English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This complete research-based paper explores a successful faculty development program aimed at increasing awareness and use of evidence-based pedagogical strategies among engineering faculty across multiple disciplines. Research demonstrates that student-centered, or active learning, strategies promote greater student learning and achievement. Despite this evidence, however, the majority of engineering faculty still employ teacher-centered strategies, or the traditional lecture method, in their classrooms. Therefore, there is a strong need for professional development to increase faculty awareness and use of student-centered teaching strategies. The setting for this professional development program, which is funded through NSF’s Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) program, is a large, public university in the southwest United States. This large-scale professional development program utilizes a train-thetrainer model where faculty across seven engineering disciplines participate in eight biweekly workshops and six biweekly community of practice (CoP) sessions to engage faculty over a oneyear period. In this paper, we discuss the creation and scaling of the faculty development program. In particular, we describe the structure and management of the program, strategies and topics covered, assessment/evaluation, and key takeaways. This professional development program utilizes a train-the-trainer model, where two people from different engineering disciplines are recruited to become disciplinary leader pairs (DLPs). The DLPs go through the program (8 workshops in the fall semester and 6 workshops in the spring semester) under the direction of the project leaders/PIs. Then the following year, the DLPs become the “trainers,” where they lead the workshops and community of practice sessions for a group of faculty, ranging from 8 to 15 people from their own discipline. The program consists of 8 biweekly workshops, which covers Bloom’s taxonomy, learning objectives, interactive classes, active and cooperative learning, muddiest points, tech tools, and fostering inclusive learning environments. The following semester, faculty participate in semi-structured CoP sessions to discuss challenges/successes of implementing active learning strategies and to share ideas. The professional development program was evaluated through multiple methods, including surveys from faculty, classroom observations, and student achievement data. Data collection and instruments are discussed in greater detail in this paper. Key highlights include a 13% in average use of active learning strategies by faculty after participating in the program. Additionally, we observed an average increase of 34% in reported increase in use of formative feedback pedagogical practices after the program. All of the faculty participants reported that the professional development program would be valuable to future instructional practice and career success. All participants also reported that they would recommend this professional development program to their colleagues. This paper describes the creation and scaling, structure and implementation, and assessment of a large-scale, successful professional development program. We conclude by discussing key takeaways and lessons learned from the professional development program. Introduction & Background Active learning, or student-centered teaching practices, engage key course/subject concepts and materials through an interactive and adaptive manner in the classroom. Research demonstrates that active learning pedagogical practices are more effective for promoting student learning and achievement. After conducting a thorough review of the literature, Prince concluded that engineering faculty should consider incorporating new instructional practices and techniques, especially active learning principles, into their classroom, based on compelling evidence in the literature base which suggests that student-centered teaching promotes greater student learning [1]. In a separate review of the literature, Freeman et al., conducted a meta-analysis of 225 studies that examined instructional practices in undergraduate STEM classes and found that students had 6% greater performance on concept inventories in active learning classrooms; whereas students enrolled in a traditional lecture class were 1.5 times more likely to fail [2]. Ultimately, there is compelling evidence which demonstrates the efficacy of active learning teaching practices with undergraduate STEM classes. Despite this evidence in support of active learning, the predominant form of teaching in undergraduate engineering classes has long been the lecture, or teacher-centered instruction [3, 4]. However, the challenge then is shifting classroom instruction from lecture style information transfer to engaging and interactive student-centered pedagogical practices. But, simply providing information about active learning teaching strategies with faculty is not enough to create sustainable shifts in teaching practices. Rather, it is important to facilitate processes where faculty can engage in ongoing and deep learning about student-centered teaching strategies, particularly through professional development programs [5, 6]. In a previous professional development program, seven faculty members in the materials engineering discipline collaborated over a four-year period [7]. During the JTF program, participating faculty engaged in discussions and activities around student-centered learning. Much of the program was based on the findings of the book How People Learn [8]. Through this professional development program, nearly all participants reported that their pedagogical practices shifted substantially as a result of their participation in the program. They also observed positive effects of active learning practices in the classroom with increased grade point average and a reduction in D’s and E’s awarded by more than 50% [9]. The JTFD program developed out of the JTF pedagogy, but expanded to include faculty across multiple engineering disciplines. This paper discusses a large-scale professional development program at a large college of engineering at a university in the southwestern United States. The program was funded through the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Improving Undergraduate Science Education (IUSE) program. The JTFD professional development program engages faculty across seven engineering disciplines: aerospace, biomedical, chemical, civil, construction, materials, and mechanical. The year-long professional development program aims to increase the use of active learning strategies in engineering classrooms by increasing awareness of student-centered teaching practices and creating opportunities for faculty to discuss and explore implementing active learning instructional practices in the classroom. In this paper, we describe the program structure, program evaluation methodology, and a summary of data analysis and evaluation for the JTFD professional development program. To learn more about the JTFD project and access training materials visit www.jtfdproject.org/. JTFD Program Structure The JTFD program was structured so that each faculty group would participate in a series of 8 biweekly workshops in the fall semester. In the spring semester, faculty groups would attend 6 communities of practice sessions. In the following academic year, faculty could attend voluntary continuing communities of practice sessions, which were more informal and focused on discussing innovations in the classroom. The project investigator team developed all materials for the program, including workshop materials, readings, discussion guides, and activities. The JTFD program utilized a “train-the-trainer” model [10] to disseminate information about student-centered teaching strategies. We first recruited 8 faculty who became the disciplinary leader pairs (DLPs) from four engineering disciplines. The first group of DLPs came from aerospace, civil, construction, and mechanical engineering disciplines. Then, the project investigator team facilitated the JTFD program for the DLPs. The following academic year, the DLPs trained their own groups of faculty from their own engineering disciplines. This process was repeated again with a second group of faculty who became the Cohort 2 Tier 1 DLPs. These DLPs came from biomedical, chemical, and materials science engineering disciplines. Throughout the program, the project investigator team was available to support and assist the DLPs throughout their implementations of the JTFD program. A detailed presentation of the project schedule is presented in table 1, below.

Board 133: Scaling and Assessment of an Evidence-Based Faculty Development Program for Promoting Active Learning Pedagogical Strategies