A Model for a Faculty Development Course Redesign Summer Working Group

Michelle M Blum; Katie D. Cadwell; Julie M. Hasenwinkel

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
Location: Virtual On line
Publication Date: June 22, 2020
Start Date: June 22, 2020
End Date: June 26, 2021
Conference Session: Faculty Development Evidence-based Practices!
Tagged Division: Faculty Development Division
Page Count: 17
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--34016
Permanent URL: https://strategy.asee.org/34016
Download Count: 443

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Michelle M Blum Syracuse University

visit author page

Dr. Blum is interested in research in improving undergraduate engineering education; including development of inquiry based activities for first year engineering courses, improvement of student design projects, hands-on activities, professional skills development and inclusion and outreach activities. Dr. Blum also specializes in high performance materials development and characterization for tribological (friction and wear), structural, and biomedical applications.

visit author page

biography

Katie D. Cadwell Syracuse University

visit author page

Katie Cadwell is an Associate Teaching Professor in the Department of Biomedical and Chemical Engineering at Syracuse University, where she has taught Chemical Engineering core courses since 2011. After receiving Chemical Engineering degrees from the Missouri University of Science and Technology (B.S.) and University of Wisconsin-Madison (Ph.D.), she pursued a postdoctoral position in engineering education and outreach with the Interdisciplinary Education Group of the Materials Research Science and Engineering Center at UW-Madison. Prior to moving to Syracuse, she taught for several years at Madison Area Technical College. Her interests include development of engineering faculty attitudes and pedagogy, teaching professional skills in the engineering classroom, and engineering outreach at the K-12 level.

visit author page

biography

Julie M. Hasenwinkel Syracuse University

visit author page

Professor and Chair, Department of Biomedical and Chemical Engineering
College of Engineering and Computer Science
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY 13244

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Overview: This Evidence-Based Practice Paper describes a professional development opportunity offered to engineering and computer science faculty at XXX in the summer of 2019 that focused on improving the quality at all grade levels of course instruction. This was a continuation of a project developed by a grant-supported team originating as an opportunity for faculty to modify first year or gateway classes. For this subsequent offering, the opportunity was open for any faculty to participate in a Course Redesign Summer Working Group.

Goals: The goals of the working group were (1) to educate faculty on best practices in teaching and assessment, (2) provide a forum for sharing teaching practices and (3) to help faculty implement best practices, in the form of student-active pedagogies, and test the success of these changes in their classrooms in the 2019-2020 academic year.

Motivation: The motivation for creation of the working group was to enhance prevalence of active learning in engineering classes in order to improve both retention and graduation rates, thus keeping these students in the engineering pipeline.

Method: The team created an intensive summer program where faculty had to commit to attend a kick-off meeting, a minimum of four 2-hour working sessions, and a mandatory final presentation. During these sessions faculty received (1) guest speakers on course outcomes, teaching and assessment techniques, (2) a forum for faculty to discuss adapting methods to their various subjects, including potential pitfalls, and best practices, (3) peer and technical support for their new ideas, and (4) time and space to work on their new ideas. For a course redesign plan faculty had to address student-learning outcomes, an assessment plan, and an implementation plan for the course changes. In addition, for fully participating, faculty received a summer salary supplement and an additional supplement after implementing the class changes and assessing the success of those changes. Twenty one faculty participated in the summer 2019 program with 95% of the workshop participants meeting all of the summer program requirements, including presenting their work/plans at the final summer meeting. During the 2019-2020 academic year, faculty will implement their course changes and are required to submit a final deliverable that focuses on assessment of the success of their course change.

Assessment: The success of the program will be determined by evaluating the success of the proposed changes each faculty incorporated into their course. The faculty will be surveyed to determine the likelihood that they would have revised their course without the support and accountability that the Redesign Working Group provided. Since this was a continuation of a recently developed program, a comparison will be made between project outcomes and faculty attitudes between the first and second offerings. We anticipate that the program will prove successful, and will continue to offer it to faculty. We would like to share the model and lessons learned with our peers in a traditional lecture format.

Citation
Format

Blum, M. M., & Cadwell, K. D., & Hasenwinkel, J. M. (2020, June), A Model for a Faculty Development Course Redesign Summer Working Group Paper presented at 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual On line . 10.18260/1-2--34016

TY - CPAPER
AB - Overview: This Evidence-Based Practice Paper describes a professional development opportunity offered to engineering and computer science faculty at XXX in the summer of 2019 that focused on improving the quality at all grade levels of course instruction. This was a continuation of a project developed by a grant-supported team originating as an opportunity for faculty to modify first year or gateway classes. For this subsequent offering, the opportunity was open for any faculty to participate in a Course Redesign Summer Working Group.

Goals: The goals of the working group were (1) to educate faculty on best practices in teaching and assessment, (2) provide a forum for sharing teaching practices and (3) to help faculty implement best practices, in the form of student-active pedagogies, and test the success of these changes in their classrooms in the 2019-2020 academic year.

Motivation: The motivation for creation of the working group was to enhance prevalence of active learning in engineering classes in order to improve both retention and graduation rates, thus keeping these students in the engineering pipeline.

Method: The team created an intensive summer program where faculty had to commit to attend a kick-off meeting, a minimum of four 2-hour working sessions, and a mandatory final presentation. During these sessions faculty received (1) guest speakers on course outcomes, teaching and assessment techniques, (2) a forum for faculty to discuss adapting methods to their various subjects, including potential pitfalls, and best practices, (3) peer and technical support for their new ideas, and (4) time and space to work on their new ideas. For a course redesign plan faculty had to address student-learning outcomes, an assessment plan, and an implementation plan for the course changes. In addition, for fully participating, faculty received a summer salary supplement and an additional supplement after implementing the class changes and assessing the success of those changes.
Twenty one faculty participated in the summer 2019 program with 95% of the workshop participants meeting all of the summer program requirements, including presenting their work/plans at the final summer meeting. During the 2019-2020 academic year, faculty will implement their course changes and are required to submit a final deliverable that focuses on assessment of the success of their course change.

Assessment: The success of the program will be determined by evaluating the success of the proposed changes each faculty incorporated into their course. The faculty will be surveyed to determine the likelihood that they would have revised their course without the support and accountability that the Redesign Working Group provided. Since this was a continuation of a recently developed program, a comparison will be made between project outcomes and faculty attitudes between the first and second offerings. We anticipate that the program will prove successful, and will continue to offer it to faculty. We would like to share the model and lessons learned with our peers in a traditional lecture format.

AU - Michelle M Blum
AU - Katie D. Cadwell
AU - Julie M. Hasenwinkel
CY - Virtual On line
DA - 2020/06/22
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - A Model for a Faculty Development Course Redesign Summer Working Group
UR - https://strategy.asee.org/34016
DO - 10.18260/1-2--34016
ER -