Pedagogies of Engagement:Classroom-Based Practices

KARL A, SMITHDepartment of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Minnesota

SHERI D . SHEPPARDDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringStanford University

DAVID W J O H N S O NDepartment of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Minnesota

ROGER T. JOHNSONDepartment of Curriculum and InstructiUniversity of Minnesota

ABSTRACT

Educators, researchers, and policy makers have advocated studentinvolvement tor some time as an essential aspect of meaningfijllearning. In the past twenty years engineering educators have

undergraduate students, including acti^'e and cooperative

education, inquiry' and problem-based learning, and teamprojects. This paper focuses on classroom-based pedagogies ofengagement, particularly cooperative and problem-basedleaming. It indudes a brief history, theoretical roots, researchsupport, summar)' of practices, and suggestions for redesigningengineering classes and programs to include more studentengagement. The paper also lays out the research ahead foradvancing pedagogies aimed at more fiilly enhancing students'involvement in their learning.

Keywords: cooperaengagement

•e learning, problem-based leaming, student

I. INTRODUCTION TO THEPEDAGOGIES OF ENGAGEMENT

Russ Edgerton introduced the term "pedagogies of engage-ment" in his 2001 Education White Paper [1], in which hereflected on the projects on higher educarion funded by the PewCharitable Taists, He wrote:

'Throughout the whole enterprise, the core issue, in my

view, is the mode of teaching and learning that is practiced.

Learning 'about' things does not enable students to acquire

the abilities and understanding they \'ÍT1I need for the twenty-

January 2005

first century. We need new pedagogies of engagement thatwill turn out the kinds of resourceful, engj^ed workers andcitizens that America now requires."

Prior to EÀIgerton's paper, the widely distributed and lnfluenrialpublication called The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Under-g>adiiate Education [2] stressed pedagogies of engagement in con-cept. Three of the principles speak directly to pedagogies of en-gagement, namely, that good practice encourages student-facultycontact, cooperation among students, and acrive learning.

More recently, the project titled The National Survey of Stu-dent Engagement (NSSE) [3] deepens our understanding of howstudents perceive classroom-based leaming, in all its forms, as an el-ement in the bigger issue of student engagement in their college ed-ucation. The NSSE project conceives that student engagement isnot just a single course in a student's academic career, but rather apattern of his or her involvement in a variety of acti\^ties. As such,NSSE findings are a valuable assessment tool for colleges and univer-sities to track how successfU their academic practices are in engagingtheir student bodies. The NSSE project is grounded in the proposi-tion that student engagement, the frequency with which studentsparticipate in activities tiiat represent effective educational practice, isa meaningful proxy for collegiate quality and, therefore, by extension,qualitj' of education. The annual sur\'ei,' of freshmen and seniors asksstudents how ofren the)' have, for example, participated in projectsthat required lntegraring ideas or information from various sources,used e-midl to communicate with an instructor, asked questions inclass or contributed to dass iscussions, received prompt feedbackfrom feculty on their academic perfonnance, partidpated in commu-nity-based projects, or tutored or taught other students. Student re-sponses are organized around frve benchmarks:

1. Level of academic challenge: Schools encourage achievement bysetting high expectations and emphasizing importance ofstudent efïbrt.

2. Active and collaborative learning: Students learn more whenintensely involved in educational process and are encouragedto apply their knowledge in many situations.

3. Student-faadty interaction: Students able to learn from expertsand faculty serve as role models and mentors.

4. Enriching educational experiences: Learning oppormnities insideand outside dassroom (tüversity, technology, collaboration, in-temships, community service, capstones) enhance leaming.

5. Supportive canipus environment: Students are motivated andsarisfied at schools that actively promote learning and stimu-late social interaction.

Astin's [4] large-scale correlational study of what matters in col-lege (involiing 27,064 students at 309 baccalaureate-granting insti-tutions) found that two environmental factors were by fur the mostpredictive of positive change in college students' academic develop-ment, personal development, and satisfaction. These two factors—interaction among students and interaction between facult}' and

Joumal of Engineering Educatio 87

students—carried by far the largest weights and affected moregeneral education outcomes tiian any otlier environmenf.il variablesstudied, including die curriculum content factors. This result indi-cates tbat liow students approach their general education and how thefaculty actually ¿leliver tlie cuniculum is more imponant than theformal curriculum, that is, the content, collection, and sequence of

The assessment study by Light [5, 6] of Harvard students indi-cates that one oftbe cnicial factor in die educational development oftlie undergraduate is the degree to which the student is actively en-gaged or involved in the undergraduate experience; this is consistentwith Astin's work [4], Astin and Light's research studies suggest thatcurricular planning efforts will reap much greater payoffs in terms ofstudent outcomes if more emphasis is placed on pedagogy and otherfeatures ofthe delivciy system, as well as on the broader interpersonaland institutional context in which learning fakes place,

Pascarella and Tcrenzini's summary of twenty years of researcbnn the impact college has on student development ftirdier supportsthe importance of student engagement:

"Perhaps tbe strongest conclusion that can be made is theleast surprising. Simply put, tbe greater the student's involve-ment or engagement in academic work or in tbe academic ex-perience of college, the greater his or ber level of knowledgeacquisition and general cognitive development... If tiie levelof involvement were totally determined by individual studentmotivation, interest, and ability, the above condusion wouldbe uninteresting as well as unsurprising. However, a substan-tial amount of evidence indicates tbat tbere are instructionaland progiammatic interventions tbat not only increase a stu-dent's active engagement in learning and academic work butalso enhance knowledge acquisition and some dimensions ofboth cognitive and psychosocial change" [7],

Macgregor, Cooper, Smith, and Robinson [8] provided a synthe-sis of interviews conducted witb fbrty-eight individuals teaching un-dergraduate dasses across tbe United States wbo are infusing dieirlarge classes witb small-group activities, or are working expUdtly tocreate student communities within large dasses. The faculty whowere interviewed are working vvith dasses of more than 100 students,and some are teaching substantially larger dasses, in the 350 to 600student range. The faculty practicing small-group learning in largeclasses provided extensive empirical and dieoretical rationale for theirpractices. Their reasons dustered in die following categories:

1. promoting cognitive daborarion;2. enhancing critical thinking;3, providing feedback;4, promoting social and emotional development;5. appreciating diversity, and6, reducing student attrition.Edgerton, in the aforementioned white paper, goes on to dtc four

strands of pedagogical reform that are moving in the same broaddirection: problem-based learning, collaborative le;irning, servicelearning, and undergraduate rese^cb, Tbis paper looks at a dass ofpedagogies of engagement, namcl)', tbose tbat are dassroom-based.We focus particularly on cooperative learning and on problem-basedlearning.

In the ne."it section we present definitions ofthe dassroom-basedgies of engagement tbat are used in engineering iindergrad-

uate cLissrooms followed by a brief summary of their history ( •i'--- EI* >nIII), Next we provide the theoretical foundations and rcsc;Lrchevidence for effectiveness (section IV), and offer model practices forimplementation (section V), The paper concludes by presentingsome iinanswc'red questions about dassroom-based pedagogies ofengagement for engineering in particular and pedagogies in generaL

II. A N OVERVIEW

"To teach is to engage smdents in learning.'" This quote, fromEducation for Judgment by Cbristensen et al, [9], captures theessence ofthe state ofthe art and practice of pedagogies of engage-ment. The thesis of this book, and this paper, is that engaging stu-dents in learning is principally tbe responsibility ofthe teacher, whobecomes less an imparter of knowledge and more a designer and fa-cilitator of learning experiences and opportunities. In other words,the real cballenge in college teacbing is not covering the material forthe students; it's uncovering the material with the smdents.

Consider the most common model of the classroom-basedteacbing and learning process used in engineering education in thepast fifty years (and maybe currendy?). This model, illustrated inFigure l(a), is a, presentational model where, as one pundit quipped,"the information passes from the notes ofthe professor to the notesof tiie students without passing through the mind of either one."

An alternative to the "pour it in" modd is the "keep it flowingaround" model. This is shown in Figure l(b) and illustrates tbattbe information passes not only from teacher to student, but alsofrom students to teacber and among the students. The model ofteacbing and learning represented in Figure l(b) empbasizes thattbe simultaneous presence of interdependence and accountabilityare essential to learning, and their presence is at tbe heart of astudent-engaged instructional approach.

The model ofthe teaching-learning process in Figure l(b) ispredicated on cooperation—working together to accomplish sharedgoals. Within cooperative activities individuals seek outcomes thatare benefidal to themselves and benefidal to all other group mem-bers. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups sothat students work together to maximize their own and each otiiers'learning [10,11]. Carefully structured cooperative learning involvespeople working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under con-ditions that involve hoxh positive intei-depetidence (all members mustcooperate to complete tbe task) and individual and group account-ability (eacb member individually as well as all members collectivelyaccountable for the work of the group). Astin [12] reported that 14percent of engineering faculty and 27 percent of all facult}' said theyused cooperative learning in most or all of their dasses.

A common question is, "What is the difference between cooper-ative and collaborative learning?" Botli pedagogies are aimed at"marslialbng peer group influence to focus on intellectual and sub-stantive concerns'" [13]. Tbeir primaty difference is that cooperativelearning requires carefully structured individual accountability,while collaborative does not. Numerous authors, such as Barkley,Cross, and Major [14], use the term collaborative learning to referto predominantiy cooperative learning researcb and practice. To tryto minimize confusion, we Vidll use the term cooperative learningtbroughout tbe current paper.

Problem-based learning (PBL) "is the learning that results fromthe process of worldng toward the understanding or resolution of a

Jmmmlnf Engineering Educatio January 2005

Figurel. Two models of the classi(b) "Keepitßo'iuing"tnodel,

Probleni'Based Learning

START

Subject-Based Learning

I START

Given probler,, ,^illustrate how lo use it Told what w

need lo knc

Figure 2. Problem-based learning contrasted-with subject-

problem. The problem is encountered first in the learning process"[15]. Barrows [16] identified six core features of PBL:

• Learning is s tudent-centered.• Learning occurs in small student groups.• Teachers are facilitators or guides.• Problems are tbe organizing focus and stimulus for

learning.• Problems are tbe vehicle for the development of clinical

problem-solving skills.• New information is acquired through self-directed learning.The process of problem-based learning was illustrated by Woods

[17], who contrasted it with subject-based learning {Figure 2). Prob-lem-based learning is suitable for introductory sciences and engineer-ing dasses (as it is for medicine, where it is currently used) because it

January 2005

helps students develop skills and confrdence for formulating problemsthey have never seen before. This is an important skill, since few sci-ence, mathematics, or engineering graduates are paid to formulate andsolve problems that follow from the material presented in the chapteror have a single "right" answer that one can frnd at the end of a book.An example of a PBL problem, adapted from Adams' [18] "dang^gfrom awire problem,'is to "estimate the diameter of the smallest stedwire that could suspend a typical American automobile."'

The largest-scale implementation of PBL in the United States inundergraduate courses (mduding large introductory courses) is at theUniversity of Delaware in Newark, Ddaware, where it is used inmany courses, induding biology, biochemistry, chemistry, criminaljustice, education, intemational relations, marine smdies, mathemat-ics, nutrition/dietetics, physics, political sdence, and exercise sdence[19, 20]. The initial PBL work at tiie University of Ddaware wassupported by the Narional Sdence Foundation (NSF) and the Fundfor Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE); more than25 percent of the faculty have parridpated in weeklong formal work-shops on PBL. Allen and Duch recendy described their implementa-tion ofPBL problems for introductory biology [21].

Woods at McMaster University bas described the university's im-plementation of PBL in engineering [17]. In tiie chemical engineeringprogram there, PBL is used as part of two courses: one topic or prob-lem in a junior-level course; and five topics in a senior-level course[22], PBL is used in a theme school program created at McMasterUniversity and in a junior-level dvü en^eering course and a senior-levd project course in geography. These are examples of the use ofsmall group, seif-directed PBL where tutorless groups of five to sixstudents function effecfively. The dass sizes are in the range thirty tofifty, wth one or two instructors. The students concurrentiy take con-ventional courses. Project-based learning, which focuses on a projectand typically a deliverable in the form of a report or presentation, wasempbasized in a recent publication on project/problem-hased learning

'Detaüs of this example are available atmal examples are available on the Urvw.udd.edu/pbl.

in.edu/-smith, Manv addi-

Journal of Engineering Educ.

q niversit)' in Dcnmai'k (all majors), Maastricht Unix'crsityin Maasnicht, TIic Sjctlu-rlands (whicb implemented tlie Md\'IasterPBL modd in medicine in 1974), and at universities in Australia.There is ;ui exceUetit suminmy of tliesc programs in PBL Insight [23].A compaiison of problem-based and project-based learning is avail-able in Mills and Treagust [24], Project-based leaming, ivliicb is ofi:enthe b;isis for the senior design courses in undergraduate engineeringcuiTiculum in die United States, will not be furtlicr discussed in thispapen the reader is referred to the workofDjTn et ill. [25],

Lest the reader tliink that the model ofthe teaching-learningprocess illustrated in Figiu-e l(b) is a modern creation, consider thelong and rich history ofthe practical use of pedagogies of engage-ment, especially classroom-based practices such as cooperativelearning and problem-based learning. Thousands of years ago theTalmud stated that to understand the Talmud, one must have alearning partner. Confucius is typically credited witb the Chineseproverb "TeU me and I forget; sbow me and I remenriber; involve meand I understand." {However, Edgerton [1] and otbers attribute theLakota Sioux Indians). Tbe Roman philosopher, Seneca, advocatedcooperative learning through such statements as, "Qui Docet Dis-cet" (when you teach, you learn twice). J. Amos Comenius(1592-1679) believed that students would benefit botb by teachingand by being taught by other students. In the late 1700s, J. Lancast-er and A. BeE made extensive use of cooperative learmng groups inEngland and India, and the idea was brought to tbe America whena Lancastrian school was opened in New York City in 1806 [26].

One ofthe more successfiil advocates of cooperative learning inthe United States was Colonel Francis Parker [27] in the late 1800s,Parker started several schools and hosted many visitors to hisschools who in turn started or changed their own programs. In thelast tliree decades ofthe nineteenth century, Colonel Parker advo-cated cooperative ¡earning witb enthusiasm, idealism, practicality,and an intense devotion to freedom, democracy, and indi\adualityin the public schools, Follomng Parker, John Dewey promoted theuse of cooperative learning groups as part of his famous projectmetbodin instruction [28], John Dewey's idea) school involved:

• a "thinking" ctirriculum aimed at deep understanding;• cooperativeleaming within communities of learners;• interdisdplinary and multidisciplinary curricula; and• projects, portfolios, and other "alternative assessments" that

challenged students to integrate ideas and demonstrate theircapabilities.

In the late 1930s, however, public schools began to emphasizeinterpersonal competition and this view predominated for well overforty years [29].

In the mid-1960s Johnson and Johnson began training K-12teachers and a few post-secondary teachers how to use cooperativelearning at the Universit)' of Minnesota. The Cooperative LearningCenter at the University of Minnesota resulted from their efforts to{a) synthesize existing knowledge concerning cooperative, comperi-tive, and individualistic efforts, (b) formulate theoretical modelsconcertiing the nature of cooperation and its essential elements, (c)conduct a systematic program of research to test tbe theorizing, {d)translate the validated tiieorj' into a set of concrete strategies andprocedures for using cooperative leaming, and (e) build and main-tain a network of schools implementing cooperative strategies andprocedures throughout the world. From being relatively unknownand unused in the 1960s, cooperative learning is now an acceptedand oñen the preferred instructional procedure at all levels of educa-

90 Journal of Engineering Education

tion throughout the world in every subject area and from preschoolthrough graduate school and adult training programs [30].

Most ofthe work on dc-vdoping and researching modds of co-operative learning in the 1970s and 1980s focused on K-12 educa-tion. For example, in the early 1970s DeVries and Edwards [31] atJohns Hopkins University developed Teams-Games-Tournaments{TGT) and the Sharans in Israd developed the group investigationprocedure for cooperative learning groups [32]. In the late 1970sSlavin and colleagues at Jobns Hopkins Universit)' extended De-Vries and Edwards' work by modif>áng T G T into Studen t-Teams-Achievement-Divisions {STAD) and modifying computer-assistedinstruction into Team-Assisted Instruction (TAI) [32]. Concur-rently, Kagan [34] developed cooperative learning structures thatinvolved detailed procedures, such as numbered heads together.This was followed in the 1980s by Cohen developing a "complexinstmction" version of cooperative learning [35,36] and Dansereau[37] developing a number of cooperative learning scripts.

The 1980s and 1990s brought an expansion of cooperativelearning models into engineering. The concept of a cooperativelearning group was introduced to the engineermg educarion com-munity at the 1981 IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education (FIE)conference in Rapid City, S.D. [38j. Goldstein also presented apaper on cooperative learning at this conference and Goldsteinand Smith were subsequently invited to present a workshop(probably the first) on cooperative learning at tbe 1982 FIE con-ference. Also, in 1981 tbe first in a series of papers on cooperativelearning was published in Engineering Education, "Structuringlearning goals to meet the goals of engineering educarion [10].Tn the mid-1990s the Foundation Coalition embraced thecooperative learning approach, produced several one-page sum-maries of concepts, and developed an extensive Web site onActive/Cooperative Learning: Best Practices in EngineeringEducation.^

More recently, Millis and Cottell [39] adapted Kagan's coopera-tive learning stmcnires for higher education feculty, and Johnson,Johnson, and Smith began adapting the conceptual cooperativelearning model to higher educarion [40-42].

III. THEORY AND RESEARCH EVIDENCE

Tiie underling precept of cooperative and problem-based leam-ing is interdependence. The term interdependence was introduced byColeridge in 1822 and is defined, according to tlie Oxford EnglishDictionaiy, as "The fact or condition of depending each upon theother; mutual dependence," Many of the early references to theterm, e,g., by Coleridge, Huxley, and Spencer, were biology related.Spencer introduced the "conception of [societj'] as having a naturalstructure in which all its instinirions, governmental, religious, in-dustrial, commerdal, etc., etc, are inter-dependentiy bound" {Ox-ford English Dictionary)

Research on cooperative leaming has been guided primarily by so-dal interdependence theory. The theory was conceived ofin the early1900s, when one of tlie founders of tbe Gestalt Sdiool of Psychology,Kafka, proposed that groups were dynamic wholes in which interde-pendence among members could vary. One of his colleagues. Lewin[43], refined Kafka's notions in the 1920s and 1930s wliile stating

cc http://dlc.asu,cdu/acl

January 2005

tliat (a) the essence of a group is the interdependence among mem-bers (created by common goals) that results in tlie group's being a "dy-namic whole" s<i that a change in the srate of any memher or sub-group changes the state of all other member or subgroup and (b) aninoinsic state of tension within group members motivates movementtoward the accomplishments ofthe desired common goals. One ofLewin's graduate students. Deutsch, formulated the theory of coop-eration 'and competition in the late 1940s [44, 45]. One of Deutsch'sgraduate students, D. Johnson (collaborating vinth R, Johnson), ex-tended Deutsch's work into dassroom practices [46-48].

The social interdependence perspective assumes that die way so-cial interdependence is structured determines how individuals in-teract, which in tum determines outcomes. Positive interdepen-dence (cooperation) results in promotive interaction as indiiidualsencourage and faciHtate each other's efforts to learn. Negatiw inter-dependence (competition) typically results in oppositional interac-tion as indi^^duals discourage and obstruct each other's efforts toachieve. In the absence of interdependence (individualistic efforts),there is no interaction as indiwduals work independendy withoutany interchange with each other [44],

Extensive research has been conducted on cooperative learn-ing—defined in section II as the instructional use of small groups sothat students work together to maximize their ovm and each others'leaming. From 1897 to 1989 nearly 600 experimental and morethan 100 correlational studies were conducted comparing the effec-tiveness of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts inpromoting leaming. Before 1970, almost all the reported studieswere conducted in college dassrooms and lahoratories using collegestudents as participants. The U.S. experimental research on cooper-ative learning has its roots in Deutsch's work in the late 1940s in astudy at MIT [49], Between 1970 and 1990 the majority of thestudies were conducted in K-12 settings; however, in the 1990s, theinterest in investigating the use of cooperative learning at the collegelevd was rekindled.

Current meta-analysis work at the Cooperative Leaming Centerat the University of Minnesota identified 754 studies that comparethe effectiveness of students working cooperatively, competitively,and indiiadualistically firom 1897 to the present. Eighty five percentwere conducted since 1970; 43,5 percent had randomly assignedsubjects and 18.8 percent had randomly assigned groups; 41,4 per-cent of the subjects were nineteen or older; 76,7 percent were pub-lished in ajournai; 31 percent were laboratory studies and 65 per-cent were field studies [30]. These studies and others yet to becoded will be analyzed in the coming months.

The next two sections summarize the research on cooperativeleaming and problem-based learning at the post-secondary level,that is, the studies of higher education and adult populations.

A. Cooperative Learning ResearchApproximately 305 studies were located at the Cooperative Leam-

ing Center and were used to compare tlie relativeefficacy of coopera-tive, competitive, and individualistic leaming in college and adult set-tings, as reported in [41,42]. The first of these studies was conductedin 1924; 68 percent of the studies have been conducted since 1970,Sixty percent randomly assigned subjects to conditions, 49 percentconsisted of only one session, and 82 percent were published in jour-nals. These 305 studies form the research summarized below.

The multiple outcomes can be classified into three major cate-gories: academic success, quality of relationships, and psychological

January 2005^

adjustment to college life. In addition, there are a number of studieson students' attitudes toward tlie college experience.

1) Academic success: One ofthe most important goals for engi-neering educators is that students succeed academically. Academicsuccess is, above all, the college's aim and the student's aim. Be-tween 1924 and 1997, more thanl68 rigorous research studies wereconducted comparing the relative efficacy of cooperative, competi-tive, and individualistic learmng on the achievement of individualseighteen and older. This represents the subset of the 305 studiesthat focus on individual student acheivement. Other studies focusedon students' attitudes, persistence (or retention), and other depen-dent measures. These studies indicate that cooperative leamingpromotes higher individual adiievement than do competitive ap-proaches or individualistic ones. The effect sizes, which indicate themagnitude of significance, were 0.49 and 0.53 for competitive andindividualistic approaches, respectively. Effect sizes of this magni-tude indicate significant, suhstantial increases in achievement. Theycan be interpreted as saying, for example, that college students whowould score at the fiftieth percentile level on an indi\idual examwhen learning competitively will score in the sL\ty-ninth percentilewhen learning cooperatively; students who would score at the fifty-third percentüe level when learning individualistically VITU score inthe seventieth percentile when learning cooperatively [41]. For abriefing on the meta-analysis procedure see [49j.

The relerant measures here include knowledge acquisition, re-tention, accurac)', creativity in problem solwng, and higher-levelreasoning. Tiie results hold tor verbal tasks (such as reading, writ-ing, and oral presentations), mathematical tasks, and proceduraltasks (such as laboratory exercises). There are also other subsets ofthe 305 studies showing significant advantages for cooperativelearning in promoting meta-cognitive thought, willingness to takeon difficult tasks, persistence (despite difficulties) in working to-ward goal accomplishment, intrinsic motivation, transfer of leam-ing fi-om one situation to another, and greater time spent on task.

Tlie findings outlined above are consistent vAúí results firom arecent meta-analysis focused on college level-one sdence, mathe-matics, engineering, and technology (SMET) courses. Springer,Stannc, and Donovan's [49] study of smaO-group (predominandycooperative) learning in SMET courses identified 383 reports firom1980 or later, thirty-nine of which met the rigorous indusion crite-ria for meta-analysis. Of the thiity-nine studies anal)'zed, thirty-seven (94,9 percent) presented data on achievement, nine (23.1 per-cent) on persistence or retention, and eleven (28.2 percent) onattitudes. The main effect of small-group learning among under-graduates majoring in SMET disciplines was significant and posi-tive, with mean effect sizes for achievement, persistence, and atti-tudes of 0.51,0.46, and 0,55, respectively.

Recent synthesis publications indude Bowen's [50] summary ofresearch on cooperative leaming effects on chemistry and Prince's[51] summary of research on active and cooperative leaming inengineering.

Research that has had a significant influence on the instructionalpractices of en^neering facult)' is Hake's [52] comparison of stu-dents' scores on the physics Force Concept Inventory (FCl), a mea-sure of students' conceptual understanding of mechanics, in tradi-tional lecture courses and interactive engagement courses. Theresults shown for high school (HS), college (COLL), and university(UNIV) students in Figure 3 show that student-student interactionduring dass time is assodated wath a greater percent gain on the

Jouiiial of Engineering Education 91

HS COLL UNIVInteractive Engagement D O O

Tradihonal D O

Figure 3, Plot of class average pre-test andpost-testFCI SCIising a variety of instructional methods [52]

FCI. Further study ofthe figure shows that even the best lecturesachieve student gains that are at the low end of student gains in in-teractive engagement dasses.

Redish [53] provides the following conjectures based on Hake'sresearch:

• In the traditional (low-interaction lecture-based) environ-ment, what the lecturer does can have a big impact on thedass's conceptual gains.

• In the moderate active-engage ment classes (one modifiedsmall-class group-leai-ning hour per week), much ofthe con-ceptual leaming relevant to FCI gains was occurring in themodified class.

• Full active-engage ment dasses can produce substantially bet-ter rC l gains, even in early implementation.

Cooperative learning researchers and pracririoners have shownthat positive peer relationships are essential to success in college.Isolation and alienation are the best predictors of failure. Two majorreasons for dropping out of college are failure to establish a socialnetwork of friends and dassmates and failure to become academi-cally involved in dasses [54]. Working together with fellow stu-dents, solving problems together, and talking through materid to-gether have other benefits as well [55]: "Student participation,teacher encouragement, :md student-student interaction positivelyrelate to improved critical thinking. These three activities confirmother research and theory stressing the importance of active prac-tice, motivation, and feedback in thinking skills as well as otherskills. Tfiis confirms that discussions are superior to lectures in im-proving thinking and problem soMng,"

2) Quality of relationships: Tom Boyle of British Telecomcalls this the age of interdependence; he speaks ofthe importanceof people's network quotient, or NQ^the i r capacit)' to formconnections (relationships) with one another, which, Boyle ar-gues, is now more important than IQ^ the measure of individualintelligence [56].

Many researchers have investigated the quality ofthe relation-ships among students and between students and faculty. The

92 Journal of Engineering Education

meta-analysis of the 305 studies mentioned above found i " 'operative efïbrt promotes greater liking among students ll ^'^'^^competing with others (effect size = 0.68) or working u¡: onesown (effect size = 0.55); this finding holds even among smdentsfrom different ethnic, cultural, language, social class, ability, andgender groups. The relevant studies induded measures of interper-sonal attraction, esprit de corps, cohesiveness, and trust. Collegestudents learning cooperatively perceive greater social support(both academically and personally) from peers and instructors thandostudentsworkingcompetitively (effect size = 0.60) or indlvidu-alistically(efFectsizc = 0.51).

The positive interpersonal relationships promoted by coopera-tive learning are crucial to today's learning communities. They in-crease the quality of social adjustment to college life, add sodal goalsfor continued attendance, reduce uncertainty about attending col-lege, increase integration into college life, and reduce congruenciesbetween students' interests and college curricula and in students'sense of belonging in college

3) Psychohgiad adjustment Attending college, especially engi-neering school, requires considerable persona! adjustment for manystudents. In reviewing the research, cooperativeness was found to behighly correlated with a vÁác variet)' of indices of psychologicalhealth; individualistic attitudes correlated with a\vide variety of in-dices of psychological patholog)"; and comperitiveness correlatedviith a complex mixture of indices of health and pathology. One im-portant aspect of psychological health is self-esteem. The meta-analysis results indicate that cooperation tends to promote higherself-esteem than competitive (effect size = 0,47) or individualistic(effect size = 0.29) efforts. Members of cooperative groups alsobecome more socially skilled than do students working competi-tively or individualistically.

4) Attitudes toward the college experience: The recent workof NSSE provides detailed information on student engage-ment. Selected findings f>om the 2003 NSSE Annual Report [3]that speak directly to practices in engineering schools include

• Business and engineering majors are well below other fieldsin prompt feedback from faculty and the firequency of parrid-pation in integrative activities.

• Engineering students experience more academic challengeand active and collaborative leaming than many other fields

• Engineering students have low levels of student-facult)' in-teracrion and supporrive campus environment.

• Engineering students spend less time preparing for dass thanprofessors expect.

A number of studies sbow that cooperari\'e learning promotesmore positive attitudes toward leaming, the subject area, and thecollege than do competitive or individualistic leaming [41]. Fur-ther, numerous social psychological theories predict that students'values, attitudes, and behavioral pattems are most effective whendeveloped and changed in cooperative groups.

The research on cooperative learnmg is extensive and com-pelling. Based on this research record, vAth its theoretical founda-tion, the confrdence that college instructors have in the effectivenessof cooperative-learning procedures should be elevated. Further-more, the research on cooperative learning has a validity and broadapplicability rarely found in tlie educational Uteramre. It has beenconducted over eight decades by numerous researchers withmarkedly different orientations working in a variety of different

January 2005

colleges and countries. Researcb participants bave varied withrespect to economic dass, age, sex, nationality, and cultural back-ground. The researdiers have employed a wide v.iricty of tasks, sub-ject areas, methods of structuring cooperati\'e learning, and methodsof measuring dependent variables, and methodologies, Tbe volumeand diversity of tbe research is almost unparalleled in educational

B. Problem-Based Learning ResearchProblem-based learning is undergoing a renaissance in profcs-

sion:il education, including engineering education [57], as well asresearch on PBL. PBL is not a new idea; it bad its beginnings in1968 in the M.D. program at McMaster University in Hamilton,Ontario, Canada, McMaster graduated its first PBL dass in 1972,At about tbe same time tbe College of Human Medicine atMichig-an State University implemented a problem-based program[58], Problem-based learning expanded to other disciplines besidesmedicine at tbe Universit}' of Maastricht (wbich implemented theMcMaster PBL modd in medicine in 1974) and to all majors atAalborg University,

Docby, Segers, Van den Bossche, and Gijbels [59] provided anexcellent and recent meta-analysis of PBL research, predominandyin medidne. They selected forty-three studies according to the fol-lowing indusion criteria (page 536):

1. The work bad to be empirical. Although non-empirical liter-ature and literature revaews were selected as sources of rele-vant research, this literature was not induded in the analysis,

2. The characteristics ofthe learning environment had to fit thepre^uslydescribed core moddofPBL [16],

3. Tbe dependent variables used in the study bad to be an oper-ationalization of tiie knowledge and/or skills (i.e., knowledgeapplication) ofthe smdents,

4. The subjects ofstud)'had to be students in tertiaty education.5. To maximize ecological validity, the study had to be conduct-

ed in a real-life classroom or programmatic setting ratberthan under more controlled laboratory conditions.

Tbis meta-analysis considered die influence of PBL on the ac-quisition of knowledge and the skills to apply knowledge. The resultssurest that students in PBL are better at appl)àng their knowledge(skills), with botb a statistically significant vote count and combinedeffect size (0.46). Also noteworthy is that researcb on tbe efficacy ofPBL is beginning to extend to non-medical fields [60],

Prince provides an excellent summaty of tiie PBL researcb, in-duding landmark work by Albanese and MitcheU [61] and Vemonand Blake [62], in Academic Mediane. He noted that the results arcmixed for medical school students and that "while PBL has beenused in undergraduate engineering programs tbere is ver)' littie dataavailable for its effectiveness witb this population of students" [51,p. 228], It is important to note that PBL, as studied in medical edu-cation, typically involves seven to ten students witb a designatedmtor, whereas the model of PBL in engineering usually involvesgroups of three to four, often using formal cooperative learningmodels, typically without a tutor.

IV. CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATION

Ofthe three key aspects of cooperative learning and problem-based learning—-theoty, research, and practice—the practice piece

is the least developed and probably the most difficult. The dassroompractices involved -with cooperative learning and problem-basedlearning are complex to both design and implement, as well as tomanage during the term. The NSF Foundation CoaHrion has ac-tively focused on implementing active and cooperative learning forseveral years, induding developing print materials, an extensive Website, and a CD-ROM to support implementation,^ In spite of theseimplementation efforts and many otbers, cooperative learning andproblem-based learning are not widely practiced in engineeringclassrooms. Part ofthe reason may be not only the difficulty of de-signing, implementing, and managing such a program, but also thatmost faculty did not experience any form of cooperative or problem-based learning during their undergraduate (or graduate) education.

We remain bopefiil, bowever, tbat the use of diese pedagogieswill continue to expand, not only because tbey are tbej' effective, butalso because tbere are manywa)^ to implement tbem in engineering.In tbis section \ve bighlight some well-developed and honed prac-tices. Infomial cooperative learning groups (often referred to as ac-tive learning), formal cooperative learning groups, and cooperativebase groups are die most commonly implemented by engineeringfoculty. Each provides opportunities for smdents to be intellectuallyactive and personall)' interactive both in and outside tbe dassroom.Informal cooperative ¡earning is commonly used in predominatelylecture classes and is described only briefly. Formal cooperativelearning can be used in content intensive dasses wbere the mastetyofconceptual or procedural material is essential; however, many facultyfind it easier to start in redtation or laboratory sections or design pro-ject courses. Base groups are long-term cooperative learning groupswhose principal responsibility is to provide support and encourage-ment for all their members; that is, to ensure that each member getsthe help he or she needs to be successful in the course and in college.

A. Implementing Informal Cooperative (Active) LearningInformal cooperative learning consists of baving students work

together to adiieve ajointleaming goal in temporaty, ad-hoc groupsthat last fi-om a few minutes to one dass period [41]. Informal coop-erative learmng groups also ensure that misconceptions, incorrectunderstanding, and gaps in understanding -are identified and correct-ed, and that learning experiences are personalized. In one instance ofinformal cooperative learning saidents are asked eveiy ten to fiffeenminutes to discuss what they are learning (see Figure 4).

January 2005 Journal of Engineering Educatio

Breaking up lectures with short cooperative processing times re-sults in slightly less lecture time, but re-engages tiie students. Dur-ing lecturing and direct teaching, the instructor ensures riiat stu-dents do tlic in tel lee cual work of organizing material, explaining it,summarizing it, and integraring it into existing concepmal net-works. Common inibrniiJ cooperative learning techniques indude"focused discussions" before and after the lecture (bookends) andinterspersing turn-to-your-partner discussions throughout the lec-ture. Although three to four minute turn-to-your-partner discus-sions are illustrated in Figure 4, many faculty provide one to twominutes, and some can be as short as thirty seconds.

As faculty gain familiarity with real-time assessment and infor-mal cooperative learning, they often modify the format. For exam-ple, if most students choose the correct answer to a concept ques-tion, the instmctor might ask smdents to reflect on the underljangrationale for their answer and to tum to their neighbor to discuss it.If most students choose an incorrect answer to a concept question,the instmctor might try to explain it again, perhaps in a diftèrentway. If the answers to the concept question are a mixture of correctand incorrect, the instructor might ask students to mm to theirneighbor, compare answers, and see if they can reach agreement onan answer.

Many examples of informal cooperarive learning in practice areavailahle. Mazur [63] describes the interactive aspeets of a ninety-minute leemre on Newton's laws in Chapter 5 of his book Peer In-stniction. Darmofal has wrttten about bis use of tnformal coopera-tive learning and concept tests in aeronautical engineering [64], andsimilarly Martin and colleagues have been actively experimentingwitb information cooperative learning and concept tests in fluidmecbanics [65]. Further details of informal cooperative learningare available in numerous references, induding Mazur [63],Landis, Ellis, Lisensi^, Lorenz, Meeker, and Wämser [66], Novak,Patterson, Garvin, and W o % n g [67], Midiael and Modell [68],Felder and Brent [69], and Johnson, Johnson, and Smith [41].

Informal cooperative learning ensures that students are ;u,ti\'eij'involved in understanding what they are learning. It also pr . videsrime for instructors to gather their wits, reorganize notca, take abreak, and move around the class listening to what students are say-ing. Listening to smdent discussions can give instructors dkecrionand insight into how well students understand the concepts atidmaterial being taught.

The importance of faculty engaging students in introductorycourses, using procedures such as those summarized above, isstressed by Seymour's research: "The greatest single challenge toSMET ped^ogieal reform remains the problem of whether andhow large dasses can be iníjsed vñth more active and interactivelearning methods" [70].

B. Implementing Formal Cooperative Leaming GroupsFormal cooperarive leaming groups are more stmctured than infor-

mal cooperative learning groups, are giveri more complex tasks, andtypically stay together longer. Well-structured formal cooperativeleaming groups are difíerentiated from poorly structured ones on thebasis ofthe characteristics presented in Table 1. From these character-isrics we can distill five essential elements to successRil implementationof formal cooperative learning groups: positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual accountabilitj'/personal re-sponsibility, teamwork skills, and group processing.

l) Positive Interdependence: The heart of cooperative leaming ispositive interdependence. Students must believe they are linked withothers in a way that one cannot succeed unless the other members ofthe group succeed and vice versa. In other words, students must per-ceive that they sink, or swim together. In fomial cooperative leaminggroups, positive interdependence may by structured b)' asking groupmembers to (1) i^ree on an answer for the group (group product-goa]interdependence}, (2) make sure each member can explain tbe groups'answer (learning goal interdependence), and (3) fiilfUl assigned roleresponsibilities (role interdependence). Other ways of structuring

U s s .Structured (1 rüdiliünul)

Low interdependence Members takeresponsibility only for themselves. Focus istypically on a single product (report orpresentation).

Individual accountability only, usuallytiirough exams and Quizzes.

Little or no auenlion lo group formation(students oflcti select tnembers). Groupslypicallv larjie (4-8 members).

AssLgnments ore diseusscd with 1 ill leeommilnient lo each otiier's learning.

Teamnork skills are ignored. Leader isdppomied to direct members' purticipiiiioii.

work. Individual accomplishments arerewarded.

More Structured (Coopcrulh c)

responsible tor own and each other's leamms.Focus is on joint performance.

Both group and individual accountabiliiy.Members hold sel fand others accountdile torhigh quality vvork.

Deliberately formed groups (random,distribute knowledge/experience, interesil.Groups aro small |2-4 members)

Members promote caeb other's success, doingreal work together, helping and supportingeach oiher's efforts to leam.

Teamwork skills ars emphasized. Membersarc taughl and expected to use collaborativeskills. Leadership role shared (by rotating forexLunpk'l ainonp all members

eflcetiveh' members are \\'orkiiig together.Coi^tmuous improvement is emphasized.

Table 1. Comparison of leaming groups.

94 Journal of Engineering Educ January 2005

positive intcrdcpcndLiiLU iiitlude having common rtwards such as ash;u-ed gr.ide {revvaid interdependence), shared resources (resourceinterdependence), or adiwsion of labor {task interdependence).

2) Face-to-face protnotive interaction: Once a professor estab-lishes positive interdependence, be or she must enstire tbat studentsinteract to help each other accomplish tlie task .tnil |immote eachotlier's success. Students are expected to e.vplain iir.illy to each otberhow to solve problems, discuss with each other the nature of tbeconcepts and strategies being learned, teach their knowledge todassinates, explain to each other the connections between presentand past learning, and help, encourage, and support each other'sefforts to leam. Silent students are uninvolved students who are cer-tainlv not contributing to the leaming of others and may not hecontributing to their own learning.

3) Individual accountability/personal responsibility: One purposeof cooperative leaming groups is to make each member a strongerindividual in liis or her own right. Students learn together so theycan subsequently' perform better as individuals. To ensure that eacbmember is strengthened, students are held individually accountableto do tbeir share ofthe work. The performance of each individualstudent is assessed and the results given back to tbe individual andperhaps to the group. The group needs to know who needs more as-sistance in completing the assignment, and group members need toknow tbe)' cannot hitcliliike on the work of otbers. Common wa)'sto structure individual accountability include giving individua.1exams, using self-and peer-assessment, and randomly calling on in-dividual students to report on their group's efforts.

4) Teamnuork skills: Contributing to the success of a cooperativeeffort requires teamwork skills, induding skills in leadership, deci-sion making, trust building, communication, and conflict manage-ment. These skills have to he taught just as purposefijUy and preciselyas academic skills. Many students have no prior experience workingcooperatively in leaming situarions and and therefore lack the need-ed teamwork skills to doing so effectively. Faculty oft:en introduceand emphasize teamwork skills by assigning differentiated roles toeach group member. For example, students le¡irn about document-ing group work by serving as tlie task recorder, developing strategyand monitoring how the group is working by serving as processrecorder, providing direction to the group by serving as coordinator,and ensuring that everyone in the group understands and can explainby senáng as the checker. Teamwork skills are being emphasized byemployers and the ABET engineering criteria, and resources are be-coming available to help students develop teamwork skills (Smith[71] and Johnson and Johnson [72], for example). See Shuman, et al,[73] in tbis issue for elaboration on professional skills.

5) Group processing: Professors need to ensure that members ofeach cooperative leaming group discuss how well they are achieiangtheir goals and maintaining effective working relationships. Groupsneed to describe what member actions arc belpfi.il and unbelpfiil andmake decisions about what to continue or change. Such processingenables leartiing groups to tacus on group in;untenance, facilitatesthe learning of collaborative skills, ensures that members recei\'efeedback on their participation, and reminds students to practice col-laborative skills consistently. Some ofthe keys to successfiil process-ing are allowing sufficient time for it to take place, making it specificrather tban vague, maintaining student involvement in processing, re-minding students to use their teamwork skills during processing, andensuring tliat dear expectations as to the purpose of processing havebeen communicated. A commoti procedure for group processing is

January 2005

to ask each group to list at least three things the group did well and atleast one tbing that could be improved.

The five essentivil elements of a well-structured formal coopera-tive learning group presented above are nearly identical to those ofhigh-performance teams in business and industry as identified byKatzenbach and Smith:

"A team is A small number oí people with complementary skillswho are committed to a common purpose, performance goals,and approach for wliich they hold themselves mutuallyaccountable" [74\.

Many feculty who bdiei'e they are using cooperative learning are, infact, missing its essence. There is a crucial differetice between sim-ply putting students in groups to learn and in structuring coopera-tion among students. Cooperation is not having students sit at tbesame table to talk with each other as they do their individual assign-ments. Cooperation is not assigning a repon to a group of studentswbere one student does all the work and the others put dieir nameson the product as well. Cooperation is not having students do a taskindividually with instmctions that tbe ones who finish first are tohelp the slower students. Cooperation is more than being physicallynear other students, discussing material with other students, help-ing other smdents, or sharing material among students, althougheach of these is important in cooperative learning.

Before choosing and implementing a formal cooperative leam-ing strateg)', several conditions should be evaluated to determinewbether or not it is the best approach for the situation: sufficienttime sbould be available for students to work in groups both insideand outside the classroom; the task should be complex enough towarrant a formal group; and the instnactor's goals should indudethe development of skills that have been shown to be affected posi-rively by cooperative leaming, such as critical tbinldng, higher-levelreasoning, and teamwork skills.

Detailed aspects ofthe instructor's role in structuring formal co-operative leaming groups are described in [41] and indude (1) spec-ifying the objectives for the lesson, (2) making a number of instruc-tional decisions, e.g., group size, method of assigning students togroups, (3) explaining the task and the posirive interdependence,{4) monitoting students' leanung and inteA'eningvrithin tbe groupsto provide task assistance or to increase students' teamwork skills,and (5) evaluating students' leaming and helping students processhow well their group fiinctioned.

For guidelines on designing formal cooperative learning lessonplans for structured controvers)' (using advocacy sub-groups in a co-operative context), tlie reader is referred to [75, 76]. Details on im-plementing jigsaw (assigning material to be leamed individually andthen taught to a small cooperative learning group) can be found in[77,78], Many additional examples of cooperarive learning in prac-tice are available. A fijU-text search oí the Joumal of Engineer-ing Ed-//ra/ion,Januan'1993 tiirough July 2004, for the phrase "cooperativeleaming" returned 132 liits. Tbree excellent examples of engineer-ing appHcarions are Felder and Brent, 2001 [79], Mourtos, 1997[80],andPimmel,2001[81].

C. Implementing Cooperative Base GroupsCooperarive base groups are long-term, heterogeneous coopera-

tive learning groups with stable membership whose primaryresponsibility' is to provide eacb student with the support.

Journal of Engineering Education 95

encouragement, and assistance needed to make academic progress.Base groups personalize the work required and the course leamingex-periences. They stay the same during the entire course and possiblylonger. Members of base groups should exchange e-mail addressesand/or phone numbers and information about schedules, as they maywish to meet outside of dass. When students have successes, insights,questions, or concerns tiiey wish to discuss, they can contact odiermemhers of their hase group. Base groups typically manage the daijypaperwork ofthe course using group folders or Web-based discussiongroups. Base groups are used by many engineering faculty in under-graduate courses and programs, in part because of their effectivenessand because tiiey are easy to implement. They are also commonlyused in professional school graduate programs. In this context theyare usually referred to as cohort groups : five to six students who staytogetherduring tiie duration of their graduate program.

D. Implementing Problem-Based LeamingProblem-based learning has been descnbed in numerous reter-

enees [17,20,59,82-87]. Problem-based learning is a natural tech-nique to use in engineering because it models the way most engi-neers work in practice. A typical format for problem-basedcooperative learning is shown in Figure 5, The format illustrates theprofessor's role in a formal cooperative learning lesson and showshow the five essential elements ofa well-structured cooperative les-son are incorporated [41,88],

V. THE WORK AHEAD

This paper focused on illustrating how cooperative learning andproblem-based learning can advance academic success, quality of

TASK: Compleie the uisk or solve the problem,

INDIVIDUAL: Relied and idenlify problem,formulate method, or estimate answer. Notestrategy.

COOPERATIVE: One set of answers from thegroup, slrive tor agreement: make sureeveryone is able lo e.\plain lhe strategics usedto solve each problem,

EXPECTED CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS:Everyone must be able to explain the strategiesused lo solve each problem.

EVALUATION: Besl answer within available

INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Onemembef from any group may ha randomlycho.sen lo e,\plain (a) lhe answer and (b) how losolve eaeh problem.

EXPECTED BEHAVIORS: Acliveparticipating, checking, encouraging, andelaborating by all members.

INTERGROUP COOPERATION: Wheneveril is helpful, check procedures, answers, andstrategies wilh another group.

Figure 5. Problem-hased cooperative ¡earning.

96 Journal of Engineering Ediic

relationships, psychological adjustment, and attitudes toward thecollege experience. These particular pedagogies are examples of abroader category of pedagogies, commonly referred to as the peda-gogies of engagement. Other examples include learning communi-ties, service learning, and cooperative education. There is stilî muchwork to be done in advancing pedagogies of engagement: extendingthe theories that form their basis, conducting weU-formulated ex-periments that elucidate the key components of successful deploy-ment, and fostering and expanding the community of engineeringfecult)' who use them. There are still many unanswered questionsabout pedagogies of engagement and their efficacy. For example:

1. Are some types of engineering dasses (freshman or senior,lectures or project-based or labs, theoretical or applied) moreor less conducive to any of the pedagogies of engagement?

2. Are there synergistic effects among the pedagogies ofengagement?

3. What can be said about the efiëctiveness (in general and inengineering) of leaming communities, seri^ce leaming, coop-erative education, and inductive methods besides problem-based learning, such as project-based leaming (e.g., theAalborg experience), inquiry-based learning, discovery !eam-ing, and just-in-time teaching? What studies of these meth-ods should be carried out? Rigorous research on the eflëcts ofleaming communities is just beginning to emerge. For exam-ple, a recent study hy Zhao and Kuh [89] examined the rela-tionship between partidpating in leaming communities andstudent engagement for first-year and senior students at 365four-year institutions. They found that "participating in alearning community is positivdy linked to engagement as wellas student self-reported outcomes and overall sadsfection withcollege." Taylor, et al. caution us that "leaming community as-sessment and research can and should probe more deeply intothe nature of learning communit)' interventions, and the na-ture of their impact on the learning of students, those whosen-eon teaching teams, and institutions" [90, p. iii],

4. What kind of "teacher effects" have been found for pedago-gies of engagement? Are there teachers who cannot succeedwith these methods? Are there teachers who are more suc-cessfiilwith more traditional lecturing?

5. Can group-based methods have a negative effect on indi-\adual skills? How much of an effect, and what can be doneto avoid it? Said another way, is there an optimum balancebetween group and individual work? If so, what does thehalance depend on? (Level of course? Type of course? Priorhackground ofthe students?)

6. What are the differences in the henefits that result fromproperly implemented cooperative leaming and properly im-plemented coEaborative leaming? Are there circumstanceswhen collaborative would be preferable to cooperative?

7. How might emei^ng peer-assessment methods be inte-grated into pedagogies of engagement? Are there down-sides to these assessment methods in supporting the inten-sions of cooperative leaming and of collaborative leaming?There is increasing interest in the engineering educationcommunity in implementing peer assessment in team-based leaming settings. Some of this interest is motivatedhy fttculty seeing peer assessment as a way to help studentsimprove their cooperative sldlls, some by faculty seeing it asa way to reduce die number of "fee-loaders" on a cooperative

Januaiy 2005

team, and some b) faLult\ seeing it as a way to incoqjorate ac-tual work contiibution in awarding individual grades on ateam project. In addition, the ABET engineering criteriondiat says engineering graduates wWÏ have demonstrated an"ability to flincrion on multidisciplinary teams" is motivatingsome engineering prognims to conceive of peer assessment asa way of demonstrating tliis abUJty. Little is knovm abouthow peer assessment affects the nature of the cooperativevrork itself; research is sorely needed to study this influence, asoutlined in a recent NSI ' report authored by Sheppard et al,[91]. The work of Eschunbach [92], Cohen [93], andSchaefFer et al, [94] :irc examples of tliis tj pe of research

8. Can the effects ofthe Índi\'idual criteria that define cooper-ati\'e learning be parsed out to determine which are themost and least important (or if you can delete any ofthe cri-teria and still get tiie benefits of cooperative learning)?

9. Most pedagogies of engagement implementations takeplace at the individual dassroom level. Have there been anyefforts to institutionalize pedagogics of engagement at thedepartment or college level besides the project-based leam-ing at Aalborg. How have they succeeded? What barriers toinsritutionalization e.\ÍSt and how can they be overcome?Can a NSSE-like methodology' play a role in assessing theimpact of these pedago^es?

10. Have the benefits of pedagogies of engagement that extendbeyond graduation (e.g., to career success or to life-longlearning) been demonstrated by research? What studies ofthis nature might be undertaken?

This isjust a sampling ofthe many questions still to be addressedabout pedagogies of engagement! Of course, a similar set of ques-tions can be generated about other pedagogies, such as the tradi-tional lecture, recitation sessions, laboratory learning, etc.

VI. CONCLUSION: THINKING BIG ANDTHINKING DIFFERENTLY

The research findings on pedagogies of engagement outlined inthis paper, along with student engagement data available throughNSSE, underscore former University of Michigan President (andnow University Professor of science and engineering) James Duder-stadt's call for acrion:

"It could well be that feculty members ofthe twentj'-frrst cen-tury college or university will find it necessary to set aside theirroles as teachers and instead become designers ofleaming expe-riences,processes, and environments" [95, p. 7].

This is a call for us, as faculty teaching particular courses and asmembers of faculty teams who create and maintain engineeringprograms, to consider not only the content and topics that make upan engineering degree but also how students engage with thesematerials. It is also a call for us to explicitly consider how studentsengage in their college experience in both formal and informal ways.In moving forward we have numerous tools available to guide ourthinking, such as Fdder and Brent's [96] guidelines for course de-sign considering the ABET engineering criteria, and a recent bookbyFink[97], Creating Sig?iiftcant Learning Experiences: An Integrat-ed Approach to Designing College Courses, that provides a comprehen-

January 2005

sive modd to redesign courses we hope will have widespread applic-ahility in engineering.

We might even take a "backward design" approach to redesigningcur engineering programs, as suggested by Wi^ins and McTighe[98]. Their approach consists of three stages; the first stage consists ofidentifying desired results, and stages 2 and 3 involve determining ac-ccpfablc evidence and planning instruction, respectively. In carryingout stage 1, faculty consider to what extent an idea, topic, or process:

• represents a big idea or has enduring value beyond thedassroom;

• resides at the heart ofthe discipline;• requires uncoverage; and• offers potential for engaging students.Colleagues ofthe authors who have applied these filters to their

courses report that one-fourth to one-third ofthe material does notpass. Imagine what might happen if the same process were appliedboth at xhe course level and at the program level by faculty teams.

We know it is eas)' to slip into the traditional mode of lecture,but we all should be mindfiil ofWilbert McKeachie's [99] advice onlecturing: "I lecture only when I'm comônced it will do more goodthan harm." Classroom-based pedagogies of engagement, such ascooperarive leaming and problem-based learning, can help breakthe traditional lecture-dominant pattern. To maximize students'achievement, especially when they are studying conceptually com-plex and content-dense materials, instmaors should not allow themto remain passive while they are leaming. One way to get studentsmore actively involved is to structure cooperative interaction intoclasses, getting them to teach course material to one another and todig below superficial levels of understanding of the material beingtaught. It is vital for students to have peer support and to be activelearners, not only so that more of them leam the material at a deeperlevel, but also so that they get to know their dassmates and build asense of community vidth them.

It is important that when seniors graduate they have developedskills in talking through material with peers, listening with real skill,knowing how to build trust in a worldng relationship, and providingleadership to group efforts. If facult)' provide their students withtraining and practice in the social sldlls required to work coopera-tively v«th others, they will have the satisfaction of knouang theyhave helped prepare students for a worid where thej'will need to co-ordinate their efforts with others on the job, skillfiilly balance per-sona! relationships, and be contributing members of their commu-niries and society.

We dose with the compelling case for the importance of cooper-ation and interdependence that W. Edwards Deming made in hisbook The New Economic!for Industry, Government, Education:

"We have grown up in a climate of competition between peo-ple, teams, departments, divisions, pupils, schools, univerei-ties. We have been taught by economists that competitionVITU solve our problems. Actually, competition, we see now, isdestructive. It would be better if everyone would work to-getlier as a system, vidth the aim for everybody to win. Whatwe need is cooperation and transformation to a new style ofmanagement. Competition leads to loss. People pulling inopposite directions on a rope only exhaust themselves: theygo nowhere. Wliat we need is cooperation. Ever)' e.Kampk ofcooperation is one of benefit and gains to them thatcooperate" [100],

Journal of Engineering Education 97

ACIÍNOWLEDGMI-.NTS

The authors ai-e gratefijl to Rich Felder, their cognizant editor ofdiis special issue of the Journal of Engtneering Education, for hisconsistent support throughout the writing effort, to Jim Adams forproviding an insigbtRil review at a critical stage. In addition, tbe au-thor teams wishes to acknowledge the many (anonymous) reviewerswho helped us focus this paper, and Denise Curti who ensured thatthe final manuscriptwas properly formatted.

REFEIÎENCES

[1] Edgerton, R., Education H'bite Paper, 2001, http://imi>w. pe^uiinder-

ff-adforum.m-g/wpL html.

[2] Cbickering, A,W., and Gamson, Z,F„ "Se\'en Prindples for Good

Practice in. Higher Education," American Association for Higher Education

fi«//i'm;,Vol.39,1987,pp.3-7.

[3] National Survey of Student Engagement: The College Student

Report—2003 Annual Report, Bloomington, Ind.: Center for Postsec-

ondary Researd-i, Indiana University, 2003,

[4] Astin, A,, ¡Vhat Matters in College^ Four Critical Years Revisited,

San Francisco, Cal,: Jossey-Bass, 1993,

[5] Light, R.J,, Tbe Harvard Assessment Semitiars: Second Report.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1992.

[6] Light, R,J., Makingthe Most of College, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press, 2001,

[7] Pascarella, E,T., and Terenzini, P.T., Ho-.u College Affects Students:

Finding and Insigbtsf-om Tiaenty Years of Research, San Franci sco, Cal,:

Jossey-Bass, 1991,

[8] MacGregor,J,, Cooper,J,, Smith,, K., -and Robinson, P., eds,, "Strate-

gies for Energizing Large Classes: Ftom Small Groups to LeamingCommu-

[9] Christensen, C.R,, Garvin, D,A,, and Sweet, A,, Education for

Judgment: Tbe Artistry of Discussion Leadership, Cambridge, Mass,: Harvard

Business Sdioo!, 1991.

[10] Smith, K,A„ Johnson, D,W„ and Johnson, R,T„ "Stmcturing

Learning Goals to Meet the Goals of En^neering Education," Engineer-

ingEducation, Vol. 72, No, 3,1981, pp, 221-226,

[11] Johnson, D,W., Johnson, R.T,, and Smitb, K,A., Coope>-ative

Leading: Increasing CoUege Faculty Instructional Productivity, ASHE-

ERIC Repon on Higher Education, Washington, D .C: The George

Washington University, 1991,

[12] Asrin, A,W„ "Engineering Outcomes," Prism, Vol, 3, No, 1,

1993, pp. 27-30,

[13] BnifFee, K., Collaborative Learning: Higbci Education, Interdepen-

dence, and tbe Authority of Kitov)ledge,^ilumoie,Mâ.:]oVi.mllap]âît%\}TÙ-

versity Press, 1999.

[14] Barkley, E., Cross, K.P, and Major, CH, , Collaborative Leaming

Tecbniques: A Practical Guide to Promoting Leamingin Groups, San Francisco,

Ca],:Jossey Bass, 2004,

[15] Barrows, H,S,, and Tarnblyn, R,N,, Problem-Based Learning: An

Approach toMedicalEdiication,ni:wYoik,^.Y.:Spñn^Qí,19'eü.

[16] Barrows, H,S,, "Problem-Based Learning in Medicine and Be-

yond: A Brief Overview, in Wilkerson, L, and Gijsdacrs, W,H,, eds,. New

Directions for Teaching and Leamitig, No. 68, 1996, pp. 3-11, San Francisco,

Cal,: Jossey-Bass Publishers,

[17] \^ooàs,D.R., Problem-Based Leartiitjg: How to Cain tbe Most fiotn

PBL, Watcrdown, Onr,irio: Donald R, Woods, 1994,

98 Journal of Engitieering Education

[18] Adams, J,L,, Flying Buttresses. Entropy, and U-rings: lit' I- '•' ••'}

fln£fJiineCT-,Cambridge, Mass,: Harvard Universit)-Press, 1991,

[19] Allen, D.E., Duch, B.J,, and Crob, S.E,, "Tbo I ' - v « of

Problcm-Basüd Learning in Teaching Introductory Sdence C i>Lirses, in

Wilkcrson, L, and GijsdaL-rs, Bringing Probkm-Based Learning to High-

er Education: Theory ancl Practice, Nev! Directions for Teacbing atidLeam-

ingóS, San Francisco, Cal,: Josse)'-Bass, 1996,

[20] Duch, B.J., Grob, S.E., and Aller, D.E., Tbe Power of Problem-

Based Learning: A Practical "How To"for Teacbing Undergraduate Courses in

anyDiscipline,Stylus,2001.

[21] Allen, D., and Ducb, B,, Thmking Toward Solutions: Problem-

Based Activities fen'Ceneral Biology, Fort Worth, Tex,: Saunders, 1998.

[22] Woods, D.R., "Issues in Implementation in an Other^vise Con-

ventional Programme," Ch. 12, pp, 122-129, in Boud, D, and Feletd, G,,

eds.. The Challenges of Problem-based Learning," London: Kogan Page, 1991.

[23] PBL Insight Vol. 2, No. 1, bttp://w-ww.samford.edu/pubs/

pbl/phh2isl.pdf

[24] Mills, J.E., and Treagust, D.F., "Engineering Education—Is

Problem-Based or Project-Based Learning the Piï\^way Austraaslian Jour-

nal of Engineering iLducation, http://v}'m'v^. aaee.com. au/jour nal/

2003/mills_treagust03.pdf.

[25] D>TO, C , Agogino, A., Eris, O,, Fre)', D., and Leifer. L,, "Engi-

neering Design Thinking, Teaching, and heaming," Journal of Engineering

Edncatioti, Vol, 94, No, 1,2005, pp, 103-120,

[26] Lancaster, J., Improvements in Education, Abridged, Containing a

complete epitome, of tbe system of education, invented and practiced by

the author, London: Printed and sold byj. Lancaster, 1808.

[27] Campbell, J,, "The Children's Crusader Colond Fninds W. Pariser,"

Ph,D, Dissertation, Teachers CoUege, Columbia Universit)', 1965,

[28] Dev -ey, J., The School and Society, 2nd ed., Chicago, 111: Univ'erîity

of Chicho Press, 1924.

[29] Pepitone, E,, Children in Cooperation and Cottipetition, Lexington,

Mass.: Lexington Books, 1980,

[30] Johnson, D.W,, and Johnson, R,T., "Cooperative Learning and

Sodal Psycholog)*: The Interrelationship Among Theor)', Research, and

Practice," S)Tnposium: Efforts to Bridge Social Psychology and Education,

Harris Cooper, Chair, Sodety of Experimental Social Psychology, Annual

Conference, Dallas, October 15-16,2004,

[31] DeVries, D., and Edwards, K., "Learning Games and Student

Teams: Their Effects on Classroom Processes," American Education R£-

searcbjoumal. Vol. 10,1974, pp, 307-318.

[32] Sharan, S., and Sharan, Y., Small Croup Teacbing, Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Tedinology, 1976.

[33] Slavin,R,,Leavey,M,, and Madden, N., Team-Assisted Individu-

alixation: Mathematics Teacbers Manual, John Hopkins University: Center

for Social Organization of Schools. 1982,

[34] K^an, S,, Cooperative Learning, San Juan Capistrano, Cal.: Re-

sources for Teachers, 1991,

[35] Coben, E,, Designing Grotipwork StrategiesJor tbe Heterogeneous

Classroom, New York, N,Y.: Teachers College Press, 1986.

[36] Cohen, E,, "Restrucniring the Classroom: Conditions for Pro-

ductive Small Groups, Re-jiew of Educational Researcb, Vol, 6, 1994,

pp, 1-35,

[37] Danscreau, D,F., and Johnson, D.W,, Cooperative Leaming,

Cb, 5, pp. 83-111; references pp, 319-327), in Dnickman, D. and Bjork,

R,A,, eds., Leaming, Remend?ering, Believitig: Enhancing Human Perfor-

mance, Washington, D.C,: National Academy Press, 1994.

[38] Smith, [i.A., Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T,, "The Use of

Cooperative Learning Groups in Engineering Education, Proceedings,

January 2005

Eleventh Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Washington, D.C:

[EEE/ASEE, 1981, pp. 26-32.

[39] MilEs, B.j., and Cottcll, P.G., Cooperative Leaming for Higher

Education Faculty, Phoenbi, Ariz.: Ainericaji Council on Education and

the Oiyx Press, 1998.

[40] Johnson, David W., Jolmson, Roger T., and Smith, Karl A., Ac-

tive Leartiing: Cooperation m the College Classroom. Edimi, M N : Interacrticin

Book Cotnpany, 1991.

[41] Johnson, D.W., Jolinson, D.T., and Smitli, ICA., Active Leam-

ing: Cooperation m the College Classroom, 2nd ed., Edina, Minn: Interaction

Book Company, 199S.

[42] Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Sniitll, K.A., "Cooperative

Leaming Returns to College: What Evidence Is There that it Works?

Chtmge, Vol. 30, No. 4,1998, pp. 26-35.

[43] Leivin, K., A Dynamic Theory^ of Personality. New York, N.Y.:

McGraw-Hill, 1935.

[44] Deutsch, M., "A Theory of Cooperation and Competition,"

Human Relations, Vol. 2,1949, pp. 129-152.

[45] Deutsch, M., "Cooperation and Trust Some Theoretical Notes," in

J Ï I Ï T J J j V / t Í. C J. ' fl/Ti' f' 1Q¿O

ones, jvi.iv., eQ., î\et/rasKa ùyTnj/osiujn on ivjortjfarion, ÍJOA,

pp. 275-319, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

[46] Johnson, D.W., The Social Psychology of Education, New York,

N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart& Winston, 1970.

[47] Johnson. D.W., and Johnson, R.T., "Instructional Goal Stnic-

ture: Cooperative, Competitive, or Individualistic," Revieuj of Educational

Research, Vol. 44,1974, pp. 213-240.

[48] Johnson, D. A'. and Johnson, R.T., Cooperation and Competition:

Theory and Researcb, Edina, Minn: Interaction Book Company, 1989.

[49] Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., and Donovan, S. S., "Efiect of Small

Group Learning on Utidergraduates in Sdence, Mathematics, Engineer-

ing and Teclinology: A Meta-Analysis," Review of Educational Research,

Vol. 69,1,1999, pp. 21-51.

[50] Bowen, C.W., "A Quantitative Literature Review of Cooperative

Learning Effects on High School and CoUege Chemistry Achievement,"

Journal t>fCbemical Education, Vol. 77,2000, p. 116.

[51] Prince, M., "Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the ^.f:-

seitzh," Journal oJEngineering Education, Vol. 93, No. 3, 2004,pp. 223-246.

[52] Hake, R., 'Interactive-Engage ment vs. Traditional Methods: A

Six-Thousand Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory

Physics ComKi." American Journal of Physics. Vol. 66, No. 1, 1998,

pp. 64-74.

[53] Redish, E.F., Teacbing Physics -with the Physics Suite, New York,

N.Y.:WiIey,2003.

[54] Tinto, V., LeaiÀng College: Retbinking the Causes and Cures of Stu-

dent Attrition, 2nd ed., Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

[55] McKeachie, W., Pintrich, P., Yi-Guang, L., and Smith, D., Teach-

ing and Learning in the College CàissroonvA Review ofthe Research Literature,

Ann Arbor, Mich.: The Regents ofthe University of Michigan, 1986.

[56] Cohen, D., and Pnisak, L., In Good Company: How Social Capital

Makes Orgamzations Wmk. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business Sdiocl

Press, 2001.

[57] Wilkerson, L., and Gijselacrs, W.H., "Bringing Problem-Based

Leaming to Higher Education: Theory and Practice," Atïu Directions for

Teacbing and Learning, 68, SanFrandsco, Cal.: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

[58] Jones, J.W., Bieber, L.L., Echt, R., Scheifley, V., and Ways,

P.O., "A Probkm-Based Curriculum—Ten Years of Experience," in

Schmidt, H.G. and DeVolder, M.L., eds.. Tutorials in Problem-Based

Leaming, Assen/Maastricht, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984.

[59] Evcnsen, D.H., and Hmdo, C.E., ProhL-m-BascdLearning-. A Re-

searcb Perspective on Leaming Interactions,M.ahwdh,lSi.].-. Erlbaum, 2000.

[60] Dochy, R, Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., and Gijbels, D., "Ef-

fects of Problem-Based Learning: A Meta-Analysis," Leaming and Instruc-

/7û>î, Vol. 13,2003, pp. 533-568.

[61] Albanese, M.A., and Mitchell, S., "Problem-Based Learning: A

Review of Literature on its Outcomes and Implementation Issues, Acade-

micMedidne, Vol 68,1993, pp. 52-81.

[62] Vemon, D.T.A., and Blake, R. L., "Does Problem-Based Leam-

ing Work? A Meta-Analysis of Evaluative Research," Academic Medicine,

Vol. 68,1993, pp. 550-563.

[63] Mazur, E., Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Upper Saddle River,

N.J.: Prentice Hall,1997.

[64] Damiofal, D., "Educating the Future: Impact of Pedagogical Re-

forni in Aetodynamics," m Caughey, D.A. and Hafez, M.M., eds.. Com-

puting tbe Future IV: Frontiers of CoTUputaúorujl Fluid Dynamics, Springer-

Verlag, 2005.

[65] Martin, J., MitcheU, J,, Newell, T., "Development of a Concept

Inventory for Fluid Mechanics", FIE 2003 Conference Proceedings, Nov.

2003.

[66] Landis, C.R., Ellis, A.B., Lisenslg', G.C., Lorenz, J.K., Meeker,

K., and Wämser, C.C, Chemistiy Concepts: A Pathway to Interactive Class-

rooms, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2001.

[67] Novak, G.M., Patterson, E.T., Ganin, A.D., and Christian, W.,

Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending Active Leamtng with Web Technolog,

Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1999.

[68] Michael, J.A., and Modell, ¥i.l.. Active Leaming in Secondary and

College Science Classrooms A WorkingModelJbr Helping the Leamer to LtCarn,

Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003.

[69] Felder, R.M., and Brent, R., "Learning by Doing," Chemical En-

gineering Education, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2003, pp. 282-283. Online at

bttp://-wwvj. 71CSU. edu/felder-pubtic/Coliimns/Active.pdf.

[70] Seymour, E., 'Tracking the Processes of Change in U.S. Under-

graduate Education in Sdence, Mathemarics, Engineering, and Technolo-

g)'"' Science Education, Vol. 86,2001, pp. 79-105.

[71] Smith, K.A., Teamwork and Project Management, New York,

N,Y.: McGraw-Hill. BEST Series, 2004.

[72] Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, F., Joining Togetber: Group Tbeory

and Group Skills, 7th ed., Boston, Mass.: Allyn &Bacon, 2000.

[73] Shuman, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., and McGourty, J., T h e

ABET Professional Skills-Can They Be Taught? Can They Be Assessed?"

JoumahJ'EnginecringEducation, Vo. 94, No. 1,2005, pp. 41-55.

[74] Katzenbach, J.R., and Smith, D.K., The Wisdom of Teams: Creat-

ing tbe Higb-Performance Organization, Cambridge, Mass.r Harvard Busi-

ness Sdiool Press, 1993.

[75] Smith, K.A.. "Stmctured Con trovers)'," Engineering Education,

Vol. 74, No. 5,1984, pp. 306-309.

[76] Johnson, D.W.Johnson, R.T., and Smith, KA.. "Constructive

Controversy: The Power of Intellectual Conflict," Change, Vol. 32, No. 1,

2000, pp. 28-37.

[77] Aronson, E., The Jigsaw Classroom, Beverly HiUs, Cal.: Sage Pub-

Hcarions, 1978.

[78] Smith, K.A., "Cooperative Learning: Making 'Groupwork'

work," in Bonwell, C. and Sutherlund, T., eds., Acrive leaming: Lessons

a"om practice and emerging issues. Me-m DirectionsJbr Teaching andEeüm-

ing67.1996, pp. 71-82, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[79] Brent, R., "EfFective Strategics for Cooperative Learning."/""''"'/

afCoaperalian £ i Ca/iaharatian in Calkge Teaehing, Voi. 10, No. 2, 2001,

pp. 69-75.

January 2005 Jo,,rn.,l of Engin 99

[80] Mourtos, N,J,, 'The Nuts and Boíts of CoopL-r;idvt Learning in En-^Citerins;'JoumaloJ'EngiimivigEducation, Vol, 86, No, 1,1997, p\ >. 15-37,

[81] Pitnmel, R., "Cooperative Leaming Instructional Aiiivities in aCapstont Design CQ\.im<:," Journal cifEngineering Education. Vul, 90, No, 3,2001. pp, 413-422,

[82] Bond, D,, and Felctti, G.E., The Challenge of Pi ob!cm-B,isedleam-;/, , London: Kogan Paul, 1997,

[S3] Bridges, E,M,, and Hamnger, P., Implementing Problem BasedLeaming in Leadership Development, Eugene, Ore.: ERIC Clearinghous,^on Educational Management, 1995.

[84] Knowlton, D,, and Sharp, D., Troblem-Based Learning in theinformation Age," New Directions for Teaching and Leaming 95, SanFraudsco:Josscy-Bass,2003,

[85] Smith, K.A., and Starfield, A,M„ "BuUding Modds to SolveProblems," pp. 254-264, in Clarke, J.H. and Biddle, A.W., eds.. TeachingCritical Thinking: Reports fiom Across tbe Cwriculuni, Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-HaU, 1993.

[86] Starfield, A.M,, Smidi, K.A., and Blcloch, A,, How to Model If:Problem Solving/or tbe ComputerAge, 2nd ed., Edina, Minn.: Burgess Press,1994.

[87] Smiri-ßaaeri,M., Facilitating Problem-Based Leaming: Illuminat-ing Perspectives. Berkshire, England: SRHE and Open Univcriity Press,2003,

[88] Johnson, D,W,, Johnson, RT,, and Smith, IÍ.A,, "MaxinuzingInstiuction Through Cooperative Leartiing," pp. 24-29, Prism, VoL 7, 6,1998,

[89] Zhao,C,-M,, and Kuh, G,D,'Adding Value: LearningCommu-tiities and Student Engagement," Research tn Higber Education, In Press.

[90] Taylor, K,,Moore,V\^,S,,Mac:Gregor,J., and Lindblad,J,,Z,irtm-ing Community Researcb and Assessment: What We Know Now, NationalLearning Coniniuiiities Project Monograph Senes, Olympia, Vash.: TheEvergreen State College, Washington Center for Improvitig the Quality ofUndergraduate Education, in cooperation with the American AssociationofHighcr Education, 2003.

[91] Sheppard, S., Peer Assessment of Student Collaborative Processes inUnder^aduate Engineering Education, Final Report to National ScienceFoundation, Award Number 0206820, NSF Program 7431 CCLI—ASA, Sheti Sheppard, Hden L, Chen, Evonne Schaeffer, Reinhold Stein-beck, Stanford Center for Innovations in Leaming, June 2004,

[92] Eschenbach, E,A., and Mesmer, M.A., 'Web Based Forms forDesign Team Peer Evaluations," Proceedings, 199S ASEE Annual Confer-ence and Exposition.

[93] Schaeffijr, E., Nash, J., and Michaldiik, V., Small Group Collabo-ration in the Large Lecture Setting: ChallengesJbr Assessment, Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American Association ofHighei- Education As-sessment Conference, Denver, Colo., June 2001,

[94] Cohen, E., "Restnicturiiig tiie Classroom: Condirions for Pro-ductive Small Groups," Review of Educational Research, Vol, 6, 1994,pp. 1-35,

[95] Duderstadt,J.J,, "Can Colleges and Universities Survive in the In-fonnation Age?" In KaK, R,N, and Associates, eds,. Dancing Wilb tbeDevil: Information Technolog'and the New Competition m Highei'Education,San Francisco, Cal.: Jossey-Bass, 1999,

[96] Felder, R,M,, and Brent, R., "Designing and Teaching Coursesto Satisfy the ABET Engineering Critena" Jowmal of Engineering Educa-tion, Vol, 92, No. 1,2003, pp, 7-25,

[97] Fink, L.D,, Creating Sigjiificant Learning Experiences: An Integrat-ed Approach to Designing College Courses, San Frandsco, Cal.: Jossey-Bass,2002,

100 Journal of Engineering Education

[98] Wig^ns,G.,imdMcTi^he,]., Undentandingby-Design,.nil: .-•'«-'•r^^Va.:ASCD, 1998,

[99] McKcachie, W,, "Teacliing Thinking," in National Center for Re-search for the Improvement of Postsecondary Teaching and Leaming Update,Vol.l,No,2,19íi8.

[100] Deming, W.D., The New Economics for Industry, Government,Education, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Center for Advanced EngineeringStudy, 1993.

AUTHORS' BIOGRAPHIES

Karl A, Smith is Morse-Alumni Distinguished TeachingProfessor and professor of civil engineering at the Uruversity ofMinnesota, His research interests indude the role of cooperation inlearning and design; problem formtilarion, modeling, and knowl-edge engineering; and project atid knowledge management andleadership. His bachelor's and master's degrees are in metallurgicalen^neering from Michigan Teclinological University and bis Pb.D.is in educational ps}'chology from the Universit)' of Minnesota.Dr, Smith has received numerous awards, induding DistinguishedService Award, Educational Research and Metbods Division,American Society ior Engineering Education; Chester F. CarlsonAward fbr Innovation in Engineering Education, American Sodetyfor Engineering Education; Outstanding Contributions to Cooper-ative Learning Award; Cooperative Learning Special InterestGroup, Amencan Association for Higber Education; fellow, Amer-ican Society for Engineering Education; Ronald J. Schmitz Awardfor outstanding continued serwce to engineering educarion throughcontributions to the Frontiers in Education Conference, ERM Di-vision of ASEE and Education Society of IEEE. He is currently co-PI on two NSF-CTLs—Center for tbe Advancement of Engineer-ing Education {CAEE) and National Center for Engineering andTechnology Education {NCETE) and co-PI on a NSF-CCLI-ND—Rigorous Research in Engineering Education: Culriraring aCommunity of Practice. He servies on the National Advisory Boardsfor the NSF-CLT Center for tbe Integration of Research, Teachingand Learning; and the National Academy ot Engineering's Centerfor the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Educarion. Heis editor-in-chief of the ./ÍWW17A of Research on Engineering Education.He is a visiting professor of engineering education at Purdue Univer-sity for tiie 2004-2005 academic year.

Address: Ciwl Engineering, Universitj' of Minnesota, 236 Ci\'ilEngineering, 500 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455,telephone: {612) 625-0305, FAX: {612) 626-7750. e-mail:ksmitb@umn.edu, URL: http://www. ce. um n,edu/~ smith

Sberi D. Sheppard, Ph.D., P.E., Senior Scholar, is the CamegieFoundation for the Advancement ot Teaching Senior Scholar prin-cipally responsible for the Preparations for the Professions Program(PPP) engineering study. In addition, she is an assodate professorof mechanical engineering at Stanford University. Besides teachingboth undergraduate and graduate design-related dasses at StanfordUniversity, she conducts research oti weld farigue and impact fail-ures, fracture mechanics, and applied finite element analysis. Dr.Sheppard is co-principal invesrigator on a National Sdence Foun-dation (NSF) grant to form the Center for tbe Advancement ofEngineering Education (CAEE), along wtli ticulty at tbe Univer-sity of Washington, Colorado School of Mines, and Howard

January 2005

University. Dr. Shepp;ird \vas named a fellow ofthe American So-dety of Mechanical Engineering (ASME) and the American Asso-ciation for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1999, and in2004 she was awarded the ASEE Chester F. Carlson Award inrecognition of distinguished accomplishments in engineering edu-cation. Before coming to Stanford Universit)', she held several posi-tions in the automotive industry, including senior research engineerat Ford Motor Company's Scientific Research Lab. She alsoworked as a design consultant, prowding companies with structuralanalysis expertise. Dr. Sheppard's graduate work was done at theUniversity ofMichigan(1985).

David W. Johnson is a professor of educational psychology atthe University of Minnesota where he holds the Emma M,Birkmaier Professorship in Educational Leadership. He is co-directorofthe Cooperative Learning Center. He received a master's and adoctoral degree fi"om Columbia University. He is a past-editor ofthe American Educational Research Journal. He has pubüshed morethan 350 research articles and book chapters and is the author ofmore than forty books (most co-autliored with R. Johnson), in-cluding The Social Psycholog of Education, Reaching Out: Interper-sonal Effectiveness and Self-Actualization, Joining Together: CroupTheory and Group Skills, and many others. Some of his nationalawards indude the following. In 1972 he received a National Re-search Award In Personnel And Guidance from the AmericanPersonnel and Guidance Assodation and in 1981 he received theGordon Allport Award for outstanding research on lntergroup re-lationships from Division Nine ofthe American Psychological As-sociation, The Emma M. Birkmaier Professorship in EducationalLeadership (1994-1997) awarded by the College of Education,University of Minnesota, In 1996-1997 he was the Libra En-dowed Chair, Visiting Professor, University of Maine at Presque

Isle. For the past thirty-five years Dr. Johnson has served as an or-ganizational consultant to schools and businesses in such areas asmanagement tr^ning, team building, ethnic relations, conflict res-olution, interpersonal and group skills training, dmg abuse preven-tion, and evaluating attitudinal/affective outcomes of educationaland training programs. He is a recognized authority on experientialleaming and currently provides training for clients in NorthAmerica, Central America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, andthe Pacific Region.

Roger T. Johnson is a professor in the Depanment of Curricu-lum and Instruction with an emphasis in science education at theUniversity of Minnesota. He holds an M.A. fiom Ball State Uni-versity and an Ed.D from the University of California in Berkeley,His public school teaching experience indudes teaching in kinder-garten through eighth grade in self-contained classrooms, openschools, nongraded situations, cottage schools, and depanmental-Í2ed (sdence) schools. Dr. Johnson has been the recipient of severalnational awards, induding the Research Award in Social StudiesEducation presented by the National Council for the Social Stud-ies, the Helen Plants Award from the American Society for Engi-neering Education, the Gordon Aliport lntergroup RelationsAward fiom the Society for the Psycholo^cal Study of Social Issues(Division 9 of the American Psychological Association), theAlumni of the year award from Teachers College, Ball StateUniversity, and die Outstanding Contribution to Research and Prac-tice in Cooperative Learning Award from the American Educa-tional Research Association Special Interest Group on CooperativeLearning. He is die co-director of tlie Cooperative Leaming Center,which conducts research and training nationally and intemationallyon changing the structure of dassrooms and schools to a morecooperative environment.

Januaiy 2005 Journal of Engineering Educatio

Copyright of Journal of Engineering Education is the property of ASEE and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.