Faculty Views Of Service Learning In Mechanical Engineering At Mit

An initial effort is being made in MIT’s undergraduate mechanical engineering curriculum to develop archetypes and resources for using service learning broadly in different types of engineering classes: design, analysis-based engineering science, and experimental lab courses. As a preliminary step, departmental faculty were surveyed on their attitudes about service learning to assure that implementation efforts fit the department’s needs: 72% of the department (N=54) responded, a representative group in terms of research focus, gender, and tenure level, indicating that 80% of faculty are open to the use of service learning. However, 52% expressed concerns about time constraints and 56% needed support finding suitable projects for technical classes. If this type of support, including methods to mitigate time constraints, were available, faculty were interested in the practice. Surveyed faculty considered service learning most appropriate for design classes, but were open to the practice in other classes if suitable projects were available. Introduction Service learning is a teaching method that integrates academically-appropriate community service projects into the curriculum of a class. Service learning research shows that it can offer a wide variety of pedagogical benefits, including improved understanding of course material, increased motivation for learning subject material, and enhanced appreciation for the ethical role and implications of their profession. At MIT, service learning was first used deliberately in a mechanical engineering class in the spring of 2002, and since then has been implemented in a few mechanical engineering subjects, all in design and manufacturing subject areas. Written post-surveys given to students following three of the classes and informal conversations show mixed success. On average, students reported that they found service learning worthwhile, and benefited through improved interactions with their peers and instructors, motivation toward the class, and interest in community service. In terms of learning gains, on four different scaled questions about direct academic benefit, responses were mixed: students were mildly positive for two questions and mildly negative on two other questions. Additionally, there were wide ranges in student responses, with many extremely positive toward service learning, and a few extremely negative. Faculty attitudes were measured informally: we found that when the project matched the class curriculum well and the community partnership was strong, the faculty were very pleased with service learning; when either or both of these criteria were not met, faculty were understandably much less enthusiastic. P ge 10625.1 Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education Therefore, as part of a planning process to develop an infrastructure and curriculum for the broader integration of service learning in the mechanical engineering department, we sought to better understand faculty knowledge of, enthusiasm for, and concerns about service learning. In part, we needed this information to create a tailored educational workshop on service learning for the faculty. To this end, structured interviews were conducted to gain insight into MIT mechanical engineering faculty’s perception of service learning. Background Studies of faculty attitudes about service learning are reasonably rare; Driscoll suggests the significant need for such studies in order to increase the use of service learning. A small number of studies examine the reasons that faculty elect to employ service learning as part of students’ curricular educational experiences. Hammond completed one of the most comprehensive studies that focused solely on faculty who were already using service learning; the study found that faculty are motivated primarily to use service learning in order to improve student learning. Hesser, as well as McKay and Rozee, completed similar surveys of faculty, finding similar results. However, only Hammond’s study includes research-focused institutions, and the study does not address similarities or differences between those schools and other types of universities. Further, it is not clear if these studies include surveys of engineering faculty. It is not necessarily the case that general findings are applicable to engineering programs or research-focused Institutions. Abes et al. completed a more recent, comprehensive study that also included research universities (N=86, 40% of the study) and “math, engineering, computer sciences” faculty (N=5, 18% of the study) and found significant differences between these variables on certain measures. This study also found that faculty adopted service learning primarily because of student educational benefits, and secondarily for benefiting the communities served. Faculty who did not use service learning reported that “time, funding, and logistical concerns” were most critical, followed by “curricular and pedagogical concerns.” While a number of studies survey engineering faculty exclusively, none includes questions about service learning that focus on more general education topics, such as ability to teach engineering teams, teaching styles, and time spent on improving teaching. As the Abes et al. study has such a small engineering sample size, there is a clear need to study engineering faculty’s interest in service learning given the paucity of data that exists currently. Despite the limited data on faculty using service learning in engineering classes, the practice is slowly increasing in engineering educational settings, in part because it can help instructors meet many of ABET’s EC 2000 Criterion 3 accreditation requirements. The literature published thus far focuses on implementation methods for service learning in engineering education rather than on faculty attitudes. These papers provide mainly anecdotal evidence that engineering service learning activities have been well-accepted by students and faculty alike. Based on the positive educational experiences described, many authors propose the implementation of service learning in other engineering educational programs. Yet, adoption is slow and it is suggested that faculty attitudes and perceptions about, and lack of support infrastructure for, service learning in engineering education may be one important factor in adoption rates. Hence, this study of such attitudes is an appropriate one since it expands knowledge of factors that might facilitate or hinder adoption. P ge 10625.2 Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education Method Faculty were surveyed using a brief (ten minute), structured, one-on-one interview. This method was chosen because faculty have been far more willing to take ten minutes to be interviewed in person than to respond to a paper or an electronic survey, especially because many were unaware of service learning and were less likely to comment on an unfamiliar practice in writing. Previous paper service learning surveys given to MIT mechanical engineering faculty for gauging interest and for evaluation following service learning classes resulted in a typical response rate of under 5%, but through a variety of in-person interactions, it was clear that faculty were generally interested in service learning. While issues of demand characteristics and good subject biases can be pronounced for interview formats particularly, care was taken to encourage all responses and minimize social desirability effects. Interview instructions indicated that the interview was not only trying to gauge knowledge about and interest in service learning but also to understand concerns about and limitations of the practice. The open-ended format of questions and structured probes for both positive and negative aspects of service learning were used to encourage expression of all attitudes. Additionally, the method was deemed necessary in order to get feedback from as many of the faculty as possible. Considerable persistence was required to reach most of the 75 faculty members in the department at the time of the study. Half of the interviewees, 27 (36%), were reached after one or two emails requesting interviews; another 27 were reached by subsequent emails, phone calls, and unscheduled visits to their offices. Four faculty (5%) requested interview times far in the future. Six (8%) declined to be interviewed explicitly, and 11 (15%) were never reached. In total, 64 faculty (85%) were contacted, and 54 (72%) were interviewed at the time of the study. Because of scheduling constraints, seven people were involved in carrying out the 54 interviews, though the majority were given by two primary interviewers. All interviewers were instructed on how to perform the interviews, and all used structured interview questions to standardize the interview procedure. While interviewers took hand-written notes, audio-tapes of the interviews ensured comprehensive collection of interview data. The interview questions were organized into a number of parts. First, faculty’s awareness and general impressions of service learning were ascertained. Then, the interviewer defined service learning, giving some examples specifically appropriate for engineering classes. Next, faculty were asked to discuss in more details what they liked and disliked about the practice, their openness to trying service learning in classes they teach, and what classes in the department they believed were most appropriate for service learning. Then, in preparation for a workshop in service learning for the mechanical engineering department, faculty were asked to explain what they’d like to see covered in such a workshop, and any logistical preferences, such as time of day, time of year, and length. At the conclusi