Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations: A Survey of Awareness and Adoption Rates in U.S. Engineering Departments

Abstract

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.

Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?

“…If this is the case, one might expect faculty at teaching-oriented institutions to use more RBIS than faculty at research-oriented institutions. However, several of the studies mentioned earlier did not find differences in teaching styles between different types of institutions [56][57][58]. (c) Class size.…”

“…They also found that faculty who teach large introductory courses use interactive techniques much less frequently than faculty who teach smaller courses. In a survey of engineering department chairs about faculty knowledge and use of student active pedagogies, Borrego, Froyd, and Hall found that 82% of faculty report having knowledge of student active pedagogies and 47% report adopting such pedagogies [57]. They found few significant differences by institution type.…”

Problems of Our Own Devising: Individuals' Challenges in Enacting Systemic Changes to Increase the Inclusivity of Engineering Departments

“…, [2]; (2) research describing the reform process e.g. , [3], [4], and; (3) research examining why most reform efforts fail [5], [6].…”

“…Like many people in the engineering education research community we are engaged in reform efforts throughout our department, college, university and university system. We are well aware of the gap between the development and deployment of effective practices in our community [5], [7]. As reformers seeking to be informed, we are drawn to this third category of literature in the hopes of avoiding common pitfalls and developing new practices.…”

Institutionalizing Campus Innovation and Entrepreneurship Programming by Optimizing a Faculty Grantmaking Process: A Case Study

“…The study found that the mean adoption rate for these proven educational innovations was 47%. 9 VentureWell, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to cultivate a pipeline of inventors, innovators, and entrepreneurs to solve the world's biggest challenges, has played a significant role in efforts to seed entrepreneurship educational programming through its Faculty Grants program. VentureWell's Faculty Grants program provides funding to faculty to create courses and programs in which students develop inventive, STEM-based ideas and gain entrepreneurial skills they need to bring them to market.…”