The Experts below are selected from a list of 399543 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Alois Jungbauer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Paul S Steif - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • learning conceptual knowledge in the Engineering Sciences overview and future research directions
    Journal of Engineering Education, 2008
    Co-Authors: Ruth Streveler, Thomas A Litzinger, Ronald L Miller, Paul S Steif
    Abstract:

    Learning conceptual knowledge in Engineering Science is a critical element in the development of competence and expertise in Engineering. To date, however, research on conceptual learning in Engineering Science has been limited. Therefore, this article draws heavily on fundamental research by cognitive psychologists and applied research by Science educators to provide a background on fundamental issues in the field and methods for assessing conceptual knowledge. Some of the most common conceptual difficulties from three domains: mechanics, thermal Science and direct current electricity, are discussed to provide concrete examples of what students find difficult to learn. The article concludes with a discussion of possible sources of these difficulties, implications for instruction, and suggestions for future research.

Jeffrey E Froyd - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • fidelity of implementation of research based instructional strategies rbis in Engineering Science courses
    Journal of Engineering Education, 2013
    Co-Authors: Maura Borrego, Stephanie Cutler, Michael J Prince, Charles Henderson, Jeffrey E Froyd
    Abstract:

    Background Increasing attention is being paid to improvement in undergraduate Science, technology, Engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education through increased adoption of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS), but high-quality measures of faculty instructional practice do not exist to monitor progress. Purpose/Hypothesis The measure of how well an implemented intervention follows the original is called fidelity of implementation. This theory was used to address the research questions: What is the fidelity of implementation of selected RBIS in Engineering Science courses? That is, how closely does Engineering Science classroom practice reflect the intentions of the original developers? Do the critical components that characterize an RBIS discriminate between Engineering Science faculty members who claimed use of the RBIS and those who did not? Design/Method A survey of 387 U.S. faculty teaching Engineering Science courses (e.g., statics, circuits, thermodynamics) included questions about class time spent on 16 critical components and use of 11 corresponding RBIS. Fidelity was quantified as the percentage of RBIS users who also spent time on corresponding critical components. Discrimination between users and nonusers was tested using chi square. Results Overall fidelity of the 11 RBIS ranged from 11% to 80% of users spending time on all required components. Fidelity was highest for RBIS with one required component: case-based teaching, just-in-time teaching, and inquiry learning. Thirteen of 16 critical components discriminated between users and nonusers for all RBIS to which they were mapped. Conclusions Results were consistent with initial mapping of critical components to RBIS. Fidelity of implementation is a potentially useful framework for future work in STEM undergraduate education.

  • five major shifts in 100 years of Engineering education
    Proceedings of the IEEE, 2012
    Co-Authors: Jeffrey E Froyd, Phillip C Wankat, Karl A Smith
    Abstract:

    In this paper, five major shifts in Engineering education are identified. During the Engineering Science revolution, curricula moved from hands-on practice to mathematical modeling and scientific analyses. The first shift was initiated by Engineering faculty members from Europe; accelerated during World War II, when physicists contributed multiple Engineering breakthroughs; codified in the Grinter report; and kick-started by Sputnik. Did accreditation hinder curricular innovations? Were Engineering graduates ready for practice? Spurred by these questions, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) required Engineering programs to formulate outcomes, systematically assess achievement, and continuously improve student learning. The last three shifts are in progress. Since the Engineering Science revolution may have marginalized design, a distinctive feature of Engineering, faculty members refocused attention on capstone and first-year Engineering design courses. However, this third shift has not affected the two years in between. Fourth, research on learning and education continues to influence Engineering education. Examples include learning outcomes and teaching approaches, such as cooperative learning and inquiry that increase student engagement. In shift five, technologies (e.g., the Internet, intelligent tutors, personal computers, and simulations) have been predicted to transform education for over 50 years; however, broad transformation has not yet been observed. Together, these five shifts characterize changes in Engineering education over the past 100 years.

Alain Berry - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Joseph Timothy Foley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.