2024: VOLUME 12 ISSUE 1 - ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION - A Multi-Year Professional Development Program to Advance Active Learning Pedagogical Practices for Engineering Faculty

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Đào

Active learning pedagogical practices are more effective than instructor-centered teaching for building engineering students’ knowledge, skills, and conceptual understanding. A large-scale, multi-year professional development program was designed to move engineering faculty toward active learning through workshops and communities of practice. The study evaluates how participation shifts faculty awareness, attitudes, and classroom use of active learning, and proposes an adaptable model and evaluation framework.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages29

Reading Time1 h 13 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Active learning vs. instructor-centered instruction

Continued reliance on lecture in undergraduate engineering

Large-scale multi-year PD program (JTFD)

Faculty participation and evaluation approach

| | Ad | vances in Engineering Edu | cation | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2024: VOLUME 12 ISSUE 1 A Multi-Year Professional Development Program to Advance Active Learning Pedagogical Practices for Engineering Faculty LYDIA ROSS Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Arizona State University STEPHEN KRAUSE Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering Arizona State University EUGENE JUDSON Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Arizona State University KEITH HJELMSTAD Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering Arizona State University ROBERT CULBERTSON Department of Physics Arizona State University JAMES MIDDLETON Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering Arizona State University LINDY MAYLED Northern Arizona University SARA HOYT College of Health Solutions Arizona State University KARA HJELMSTAD Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Arizona State University ABSTRACT Active learning pedagogical practices are more effective than instructor-centered teaching in building students’ knowledge, skills, and understanding of engineering content and concepts. As such, a large-scale professional development (PD) program was created to move faculty toward 2024: VOLUME 12 ISSUE 1 45 ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION A Multi-Year Professional Development Program to Advance Active Learning Pedagogical Practices for Engineering Faculty the use of active learning. The project aimed to engage faculty in active learning best practices through workshops and communities of practice to shift their attitudes, beliefs, and practices toward active learning strategies. This paper examines how and to what extent participation in a large-scale PD program shifts faculty awareness of, attitudes towards, and use of active learning. As such, this paper offers a model and evaluation framework for a large-scale PD program, which can be adapted to PD programs in engineering and across other STEM disciplines. In total, 82 faculty members from seven engineering disciplines participated in the PD program, comprising workshops and communities of practice sessions. Multiple assessments were utilized or created to measure the extent of faculty change using Roger’s diffusion of innovation model for individual change and Coburn’s cultural change model for organizational change. Faculty awareness, beliefs, and classroom practice shifted from instructor-centered teaching toward student-centered active learning. Instructors progressed moderately well through Rogers’ five stages of individual innovation change and fulfilled the three tenets of Coburn’s organizational change model. There were only minor shifts in student achievement, particularly for smaller classes, possibly due to insufficient time for instructors to fully implement active learning practices. The PD program influenced the initiation of a sustainable community of new and continuing active learning practitioners in the College of Engineering. Keywords: professional development, faculty development, engineering education, evaluation, active learning Active learning (AL), which emphasizes student-centered teaching, is an instructional practice where instructors directly engage students in the learning process through interactive strategies in the classroom (Brame 2016) . In contrast, traditional teacher-centered instruction involves passively transmitting information from the teacher to the student via a lecture. In AL classrooms, instructorcentered time is limited, with a significant portion of the class time dedicated to activities, group work, student discussions, or self-guided reflection and learning. Over the past decades, evidence in the literature indicates the efficacy of AL in STEM (Freeman et al. 2014; Felder & Brent 1996; Felder, Brent, and Oakley 2016), especially for under-represented minority students (Burke et al. 2020; Lorenzo, Crouch, and Mazur 2006; Theobald et al. 2020) . Despite the research base, the primary form of

FAQs

What is the main purpose of the large-scale professional development program described in the paper?

To shift engineering faculty toward active learning by engaging them in workshops and communities of practice that target attitudes, beliefs, and teaching practices.

How does the study evaluate changes resulting from faculty participation?

It uses multiple assessments and applies Rogers’ diffusion of innovation model for individual change and Coburn’s cultural change model for organizational change.

What types of faculty and classroom changes were observed after the PD program?

Faculty awareness, beliefs, and classroom practice shifted from instructor-centered teaching toward student-centered active learning.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Đào