A Continual Improvement Process for Teaching Leadership and Innovation Within a Community of Practice

Abstract

and holds an M.Sc. in Chemical Engineering Education. She is currently the William Magee Chair in Chemical Process Design, leads the process design teaching team, manages the courses and industry interface. Her current research focuses on the application of blended and active learning to design teaching and learning, program content and structure, student assessment, and continuous course improvement techniques. She managed and was a key contributor to a two-year pilot project to introduce Blended Learning into Engineering Capstone Design Courses, and is a co-author with John M. Shaw on a number of recent journal, book, and conference contributions on engineering design education.

Diversity of engineering leadership program design

“…Though no one definition fits, the emergent EL themes have several common threads and align with other graduate attribute‐based thematic frameworks, such as that proposed by Jamieson and Shaw (2019), which identifies technical, professional, socio‐contextual, and metacognitive knowledge and skill development, as thematic categories. A synthesis of the above EL definitions and themes is captured in this generalized framework (Figure 1).…”

Keeping a Learning Community and Academic Integrity Intact after a Mid-Term Shift to Online Learning in Chemical Engineering Design During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…This is consistent with previous findings, and the size of the class does not impact the preparation effort. , The size of the class does impact the number of instructors, TAs, and external practitioners required to support a F2F COP or a VCOP, as well as summative assessment options. From this mid-term transition to online delivery, and previous experience with blended learning development and implementation, , some of the reasons noted for the increased time spent by instructors are the need to develop an online teaching presence, , to develop methods to connect with and engage students, to develop online community, and to convert F2F active learning strategies to analogous online strategies . There is a learning curve to move from F2F to effective blended or online strategies, , substantiated by online community of practice research ,, and the proliferation of online teaching webinars, such as NETI-3, working groups (CEEA-ACEG), and national resource sharing in engineering education (E-CORE).…”

“…The courses are blended and all have online and face-to-face (F2F) components . Instructors flipped and blended the capstone design course and integrated online components in the senior process design courses five years ago. , Subsequently, we developed continual improvement processes leading to ongoing improvements in the curriculum and student achievement. Both the capstone and senior design courses moved from an instructor-centered content delivery approach to instructional facilitation for student centered learning prior to the 2020 winter term.…”

Curriculum Integration of the Canadian Engineering Grand Challenges in a First-year Undergraduate Design Course Using Multi-layered Peer Learning: A Methodology

“…Assessment provides students and instructors with the necessary information to determine whether the course learning outcomes are achieved. It can also offer insights regarding ongoing course development and learning improvements [11]. It is important to mention this is not limited to a sole individual, but it can also help evaluate an entire class or course with multiple sections.…”