No abstract

Engineering education faces significant challenges as it seeks to meet the demands on the engineering profession in the twenty‐first century. Engineering faculty will need to continue to learn new approaches to teaching and learning, which in turn will require effective professional development for both new and experienced instructors alike. This article explores approaches to effective professional development and provides a conceptual framework for responding to the challenge of becoming a professional engineering educator. The “cycle of professional practice” is introduced as a prelude for identifying what individual professors and their institutions can do to generate more powerful forms of engineering education. The article concludes with two case studies that illustrate the possibilities when faculty and academic leaders join together in addressing calls for change.

The primary objective of this article is to provide readers with guidance for designing effective group assignments and activities for classes and workshops. In doing so, we examine the forces that foster social loafing (uneven participation) in learning groups and identify four key variables that must be managed in order to create a group environment that is conducive for broad‐based member participation and learning. We then discuss the impact of various types of activities and assignments on learning and group cohesiveness. Finally, we present a checklist that has been designed to evaluate the effectiveness of group assignments in a wide variety of instructional settings and subject areas.

The approach to evaluating the quality of teaching described in this chapter starts by developing a Model of Good Teaching. This model is then used to create a set of evaluation procedures based on four key dimensions of teaching: design of learning experiences, quality of teacher/student interactions, extent and quality of student learning, and teacher's effort to improve over time. The challenges and benefits of using these procedures are discussed.

In 1996 the College of Engineering at the University of Oklahoma started to require all incoming students to have a laptop computer equipped with a wireless Internet card. Because of a pilot study and a voluntary phase‐in over the first two years, two groups of students moved through the curriculum—those with and those without laptops. During 1998 and 1999, when these students entered their junior year, we offered two sections of a third‐year water resources course: one for students who owned laptops and one “traditional” section for those who did not own laptops. We assessed student performance to evaluate if the laptops helped improve student learning. Although not a perfectly controlled experiment (i.e., the student groups were different), the two sections were uniform in terms of course content and assignments. Because of their inherently large standard deviations, class metrics (grades) are not conclusive, but they do indicate that the laptop students performed slightly better than the non‐laptop students, even though their composite grade point average entering the course was lower. Evaluations do clearly show that, when the technology is used properly and when class time is not spent resolving technical problems, the laptop students had a more positive learning experience.