6
Transformation: From Teacher-Centered to Student-Centered Engineering Education GEORGE D. CATALANO Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering United States Military Academy KAREN CATALANO Center for Enhanced Performance United States Military Academy ABSTRACT We compare and contrast teacher-centered and student-centered paradigms of engineering education. We identify the following seven roles for teachers wishing to adopt a student-centered para- digm: 1) model thinking/processing skills, 2) identify students’ cognitive development, 3) develop questions that facilitate explo- ration/growth, 4) introduce visual tools to aid establishing connec- tions, 5) provide group learning settings, 6) use analogies and metaphors, and 7) provide a “no-risk” student feedback channel for information. Several case studies for different subjects and from different institutions are presented. Our results indicate a student-centered model is most effective when coupled with acad- emic depth and experience in the subject matter. I. INTRODUCTION At a recent federal services academies conference, Cross 1 deliv- ered a keynote address which challenged the assembled audience of instructors to develop an environment in which students become “actively engaged.” Decades of research focused upon teaching and learning strategies has documented the effectiveness of an “active learning” model. Administrators at institutions of higher learning are challenging their respective faculties to incorporate this relatively new model into their classrooms. While some faculty have embraced active learning with enthusiasm, others remain more cautious. Engineer- ing education efforts both in design and in the engineering sciences have been reported. 2-5 We seek to add texture to the movement towards active learn- ing, though opting for a slightly different terminology. In a “stu- dent-centered” approach to education, the student is at the center of attention while in the more traditional or “teacher-centered” model, the teacher is the focus. Active learning is more likely to occur in the student-centered model while passive learning is more likely to result in a teacher-centered model. Shifting the center of attention of classroom activities from the teacher to the student metaphorically seems to us to be a significant paradigm shift in ed- ucation. Whether or not such a shift is “revolutionary,” recalling the historical origin of that word from the late Middle Ages, perhaps depends on the stubborn resistance that a teacher may encounter in attempting to make such a change. 6 In the present work, we shall compare and contrast a student- centered approach to education to a teacher-centered approach. We shall provide and discuss the following list of specific roles for teach- ers who wish to explore a transformation of their own classrooms: model thinking/processing skills identify students’ cognitive development develop questions that facilitate exploration/growth introduce visual tools to aid establishing connections provide group learning settings use analogies and metaphors provide a “no-risk” student feedback channel for information. Our particular transformation has taken place in engineering de- sign courses and engineering science courses taught at both Louisiana State University (LSU) and the United States Military Academy (USMA). We have attempted to assess the effectiveness of our trans- formation at both institutions and make some comparisons as well. II. CHANGING MODELS OF EDUCATION According to Halperin, 7 most activities today in a vast majority of classrooms continue to reflect the older teacher-centered model of education wherein “students sit quietly, passively receiving words of wisdom being professed by the lone instructor in front of the class.” Bowers and Flinders 8 describe a variation of the teacher-cen- tered model, teacher as “classroom manager,” in which the learning process is likened to industrial production, within which students become “products,” behaviors are expressions of “exit skills,” “com- petencies,” and “outcomes.” Implicit in this model that dates to the Industrial Revolution 9 are the following assumptions: any and all educational processes are culturally neutral, linear and rational language serves as a non-filtering conduit for the transmis- sion of information the learning process is heavily dependent upon the pro- nouncement and the enforcement of rules. Note that little is required or expected from the student until the very end or “final quality control inspection.” In this model, the stu- dent simply rides the assembly line of learning, quietly and dutifully accepting all inputs as does a skeletal frame on an automobile manu- facturing plant’s assembly line. A modern day, high technology ver- sion of the same model of education has been described by Capra. 10 According to cognitive psychologists and educators, instruction is most effective when students are encouraged and even expected to become actively involved in their own learning, thereby shifting the focus from what the teacher does to what the students do. January 1999 Journal of Engineering Education 59

Transformation: From Teacher-Centered to Student-Centered Engineering Education

  • Upload
    karen

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Transformation: From Teacher-Centered to Student-Centered Engineering Education

Transformation: From Teacher-Centered toStudent-Centered Engineering Education

GEORGE D. CATALANODepartment of Civil and Mechanical EngineeringUnited States Military Academy

KAREN CATALANOCenter for Enhanced PerformanceUnited States Military Academy

ABSTRACT

We compare and contrast teacher-centered and student-centeredparadigms of engineering education. We identify the followingseven roles for teachers wishing to adopt a student-centered para-digm: 1) model thinking/processing skills, 2) identify students’cognitive development, 3) develop questions that facilitate explo-ration/growth, 4) introduce visual tools to aid establishing connec-tions, 5) provide group learning settings, 6) use analogies andmetaphors, and 7) provide a “no-risk” student feedback channelfor information. Several case studies for different subjects andfrom different institutions are presented. Our results indicate astudent-centered model is most effective when coupled with acad-emic depth and experience in the subject matter.

I. INTRODUCTION

At a recent federal services academies conference, Cross1 deliv-ered a keynote address which challenged the assembled audience ofinstructors to develop an environment in which students become“actively engaged.” Decades of research focused upon teaching andlearning strategies has documented the effectiveness of an “activelearning” model.

Administrators at institutions of higher learning are challengingtheir respective faculties to incorporate this relatively new modelinto their classrooms. While some faculty have embraced activelearning with enthusiasm, others remain more cautious. Engineer-ing education efforts both in design and in the engineering scienceshave been reported.2-5

We seek to add texture to the movement towards active learn-ing, though opting for a slightly different terminology. In a “stu-dent-centered” approach to education, the student is at the centerof attention while in the more traditional or “teacher-centered”model, the teacher is the focus. Active learning is more likely tooccur in the student-centered model while passive learning is morelikely to result in a teacher-centered model. Shifting the center ofattention of classroom activities from the teacher to the studentmetaphorically seems to us to be a significant paradigm shift in ed-ucation. Whether or not such a shift is “revolutionary,” recalling the

historical origin of that word from the late Middle Ages, perhapsdepends on the stubborn resistance that a teacher may encounter inattempting to make such a change.6

In the present work, we shall compare and contrast a student-centered approach to education to a teacher-centered approach. Weshall provide and discuss the following list of specific roles for teach-ers who wish to explore a transformation of their own classrooms:

• model thinking/processing skills• identify students’ cognitive development• develop questions that facilitate exploration/growth• introduce visual tools to aid establishing connections• provide group learning settings• use analogies and metaphors • provide a “no-risk” student feedback channel for information. Our particular transformation has taken place in engineering de-

sign courses and engineering science courses taught at both LouisianaState University (LSU) and the United States Military Academy(USMA). We have attempted to assess the effectiveness of our trans-formation at both institutions and make some comparisons as well.

II. CHANGING MODELS OF EDUCATION

According to Halperin,7 most activities today in a vast majorityof classrooms continue to reflect the older teacher-centered modelof education wherein “students sit quietly, passively receiving wordsof wisdom being professed by the lone instructor in front of theclass.” Bowers and Flinders8 describe a variation of the teacher-cen-tered model, teacher as “classroom manager,” in which the learningprocess is likened to industrial production, within which studentsbecome “products,” behaviors are expressions of “exit skills,” “com-petencies,” and “outcomes.” Implicit in this model that dates to theIndustrial Revolution9 are the following assumptions:

• any and all educational processes are culturally neutral, linearand rational

• language serves as a non-filtering conduit for the transmis-sion of information

• the learning process is heavily dependent upon the pro-nouncement and the enforcement of rules.

Note that little is required or expected from the student until thevery end or “final quality control inspection.” In this model, the stu-dent simply rides the assembly line of learning, quietly and dutifullyaccepting all inputs as does a skeletal frame on an automobile manu-facturing plant’s assembly line. A modern day, high technology ver-sion of the same model of education has been described by Capra.10

According to cognitive psychologists and educators, instructionis most effective when students are encouraged and even expectedto become actively involved in their own learning, thereby shiftingthe focus from what the teacher does to what the students do.

January 1999 Journal of Engineering Education 59

Page 2: Transformation: From Teacher-Centered to Student-Centered Engineering Education

King11 asserts that key to the learning process is what the teacheractually asks the students to do with the subject matter that is beingstudied. Open-ended interactions between teacher and studentsand student groups nurture the student’s natural curiosity.

Many concepts may not be subject to precise definitions but maybe more richly described through the use of both examples andanalogies.12 Cooper et al.13 sought to promote student activitythrough the use of cooperative learning experiences including peertutoring, student-faculty research projects, short term “buzz”groups, and learning communities.

In engineering education, extensive work on active learning hasbeen reported by Felder14 and Smith.15 During the review process forthis work, additional works by Felder were identified as referencedin his homepage (http://www.ncsu.edu/faculty/rmf2.html). Felder14

has identified the following six principles for good teaching:• write comprehensive instructional objectives • model strategies and skills for your students• maximize experiential learning and minimize lecturing• use team-based learning extensively• do not make speed a factor on tests• positively reinforce successful performance. Houshmand et al.16 developed a total quality management ap-

proach in which administrators, faculty, and students work togeth-er to develop a methodology for improving the actual learning thattakes place in the classroom. Others have incorporated “hands-on”experiences ranging from the use of multi-media17 to the entry intocollegiate design competitions.18

III. A PROFESSOR’S ROLES IN STUDENT-CENTEREDEDUCATION

From our review of the literature and from our experiences inundergraduate education, we suggest the following seven roles for aprofessor who wishes to explore a transformation from teacher-centered to student-centered engineering education.

A. Model Thinking and Processing SkillsOne of the most important actions a teacher can take is to think

out loud or externally process. A student-centered teacher maymodel brainstorming or problem solving. Students cannot read ourminds nor do they have any idea about our struggles as learners un-less we choose to share this information with them. Rather than asoliloquy, students are better served by frequent and revealing“streams of consciousness” with allowances for repeated interac-tions between the teacher and the students. Haddock19 eloquentlydescribes such sharing as being a “nurturing professor.” We offer amore colloquial and anthropomorphic metaphor, teacher as “bor-der-collie,” shepherding students along a path yet keeping a dis-tance, constantly in motion yet never at the center of attention, evervigilant yet never dominant.

Example: Fluid Flow Exiting a Large Reservoir through a Small OrificeStudent-Centered Professor’s Verbalized Inner Dialog: “Which

conservation laws are at work here? Why should I use the conserva-tion of energy? Why shouldn’t I use Navier-Stokes? Is Mach num-ber important? Is Reynolds number important? Should I considerthe flow laminar or turbulent? Viscous or inviscid? Compressible orincompressible? 1-D, 2-D, or 3-D?”

B. Know the Actual and the Desired Cognitive Levels of Activities andof Students

Two models of thinking that we find useful both from ateacher’s perspective and for generating discussion with our stu-dents are Bloom’s taxonomy20 and Guilford’s structure of the intel-lect.21 In Bloom’s model, thinking proceeds from the lowest level,rote memorization, to the highest levels, synthesis and evaluation.Guilford’s model, as described by Aschner and Gallagher,22 dividesthinking into memorization or simple recall, convergent thinkingwhich requires the use of data to arrive at a response, and divergentthinking which calls for the generation of alternatives and evalua-tion which requires judgments and decisions to be made. Our stan-dard practice in developing quizzes, assignments, design projectsand tests is to identify the required thinking level and type usingboth Bloom’s and Guilford’s models. More than simply for our use,we routinely engage students in identifying the modes of thinkingrequired in the different activities and possible reasons for difficul-ties they may have had.

The following describes levels of thinking adapted from refer-ence 20.

Level 1: RecognizingLevel 2: MemorizingLevel 3: TranslatingLevel 4: Making connectionsLevel 5: Solving problemsLevel 6: Breaking down barriersLevel 7: Fitting pieces togetherLevel 8: Drawing conclusionsLevel 9: Evaluating pros and cons

Example: Importance of Reynolds numberIncreasing Levels of Think-ing:

• Recognize Re as the Reynolds number.• Calculate Re for a given flow through a circular pipe.• Calculate the friction losses for given flow through a circular

pipe.• Design an experiment that demonstrates the relationship of

friction losses to the Reynolds number for flow through a cir-cular pipe.

C. Develop Questions that Facilitate Student Exploration andGrowth.

Questioning techniques and their importance in shifting the focusto the students are reviewed by Hansen,23 Dantonio,24 Taba,25 andEhrenburg and Ehrenburg.26 Each provides a general framework todescribe the questioning process, identifying four distinct categories:

• information gathering• information sorting• information organization• information interpretation.Information gathering refers to the data collection process while

information sorting refers to a process much like the sorting processthat occurs in a mailroom. After a brief discussion on the types ofquestions, we provide to our students concrete examples from thedifferent categories. Throughout the rest of the semester, studentsare asked to generate their own questions both in class and ashomework assignments and fit them into the framework alreadyprovided insuring that questions from each of the four categoriesare included.

60 Journal of Engineering Education January 1999

Page 3: Transformation: From Teacher-Centered to Student-Centered Engineering Education

Example: Using the Second Law of ThermodynamicsStudent Homework Assignment: Suppose hunger strikes and

you decide to hard-boil several eggs in a kettle of water. • Recognize the physical properties of the water and the eggs

you will need to estimate. • How much heat is needed to finish the hard-boiling process? • Is the process reversible for the eggs? The water? Why or

why not?

D. Use Visual Tools to Establish Connections and Nurture the Devel-opment of These Tools in Students

Research into whole brain thinking suggests the brain’s lefthemisphere is associated with linear, analytical thought and theright hemisphere dedicated to spatial, integrative thought.27 Theteacher-centered model of education essentially ignores one half ofthe student’s mental capacity. A visual tool we have found useful intapping into that neglected portion of the brain is mindmapping.28

From the outset, the emphasis is placed upon the process of con-structing the map-not the final product itself. Mindmap construc-tion forces students to sort through new information and cluster thedata into categories that indicate the existence or lack of connec-tions. Mindmaps can be used throughout the semester both for theintroduction and overview of new material and as a review mecha-nism for establishing the connections among old pieces of informa-tion. An example of a mindmap used during the first meeting offluid mechanics is provided (Figure 1). In addition, advances inclassroom technology offers an entirely new set of visual tools.

State-of-the-art presentation graphics will soon become an es-sential component of a student-centered classroom environment .29

Even at this embryonic stage of technical refinement, student-cen-tered classrooms as found in studio and partial studio models havebeen developed and are being offered in courses (i.e. heat transfer,thermodynamics) traditionally reserved for the teacher-centeredapproach.30 We have used the graphics available from commerciallyavailable symbolic software packages in engineering mathematicsand found them to be effective in the presentation of concepts inanalytical geometry. We have also used such graphics packages inour introduction of the science of chaos into fluid mechanics.

E. Provide Group Learning Settings.Cooper et al.31 provide critical features for group learning: posi-

tive interdependence, individual accountability, appropriateness ofthe assignment, teacher as facilitator, explicit attention to socialskills, and an emphasis on face-to-face problem solving. Three testsof actual involvement of the students in a group learning environ-ment, offered by Weimer,32 include the amount of actual class timethat is actually dedicated to group learning, the number of studentswho participate, and the depth of involvement of the students inthe various activities. Two particularly effective group learning ac-tivities we have identified for use in the engineering sciences in-clude: 1) construction of teams of two to three students to work outsolutions to well-defined and open-ended problems and then pre-sent their group results to the rest of the class for review and 2) es-tablishment of student-run recitation period wherein students askother students for suggestions and guidance with the instructorserving as an interested observer and facilitator.

F. Use Analogies and Metaphors.Eco,33 borrowing from the writings of Dante Allighieri, elo-

quently describes the power of metaphorical thought, points to itsintegral part in the arts and humanities, and provides a skeletalframework of categories of meaning moving from the literal to themost interpretative. Eco suggests four levels of meaning:

• the literal• the metaphorical• the moral• the anagogical.By anagogical, Eco points to the very highest or ethereal level of

interpretation. For example, according to Eco, Dante’s descriptionof the Exodus at the literal level refers to the departure of the chil-dren of Israel from Egypt, at the metaphorical level it refers tohuman redemption, at the moral level it refers to the conversion ofthe soul from darkness to a state of grace, and at the anagogical levelto the release of the spirit from the bondage of darkness to the free-dom of eternal glory.

At this stage, our attempts to move from the literal to the ethe-real have been small, cautious steps. Some concepts in the engineer-ing sciences seem ideally suited for a richer description. For exam-ple, we have framed an introduction and discussion of the basicconservation laws in terms of the current debate over immigrationpolicies. In thermodynamics, we have likened energy, the availabili-ty of energy, and the Second Law to gross income, net income, andthe passage of time. Our examples serve as a springboard for ourstudents who are subsequently asked to envisage their own analo-gies and metaphors and present their work to their peers.

Example: The Reynolds Transport TheoremStudent Assignment: Recognize the Reynolds transport theo-

rem. Discuss the process of taking a trip to New York City as ananalogy for the concepts of path dependent and path independentfunctions used in thermodynamics. Take West Point as the startingpoint and the theater district Off-Broadway as the final point.

G. Provide a “No Risk” Mechanism for Indirect Dialogue BetweenProfessor and Students

Our suggestion of a “no risk” mechanism is the “discoverysheet.” Discovery sheets seem most appropriate after the introduc-tion of new and particularly difficult material, after quizzes and testor whenever there seems to be sense of frustration or alienationwithin the class. Statements, though open-ended, can range fromthe particularly specific (i.e., “I felt the exam was fair/unfair be-cause….”) to the remarkably vague (i.e., “I wish….”.) Key to thesuccessful use of discovery sheets is a prompt and complete re-

January 1999 Journal of Engineering Education 61

Figure 1. An Example of an Introductory Mindmap for FluidMechanics (first day of class).

Page 4: Transformation: From Teacher-Centered to Student-Centered Engineering Education

sponse to any and all concerns raised. Often the mere expression ofacknowledgment by the professor of a student issue transforms theclassroom environment from indifference or at its worst, hostility,to a functioning, healthy community.

IV. ASSESSMENT

We have only considered one aspect of assessment in this work,performance on group hourly and final exams. Certainly there aremany other factors that can be included. We sought to focus on twospecific issues that are presently the subject of much debate in engi-neering education:

• Given the existence of multiple sections of the same courseand the resultant desire/need to impart a specific set of infor-mation for those courses are students helped or hurt (relativeto their classmates) by a shift to a student-centered approachif that shift varies from section to section?

• What is the relationship if any between the effectiveness ofstudent-centered roles and technical depth and experience ofthe instructor?

Experiments have been performed at both Louisiana State Uni-versity and the United States Military Academy. At LouisianaState, the comparison involved students in introductory fluid me-chanics while at the United States Military Academy comparisonsinvolved students enrolled in an equivalent fluid mechanics courseas well as thermodynamics. When we refer to using a student-cen-tered model, our meaning is that each of the seven roles for the stu-dent-centered professor is employed. We model thinking and pro-cessing skills whenever appropriate but especially after homeworkor exams are completed. Second, we engage students in a discussionof Bloom’s taxonomy and the Guilford model most notably prior toexam dates seeking to help our students identify the kinds of ques-tions they may encounter. Third, we constantly remind students ofthe different kind of questions and ask them to develop their ques-tioning techniques primarily through requesting them to make uptheir own credible exams and provide solutions. We introduce stu-dents to mindmapping at the beginning of the term and ask themto map each new reading assignment and then revise their mapsafter the material is covered in class. We also ask students to preparecomprehensive mindmaps in preparation for exams. We routinelybreak up our classes into smaller teams and ask them to do both in-class and out-of-class assignments as a team. We use as manyanalogies and metaphors in class discussion as we can imagine and,in turn, ask students to come up with their own metaphors. On abi-weekly basis, we solicit student response and discussion of theirthoughts and feelings through use of the discovery sheet. Details ofthe LSU experiment are provided in an earlier article.34 Two sec-tions of fluid mechanics, taught by different professors were of-fered, one using a traditional teacher-centered approach, the otherutilizing all of the roles described previously. The students in bothsections received the same exams throughout the semester with thegrading done without the names of the students or their sectionidentified. The two professors collaborated in the preparation of allexams with each contributing approximately 50%. Three mainconclusions were reached in this study. First, the students in thestudent-centered section did consistently better throughout the se-mester on the hourly exams and the final exam. Second, fewer stu-dents dropped the student-centered course. Third, the teacher who

utilized a student-centered technique was judged much more favor-ably by the students in his class than he had been rated by studentspreviously. More details are provided in reference 34.

Much more extensive data is available for the two experimentsrun at the United States Military Academy. Data from the experi-ments performed in thermodynamics over two separate semestersare provided first. In the fall semester 1996, eleven sections were of-fered with three utilizing a student-centered approach, all taught bythe same instructor.

During the spring semester, eleven sections were again offeredbut this time only one student-centered section was taught. Threeone-hour exams were given during the semester along with a com-prehensive final exam. The results are shown in figure 2. Some dis-cussion of the ground rules for the comparison/contrast is essential.The student-centered professor had minimal input into the con-struction of the hourly exams as well as minimal input into the termend or final exam. Each section during both terms was made up ofapproximately 18 students (cadets). All exams were identical. Thegrading was done primarily by the teacher-centered instructors ac-cording to a detailed grading sheet.

In fact during the spring term, the student-centered professordid not grade any of the test papers. Additionally, the professorwho employed the student-centered techniques has a substantialacademic and research reputation in fluid mechanics, not thermo-dynamics. Teacher-centered classroom results are plotted using asolid line while student-centered classrooms results are plottedusing a dashed line in figure 2. Several observations can be made.First, the student-centered model does not penalize the studentsinvolved even though the tests are made up of teachers utilizing themore traditional approach.

Second, the use of the student-centered model does not appearas effective as had been the case at LSU in fluid mechanics.

Data are available for fluid mechanics for the fall semester, 1997at USMA. A total of ten sections of fluid mechanics were offeredduring the fall 1997 term again with approximately 18 students(cadets) in each section. Only one section employed a student-cen-tered model completely though the other nine sections did employsome of the techniques sporadically. Again the student-centeredprofessor had minimal input into the hourly exams or the finalexam and graded less than 10% of the examination problems.

The results for fluid mechanics are consistent with observationsmade at the end of the LSU experiment. The performance of thestudents (cadets) was stronger for both hourly exams as well as forthe final exam (figure 3). Reinforcing a point made earlier, the pro-fessor who utilized a student-centered model has a strong back-ground in fluid mechanics and performs much research in this area.

V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

There are serious shortcomings with the experiments as de-scribed in this report. Certainly it would be advisable to have amuch larger data sample from more sections over a longer period oftime. In addition, it would have been helpful to have the same in-structors involved in both the thermodynamics and the fluid me-chanics comparisons at USMA. As has been pointed out during thereview process, varying backgrounds of instructors can greatly affectstudent performance and the data are much more valid when thesame instructors are used. Having qualified the results, it is our be-

62 Journal of Engineering Education January 1999

Page 5: Transformation: From Teacher-Centered to Student-Centered Engineering Education

lief that the work suggests but does not prove the following points.We start with the premise that all of us as engineering educatorsseek to maximize the learning that takes place in our classrooms.

Changing from a teacher-centered to a student-centered seemsdesirable given recent advances in education and learning theory.From our experiments, changing the classroom model does noharm to students even under the constraints imposed by multiplesections and group examinations, certainly an overriding concernfor all of us. Some traditionalists still argue that the inclusion ofmany of the student-centered roles in the classroom will lead to alessening of the academic rigor of the presentation. Our data bothfrom LSU and USMA seem to contradict this assertion.

In order to truly reap the benefits of the student-centered model,however, our results also indicates that there may be no substitutefor depth and experience in the subject matter, a depth that comesfrom wrestling with the subtleties of the discipline as has been re-quired in the past or is required in the present in ongoing, technical,

research efforts. Stated another way, student-centered roles and ac-tivities seem most effective when coupled with technical depth, notas a substitute for such expertise. We are not stating that the changeto student-centered education should be slowed down or rethoughtin any substantial way. Rather we are suggesting a precondition formost effective employment, the development of technical depth inthe specific subject matter.

Though not included in the present work, student evaluationswere completed both at LSU and at USMA. At LSU, as has beenreported earlier, students in the student-centered section judgedtheir professor’s instructional technique, support and effectivenesshigher than those in the more traditional section. At USMA, stu-dents judged their professor’s teaching effectiveness slightly lowerin the student-centered sections in thermodynamics but consider-ably higher in fluid mechanics. Thus, student evaluations at bothinstitutions mirrored the results from normative testing.

VI. CLOSING COMMENTS

We have identified seven roles for professors seeking to movefrom the traditional, teacher-centered model of the classroom to amore student-centered approach. Our list does not presume to becomplete and all-inclusive; rather it identifies those that we haveemployed. Many other student-centered/active learning activitieshave been employed by other educators, some as simple as learningthe names of their students. Attempting such a change is not with-out resistance from colleagues, from the students themselves andfrequently from ourselves. Colleagues will routinely question theacademic rigor of such activities and in an often condescendingmanner ask questions such as “What does that have to do withthermodynamics or fluid mechanics?” Students will often feel veryuncomfortable in such a new environment in which they becomethe center of attention.

The proposed change is difficult for many faculty members be-cause it requires relinquishing authoritarian control in the class-room and allowing the intrusion of apparent chaos—-thus creatingthe classic confrontation between order and disorder that has beenexplored in the West since Aeschylus in Prometheus Bound.35

Student-centered roles take a great deal of time to develop andto implement effectively. The increased workload for instructorsand possible economic constraints of the institutions must be in-cluded in any discussion of curriculum transformation. Issues relat-ed to time seem especially critical, not only the time required for thestudent-centered roles but also the time required to develop exper-tise and experience in a specific subject matter.

REFERENCES

1. Cross, P., Keynote Address, Federal Service Academies Conferenceon Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century, United States MilitaryAcademy, West Point, New York, Sept., 1996.

2. Knox, P.C., D.A. Sabatini, R.L. Sachs, P.D. Haskens, L.W. Roach,and S.W. Fairbarn, “A Practitioner-Educator Partnership for TeachingEngineering Design,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 84, no.1, Jan.,1995, pp. 5-12.

3. Carroll, J., R. Fearn, and R. Rivers, “Flight Test Engineering-An In-tegrated Approach,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 85, no.1, Jan.,

January 1999 Journal of Engineering Education 63

Figure 2. Comparison of Semester Results for Teacher-Cen-tered and Student-Centered Sections in Undergraduate Thermo-dynamics, Spring and Fall 1997. (Note: Solid lines representteacher-centered sections and dashed lines represent student-cen-tered sections.)

Figure 3. Comparison of Semester Results for Teacher-Cen-tered and Student-Centered Sections in Undergraduate Fluid Me-chanics, Fall 1997. (Note: Solid lines represent teacher-centeredsections and dashed lines represent student-centered sections.)

Page 6: Transformation: From Teacher-Centered to Student-Centered Engineering Education

1996, pp. 73-76.4. Crease, R., “A Project Centered Engineering Program.” Engineering

Education, 1987 (AUTHOR: PLEASE COMPLETE REFERENCE— WHICH ISSUE?), pp. 100-105.

5. Quinn, R., “The E4 Introductory Engineering Test, Design, andAssimilation Laboratory,” Engineering Education, 1990 (AUTHOR:PLEASE COMPLETE REFERENCE — WHICH ISSUE?), pp.423-425.

6. Capra, F., The Tao of Physics, Shambala, Boston, 1975.7. Halperin, D., Changing College Classrooms, Jossey-Bass, San Francis-

co, 1994, pp. 11-12.8. Bowers, C., and D. Flinders, Responsive Teaching, Teachers College,

New York, 1990, pp. 5-14.9. Mumford, L., Technics and Civilization, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,

New York, 1934.10. Capra, F., The Web of Life, Anchor Books Doubleday, New York,

1996.11. King, A., “Inquiry as a Tool for Critical Thinking,” in Halperin, D.,

(ed.) Changing College Classrooms, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1994, pp.13-38.

12. Decyb, B., “Using Examples to Teach Concepts,” in Halperin, D.,(ed.) Changing College Classrooms, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1994, pp.39-63.

13. Cooper, J., P. Robinson, M. McKinny, Cooperative Learning andCollege Instruction: Selected Use of Student Learning Teams, CSU Inst. forTeaching and Learning, Long Beach, 1990.

14. Felder, R., “Who Needs These Headaches?”, Success 101, No.4,Fall, 1997.

15. Smith, K., “Conversations on Creating a Different Classroom En-vironment,” Proceedings, 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE,1997.

16. Houshmand, A., C. Papadakis, J. McDonough, T. Fowler, and G.Markle, “Methodology for Improving the Quality of Instruction,” Journalof Engineering Education, vol. 85, no.2, April 1996, pp. 117-122.

17. Lamb, A., “Multi-media and the Teaching-Learning Process,” inAlbright, M., D. Albright, and G. Graf, (eds.), Teaching in the InformationAge, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1992, pp. 33-42.

18. Catalano, G. and K. Tonso, “The Sunrayce 95 Idea: AddingHands-On to an Engineering Curriculum,” Journal of Engineering Educa-tion, vol. 85, no.3, July 1996, pp. 193-200.

19. Haddock, J., “Profile of a Nurturing College Professor,” Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 82, no.1, Jan 1993, pp. 34-37.

20. Bloom, B., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, vol. 1, McKay, NewYork ,1956.

21. Guilford from Ascher, M., and J. Gallagher, A System for ClassifyingThought Processes in the Context of Verbal Interaction, University of IllinoisInstitute for Research on Exceptional Children, Urbana, 1965.

22. Ascher, M., and J. Gallagher, A System for Classifying ThoughtProcesses in the Context of Verbal Interaction, University of Illinois Institutefor Research on Exceptional Children, Urbana, 1965.

23. Hansen, C., “Questioning Techniques for the Active Classroom,”in Halperin, D., (ed.) Changing College Classrooms, Jossey-Bass, San Fran-cisco, 1994, pp. 93-106.

24. Dantonio, M., How Can We Create Thinkers?, National EducationService: Bloomington, 1990.

25. Taba, H., Hilda Taba Teaching Strategies Program, Institute for De-velopment, Miami, 1978.

26. Ehrenburg, S., and L. Ehrenburg, Building and Applying Strategiesfor Intellectual Competencies in Students (Basics), Institute for Curriculum

and Instruction, Miami, 1978.27. Williams, L., Teaching for the Two-Sided Brain, Prentice Hall, New

Jersey, 1983.28. Wycoff, J., Mindmapping, Berkeley Books, New York, 1991.29. Head, T., “New Directions in Presentation Graphics,” in Albright,

M., D. Albright, and G. Graf, (eds.), Teaching in the Information Age,Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1992, pp. 17-32.

30. Ribando, R., and G. O’Leary, “Teaching Modules for Heat Trans-fer,” private communication.

31. Cooper, J., P. Robinson, and M. McKinney, “Cooperative Learn-ing in the Classroom,” in Halperin, D., (ed.) Changing College Classrooms,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1994, pp. 74-91.

32. Weimer, M., “Active Learning: Quantity, Extent, Depth Count,”The Teaching Professor, vol. 10, no. 10, December, 1996.

33. Eco, U., The Open Work, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,1989, p. 6.

34. Catalano, G., “Some Ideas on the Teaching of Engineering Sci-ence: A Student-Centered Approach,” Journal of Engineering Education,vol. 84, no.1, Jan., 1995, pp. 21-24.

35. Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, Penguin Classics, New York, 1965.

64 Journal of Engineering Education January 1999