Creating Scalable Reform in Engineering Education Through Low-Cost In- trinsic Motivation Course Conversions of Engineering Courses

The low-cost intrinsic motivation (IM) course conversion project is an effort to improve the quality of undergraduate engineering education by creating course designs that promote students’ intrinsic motivation to learn while keeping the time and financial investments for those course designs low. Because of the project’s explicit goal of creating a course design method that facilitates translation of practices across instructors and courses, a critical test of the method is the fidelity of implementation and outcomes across instructors. In prior papers, we have presented how the first IM-converted course promoted students’ intrinsic motivation to learn and improved their conceptual understanding of the course content. In this paper, we present a replication study that explores and contrasts the implementation and outcomes of the second offering of the IM-converted course when it was taught by different instructors. We use a mixedmethods comparative case study to describe and contrast the two offerings of the course. We present a portion of these case study analyses, contrasting the data and results from course syllabi, student interviews, and course climate surveys.

[1]  Imad H. Elhajj,et al.  Turning Student Groups into Effective Teams , 2004 .

[2]  E. Deci,et al.  The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective , 2000 .

[3]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[4]  P. Pintrich.  A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts. , 2003 .

[5]  S. Brownell,et al.  Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and…Tensions with Professional Identity? , 2012, CBE life sciences education.

[6]  Maura Borrego,et al.  Increasing the Use of Evidence‐Based Teaching in STEM Higher Education: A Comparison of Eight Change Strategies , 2014 .

[7]  Michael C. Loui,et al.  AC2012-4637: IDENTIFYINGTHECORECONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK OF DIGITAL LOGIC , 2012 .

[8]  John R. Buck,et al.  Active and cooperative learning in signal processing courses , 2005, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[9]  J. Reeve,et al.  How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice , 2009 .

[10]  E. Deci,et al.  Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. , 2000, The American psychologist.

[11]  A. Whimbey,et al.  Teaching analytical reasoning through thinking aloud pair problem solving , 1987 .

[12]  Geoffrey L. Herman,et al.  Work in progress: Empowering teaching assistants to become agents of education reform , 2012, 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings.

[13]  Rebecca Brent,et al.  Engineering Instructional Development: Programs, Best Practices, and Recommendations , 2011 .

[14]  Geoffrey L. Herman.  Designing contributing student pedagogies to promote students' intrinsic motivation to learn , 2012, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[15]  D. Clandinin,et al.  Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research , 1999 .

[16]  Edmund J. Hansen,et al.  Idea-Based Learning: A Course Design Process to Promote Conceptual Understanding , 2011 .

[17]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Creating Low-cost Intrinsic Motivation Course Conversions in a Large Required Engineering Course , 2012 .

[18]  Michael C. Loui,et al.  Administering a Digital Logic Concept Inventory at Multiple Institutions , 2011 .

[19]  Roger Hadgraft,et al.  Engineering Education and the Development of Expertise , 2011 .

[20]  Jennifer M. Case,et al.  Emerging Methodologies in Engineering Education Research , 2011 .

[21]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom‐Based Practices , 2005 .

[22]  Charles E. McDowell,et al.  Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality , 2006, CACM.

[23]  Jenefer Husman,et al.  Mini workshop — Understanding motivation in research and practice , 2010, 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[24]  Kathleen E. Fite.  Book Review: Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us , 2010 .

[25]  Michael C. Loui,et al.  Work in progress - how do students benefit as peer leaders of learning teams? , 2009, 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

[26]  Michael J. Prince,et al.  Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research , 2004 .

[27]  E. Deci,et al.  Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. , 2002 .

[28]  Richard M. Felder,et al.  The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness: Development of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale for Self and Peer Evaluation , 2012 .

[29]  Matthew W. Ohland,et al.  Design and Validation of a Web-Based System for Assigning Members to Teams Using Instructor-Specified Criteria , 2010 .

[30]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[31]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Qualitative researching with text, image and sound : a practical handbook , 2000 .

[32]  Craig Ogilvie,et al.  Changes in Students' Problem-Solving Strategies in a Course that Includes Context-Rich, Multifaceted Problems. , 2009 .

[33]  J. Reeve.  Why Teachers Adopt a Controlling Motivating Style Toward Students and How They Can Become More Autonomy Supportive , 2009 .

[34]  Claire Anderson,et al.  Narrative interviewing , 2015, International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy.

[35]  E. Deci,et al.  Motivation underlying career choice for internal medicine and surgery. , 1997, Social science & medicine.