the participants for their teaching, advising and mentoring roles and also presented information critical to initiating a research program. Overall, the workshop had the following objectives.
(1) to provide professional development not traditionally offered in graduate programs such as explicit training in cognitive learning principles, planning courses and pedagogical techniques and strategies to facilitate learning;
(2) to present information on the role of engineering faculty members in initiating and conducting research, with particular emphasis on securing funding, supervising graduate research and balancing the varied responsibilities of a faculty member;
(3) to explore how engineering education in the 21st century can integrate new populations and technologies, sustain high ethical standards and value teaching as a scholarly activity equal to discovery;
(4) to provide intellectual and social support with colleagues at a critical juncture in their careers with an eye toward future interaction as their careers develop.
This paper summarizes the workshop activities and the success of the workshop from the perspective of several of the workshop participants. These participants, who are new professors at major research universities, implemented some of the techniques and strategies recommended by the workshop organizers and session leaders. Here we are especially focusing on strategies used by two of the authors of this paper (KH, MM). For a more detailed review of workshop goal and activities, the reader is referred to Ambrose and Davidson (1997) 2. For a review of the evaluation strategies used at the workshop, the reader is referred to Naples (1997)1.
WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES
The workshop content and individual seminars within the workshop can be grouped into three general areas. These topic areas addressed the above objectives through a variety of activities during the 6 day workshop. The workshop itself served as an active learning experience with a mix of lectures, interactive panels, discussions and assignments. The first topic group concerned the problem of poor retention of undergraduate students that has been observed in many engineering departments. Several seminar sessions focused on documenting this problem, the reasons why retention was lower than it should be, and actions can be done to reverse this trend. The second topic group concerned the need for engineering education reform. Seminar leaders presented justification for engineering education reform, future needs of engineers, and specific teaching techniques that promote learning and student success in the world outside academia. The third topic group concerned the multiple roles that new engineering professors are expected to play. New professors are aware that their careers depend on success as teachers, researchers, writers, fund-raisers, and mentors. This workshop included several discussions and activities designed to prepare new professors for success in these roles.
Retention of Engineering Students: Reasons and Strategies for Improvement
The workshop included extensive discussion on the recruitment and retention of undergraduate students in engineering. These sessions included "Why Students Leave Engineering," and "How Can we Keep Students in Engineering." The discussion focused on identifying the reasons why students leave engineering and measures to reform engineering education that would counteract or reduce attrition of qualified students. Research was presented about students leaving science, math and engineering (SME) majors. The discussion included reasons why students leave SME majors, why a greater proportion of women students than men students leave SME majors, and why students of color leave SME majors. Workshop participants, more than half of whom were women and people of color, discussed their own experiences. Many commented on the discrepancy between widely held beliefs about the 'weeding out' process and the research findings. For example, extensive interviewing and surveying by Dr. Elaine Seymour and others 3, 4 has indicated that students (regardless of gender or ethnicity) who leave SME majors do not leave because they are academically unprepared, or they find their academic 'love' elsewhere. In fact, the reasons that 40-60% of freshman majors in SME leave these majors have much more to do with the educational climate and the workload required than their ability to complete a SME major. The following items were noted as particular problems with the prevailing educational climate in engineering that contribute to students leaving SME majors:
Workshop participants have used this information and modified their teaching. They have addressed the issue of retention by using specific techniques and approaches recommended by the session leaders. Reported here are experiences of the authors (KH and MM) in their own classes and departments. They have focused on two general approaches. First, they have adjusted their coursework and classroom activities to reflect what they have learned about cognition and student learning. One of the most difficult adjustments included a reduction in the amount of material covered in a course . Although many professors have this problem, new professors have a particularly difficult time reducing content of their coursework. This happens because the new professors are insecure with teaching, but comfortable with the material itself. It may also occur because professors feel that 'more is better' and students are getting a better return from their tuition dollars. Many workshop participants admitted that they were nervous in front of a classroom. Nervousness caused them to speak faster, write a lot, and ignore the students. One new professor noted that after 4 weeks of his course, he had covered all the material in the semester syllabus! Unfortunately, maximum coverage does not equal maximum learning. A theme of the workshop, repeated throughout, was "Coverage is the Enemy". The organizers reiterated this theme again and again, knowing that it is hard for new professors to believe that less material, taught with more care and attention to student response, is much more effective than more material, delivered through lectures, reading, and other techniques that allow passivity on the part of their students.
As a second general approach to improving or contributing to retention, two of the authors have adapted their schedules and professional presentation so as to encourage student-professor dialogue and improve their availability to graduate and undergraduate students. Simple strategies the professors used to improve the perception of accessibility include: learning names of students in large classes; praising students who volunteer information, encouraging students to visit their offices, establishing and meeting with class liaisons, and greeting students outside of class. These strategies did not require a lot of additional time but seemed to improve the professors' understanding of the students' experience. Learning names of students, even in the large (70-120 students) classes taught by the authors, proved to be an effective way to promote positive student-professor interaction within and outside the classroom. The authors learned names by calling on students in class, by individually handing out homework and exams, and by asking students to introduce themselves at all office visits and when they spoke in class. Even when professors learn only a portion of names, or guess incorrectly, the effort is noticed and appreciated by students. Most engineering students at large universities are used to large classes and impersonal instructors. One of the authors (MM) reported that she had students tell her that she was the first professor who ever said hello to them in the hallway or who even tried to learn a single name. This simple gesture substantially improved the climate of the classroom and perception of professor interest in the students' performance.
Other techniques for improving class climate also improved the professors' awareness of student learning. Often new professors misinterpret how students are performing in their classes until exams are graded. Then they are surprised at how poorly the students understood the presented material. In addition to teaching classes, new professors are preoccupied with writing papers and proposals, learning new roles, and trying to establish their research laboratories. For these reasons, it is important that new professors develop mechanisms for getting regular and frequent student feedback. We have found that learning student names and actively encouraging class discussion were especially effective techniques for building student-professor interactions that are non-intimidating to students. One of the authors (KH) and at least one of the other workshop participants used class liaisons to solicit specific information about the pace and delivery of material. Two or three students, designated as class liaisons at the beginning of the semester, met with the professor for 5-10 minutes every week. The liaisons were asked to briefly synthesize comments from the class regarding teaching techniques and report them to the professor. Comments included voice projection, quality of visual aids, usefulness of the assigned reading, and overall comprehension of the material and information about exams and projects in other courses. Class liaisons did not substitute for individual student-professor contact, but provided a method for receiving criticism that was non-threatening to students and to the new professor. The author was surprised that class liaisons also offered weekly support and encouragement as well as constructive criticism.
In addition to the general problem of retention of all science, mathematics and engineering students, Seymour reported that women students tend to leave SME majors at a higher rate than men and they do so for different reasons5. Women report greater dissatisfaction with the climate of SME departments more than men. They do not leave because they are underprepared. In fact, at the University of Colorado, women entering SME majors as freshmen tended to have higher high school grade point averages than their male counterparts. Furthermore, there was no difference in grade point averages between women students who left SME and women who persisted. Women do not leave in disproportionate numbers relative to men due to workload. Both men and women report this equally in their decision to leave SME. Women left SME majors because they were uncomfortable with the competitive climate, because they were dissatisfied with the quality of teaching, and because of a loss of self-confidence in themselves and their career aspirations.
New professors are usually aware of the difficulties faced by young women entering engineering and many enter their new jobs hopeful that they can improve the situation for women students. Unfortunately, most new professors (and experienced professors as well) do not understand why engineering education is not attracting women and may feel overwhelmed with the magnitude of the problem. The workshop was particularly helpful in this regard. Research conclusions were presented that countered prevailing myths about why women are underrepresented in engineering and focused the participants attention on specific issues that were most important in women's decisions to leave engineering. The participants left the workshop understanding the effect of the traditional, male, competitive climate of many engineering schools on women and many male students. Participants responded with specific actions that professors could do to counter this climate. These actions, many of which were simple and involved small alterations in teaching style, were consistent with the overall goals for engineering reform as iterated by the National Science Foundation and the workshop (see next section).
Women faculty play an additional role as a model for women in engineering. To some degree, this is inevitable. However, the effectiveness of acting as a role model depends on the professor's perceived availability and approachability. Women faculty who appear disinterested in students or use intimidating lecture techniques or rely on traditional engineering teaching techniques may not be effective in helping engineering departments retain students, even women students. Use of the above mentioned techniques by women faculty is expected to promote retention of all students, and is probably especially effective for women students. Two of the authors (KH and MM) have seen a strong response from women students. Women students are clearly interested in the rare woman professor and these professors seem to attract more women to office hours and as advisees than their male colleagues. One of the authors (MM), for example, reported immediate responses to her presence. After her first lecture two women students came by her office to say how happy they were to finally have a female professor. She has heard this many times since then.
Education Reform in the Engineering Classroom: Strategies and Techniques
Engineering education in the United States must adapt to changes in national research goals and changes in the expected job roles of future engineers. This was the message of several nationally influential leaders at the NSF Workshop. The push for change, according to these leaders, results from a change in the nation's expectations for academia as well as a change in international exchange of products and information (see comments by NFS Deputy Director Joseph Bordogna at http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/bordogna/start.htm). Prior to the 1990s, national spending on science and engineering education was motivated in part by the cold war. Now and in the future, science and engineering education must be treated as a commodity available to the nation's citizens - a commodity that is internationally competitive and resilient. This means a change in the way engineering education is conducted - education must move away from a fact-based approach and move towards building skills that are adaptable, transferable and applicable to a wide range of problems. In addition, it was noted that engineering education must now be producing a new kind of leader - one who is not intimidated by new problems, who can interact across various cultures, and has the highest ethical standards. Universities, and engineering professors in particular, must offer themselves as 'heroic helpers' in showing the way for engineers entering the 21st century 6. The contribution of new professors towards these goals has great potential and has motivated NSF's support for workshops such as this one.
Changes in education that promote leadership, skill transferability, and lifelong learning include an adjustment away from lecture style teaching, with passive students, towards teaching techniques that require more active student involvement. Therefore, several seminars included in the workshop focused on classroom teaching techniques that have been proven to deliver these results. These seminars included:
The information presented in these seminars, and the discussion that arose from them, succeeded in convincing the new professors that the style of teaching that is most effective involves students as active participants. Traditional methods, with lecturing dominating the student-professor contact, are generally inferior to teaching techniques that require frequent and regular student action. In engineering, the need for active learning techniques is especially vital, as newly employed engineers are regularly asked to apply their theoretical knowledge to new problems 7. Active learning requires the student and the teacher to participate in the learning processes as interactive partners beyond which is required in the traditional engineering classroom.
In response to this information, the authors have begun to employ active learning techniques into their classroom teaching. Techniques for encouraging active learning can be very simple changes in the style of lecturing, or they can be very involved and complicated activities that require significant teacher preparation time and group coordination8. Two of the authors (KH,MM) have begun with simply adapting their lectures but intend to proceed to more advanced techniques. Simple modifications of the lecture have shown to produce greater retention of ideas and problem solving. For example, research has long indicated that students are most attentive to a lecture in the first and last ten minutes. During the interim period, student attentiveness drops off markedly 9-11. Modifications the authors have introduced into their lectures include conducting minute papers, think-pair-share activities, and using open-ended questions to drive the lecture.
The minute papers are used to encourage students to assimilate new ideas while still in the classroom instead of waiting until just prior to an exam. Students are presented with a conceptual problem and asked to write a strategy for solving the problem or summarize their understanding of the problem. When used in the middle of the class period, minute papers are an effective way of reminding students of what the instructor thinks is important. It is also a good way to keep track of attendance and supplements other forms of assessment 12.
Think-pair-share is another technique the authors have used to develop higher thinking and analytical skills while students are in the classroom 13. Students are presented with a question that has several possible correct answers. They are given several minutes to discuss their approach with another student. After this period, students are called on to describe their approach to the problem. This technique reinforces particular concepts, promotes team problem solving, and increases student-instructor exchange - all of which are known to improve learning and retention3, 8, 14.
Problem based learning, as an overall teaching method, involves a more open and non-traditional approach to developing student strategies for solving complex engineering problems15,16. Aspects of this approach include skill development in: brainstorming; systematic decision-making; stress and time management; defining goals; creativity; team organizing and management; and flexibility. Although training in these skills is not traditional to engineering education, student success in gaining employment and advancement depends heavily on these factors.
Multiple Roles of the New Professor
Most engineering doctoral students are not prepared for the multiple skills and roles that are required of professors at universities. Most do not receive training in teaching techniques, or writing research proposals. They have little experience in supervising the work of others. A central goal of the NSF workshop was to assist these new and prospective professors in this regard. Participants were provided with a text 14, a detailed agenda with supplementary papers and worksheets 17, and sessions that were designed to address these needs of new professors. Sessions of the workshop focused on the fundamentals of classroom teaching including: syllabus design, use of laboratories to complement lectures, active learning in a lecture format, grading, presentation skills, and use of technology in the classroom. Other sessions focused on getting funding for research and grant-writing. Additionally, several sessions concerned issues of supervising, advising, and mentoring graduate students.
Course design was the first assignment of the workshop. Participants were asked to examine six different syllabi. Syllabi were provided by professors at CMU engineering departments who were recognized for their teaching. Workshop participants provided written responses to questions concerning these syllabi. Participants discussed their responses during a luncheon session. Questions for evaluating the syllabi included: Which syllabi provide effective course objectives/goals? What are the variety of learning activities included in these course plans? Do any of the course plans provide an 'optimal' amount of practice/application? What special features do you find particularly intriguing? Which course plans address feedback? What criteria are used to determine student success in learning?
In answering these questions, participants had to carefully and critically examine these course plans. In doing so, participants learned to appreciate the usefulness of a well designed syllabus. After the discussion, participants spent several hours constructing their own course syllabus. Each syllabus was then examined by fellow participants, and the workshop organizers and instructors. For participants teaching for the first time in the fall semester following the workshop, this was an extremely helpful exercise. Returning from the workshop with a nearly final syllabus was a very positive experience. One of the authors (MM) was able to outline and partially finalize her entire syllabus. In addition to the specific experience of constructing a course outline, this exercise also highlighted the many logistic decisions to be made prior to teaching a course such as classroom facilities, grading policies and exam scheduling. Participants appreciated the feedback from the experienced professors with regard to syllabus content and the impression the syllabus gave to the reader.
One of the workshop objectives was to improve the lecture presentation of the participants. All participants were required to bring 10-15 minute video tapes of themselves teaching. The tapes were reviewed in groups of four participants and an experienced teacher. The success in using video tapes instead of live presentation was two-fold. First, participants were able to self-criticize their performance. Most participants had never seen themselves on video tape and were not aware of odd gestures or other personal behaviors that distract students from the material. Second, participants were less intimidated than they might have been with live demonstrations. The success of this activity depended on the participants willingness to criticize and be criticized by their peers. The video exercise complemented discussion about lecture strategies and clearly illustrated how use of open questions, positive response to volunteer questions, and body movement affect the quality of a lecture.
Technology enhanced learning was the subject of one session. Participants were introduced to the use of computer projection systems for presenting lecture materials, animation for illustrating complex concepts, benefits and downfalls of distance learning, and use of the world wide web in distributing and supplementing course materials. Many participants, new to teaching with even the simplest technology (overheads, blackboards, and slides) felt overwhelmed by the effort involved in the use of computer projection, use of the web and ftp sites, and design of animated materials. This was unfortunate, because much of what was presented was not difficult. It appeared complicated because simple techniques (posting homework on the web, using color overheads, creating electronic bulletin boards) were presented together with much more involved efforts. Use of custom designed animation, for example, requires a much larger investment of time than available to most new professors and may only be feasible at universities with support staff dedicated to teaching technologies. Many participants felt like use of advanced technology was only appropriate after several years of experience with the material.
Mentoring promotes professors' research and teaching objectives when performed effectively and conscientiously. Professors must supervise teaching assistants as well as undergraduate and graduate research assistants. The workshop examined this issue by having the participants outline their personal criteria for a good mentor. While this was successful with respect to graduate advisees, some participants wanted more guidance for supervising teaching assistants (TAs). During their first years, the authors (KH,MM) found that supervision of TAs was unexpectedly difficult. They found that their TAs felt overworked, struggled with teaching skills, and did not know how to react to student criticisms and demand for time. The authors, who were responsible for 3 to 6 TAs each semester, found that most TAs shouldn't be used for recitation without training. They need and deserve specific guidance on student interactions. Detailed guidance is especially important when they are responsible for office hours, problem sessions, or substitute lectures.
TAs are often very nervous about their roles. The authors found that the TAs were very uncomfortable with subjectivity. They disliked grading writing assignments because of the apparent subjectivity, even though the grading did not require a grammatical critique. The authors also found that TAs have difficulty monitoring their time. Some TAs didn't spend enough time, but most TAs dedicated too much time. They tended to spend more time grading homework and labs than expected. They worried over student complaints. One of the authors had to encourage them to be less conscientious and more disciplined when undergraduates asked them for time outside their agreed office hours. The pressures of new professors and new teaching assistants are very similar; both struggle with time management, both find themselves trying to satisfy multiple roles. Some of the stress that TAs experience may come out as criticism of their supervising professor. It is important to continually recognize their situation. It is also important to communicate this confidence to the undergraduate students and make it clear to them that the TAs must be treated as respectfully as the professors.
Discussion of faculty roles was promoted throughout the workshop. Through these discussions, prospective and new professors were given an opportunity to develop a network of role models, professional advisors outside their academic field, and a peer support group. One year after the workshop, many of the participants have taken advantage of this network. The lateral interactions with fellow new professors has been especially fruitful. Participants have exchanged success and failure stories, appealed to former session leaders for advice, and shared resources with each other over the past year. This exchange was well facilitated through a electronic listserve. Discussions over the year involved ideas about grading group projects, use of modeling software in diverse fields, advice for dealing with teaching assistants, reports of proposal writing and success in funding, literature recommendations for teaching techniques, and strategies for promoting women engineering students. The peer network has proved to be one of the most valuable outcomes of the workshop. Participants have generally expressed relief in knowing others that are fighting similar battles and experiencing common stresses. These sessions introduced the participants to professorial life through interaction with experienced professors.
SUMMARY
We have discussed three general topic areas that were addressed by the NSF Engineering Scholars Workshop at Carnegie Mellon University (1996). The first topic area examined why students leave engineering and what faculty can do to prevent unnecessary loss. Recommendations for specific actions helped new faculty see how subtle efforts on the part of faculty members could reduce student attrition from engineering. Participants were able to use these recommendations for creating a supportive educational climate which also improved student learning. The second topic area introduced participants to the national movement toward engineering education reform. Participants discussed reasons that reform was necessary and over the past year, have applied new teaching techniques in their classrooms. Two of the authors who were new professors (KH, MM) report success, despite their inexperience in even traditional techniques. The third topic area provided participants with an intensive introduction into the multiple roles of engineering faculty. Through a series of hands-on activities, participants explored the fundamentals of course design, use of technology in the classroom, and lecture presentation skills. These activities were undertaken with the assistance and advice of experienced engineering educators and educational psychologists.
While the goals of the workshop were met by providing the necessary tools and background information; the implementation and success of these strategies is now up to the individuals. This realization step has been helped by the fourth stated goal: to provide a peer network fostering interactions. This was one of the most important outcomes of this workshop. These interactions have helped overcome some of the isolation and frustration experienced during the first year as a new professor. For the graduate student participants, the peer network gives them a group of contacts, resources, and advisors and allows them to see where their chosen path will lead.
REFERENCES