High Quality Engineering Education Research (EER): Key Elements and Persistent Misconceptions

Transcription

1 Keynote address AAEE Melbourne 3 December 2012 High Quality Engineering Education Research (EER): Key Elements and Persistent Misconceptions Ruth A. Streveler Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN USA

2 Overview Where are these ideas coming from? A bit about my experience As a practitioner of EER As a teacher of EER Placing EER in a global context Essentials and myths A suggested reframing of EER essentials and myths

3 As an engineering education researcher My primary research centers on engineering students understanding difficult concepts in engineering science What concepts are difficult to understand? Why are those concepts difficult? How does one measure conceptual understanding? How does one create learning environments that help students better understand these difficult concepts?

4 As a teacher of EER With engineering faculty With engineering education PhD students

5 The beginnings Rigorous Research in Engineering Education (RREE) One- week summer workshop, year- long research project Funded by National Science Foundation (NSF), About 150 engineering faculty participated Goals Develop faculty knowledge and skills for conducting EER (especially in theory and research methodology) Cultivate the development of a Community of Practice of faculty conducting EER

6 Phase to 2011 Create a new generation of professional development opportunities to increase engineering education research capacity Create a virtual community of engineering education researchers CLEERhub.org (CoLlaboratory for Engineering Education Researchers) HUB platform allows for community members to share resources, make comments, add reviews.

7 CLEERhub.org

8 The 5 RREE2 short courses 1. Fundamentals of Engineering Education Research 2. Selecting Conceptual Frameworks 3. Understanding Qualitative Research 4. Fundamentals of Quantitative EER 5. Collaborating with Learning and Social Scientists *Were recorded and posted on CLEERhub.org These are listed as Featured Resources on the front page and on rotating banners.

9 Teaching EER PhD students At Purdue since 2006 one year after the PhD program began Have developed and taught courses for beginning Purdue Engineering Education PhD students Typical PhD student Has an engineering undergraduate and masters degree Has worked in industry

10 Summary of my lived experience with EER origin of this talk Worked with over 500 engineering faculty from 3 (now 4!) continents Worked with about 75 engineering education PhD students at Purdue Philosophically engaged in how the new paradigms are forming

11 The global picture

12 An emerging global community Groups, centers, departments Engineering education societies Forums for dissemination What follows is a sample it is NOT an exhaustive list!

13 Engineering Education Societies

14 Centers and Departments Purdue VT Emerging departments in Pakistan and Singapore.

15 Key elements and misconceptions

16 Think- pair- share Find a partner and introduce yourself Individually, reflect on these questions: What misgivings do you personally have about engineering education research? What misgivings do you perceive your colleagues have about engineering education research? Partners share their thoughts with each other Some examples shared with the whole group

17 Reframe key elements and misconceptions as polarities that continually interact

18 First polarity: the relationship between practice and research

19 OR the great research practice divide

20 Mea culpa How I may have unwittingly contributed to this divide

21 Levels of Inquiry Level 0 Teacher Teach as taught Level 1 Effective Teacher Teach using accepted teaching theories and practices Level 2 Scholarly Teacher Assesses performance and makes improvements Level 3 Scholar of Teaching and Learning Engages in educational experimentation, shares results Level 4 Engineering Education Researcher Conducts educational research, publishes archival papers Source: Streveler, R., Borrego, M. and Smith, K.A Moving from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning to Educational Research: An Example from Engineering. Improve the Academy, Vol. 25,

22 Practical issues regarding research and practice The formation of two camps People on both sides feeling left out, resentful, defensive Feelings that research has higher status than practice (teaching) Pressure that educational research have immediate impact on practice standard not applied to technical research Perception that research site educational research MUST be the classroom. The frustration that research results often do not inform practice

23 Second polarity single or multiple realities

24 Types of Educational Research Quantitative Qualitative Source: Douglas, E.P. (2010).Understanding qualitative research workshop. Frontiers of Education Conference.

25 Types of Educational Research Quantitative Qualitative Source: Douglas, E.P. (2010).Understanding qualitative research workshop. Frontiers of Education Conference.

26 Types of Educational Research Post- Positivist Single reality. Relationships among variables. Methods and variables defined in advance. Researcher is detached. Context- free generalizations. Interpretivist Multiple realities. Description of situation. Methods and themes emerge during study. Researcher and participants are partners. Context- bound descriptions. Source: Douglas, E.P. (2010).Understanding qualitative research workshop. Frontiers of Education Conference.

27 1. Pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically 2. Link research to relevant theory 3. Use methods that permit direct investigation of the question 4. Provide coherent, explicit chain of reasoning 5. Replicate and generalize across studies 6. Disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique Source: Shavelson, R. J. & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

28 Some results of the positivist legacy Only acceptable research design is experimental Pre- test, intervention, post- test Experimental and control groups Collect data that can be quantified Find statistical difference between groups Necessitates a large N Common criticism: Two few data points! Results of EER are universal will work for everyone! Common RQ: What works better than lecture?

29 Suggested reframing of the polarities

30 Reframing polarity one Research and practice inform each other

31 Use (Applied) No Yes Understanding (Basic) Yes No Pure basic research (Bohr) Use-inspired basic research (Pasteur) Pure applied research (Edison) Source: Stokes, D. ( 1997). Pasteur s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

32 and helps Research Answer leads to Practical Problem Research Problem motivates Research Question informs Used in the American Society for Engineering Education Report: Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education, 2010 Research Process

33 Reframing polarity two (1) The research QUESTION drives the design and method What phenomenon do you want to understand? Is this a phenomenon that is already well understood with identified variables? Lends itself to correlational or experimental research Is this a new area just being explored? Lends itself to interpretivist approaches Goal: Describe a situation

34 Modifications to this model Pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically Link research to relevant theory OR create theory Use methods that permit direct investigation of the question Provide coherent, explicit chain of reasoning Replicate and generalize across studies OR transfer to applicable contexts Disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique

35 Reframing polarity two (2) Engineering thinking is used to modify and/or create new social or learning science methodologies and theory. Emerging examples New theory: Comparison of data on engineering student misconceptions to existing theories of conceptual change. Montfort, Herman et al. New methods: New ways to represent qualitative data. Matusovich

36 How this transition might be experienced

37 Lee Rynearson+ I think the primary hangup about quantitative vs qualitative methods for me was that, reading descriptions of qualitative methods, they didn t seem generalizeable. I took it as axiomatic at the time that getting generalizable results was the goal of research, and I didn t see how these methods could be applied effectively to that end. Once I understood that generally, quantitative and qualitative methods are intended for different purposes, and that they can be complementary rather than in competition, this objection gradually dissolved... +first year Purdue Engineering Education PhD student

38 Michele Yatchmeneff+ (1) When asked to consider Borrego s conceptual hurdles article I said (4) appreciation of qualitative or mixed- methods approaches would be a hurdle I would face. I further said: I always planned to just develop a tool/ instrument/survey to try to obtain results to my dissertation questions. I already am planning to consider mixed- method approaches for my dissertation. I think as an engineer I am opposed to these kinds of approaches because we tend to want to number crunch. I can see in a majority of the articles I have read so far in the program that qualitative and mixed- methods are utilized a lot.

39 Michele Yatchmeneff+ (2) When asked if I find any research methods particularly intriguing I say: I am an engineer and thought the only way to collect data was for quantitative analysis. I realize the value of qualitative analysis and have transitioned to looking at now collecting qualitative data. I am considering collecting ethnographic information this summer and looking at getting a book about how to effectively take ethnographic field notes. Again, obviously showing I am considering other methods other than quantitative research. +First year Purdue Engineering Education PhD student

40 Think- pair- share Reconnect with your partner Individual reflection: Do you see evidence of a researcher- practitioner divide? Do you see evidence of a positivist- interpretivist (single reality- multiple realities) tension? Partners share their thoughts with each other Examples shared with the whole group

41 Thanks you! To Dr. Llew Mann, for inviting me to present this keynote. To you the audience for your attention, interest, and participation. To past workshop participants and ENE PhD students have taught me so much. To the National Science Foundation for funding Rigorous Research in Engineering Education: Creating a Community of Practice (DUE ) and Expanding and sustaining research capacity in engineering and technology education: Building on successful programs for faculty and graduate students (DUE )

42 Questions?