Measuring Engineering Faculty Views about Benefits and Costs of Using Student-Centered Strategies

Authors

  • Eugene Judson Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Arizona State University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0124-8476
  • Lydia Ross Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Arizona State University
  • James Middleton Ira Fulton Schools of Engineering Arizona State University
  • Stephen Krause Ira Fulton Schools of Engineering Arizona State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v7i2.6808

Keywords:

Student-centered, expectancy theory, formative feedback, engineering education

Abstract


Dispositions of 286 engineering faculty members were assessed to determine views about three student-centered classroom strategies and how frequently faculty used those strategies. The student-centered classroom strategies examined were: using formative feedback to adjust instruction, integrating real-world applications, and promoting student-to-student discussions during formal class time. The Value, Expectancy, and Cost of Testing Educational Reforms Survey (VECTERS), based on expectancy theory, was designed, tested, and validated for this purpose. Results indicate using strategies, such as formative feedback, are significantly tied to perceived benefits and expectation of success. Using student-centered strategies is inversely related to the perceived cost of implementation – with more frequent users perceiving lower cost of time and materials.

Author Biographies

Eugene Judson, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Arizona State University

Associate Professor

Lydia Ross, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Arizona State University

Ph.D. Student

James Middleton, Ira Fulton Schools of Engineering Arizona State University

Professor

Stephen Krause, Ira Fulton Schools of Engineering Arizona State University

Professor

Downloads

Published

2017-05-19

How to Cite

Judson, E., Ross, L., Middleton, J., & Krause, S. (2017). Measuring Engineering Faculty Views about Benefits and Costs of Using Student-Centered Strategies. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 7(2), pp. 65–78. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v7i2.6808

Issue

Section

Papers