Background Despite decades of effort focused on improvement of engineering education, many recent advances have not resulted in systemic change. Diffusion of innovations theory is used to better understand this phenomenon. Purpose (Hypothesis) Research questions include: How widespread is awareness and adoption of established engineering education innovations? Are there differences by discipline or institutional type? How do engineering department chairs find out about engineering education innovations? What factors do engineering department chairs cite as important in adoption decisions? Design/Method U.S. engineering department chairs were surveyed regarding their awareness and department use of seven engineering education innovations. One hundred ninety‐seven usable responses are presented primarily as categorical data with Chi square tests where relevant. Results Overall, the awareness rate was 82 percent, while the adoption rate was 47 percent. Eighty‐two percent of engineering departments employ student‐active pedagogies (the highest). Mechanical and civil engineering had the highest rates, in part due to many design‐related innovations in the survey. Few differences by institution type were evident. In the past, word of mouth and presentations were far more effective than publications in alerting department chairs to the innovations. Department chairs cited financial resources, faculty time and attitudes, and student satisfaction and learning as major considerations in adoption decisions. Conclusions The importance of disciplinary networks was evident during survey administration and in the results. Specific recommendations are offered to employ these networks and the engineering professional societies for future engineering education improvement efforts.

Background In fields such as medicine, psychology, and education, systematic reviews of the literature critically appraise and summarize research to inform policy and practice. We argue that now is an appropriate time in the development of the field of engineering education to both support systematic reviews and benefit from them. More reviews of prior work conducted more systematically would help advance the field by lowering the barrier for both researchers and practitioners to access the literature, enabling more objective critique of past efforts, identifying gaps, and proposing new directions for research.Purpose The purpose of this article is to introduce the methodology of systematic reviews to the field of engineering education and to adapt existing resources on systematic reviews to engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Scope/MethodThis article is primarily a narrative review of the literature on conducting systematic reviews. Methods are adapted to engineering education and similar developing interdisciplinary fields. To offer concrete, pertinent examples, we also conducted a systematic review of systematic review articles published on engineering education topics since 1990. Fourteen exemplars are presented in this article and used to illustrate systematic review procedures.Conclusions Systematic reviews can benefit the field of engineering education by synthesizing prior work, by better informing practice, and by identifying important new directions for research. Engineering education researchers should consider including systematic reviews in their repertoire of methodologies.

No abstract

Increasing emphasis on interdisciplinary research and education requires researchers and learners to build links between distinct disciplines. In engineering education, work on integrated curricula to help learners build connections between topics began with three programs in 1988. Integrated curricula have connections to a larger movement in higher education—learning communities, which help learners to build interdisciplinary links and social links within a community. Integrated engineering curricula have provided concrete assessment data on retention and student performance to augment research on learning communities. While innovators in both movements have offered many prototypes and gathered many data, goals and results from programs implemented to date are not sufficiently well defined to guide the design and implementation of programs at other institutions. This paper discusses the importance of integration, reviews accomplishments to date, draws conclusions by analyzing those accomplishments, and suggests future initiatives.