Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T00:16:25.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 24 - Studying Teaching and Learning in Undergraduate Engineering Programs

Conceptual Frameworks to Guide Research on Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

Lisa R. Lattuca
Affiliation:
University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education
Thomas A. Litzinger
Affiliation:
Penn State University
Aditya Johri
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Teaching and learning have been studied from a variety of different theoretical perspectives over time. Collins, Greeno, and Resnick (2001; also, Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996) suggest that each of the major perspectives on learning – behavioral, cognitive, and situative – provide us with useful, if partial, understandings of how people learn. Although these three perspectives are derived from different assumptions about what learning is and how it happens, they agree that learning is an interaction between a learner and his or her environment. A key distinction, however, is the extent to which each perspective emphasizes the learner or the environment in that interaction.

In the behavioral perspective, the individual learns when presented with stimuli from his or environment. In contrast, the cognitive perspective conceptualizes the learner as an active problem-solver, adapting to his or her environment rather than primarily reacting to it. Thus, although the environment is the catalyst for learning in the behavioral perspective, it is the learner, rather than the setting he or she learns in, that is the primary focus of theories and studies that take a cognitive perspective. The situative perspective might appear to split the difference – if it were not for the very different assumptions about learning that are at its foundation. The situative – or what we call the sociocultural perspective – argues that separating learner from the environment is impossible; learning always occurs in context – or more precisely, in multiple, overlapping contexts. This is another way of saying that learning occurs in particular people with particular histories and characteristics (physical, mental, cultural, etc.) who exist in particular places in time (for discussion, see Greeno and the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wertsch, 1985; Wertsch, Del Rio, & Alvarez, 1995). Learning is thus strongly influenced by who we are, where and when we live and learn, and by what we seek to learn and how we go about learning it. (See Chapter 2 by Newstetter and Svinicki and Chapter 3 by Johri, Olds, & O’Connor in this volume for a more detailed discussion.)

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amelink, C. T., & Creamer, E. G. (2010). Gender differences in elements of the undergraduate experience that influence satisfaction with the engineering major and the intent to pursue engineering as a career. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Atman, C. J., Sheppard, S. D., Turns, J., Adams, R. S., Fleming, L. N., Stevens, R.,…Lund, D. (2010). Enabling engineering student success: The final report for the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Berkshire, U.K.: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, A., Greeno, J. G., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Educational learning theories. In Smelser, N. & Baltes, P. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 4276–4279). Oxford: Elsevier Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dannefer, D. (1984). Adult development and social theory: A paradigmatic reappraisal. American Sociological Review, 49(1), 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, R. M. (2008). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Dochy, F. J. R. C. (1994). Prior knowledge and learning. In Husen, T. & Postlewaite, T. N. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 4698–4702). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Dochy, F. J. R. C., Moerkerke, G., & Segers, M. (1999). The effect of prior knowledge on learning in educational practice: Studies using prior knowledge state assessment. Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(3), 114–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domagal-Goldman, J. (2010). Teaching for civic capacity & engagement: How faculty members align teaching with purpose (Doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Feldman, K. A. (1972). Some theoretical approaches to the study of change and stability of college students. Review of Educational Research, 42(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giroux, H., & Penna, A. (1983). Social education in the classroom: The dynamics of the hidden curriculum. In Giroux, H. & Purpel, D. (Eds.), The hidden curriculum and moral education (pp. 100–121). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. and the Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project Group (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice: A theory of personality types and model environments. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Imbrie, P. K., Lin, J. J., & Malyscheff, A. (2008). Artificial intelligence methods to forecast engineering students’ retention based on cognitive and non-cognitive factors. In Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., & Kuh, G. D. (2004, November). A deeper look at student engagement: An examination of institutional effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
Knight, D. B. (2012). In search of the engineers of 2020: An outcomes-based typology of engineering undergraduates. In Proceedings of the 119th Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Knight, D. B., Lattuca, L. R., Yin, A. C., Kremer, G., York, T., & Ro, H. K. (2012). An exploration of gender diversity in engineering programs: A curriculum and instruction-based perspective. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 18(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (1995). Modifying the major: Discretionary thoughts from ten disciplines. Review of Higher Education, 18(3), 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., Harper, B. J., & Yin, A. C. (2010). Academic environments in detail: Holland's theory at the subdiscipline level. Research in Higher Education, 51(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (2006). Engineering change: Findings from a study of the impact of EC2000, Final Report. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, J. J., Reid, K. J., & Imbrie, P. K. (2009). Work in progress – Predicting retention in engineering using an expanded scale of affective characteristics from incoming students. In Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX (pp. 616–617). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
Lindholm, J. A., Szelényi, K., Hurtado, S., & Korn, W. S. (2005). The American college teacher: National norms for the 2004–2005 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
Lord, S. M., Brawner, D. E., Camacho, M. M., Layton, R. A., Ohland, M. W., & Wasburn, M. H. (2009). Work in progress – Engineering students’ disciplinary choices: Do race and gender matter? In Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX (pp. 1233–1234). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
Mannon, S. E., & Schreuders, P. D. (2007). All in the (engineering) family? The family occupational background of men and women engineering students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 13(4), 333–351.Google Scholar
Minick, N., Stone, C. A., & Forman, E. A. (1993). Introduction: Integration of individual, social, and institutional processes in accounts of children's learning and development. In Forman, E A., Minick, N., & Stone, C. A. (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Pascarella, E. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: A critical review and synthesis. In Smart, J. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. I). New York, NY: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students, Vol. 2: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Pike, G. R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 269–284.Google Scholar
Pike, G. R., Schroeder, C. C., & Berry, T. R. (1997). Enhancing the educational impact of residence halls, the relationship between residential learning communities and first-year college experiences and persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 38(6), 609–621.Google Scholar
Pike, G. R., Smart, J. C., Kuh, G. D., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). Educational expenditures and student engagement: When does money matter? Research in Higher Education, 47(7), 847–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plowright, D. (2011). Using mixed methods: Frameworks for an integrated methodology. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Porter, S. R. (2006). Institutional structures and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 47(5), 521–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, G. J., & Rudnitsky, A. N. (2006). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Reason, R. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Domingo, R. J. (2006). First things first: Developing academic competence in the first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ro, H. K. (2011). An investigation of engineering students’ post-graduation plans inside or outside of engineering (Doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Ro, H., Terenzini, P., & Yin, A. (2013). Between-college effects on students reconsidered. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 253–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B., Mosier, C., Mistry, J., & Goncu, A. (1993). Toddlers’ guided participation with their caregivers in cultural activity. In Forman, E. A., Minick, N., & Stone, C. A. (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 230–253). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S., Gilmartin, S., Chen, H. L., Donaldson, K., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, Ö.,… Toye, G. (2010). Exploring the engineering student experience: Findings from the Academic Pathways of People Learning Engineering Survey (APPLES) (TR-10–01). Seattle, WA: Center for the Advancement for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1995). Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals. In Hativah, N. (Ed.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 49–57). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 64. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Smart, J., Feldman, K., & Ethington, C. (2000). Academic disciplines: Holland's theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, B. R. (1973). The hidden curriculum. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Bentley, R. J., Ryan, M. P., Martens, G. G., Genthon, M. L., Wren, P. A., & Shaw, K. M. (1990). Planning introductory college courses: Influences on faculty. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED330277)Google Scholar
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Terenzini, P. T., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Parsing the first year of college: A conceptual framework for studying college impacts. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Terenzini, P. T., & Reason, R. D. (2010). Toward a more comprehensive understanding of college effects on student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers (CHER), Oslo, Norway.
Toombs, W. (1977–1978). The application of design-based curriculum analysis to general education. Review of Higher Education, 1, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toombs, W., & Tierney, W. G. (1993). Curriculum definitions and reference points. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 175–195.Google Scholar
Trenor, J. M., Yu, S. L, Waight, C. L., Zerda, K. S., & Sha, T-L. (2008). The relations of ethnicity to female engineering students’ educational experiences and college and career plans in an ethnically diverse learning environment. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turns, J., Yellin, J. M. J., Huang, Y-M., & Sattler, B. (2008). We all take learners into account in our teaching decisions: Wait, do we? In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, Session 2008-1199.Google Scholar
Weidman, J. C. (1989b). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In Smart, J. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. V (pp. 289–322). New York, NY: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V., Del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural studies of mind. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, G. T., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×