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 Tools annual

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 monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A substantial body of prior research demonstrates the efficacy of active learning pedagogical practices. In particular, student-centered teaching strategies have been shown to promote greater levels of student engagement, achievement, and retention. Despite strong evidence in favor of student-centered teaching strategies, the majority of faculty continue to use the more traditional lecture format, or instructor-centered teaching practices, in their own classrooms. As such, there is a strong need for professional development to increase faculty awareness and use of active learning pedagogical practices. This complete research-based paper discusses a successful faculty development program designed to increase awareness and use of student-centered, or active learning, pedagogical practices amongst a multi-disciplinary group of engineering faculty. The JTFD professional development program was a multi-disciplinary program at a large southwestern university in the United States and was funded through NSF’s Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE). Following a train-the-trainer model, the professional development program involved multiple cohorts across seven engineering disciplines. In their first year in the program, faculty (n=82) participated in a series of 8 biweekly workshops over the fall semester and 6 communities of practice (CoP) sessions in the spring semester. Topics discussed during the workshops and CoP sessions included active learning, cooperation, student motivation, Bloom’s taxonomy, and inclusive teaching practices. In the second year of the program, faculty participated in eight continuing communities of practice sessions. A detailed discussion of program results will be presented in the final paper. Key highlights include a significant increase, 13%, in faculty use of active learning strategies after participating in the program. All participants reported that the program was a valuable use of their time and that they would recommend this program to a colleague. This paper describes the program structure, best practices for managing professional development programs, evaluation framework and strategy, major program results, and concludes with a discussion of key takeaways for moving forward. Introduction & Background Active learning, or student-centered teaching practices, is a pedagogical technique where instructors engage the students directly in the learning process through interactive strategies. Whereas, instructor-centered pedagogical strategies involve information transmission from teacher to students through a lecture. There is a plethora of research demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning for student comprehension and achievement This research base indicates that student achievement is greater in classes with active learning environments when compared to traditional lecture classes [1, 2, 3]. In a meta-analysis of over 200 studies, Freeman and colleagues [4] found that students enrolled in classes that utilized active learning had greater learning and comprehension on concept inventories. Whereas, students enrolled in instructorcentered courses were 1.5 times more likely to fail a course [4]. A separate literature review by Prince [5], found compelling evidence in favor of student-centered learning. Overall, the current literature base supports the efficacy of active learning teaching strategies practices in undergraduate STEM classes, especially within engineering. Despite the growing support for active learning strategies, the traditional, instructor-centered format remains the dominant form of teaching in undergraduate engineering courses [1, 6]. One possible reason for this is that faculty members teach as they were taught, which was likely via the traditional lecture format. Another possible explanation is that faculty are not aware of the effectiveness of student-centered teaching strategies. Or, a third reason might be that faculty do not know how to implement active learning practices into their classrooms. Therefore, it is important to increase faculty awareness of research regarding active learning strategies as a means to shift faculty beliefs and, in turn, use of student-centered pedagogical practices in the classroom. One way to do this is through professional development programs. These programs have the potential to increase faculty awareness of research regarding effective instructional techniques, while also providing opportunities for faculty discuss innovations and classroom teaching practices. Professional development programs can facilitate processes where faculty can engage in ongoing learning and discussion around various classroom practices. In turn, these programs have the potential to foster long-term, sustainable change in faculty instructional techniques [7, 8]. The context for this paper is a large-scale professional development program in a college of engineering at a large university in the southwestern United States. The program, now in its fifth and final year, was funded through the National Science Foundation’s Improving Undergraduate Science Education (IUSE) initiative. Overall, the JTFD professional development program aimed to increase faculty awareness and use of active learning or student-centered teaching practices in undergraduate engineering classrooms. This professional development program was focused on seven sub-disciplines in engineering: aerospace, biomedical, chemical, civil, construction, materials, and mechanical. The year-long professional development program provided information to faculty about educational research on teaching practices, ways to implement active learning strategies, and created a supportive environment for faculty to discuss their teaching practices in the classroom. In this paper, we detail the program structure/content, evaluation methodology, and present a summary of data analysis. We conclude by discussing key takeaways and lessons learned from the program. Learn more about the JTFD professional development program at www.engineereducation.org.. JTFD Program Structure The JTFD professional development program is a multi-year initiative that engaged faculty across multiple disciplines and throughout various formats. The program was structured so that faculty participated in a year-long series of professional development content across the fall and spring semester for their first year in the program. In the following year, faculty could participate in optional programming. In the fall semester, faculty participated in a series of 8 bi-weekly workshops. After the workshops, faculty then participated in 6 communities of practice (CoPs) sessions during the spring semester, which were facilitated discussions around implementing innovations in the classroom. In the following academic year, faculty were invited to participate in continuing communities of practice (CCoPs), which were informal discussion sessions. A detailed presentation of the program schedule is presented in Table 1.

Review and Assessment of an Evidence-Based Professional Development Program to Promote Active-Learning Pedagogical Practices in the Classroom