Content provided in partnership with

A Fertile Field

ASEE Prism, Summer 2007 by Kemnitzer, Sue, Pimmel, Russell

Examining the meaning of scholarship can help push education research forward. BY SUE KEMNITZER AND RUSSELL PIMMEL

IN JUNE 2006, ASEE President David Wormley declared this to be "the year of dialogue on the scholarship of engineering education." From our perspective as two National Science Foundation (NSF) program officers responsible for engineering education efforts, we welcome this dialogue and propose several topics for discussion.

In the past, most NSF programs have focused on curriculum and pedagogical development aimed at reforming the education process. Now, continued progress requires a deeper understanding of the system and how to change it, and thus we need robust research to build the scholarship of discovery around engineering education.

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

Scholarship includes the identification of precise questions and a systematic approach for answering them; the collection and interpretation of data in a theoretical framework; and the sharing of results with the broader community. Engineering faculty members can approach their activities in this way-whether they are asking fundamental questions about learning, considering more practical questions about learning a particular skill or concept, developing new education products (curriculum and pedagogy) or teaching in their own classroom.

There's no lack of topics to explore. In October 2006, the Journal of Engineering Education published a special report called "The Research Agenda for the New Discipline of Engineering Education." Our first suggestion for discussion would build on this by identifying the areas with the most payoff and determining what type of commitments the engineering education community should make in those areas. It's also necessary to explore methods for bringing together people with the interdisciplinary expertise to make progress on the research agenda and to build capacity within engineering education.

Our second discussion topic would address approaches for getting the engineering education community to adopt a scholarly approach to educational product development. Through the years, NSF has supported a large number of curriculum and pedagogy development efforts. Many of those were undertaken without careful review of past efforts or plans for informative evaluation and aggressive dissemination, leading to repetitive, local and ineffective efforts. Results from research would illuminate our reform efforts and facilitate the transfer of knowledge among schools.

Our third topic would consider mechanisms for establishing a structure for transferring basic research results into educational products that are widely adopted. In industrial development, structures exist for incorporating research results into products and moving them into the marketplace, but unfortunately this is not true of the transfer of engineering education research into accepted practice.

Finally, we would suggest examining methods for helping more faculty members adopt scholarly approaches to their education activities at all levels of engagement. Many engineering faculty members teach as they were taught and remain unaware of the many new and effective approaches that enhance teaching and learning.

Clear opportunities exist for funding research through unsolicited proposals to the NSF's Engineering Education and Centers Division and through the Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) programs. The Division of Undergraduate Education's Course Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program and the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) offer support for both research and development and the implementation of proven methods.

However, research-based interventions alone are not sufficient because some important limitations are embedded in the higher education system, especially the reward structure. Real progress requires bold, visionary leadership by a critical number of presidents, provosts and deans to sustain the scholarship of engineering education.

Sue Kemnitzer is deputy director of the National Science Foundation's Division of Engineering and Education Centers. Russell Pimmel is program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Undergraduate Education. This discussion represents the ideas of the authors and is not an official position of the National Science Foundation.

A Fertile Field

ASEE Prism, Summer 2007 by Kemnitzer, Sue, Pimmel, Russell

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Autos

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference