Description

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

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.

Reuse Permissions
  • Downloads
    pdf (722 KB)

    Details

    Title
    • Measuring Engineering Faculty Views About Benefits and Costs of Using Student-Centered Strategies
    Contributors
    Date Created
    2017-03-29
    Resource Type
  • Text
  • Collections this item is in
    Identifier
    • Digital object identifier: 10.3991/ijep.v7i2.6808
    • Identifier Type
      International standard serial number
      Identifier Value
      2192-4880
    Note

    Citation and reuse

    Cite this item

    This is a suggested citation. Consult the appropriate style guide for specific citation guidelines.

    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), 65. doi:10.3991/ijep.v7i2.6808

    Machine-readable links