Until recently, the accepted model for instruction was based on the hidden assumption that knowledge can be transferred intact from the mind of the teacher to the mind of the learner. Educators therefore focused on getting knowledge into the heads of their students, and educational researchers tried to find better ways of doing this (1). Unfortunately, all too many of us who teach for a living have uncovered evidence for the following hypothesis.Teaching and learning are not synonymous; we can teach, and teach well, without having the students learn.

No abstract

A survey incorporating qualitative measures of student self‐efficacy beliefs was administered to 1,387 first‐year engineering students enrolled in ENGR 106, Engineering Problem‐Solving and Computer Tools, at Purdue University. The survey was designed to identify factors related to students' self‐efficacy beliefs, their beliefs about their capabilities to perform the tasks necessary to achieve a desired outcome. Open‐ended questions prompted students to list factors affecting their confidence in their ability to succeed in the course. Students were then asked to rank these factors based on the degree to which their self‐efficacy beliefs were influenced. Gender trends emerged in student responses to factors that affect confidence in success. These trends are discussed in light of the categories identified by efficacy theorists as sources of self‐efficacy beliefs. The results presented here provide a useful look at the first‐year engineering experiences that influence students' efficacy beliefs, an important consideration in explaining student achievement, persistence, and interest.

This paper reports results of a qualitative study of sixteen students enrolled in a second year organic chemistry course for chemistry and chemical engineering majors. The focus of the study was student use of the arrow-pushing formalism that plays a central role in both the teaching and practice of organic chemistry. The goal of the study was to probe how students made sense of the arrow-pushing formalism by examining their responses to seven organic chemistry problems that required the use of this formalism. This paper discusses common barriers to students' understanding of the arrow-pushing formalism, the concepts and ideas students apply when they use this formalism to solve mechanism problems, and implications of the observation that they used this formalism in a meaningless, mechanical manner.

No abstract