Educators, researchers, and policy makers have advocated student involvement for some time as an essential aspect of meaningful learning. In the past twenty years engineering educators have implemented several means of better engaging their undergraduate students, including active and cooperative learning, learning communities, service learning, cooperative education, inquiry and problem‐based learning, and team projects. This paper focuses on classroom‐based pedagogies of engagement, particularly cooperative and problem‐based learning. It includes a brief history, theoretical roots, research support, summary of practices, and suggestions for redesigning engineering classes and programs to include more student engagement. The paper also lays out the research ahead for advancing pedagogies aimed at more fully enhancing students' involvement in their learning.

Contributors Michael Alley, The Pennsylvania State University; Cindy Atman, University of Washington; David DiBiasio, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Cindy Finelli, University of Michigan; Heidi Diefes‐Dux, Purdue University; Anette Kolmos, Aalborg University; Donna Riley, Smith College; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University; Maryellen Weimer, The Pennsylvania State University; Ken Yasuhara, University of Washington Background Although engineering education has evolved in ways that improve the readiness of graduates to meet the challenges of the twenty‐first century, national and international organizations continue to call for change. Future changes in engineering education should be guided by research on expertise and the learning processes that support its development. Purpose The goals of this paper are: to relate key findings from studies of the development of expertise to engineering education, to summarize instructional practices that are consistent with these findings, to provide examples of learning experiences that are consistent with these instructional practices, and finally, to identify challenges to implementing such learning experiences in engineering programs. Scope/Method The research synthesized for this article includes that on the development of expertise, students' approaches to learning, students' responses to instructional practices, and the role of motivation in learning. In addition, literature on the dominant teaching and learning practices in engineering education is used to frame some of the challenges to implementing alternative approaches to learning. Conclusion Current understanding of expertise, and the learning processes that develop it, indicates that engineering education should encompass a set of learning experiences that allow students to construct deep conceptual knowledge, to develop the ability to apply key technical and professional skills fluently, and to engage in a number of authentic engineering projects. Engineering curricula and teaching methods are often not well aligned with these goals. Curriculum‐level instructional design processes should be used to design and implement changes that will improve alignment.

Records from the Multiple‐Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development indicate that engineering students are typical of students in other majors with respect to: persistence in major; persistence by gender and ethnicity; racial/ethnic distribution; and grade distribution. Data from the National Survey of Student Engagement show that this similarity extends to engagement outcomes including course challenge, faculty interaction, satisfaction with institution, and overall satisfaction. Engineering differs from other majors most notably by a dearth of female students and a low rate of migration into the major. Noting the similarity of students of engineering and other majors with respect to persistence and engagement, we propose that engagement is a precursor to persistence. We explore this hypothesis using data from the Academic Pathways Study of the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education. Further exploration reveals that although persistence and engagement do not vary as much as expected by discipline, there is significant institutional variation, and we assert a need to address persistence and engagement at the institutional level and throughout higher education. Finally, our findings highlight the potential of making the study of engineering more attractive to qualified students. Our findings suggest that a two‐pronged approach holds the greatest potential for increasing the number of students graduating with engineering degrees: identify programming that retains the students who come to college committed to an engineering major, and develop programming and policies that allow other students to migrate in. There is already considerable discourse on persistence, so our findings suggest that more research focus is needed on the pathways into engineering, including pathways from other majors.

This study uses a mixed-methods design to investigate students' career decision making at two U.S. undergraduate institutions. The research question was, "To what extent do students who complete undergraduate programs in engineering intend to pursue engineering careers?" We surveyed senior engineering majors about their post-graduate intentions, and later interviewed a subset of the seniors about their career intentions. Only 42 percent of students surveyed reported that they definitely intended to pursue a career in engineering, 44 percent were unsure, and 14 percent were definitely not pursuing engineering. We observed significant institutional differences. Interview data reveal the quixotic nature of many students' decisions about their careers; strikingly, students were vacillating between multiple post-graduate options late into the senior year, even into summer. Implications are discussed for further research and ways engineering departments can influence students' career decisions.