History and philosophy

C H A P T E R 1

Chronological and Ontological Development of Engineering Education

as a Field of Scientific Inquiry

Jeffrey E. Froyd and Jack R. Lohmann

Introduction

Engineering education as an area of in- terest for curriculum development and ped- agogical innovation emerged in the United States in the period around 1890 to 1910 with the founding of the Society for the Pro- motion of Engineering Education (SPEE) in 1893 (American Society for Engineering Education, n.d.). Founding dates for a few other engineering education associations may provide some indication of when inter- est in engineering education emerged across the world: Internationale Gesellschaft für Ingenieurpadagogik (IGIP, 1972); Société Européenne pour la Formation des Ingénieurs (SEFI, 1973); and Australasian Association of Engineering Education (AAEE, 1989). Other associations interested in engineering education include Associação Brasileira de Educação em Engenharia (ABENGE), Asociación Nacional de Fac- ultades y Escuelas de Ingenieria (ANFEI), International Association for Continuing Engineering Education (IACEE), Korean Society for Engineering Education (KSEE), Latin American and Caribbean Consortium

of Engineering Institutions (LACCEI), and Mühendislik Dekanlari Konseyi (MDK). Given the date of the founding of the SPEE and historical data available on the society and its growth, in relation to similar infor- mation about other engineering education associations or societies, the authors have elected to use the chronology of events in the United States as the principal framework to describe the evolution of engineering education as a field of scientific inquiry with references to similar events internationally.

A transition, which is not nearly com- plete, to an interdisciplinary, more scholarly field of scientific inquiry into engineering education is occurring nearly 100 years later (Borrego & Bernhard, 2011; Continental, 2006; Haghighi, 2005; Jesiek, Newswander, & Borrego, 2009; Lohmann, 2005). Contextual factors, which are too numerous to describe exhaustively, have and will influence evo- lution of the field of engineering educa- tion research; however, the authors would like to draw attention to four important factors. First, although engineering is taught at K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels, professional licensure currently requires a

3

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

4 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

baccalaureate degree in engineering. There- fore, undergraduate education has been the primary avenue through which engineers enter the profession, and the literature in engineering education has focused predom- inantly on undergraduate education. As a result, research questions in undergradu- ate engineering education have tended to dominate attention of researchers; however, this is changing. Second, unlike mathemat- ics and science education in K–12, K–12 engineering education has traditionally been lacking. As a result, research in K–12 engi- neering education has been minimal. How- ever, the situation is changing. “Although K–12 engineering education has received lit- tle attention from most Americans, includ- ing educators and policy makers, it has slowly been making its way into U.S. K– 12 classrooms. Today, several dozen differ- ent engineering programs and curricula are offered in school districts around the coun- try, and thousands of teachers have attended professional development sessions to teach engineering-related coursework. In the past 15 years, several million K–12 students have experienced some formal engineering edu- cation” (Committee on K–12 Engineering Education; Linda Katehi, 2009, p. 1). As a result of increasing interest in engineering education in K–12, research questions asso- ciated with this focus are growing in impor- tance. However, a large percentage of engi- neering faculty members, who traditionally have been viewed as primary stakehold- ers in findings from engineering education research, may not take much interest in find- ings from engineering education research in K–12. Third, research in education and the learning sciences can make significant con- tributions as researchers in any disciplinary- based educational field address their com- plex research questions (Froyd, Wankat, & Smith, 2012; Johri & Olds, 2011; also see Chapters 2 by Newstetter & Svinicki and 29 by Pellegrino, DiBello, & Brophy in this volume). However, much of the scholarly literature in education and the learning sci- ences has focused on precollege education, an area that traditionally has attracted less

attention from most engineering faculty members (Johri & Olds, 2011), because of their focus on undergraduate education. It will take time and energy for familiarity and interest of engineering practitioners at the undergraduate level in research and learn- ing sciences to reach a level that it begins to influence practice. Fourth, engineering edu- cators, in general, receive little or no for- mal preparation for their instructional duties during their doctoral training or later as fac- ulty. As a result, for most engineering fac- ulty members, lack of familiarity with the education and learning sciences literature, reliance on familiar research methodologies that were often ill suited for educational studies, and complacency with accepting student satisfaction surveys as indicators of efficacy of course changes generated “a rich tradition of educational innovation, but until the 1980s assessment of innovation was typically of the ‘We tried it and liked it and so did the students’ variety” (Wankat, Felder, Smith, & Oreovicz, 2002, p. 217). Changing practice in engineering education so that faculty members apply findings in engineering education research, education research, and research in the learning sci- ences to their practice in engineering class- rooms is a major challenge for engineering education practice and research (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009, 2012).

Catalysts, including major National Sci- ence Foundation (NSF) funding for edu- cational research and development begin- ning in the late 1980s and emergence of the outcomes-based ABET Engineering Crite- ria led to significant publications in engi- neering education research in the 1990s. In the last twenty years, engineering education research has begun to emerge as an inter- disciplinary research field seeking its own theoretical foundations from a rich array of research traditions in the cognitive sci- ences; learning sciences; education; and edu- cational research in physics, chemistry, and other scientific disciplines.

The remainder of the chapter is divided into two parts. First, we provide a brief chronology of the development of

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

chronological and ontological development of engineering education 5

engineering education as a field of study. We then describe the ontological transfor- mation of the field into engineering edu- cation research using criteria for defining the field of science education research (Fen- sham, 2004). A brief conclusion projects the near future of the field.

The Chronological Evolution of U.S. Engineering Education as a Field of Scientific Inquiry

The first engineering program in the United States, civil engineering, was established at the United States Military Academy, which was founded in 1802 to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign engineers and artillerists in times of war (United States Military Academy, 2010). Other parts of the world also began engineering programs during the 1800s and especially the lat- ter half of the century (Continental, 2006). Nonetheless, higher education was largely inaccessible to many Americans until the passage of the Morrill Act1 in 1862 (Light- cap, 2010), which accelerated the nation’s growth throughout the last half of the cen- tury fueled by such engineering efforts as the transcontinental railroad, electric power, the telegraph and telephone, and steam and internal combustion engines. Mechan- ical, electrical, and chemical engineering emerged as distinct disciplines toward the end of the nineteenth century and near the beginning of the twentieth century (Grayson, 1993). Other engineering disci- plines, for example, industrial, biomedi- cal, environmental, petroleum, mining, and nuclear, emerged during the twentieth century.

For the first half of the twentieth cen- tury, U.S. engineering and engineering edu- cation was characterized by its practical arts (Seely, 1999; also see Chapter 7 by Stevens, Johri, & O’Connor in this volume). This focus changed abruptly when the world observed the power of science and its appli- cations during World War II (Seely, 1999). When coupled with creation of NSF in 1950

(National Science Foundation [NSF], 2010), and several other programs within exist- ing federal agencies, federal funding largely transformed the American higher education system into research-based institutions of higher learning, especially in science and engineering. Engineering education shifted from hands-on, practicum-oriented curric- ula to ones that emphasized mathematical and scientific foundations (Grayson, 1993; Seely, 1999). The shift was codified when ASEE issued its landmark study commonly called the Grinter Report in 1955 (Amer- ican Society for Engineering Education, 1994). It outlined more research-oriented and science-based curricula, from which ini- tial transitions to more design-oriented cur- ricula are recent occurrences (Froyd et al., 2012).

The first engineering society, the Amer- ican Society of Civil Engineers, was estab- lished in 1852 (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010) and the first engineering education society, the Society for the Pro- motion of Engineering Education (SPEE), was founded in 1893 (Reynolds & Seely, 1993) and is now known as the American Soci- ety for Engineering Education (ASEE). As mentioned in the introduction, the growth of similar engineering education societies appears to have occurred mostly after the Second World War (Journal of Engineer- ing Education, 2010). SPEE established the first periodical “devoted to technical educa- tion” in 1910, called the Bulletin (American Society for Engineering Education, 1910), which nearly a century later evolved into the discipline-based (engineering) education research journal Journal of Engineering Edu- cation (Journal of Engineering Education, 2010; Lohmann, 2003).

In 1986, the National Science Board issued an overdue wake-up call about the state of U.S. engineering, mathematics, and science education (National Science Board, 1986). Its report provided a number of recommen- dations and made clear that one among them played a critical role: “The recommenda- tions of this report make renewed demands on the academic community – especially

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

6 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

that its best scholarship be applied to the manifold activities needed to strengthen undergraduate science, engineering, and mathematics education in the United States” (National Science Board, 1986, p. 1, empha- sis added). It was instrumental in reviving the NSF’s role to “initiate and support sci- ence and engineering education programs at all levels and in all the various fields of sci- ence and engineering” (NSF, 2006, p. 5). The report was also among those that sparked a vigorous national dialogue on the role of scholarship in improving the quality of U.S. higher education. For example, the highly influential 1990 report, “Scholarship Recon- sidered: Priorities of the Professoriate,” by Ernest Boyer of the Carnegie Foundation, offered a new taxonomy and terminology to describe academia’s multifaceted forms of scholarship (Boyer, 1990). In engineer- ing, introduction of EC2000 by ABET in the 1990s was a major driver to improve the quality of engineering education (ABET, 1995; Prados, 2005). Its outcomes-focused, evidence-based cycle of observation, evalua- tion, and improvement characterized many aspects of a scholarly approach to educa- tional innovation.

Dialogue and decisions made in the 1990s paved the way for engineering education to become a field of scientific inquiry as it became increasingly clear that the intuition- based approaches of the past were not pro- ducing the quantity and quality of engi- neering talent needed to address society’s challenges (Continental, 2006; National Academy of Engineering [NAE], 2004; National Research Council [NRC], 2005; NSF, 1992). More scholarly and systematic approaches based on the learning sciences were needed (Gabriele, 2005; Haghighi, 2005; NRC, 2000, 2002); concurrently, research on engineering science should con- tribute to the development of the learning sciences (Johri, 2010; Shulman, 2005), espe- cially in areas closely linked to engineer- ing, such as design. Consequently, embry- onic and globally diverse communities began to emerge and collaborate such that by the mid-2000s engineering education as a

scientific field of inquiry (research) had passed the “tipping point” both within the United States and elsewhere (Borrego & Bernhard, 2011; Jesiek, Borrego, & Beddoes, 2010). Integrating and expanding these com- munities was a major point of discussion in a recent NSF-funded ASEE study, Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Inno- vation in Engineering Education (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009, 2012).

For a more detailed chronological des- cription of the development of engineer- ing education and engineering education, the authors (together with the support of others in the engineering education research community [please see Acknowledgments]) have compiled a timeline in Appendix 1.1. In the next section, we describe the cur- rent state of engineering education research, much of it having been created within the last decade or so. Figure 1.1 presents a picture of the largest authorship network within engineering education research and shows a core group that is linked to several other groups and nodes on peripheries.

An Ontological Description of the State of Engineering Education Research

A chronological description of a field of research uses time and temporal ordering as its organizational framework. An alternative organizational framework describes entities and relationships among the entities, that is, a conceptualization (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). To describe a conceptualization of the state of engineering education research requires an ontology, that is, a specification for a conceptualization (Gruber, 1993). An ontology for evaluating maturation of fields of disciplinary-based education research has been formulated with three categories of cri- teria: structural, research, and outcome, as summarized in Table 1.1 (Fensham, 2004). We believe this framework is appropriate for organizing and critiquing the evolu- tion and maturity of engineering education research.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

chronological and ontological development of engineering education 7

Figure 1.1. The largest co-author network in EER. (From Madhavan et al., 2011. Reprinted with permission.)

Table 1.1. Fensham’s (2004) Criteria for Defining the Field of Science Education Research

Category Criteria Exemplars of Criteria

Structural Academic Recognition Full faculty appointments in the area of research Research Journals Successful journals for reporting quality research Professional Associations Healthy national and international professional

associations Research Conferences Regular conferences for the direct exchange of research

that enable researchers to meet in person

Research Scientific Knowledge Knowledge of science content required to conduct the research

Asking Questions Asking distinctive research questions not addressed by other fields

Conceptual and Theoretical Development

Theoretical models with predictive or explanatory power

Research Methodologies Invention, development, or at least adaptation of methodologies, techniques, or instruments

Progression Researchers are informed by previous studies and build on or deepen understanding

Model Publications Publications that other researchers hold up as models of conduct and presentation of research studies in the field

Seminal Publications Publications recognized as important or definitive because they marked new directions or provided new insights

Outcome Implications for Practice Outcomes from research that are applications to the practice of science education

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

8 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

Structural Criteria

1. Academic Recognition: Academic recog- nition examines extent to which schol- ars in the field are recognized by their institutions. One metric for recogni- tion is establishment of organizational units for scholarship in the discipline, that is, centers for engineering education research. In Europe, a “specific goal of the Bologna declaration is to promote mobility amongst engineering students in Europe. As a consequence, universi- ties will have to engage in an interna- tional competition to attract students. This results in a growing interest for improvement and innovation in engineer- ing education. All over Europe “Cen- tres of Expertise on Learning and Teach- ing” are being established or, in case of older existing institutes are re-installed. The position of a centre of this kind within the university organisation varies as well as tasks and responsibilities. Some establishments are divided into a research group and a teacher-training and consul- tant division” (Hawwash, 2007, p. 30). In the United States, there are about twenty centers involved in engineering education research of which most were established in the last decade (Center for the Advancement of Scholarship in Engi- neering Education, 2010). Departments of Engineering Education were established at Purdue and Virginia Tech, and were the first to provide tenured positions in engineering education. Later, Utah State University established a Department of Engineering Education and Clemson Uni- versity established a Department of Engi- neering and Science Education.

2. Research Journals: The field has one jour- nal focused exclusively on research, the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), and five whose missions encompass research: Engineering Studies, European Journal of Engineering Education (EJEE), International Journal of Engineering Edu- cation (IJEE), Engineering Education, and Chemical Engineering Education (Borrego & Bernhard, 2011).2 Two are listed on

Thomson-Reuters citation indices (IJEE and JEE) and three are ranked by the Aus- tralian Research Council (EJEE, IJEE, and JEE).

3. Professional Associations and Research Conferences: There are many interna- tional engineering education societies including a federation of such societies (International Federation of Engineering Education Societies, 2010). The dominant ones are ASEE, the Australasian Associa- tion for Engineering Education (AAEE), and the Société Européenne pour la For- mation des Ingénieurs (SEFI). Annual conferences focus on curriculum devel- opment; however, increasingly some host engineering education research tracks and some have groups whose focus is engineering education research, notably AAEE, ASEE, and SEFI. An independent research symposium Research on Engi- neering Education Symposium (REES) was established in 2007 to facilitate a peri- odic global gathering of researchers in the field (Research in Engineering Education Network, 2010).

4. Funding and Honors: The authors believe there are two additional structural crite- ria of importance to engineering. Peer- reviewed extramural support has been a critical to U.S. engineering research since World War II. Educational initiatives, however, have been supported mostly within university budgets. In the late 1980s, the NSF established programs for curriculum development and pedagogi- cal innovation whose support mirrored their technical research counterparts, and a number of programs are now available for discipline-based education research. Awards and honors for teaching are ubiq- uitous but recognitions for engineering education research are nearly nonexis- tent. Two publication awards include ASEE’s Wickenden Award for the best paper published annually in JEE and the Outstanding Research Publication Award by Division I (Education in the Pro- fessions) of the American Educational Research Association.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

chronological and ontological development of engineering education 9

Research Criteria

1. Scientific Knowledge and Asking Ques- tions: The NSF-funded Engineering Edu- cation Research Colloquies held in 2004– 2005 were among the more notable efforts to begin to frame a scientific basis for thinking about the research challenges in the field of engineering education (The Steering Committee of the National Engineering Education Research Collo- quies, 2006a, 2006b). They produced a taxonomy organized around “five priority research areas (Engineering Epistemolo- gies, Engineering Learning Mechanisms, Engineering Learning Systems, Engineer- ing Diversity and Inclusiveness, and Engi- neering Assessment)” that merge disci- plinary engineering and learning sciences knowledge. Other efforts have recently emerged in the European community (Borrego & Bernhard, 2011; European and Global Engineering Education Network, 2010). Although the global community has not reached consensus on a tax- onomy, it clearly feels a pressing need for such and is working to develop it (Borrego & Bernhard, 2011).

2. Conceptual and Theoretical Development and Research Methodologies: These two areas form the intellectual core of any disciplinary-based educational research field. Currently, conceptual and theoret- ical frameworks and research method- ologies in engineering education research show considerable similarity to those of educational research in general, a condi- tion that reveals its lack of maturity. Like other educational research fields, one foundation is research in the learning sci- ences, with its vast literature base and dif- ferent theoretical frameworks (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996). At present, theoretical frameworks for research in engineering education do not distinguish themselves itself from frameworks for educational research in general, which tend to emphasize individual learn- ing. Research in the cognitive sciences, for example, brain physiology, might contribute to a theoretical framework;

however, constructing bridges from func- tions of individual or small groups of neurons to complex engineering concepts and processes would be a formidable task (Johri & Olds, 2011). Also, because engi- neering faculty members teach as col- lections or organizations of individuals, a potential contributor to future theo- retical frameworks may be organizational change (Weick & Quinn, 1999).

Similar statements can also be made about applicable research methodologies, that is, engineering education research does not have a distinctive set of research method- ologies. Engineering faculty members who apply engineering education research have backgrounds that condition them to under- stand quantitative research methodologies more easily than qualitative or mixed methodologies. As a result, efforts have been made to educate a large segment of the audience for engineering education research about the nature and value of the latter two sets of methodologies (Borrego, Dou- glas, & Amelink, 2009), but further progress is required.

3. Progression, Models, and Seminal Pub- lications: Strobel, Evangelou, Streveler, and Smith (2008) think the first doc- toral thesis on engineering education was published in 1929, and additional theses appeared occasionally up to about 1980. However, for the years between 1980 and 1989, they found five to eleven theses published every year; thereafter, thesis production increased markedly, and sev- eral widely cited articles on research in engineering education were published (Atman, Chimka, Bursic, & Nachtmann, 1999; Besterfield-Sacre, Atman, & Shu- man, 1997; Felder, Felder, & Dietz, 1998) in the 1990s. These papers laid founda- tions for (i) further understanding of how students learn the engineering design pro- cess and how verbal protocol analysis methodologies can support the research (Atman & Bursic, 1998; Atman et al., 1999); (ii) rigorous assessment and adop- tion of cooperative learning (and later, other innovations) in engineering (Felder

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

10 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

et al., 1998; Haller, Gallagher, Weldon, & Felder, 2000); and (iii) the impor- tance of and instruments for understand- ing engineering student attitudes and the roles they play in retention and learning (Besterfield-Sacre et al., 1997). In the first decade of the new millen- nium, significant publications in engi- neering education research have become too numerous to mention in this short review.

Outcome Criteria (Implications for Practice)

One key set of criteria in evaluating matu- rity of any research field are its influences on practice. Examining one metric related to the criteria was a survey of engineer- ing department chairs about the extent to which seven innovations in engineering edu- cation had been adopted in engineering departments (Borrego, Froyd, & Hall, 2010). Each of the innovations was well supported by research demonstrating its efficacy. Sur- vey results showed that engineering depart- ment chairs were aware of the innovations, but adoption of the innovations lagged well behind awareness. These findings in engi- neering echo similar findings in physics edu- cation (Dancy & Henderson, 2012).

Anticipating these findings, in 2006, ASEE launched a major initiative in engi- neering education community to persuade members of the synergistic and complemen- tary roles played by innovation and research, beginning with the ASEE Year of Dialogue. Culmination of this initiative was publica- tion of two ASEE reports: Creating a Cul- ture for Scholarly and Systematic Innova- tion in Engineering Education (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009) and Innovation with Impact (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2012). However, the fact that such an initiative was required is indicative of a culture in which most engineering education practitioners are con- tent to continue to focus on innovations and less concerned about theoretical foun- dations that might catalyze innovations or methodologies with which the efficacy of the innovations might be evaluated.

Other factors besides a focus on inno- vations contribute to the lack of influ- ence of engineering education research on practice in engineering classrooms. Research in physics education suggests that researchers expect that their curricular inno- vations will be adopted by faculty mem- bers “with minimal changes, while fac- ulty expect researchers to work with them to incorporate research-based knowledge and materials into their unique instruc- tional situations” (Henderson & Dancy, 2008, p. 79, emphasis added). For exam- ple, a study of adoption of research-based instructional strategies by chemical engi- neering faculty members showed that the primary faculty concern was classroom time that might be required to imple- ment the instructional strategy (Prince, Bor- rego, Cutler, Henderson, & Froyd, 2013), but efficacy with respect to student learn- ing is often a primary focus when evalu- ating an instructional strategy. Other fac- tors that influence adoption lie outside of the control of an individual faculty mem- ber. These include student attitudes toward school (Henderson & Dancy, 2007); expec- tations of content coverage (J. L. Cooper, MacGregor, Smith, & Robinson, 2000; M. M. Cooper, 1995; Henderson & Dancy, 2007), which may be linked to classroom time; time required to prepare a lecture period (Hen- derson & Dancy, 2007; Prince et al., 2013); departmental norms (Henderson & Dancy, 2007); student resistance (J. L. Cooper et al., 2000; Henderson & Dancy, 2007); class size and room layout (M. M. Cooper, 1995; Henderson & Dancy, 2007); and constraints imposed by how class periods are scheduled (Henderson & Dancy, 2007).

In addition to the aforementioned factors, numerous articles have suggested that adop- tion of innovations from disciplinary-based educational research, educational research, and research in the learning sciences is hindered by institutional reward systems that value research far more than they value teaching (Cuban, 1999; Diamond, 1993; Handelsman et al., 2004). An often- repeated rationale for emphasis on research is that quality in research and teaching are

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

chronological and ontological development of engineering education 11

Figure 1.2. A case study of frontiers in education conference – ten years (Madhavan et al., 2010. Reprinted with permission.)

correlated (Fairweather, 2002; Hattie & Marsh, 1996; Prince, Felder, & Brent, 2007). However, scholarly inquiries into this key assertion have not found support for it (Fair- weather, 2002; Hattie & Marsh, 1996). Thor- ough inquiries into questions such as the following are beyond the scope of this chap- ter, but might be possibilities for future research:

1. What is the extent of compatibility between university reward systems that placed greater emphasis on teaching and short-term (five to ten years) progress toward achievement of institutional mis- sions?

2. How might faculty evaluation systems be modified to address more balanced emphases on teaching and teaching (Arreola, 1995)?

3. What external incentives might promote changes in faculty evaluation and reward systems?

There are many possible ways of exam- ining these issues, and one possible solu- tion is the use of cyberinfrastructure to analyze patterns of topics and authorship over time. Madhavan et al. (2010) adopted such an approach to re-create visually the

growth of one important conference associ- ated with engineering education research – Frontiers in Education. An image is pre- sented in Figure 1.2 and the movie is available online: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Oqd6vpjzqBI.

Conclusions: The Path Forward

Engineering education research has become an established field within the last decade, although its recognition and acceptance within the broader engineering community remains a challenge. It has established the critical physical infrastructure, for exam- ple, centers, departments, journals, confer- ences, and funding, necessary for it to now devote increasing attention to its intellec- tual growth, for example, conceptual and theoretical development, research method- ologies, and progression. We foresee two major developments in the next decade: (1) major national or regional efforts to bet- ter integrate engineering education research into engineering programs, such as ASEE’s effort Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Edu- cation and the European effort, European and Global Engineering Education Network

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

12 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

(EUGENE), and (2) increasing collaboration (and occasional tensions) among the grow- ing global communities of engineering edu- cation researchers as the field continues to mature.

Forecasts for development of the schol- arly, interdisciplinary field of engineer- ing education research are often, perhaps inevitably, intertwined with conversations about reform, improvement, and change in engineering education practice. In response to concerns that engineering education has never and will never change, inquiry into the history of engineering education of engi- neering shows that substantive changes have occurred and are occurring (Froyd et al., 2012; Seely, 1999). Studies have also demon- strated periodic reform in science and math- ematics education at the K–12 level (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). However, pace of the changes may not satisfy many stakeholders with aspi- rations for major changes by 2020 (NAE, 2004).

Acknowledgments

Alone, the two authors could only provide an incomplete portrait of the development of engineering education and engineering education research. Other people have con- tributed to provide a more complete pic- ture and we would like to acknowledge their valuable contributions: Cynthia J. Atman, Richard M. Felder, Larry J. Shuman, and Karl A. Smith.

Footnotes

1. The Morrill Act (often called the Land Grant Act) gave each U.S. senator and representative 30,000 acres of land, which was to be used to provide for colleges in each of the states. The colleges were to educate citizens in agricul- ture, home economics, mechanical arts (i.e., engineering), and other professions practical for the times.

2. There are other engineering education journals but their primary focus is curriculum develop- ment and pedagogical innovation.

References

ABET. (1995). Vision for change: A summary report of the ABET/NSF/Industry workshops, 95-VIS. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.

American Society of Civil Engineers. (2010). His- tory of ASCE. Retrieved from http://www .asce.org/PPLContent.aspx?id=2147485181.

American Society for Engineering Education. (1910). Bulletin of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, Vol. XVIII, No. 1. Ithaca, NY: Society for the Promotion of Engi- neering Education.

American Society for Engineering Education. (1994). Report on evaluation of engineering education (reprint of the 1955 report). Journal of Engineering Education, 83(1), 74–94.

American Society for Engineering Education. (n.d.). American Society for Engineering Edu- cation: Our history. Retrieved from http:// www.asee.org/about-us/the-organization/ our-history.

Arreola, R. A. (1995). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and oper- ating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Atman, C. J., & Bursic, K. M. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis as a method to document engineering student design processes. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(2), 121–132.

Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design pro- cesses. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152.

Besterfield-Sacre, M. E., Atman, C. J., & Shu- man, L. J. (1997). Characteristics of freshman engineering students: Models for determining student attrition in engineering. Journal of Engi- neering Education, 86(2), 139–149.

Borrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011). The emer- gence of engineering education research as an internationally-connected field of inquiry. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 14–47.

Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66.

Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Dif- fusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineer- ing Education, 99(3), 185–207.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

chronological and ontological development of engineering education 13

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Pri- orities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Center for the Advancement of Scholarship in Engineering Education. (2010). Engineering education centers roundtable. Retrieved from http://www.nae.edu/cms/11785.aspx.

Committee on K–12 Engineering Education; Linda Katehi, Greg Pearson, and Michael Feder, & National Academy of Engineer- ing and National Research Council (Eds.). (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Under- standing the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Continental. (2006). In search of global engineer- ing excellence: Educating the next generation of engineers for the global workplace. Hanover, Germany: Continental, AG.

Cooper, J. L., MacGregor, J., Smith, K. A., & Robinson, P. (2000). Implementing small- group instruction: Insights from successful practitioners. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 81, 64–76.

Cooper, M. M. (1995). Cooperative learning: An approach for large enrollment courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(2), 162–164.

Cuban, L. (1999). How scholars trumped teachers: Change without reform in university curriculum, teaching, and research, 1890–1990. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dancy, M. H., & Henderson, C. (2012). Peda- gogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063.

Diamond, R. M. (1993). Changing priorities and the faculty reward system. New Directions for Higher Education, 81, 5–12.

European and Global Engineering Education Network. (2010). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.eugene.unifi.it/.

Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for institu- tional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26–48.

Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., & Dietz, J. E. (1998). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 469–480.

Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. New York, NY: Springer.

Froyd, J. E., Wankat, P. C., & Smith, K. A. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineer- ing education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(13), 1344–1360.

Gabriele, G. A. (2005). Advancing engineering education in a flattened world. Journal of Engi- neering Education, 94(3), 285–286.

Genesereth, M. R., & Nilsson, N. J. (1987). Logical foundations of artificial intelligence. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Grayson, L. P. (1993). The making of an engineer: An illustrated history of engineering education in the United States and Canada. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.

Haghighi, K. (2005). Quiet no longer: Birth of a new discipline. Journal of Engineering Educa- tion, 94(4), 351–353.

Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., & Felder, R. M. (2000). Dynamics of peer interaction in cooperative learning work- groups. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 285–293.

Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., . . . Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522.

Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relation- ship between research and teaching: A meta- analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.

Hawwash, K. (2007). Promotion of pedagogical abilities of engineering lecturers. In C. Borri, C., & F. Maffioli (Eds.), Re-engineering engineer- ing education in Europe (pp. 17–44). Florence, Italy: Firenze University Press.

Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2007). Barri- ers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Spe- cial Topics – Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020102-1–020102-14.

Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics, 76(1), 79–91.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

14 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

International Federation of Engineering Educa- tion Societies. (2010). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.ifees.net.

Jamieson, L. H., & Lohmann, J. R. (2009). Cre- ating a culture for scholarly and systematic inno- vation in engineering education, Phase 1. Wash- ington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.

Jamieson, L. H., & Lohmann, J. R. (2012). Inno- vation with impact: Creating a culture for schol- arly and systematic innovation in engineering education. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering.

Jesiek, B. K., Borrego, M., & Beddoes, K. (2010). Advancing the global capacity for engineer- ing education research (AGCEER): Relating research to practice, policy, and industry. Jour- nal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 107–199.

Jesiek, B. K., Newswander, L. K., & Borrego, M. (2009). Engineering education research: Disci- pline, community, or field? Journal of Engineer- ing Education, 98(1), 39–52.

Johri, A. (2010). Creating theoretical insights in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 183–184.

Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engi- neering learning: Bridging engineering educa- tion research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185.

Journal of Engineering Education. (2010). Journal of Engineering Education, home page. Retrieved from http://www.jee.org.

Lightcap, B. (2010). Morrill Act. Retrieved from http://www.nd.edu/˜rbarger/www7/morrill .html.

Lohmann, J. R. (2003). Mission, measures, and ManuscriptCentralTM. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 1.

Lohmann, J. R. (2005). Building a community of scholars: The role of the Journal of Engineer- ing Education as a research journal. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 1–6.

Madhavan, K., Xian, H., Johri, A., Vorvoreanu, M., Jesiek, B. K., Wankat, P. C. (2011). Under- standing the engineering education research problem space using interactive knowledge networks. In Proceedings of 2011 Annual Con- ference and Exposition of the American Soci- ety of Engineering Education, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Madhavan, K. P. C., Xian, H., Vorvoreanu, M., Johri, A., Jesiek, B., Wang, A., & Wankat, P. (2010). The FIE Story 1991 to 2009. Invited

video presentation featured at the Frontiers in Education Conference 2010, October 2010. The video is available online at: http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=bKA4zJc3bsA.

National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2004). The engineer of 2020. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Sci- entific research in education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2005). Ris- ing above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (1986). Undergraduate science, mathematics and engineering education, NSB 86010. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (1992). America’s academic future: A report of the Pres- idential Young Investigator colloquium on U.S. engineering, mathematics, and science education for the year 2010 and beyond, NSF 91–150. Wash- ington, DC: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2006). Approved Minutes, Open Session, 393rd Meeting, National Science Board. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/2006/ 0809/minutes.pdf.

Prados, J. W. (2005). Quality assurance of engi- neering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Educa- tion, 94(1), 165–184.

Prince, M. J., Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Hender- son, C., & Froyd, J. E. (2013). Use of research- based instructional strategies in core chemical engineering courses. Chemical Engineering Edu- cation, 47(1), 27–37.

Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve undergraduate teaching? An analysis of existing and poten- tial synergies. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 283–294.

Research in Engineering Education Network. (2010). Research in Engineering Education Net- work, home page. Retrieved from http://grou .ps/reen/home.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

chronological and ontological development of engineering education 15

Reynolds, T. S., & Seely, B. E. (1993). Striving for balance: A hundred years of the American Society for Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 82(3), 136–151.

Seely, B. E. (1999). The other re-engineering of engineering education, 1900–1965. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(3), 285–294.

Shulman, L. S. (2005). If not now, when? The timeliness of scholarship of the education of engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 11–12.

Strobel, J., Evangelou, D., Streveler, R. A., & Smith, K. A. (2008). The many homes of engi- neering education research: Historical analysis of PhD dissertations. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering Education Sympo- sium, Davos, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.engconfintl.org/8axabstracts/ Session%204A/rees08_submission_16.pdf.

The Steering Committee of the National Engineering Education Research Colloquies. (2006a). Special report: The National Engi- neering Education Research Colloquies. Jour- nal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 257– 258.

The Steering Committee of the National Engineering Education Research Colloquies. (2006b). Special report: The research agenda for the new discipline of engineering educa- tion. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 259–261.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

United States Military Academy. (2010). A brief history of West Point. Retrieved from http:// www.westpoint.edu/wphistory/SitePages/ Home.aspx.

Wankat, P. C., Felder, R. M., Smith, K. A., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning in engineering. In M. T. Huber & S. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learn- ing: Exploring common ground (pp. 217–237). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Orga- nizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:02:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Appendix 1.1. Timeline of Events in Engineering Education and Engineering Education Research

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF

1973 Stice paper: Hereford, S. M., & Stice, J. E. (1973). A course in college teaching in engineering and the physical sciences. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

1976 Stice papers: (1) Stice, J. E. (1976). A first step toward improved teaching. Engineering Education, 66(5), 394–398; (2) The what, why, and how of faculty development, or who, me?”

1981 Cooperative learning is introduced at the Frontiers in Education Conference, one of the two major conferences on engineering education in the United States.

First in a series of papers on cooperative learning published in Engineering Education, Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Structuring learning goals to meet the goals of engineering education. Engineering Education, 72(3), 221–226.

1986 NSB releases the Neal Report calling for more scholarship in engineering, science, and mathematics education.

16

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at

1987 Stice publications: (1) Stice, J. E. (1987). Using Kolb’s learning cycle to improve student learning. Engineering Education, 77, 291–296; (2) Stice, J. E. (Ed.). (1987). Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities (Vol. 30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

1988 NSF launches first program for curriculum development; NSF funds grant that leads to development of the E4 program at Drexel University (E4 program was the foundation for the Gateway Engineering Education Coalition funded in 1992); NSF funds grant that leads to development of the Engineering Core Curriculum at Texas A&M University the Engineering Core Curriculum was a pillar in the formation of the Foundation Coalition, a NSF Engineering Education Coalition funded in 1993).

(continued )

17

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at

Appendix 1.1 (continued)

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF

1989 NSF funds grant that leads to development of the Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering and Mathematics (IFYCSEM) (IFYCSEM was a pillar in the formation of the Foundation Coalition, a NSF Engineering Education Coalition funded in 1993).

1990 ECSEL and Synthesis Engineering Education Coalitions started. EXCEL and Synthesis were engineering education Coalitions. NSF invested about $30 million in each Coalition to catalyze systemic improvement in engineering education; Leonhard Center for Enhancement of Engineering Education was established at Pennsylvania State University; Presidential Young Investigator (PYI) Colloquium held and report published.

America’s Academic Future: A Report of the Presidential Young Investigator Colloquium on U.S. Engineering, Mathematics, and Science Education for the Year 2010 and Beyond

18

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at

1991 Cooperative Learning Publications

Johnson, Johnson & Smith, Cooperative Learning ASHE-ERIC Research Report

First edition published: Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

1992 SUCCEED and Gateway Engineering Education Coalitions started.

“ABET President John Prados challenged the Board of Directors to consider radical revisions in accreditation philosophy, criteria, and procedures” (Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. D., & Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 165–184, p. 168)

(continued )

19

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at

Appendix 1.1 (continued)

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF

1993 Foundation Coalition (Engineering Education Coalition) started.

Part I of longitudinal study of cooperative learning in chemical engineering: Felder, R. M., Forrest, K. D., Baker-Ward, L., Dietz, E. J., & Moh, P. H. (1993). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. I. Success and failure in the introductory course. Journal of Engineering Education, 82(1), 15–21.

NSF funds the first Presidential Young Investigator (PYI) awards in engineering education (PYI was the precursor to CAREER program).

1994 Greenfield Coalition (Engineering Education Coalition) started.

Report: Engineering Education for a Changing World. Report by the Engineering Deans Council and the Business Roundtable of the American Society for Engineering Education

ABET holds three consensus-building workshops for the Accreditation Process Review Committee. Workshops involve more than 125 participants from academia, industry, and government.

Part II of longitudinal study of cooperative learning in chemical engineering: Felder, R. M., Mohr, P. H., Dietz, E. J., & Baker-Ward, L. (1994). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. II. Rural/urban student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 83(3), 209–217.

1995 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE): The FIE Conference held in

ABET Board of Directors approved the publication of new

Part III and IV of longitudinal study of cooperative learning in

20

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at

Atlanta was the first of a new format for the conference that attracted a relatively large crowd and made a substantial profit, enabling Education Research and Methods (ERM) Division of ASEE to begin to take on a number of creative activities.

criteria for evaluating engineering programs – Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000) for public comment.

chemical engineering: (1) Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., Mauney, M., Charles Hamrin, J., & Dietz, E. J. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. III. Gender differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2), 151–163; (2) Felder, R. M. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. IV. Instructional methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(4), 361–367.

1996 Pilot evaluations conducted using Engineering Criteria 2000 at five diverse institutions.

1997 Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference: The FIE Conference held in Pittsburgh introduced the New Faculty Fellows program and published the outstanding papers from the Conference in the Journal of Engineering Education.

USEME (precursor to DUE) formed.

(continued)

21

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at

Appendix 1.1 (continued)

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF

1998 Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching (CELT) at University of Washington established.

Part V of longitudinal study of cooperative learning in chemical engineering: Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., & Dietz, E. J. (1998). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 469–480.

1999 National Research Council (NRC) Board on Engineering Education moved to National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and renamed to Committee on Engineering Education (CEE).

Atman et al publish first study comparing performance with respect to engineering design. Paper compared engineering design performance of first-year and senior engineering students: Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152.

NSF funds the first Engineering Research Center (VaNTH) with a focus on engineering education; NSF initiates its Action Agenda program to facilitate adaptation of innovations in engineering and science education

2000 Center for Engineering Education was established at the Colorado School of Mines.

22

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at

2001 The Engineer of 2020 Project was started by the Committee on Engineering Education of the NAE.

Outcomes-based criteria (formerly referred to as Engineering Criteria 2000) become the only criteria used for accrediting engineering degree programs.

2002 Center for the Advancement of Scholarship in Engineering was established at the NAE as one of the initiatives of the Committee on Engineering Education.

2003 National Academy of Engineering (NAE) established the Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education ($500,000 award); Journal of Engineering Education focuses exclusively on research in engineering education.

NSF funds the first Center on Teaching and Learning (CLT) on engineering education, Center for Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE).

2004 Purdue University and Virginia Tech each create a Department of Engineering Education.

Report: Engineer of 2020

(continued )23

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at

Appendix 1.1 (continued)

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF

2005 Engineering Education Research Colloquies (EERC). A series of four colloquies designed to spur discussion on the future of engineering education. The first of these colloquies occurred in September 2005. Invited scholars known for their experience and expertise in the field begin preparing a roadmap for engineering education and an engineering education research agenda; JEE publishes first special issue, the Art and Science of Engineering Education Research, whose articles are the most cited since the launch of JEE as a research journal.

Special Issue of Journal of Engineering Education; John Heywood book “Engineering Education: Research and Development in Curriculum and Instruction.”

2006 Advances in Engineering Education (AEE) launched.

Not sure of the exact year but about this time the EEC/ENG division started creating EER programs.

24

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at

2007 The first conference on engineering education research, International Conference on Research in Engineering Education (ICREE) launched with meeting in Honolulu; Global Colloquium in Engineering Education (GCEE) hosts its first track on engineering education; JEE initiates a new monthly column in Prism, “JEE Selects: Research in Practice.”

2008 ASEE launches Advances in Engineering Education (AEE) as a repository for successful applications to complement JEE’s focus on research; JEE begins forming international partnerships, ten created by 2010; Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES), successor to ICREE, holds its first meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

(continued )

25

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at

Appendix 1.1 (continued)

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF

2009 REES holds its second meeting in Palm Cove, Queensland, Australia.

Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education (CCSSIEE), Phase 1 Report

2010 Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education (CCSSIEE), Phase 2 Report

2011 JEE celebrates centennial issue.

26

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re/term s. h

ttp s://d

o i.o

rg /10.1017/C

B O

9781139013451.003 D

o w

n lo

ad ed

fro m

h ttp

s://w w

w .cam

b rid

g e.o

rg /co

re. U n

iversity o f Flo

rid a, o

n 02 O

ct 2021 at 13:02:20, su b

ject to th

e C am

b rid

g e C

o re term

s o f u

se, availab le at