In the
traditional approach to teaching, the professor lectures and assigns readings
and well-defined
Convergent
single-discipline problems and the students listen, take notes, and solve
problems individually.
Alternative educational
techniques have repeatedly been shown to be more effective and much more likely
to achieve the
objectives set forth in the preceding section. Among these techniques are supportive
(teambased)
Learning,
inductive (discovery) learning, the assignment of open-ended questions,
multidisciplinary
Problems and
problem formulation exercises, the practice use of in-class problem-solving,
brainstorming,
And
trouble-shooting exercises, and other methods designed to address the spectrum
of learning styles to be
Found among
students in every class.
The advantage of
the alternative methods at achieving desired both cognitive and affective
educational
outcomes has been confirmed in thousands of empirical research studies, and is
heavily
Supported by
modern cognitive science. Nevertheless, straight lecturing and convergent
problems continue
to predominate
in engineering courses at most institutions. A substantial number of
engineering professors
are still
unaware of alternative educational methods, and many who are aware of them
choose not to
incorporate them
into their approach to teaching. There are several likely reasons for this
inertia, aside from
the expected
human resistance to change.
Modern
universities have, with few exceptions, become totally dependent on research
funds to
support most of
their functions, including educational and administrative functions only
marginally related
to research.
This circumstance has dictated the establishment of research achievement as the
primary
criterion for
advancement up the faculty ladder, and the potential for research achievement
as the primary
criterion for
faculty hiring. In consequence, many young faculty members either have little
interest in doing
high quality
teaching or would like to do it but feel that they cannot afford to invest the
necessary time.
Individuals in
both categories tend to put minimal endeavor into teaching so that they can
concentrate on
research, which
they view (generally correctly) as the key to their career success. Moreover,
most
professors begin
teaching without so much as five minutes of training on how to do it. Even
those who are
genuinely
concerned about their students and would like to be effective teachers
automatically fall back on
straight lecturing,
which is the only instructional strategy most of them have ever seen.
Another obstacle
to change is the fear of loss of control. Lecture classes in which student
involvement is
essentially limited to passive observation (perhaps broken by occasional questioning)
and
out-of-class
problem solving is safe: the professor is in almost complete control of what
happens in class.
On the other
hand, it is hard to predict what might happen in a student-centered class.
Digressions may
occur, making it
difficult to stay with the syllabus, and the discussion may wander into areas
in which the
professor is not
all that comfortable. Perhaps worst of all, the students may simply not buy
into the
program,
remaining indifferent, uncooperative, or perhaps sullen in their refusal to get
involved in the
planned
activities.Like any other skill, directing student-centered classes is an
ability that can be learned
and improves
with practice. Unless some training is provided and feedback given on initial
efforts,
however,
professors courageous enough to try the new teaching methods are likely to
become discouraged,
give up, and
revert to straight lecturing.
In short, no
matter how effective they may be, the new approaches to teaching will not
automatically
replace the old approach. The university administration must take steps to
establish a
suitable climate
for change before any significant change can take place.
FACTORS
SUPPORTING CHANGE
As imposing as
the obstacles to change may be, we do not believe they are insuperable, and
indeed
several things
are happening that are conducive to change.
As noted at the
beginning of this paper,
legislature and
industry have been exerting increasing pressure on universities to pay more
attention to the
quality of their
undergraduate teaching programs, and growing competition for a shrinking pool
of
applicants for
engineering school has provided further impetus for change. In the United
States the new
ABET criteria
were developed in response to these stimuli, and the knowledge that in a short
time they will
be used to
evaluate all engineering programs is substantially increasing the pressure to
change. Moreover,
major support
for educational reform has come from the National Science Foundation Division
of
Undergraduate
Education and the NSF-sponsored Engineering Education Coalitions. This support
has led
to the emergence
of a large and rapidly growing number of innovative programs and instructional
methods
and materials in
the past decade, as a perusal of recent issues of the Journal of Engineering
Education makes
abundantly clear.
The presence of hard evidence to support claims of improvement in learning
should make it easier to disseminate
education
reforms to the skeptical mainstream engineering professoriate.
