A Model for Human-Centered Engineering Education: What Faculty are Saying

A Model for Human-Centered Engineering Education: What Faculty are Saying

Need:
Despite numerous faculty development initiatives focused on pedagogy, the literature abounds with descriptions of slow, if any, long-term changes in faculty pedagogical transformation. Many faculty development opportunities focus on the behavioral domain while missing the reality that faculty approach their teaching based on their beliefs and conceptions about teaching and student interactions, which are parts of the affective domain. We contend that the missing focus on the science of learning and the impact of teacher-student interactions is the reason behind the low efficacy of faculty development activities in changing beliefs and behaviors. To address this gap, this project seeks to broaden engineering teaching with theory-based educational resources (BETTER) through an online or face-to-face Community of Practice (CoP) approach as an agent of change to perpetuate a more human-centered model.

Guiding Question:
Objective 1: Examine the impact over time of a faculty development curriculum grounded in a humanistic-educative framework for promoting a humanizing model to engineering education.
Objective 2: Examine the impact of a CoP as a faculty development opportunity to compel faculty to make active efforts to transform their beliefs and attitudes regarding the use of learning theory as part of their teaching practice.

Outcomes:
As a result of participating in our first iteration of BETTER, faculty reported making several adaptations to their teaching and student interactions, including:
Increasing their welcoming behavior toward students by revising wording in their syllabus; spending more time before, during, and after class trying to get to know their students personally; and increasing how much they explained the reasoning behind their teaching, assessment, and grading practices.

Increasing their flexibility toward students’ lives outside of class by modifying late work and missing work policies and being willing to listen and demonstrate empathy toward the challenges students were facing in their personal lives.
Increasing their use of real-world examples and connections to their field to help students engage with the material.

Faculty reported wanting to change even more about their teaching and student interactions, but they cited several barriers to making desired changes which will be presented.

In analyzing faculty members’ responses, the interviewer found that the in-person CoP faculty were able to provide more specific examples of changes they had made, or planned to make, to their practices, as a result of what they learned during the summer. On the other hand, the self-paced online faculty were able to recall and define more specific learning theory terminology, even though they were less likely than the in-person CoP faculty to have implemented the theories in their teaching practice.

Broader Impacts:
Most educational systems processes impede the preparation of students for the challenges they will face in their professional lives and call for a humanizing way of teaching. Our human-centered model will influence engineering faculty pedagogical beliefs to support student learning and retention, especially those traditionally underrepresented in engineering.

Coauthors

Allison Murray, Somesh Roy, Lisa Chase, Jenna Lassila. Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI