Centered on Education Research

Centered on Education Research

Scientific Research in Education Richard J. Shavelson and Lisa Towne, Editors National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002,18Sf ages, ISBN 0-309-08291-9

How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, Rodney R. Cocking, M. Suzanne Donovan, and James W. and James W. Pellegnno, Editors National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000, 374 pages, ISBN 0-309-07036-8

Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics MaryeAnne Fox and Norman Hackerman, Editors National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2003, 215 pages, ISBN 0-309-07277-8

Do you know an engineering education scholar? Probably, and you may be one yourself. Do you know an engineering education researcher? Your answer may depend on the semantics of scholarship versus research. Boyer’s four forms of scholarship-discovery, integration, application, and teaching-give rise to a broader definition than traditional scientific research. In their article “Using Boyer’s Four Forms of Scholarship to Advance Engineering Education” [1, 2], Streveler, Moskal, and Miller point out the differences and interdependences among the forms of scholarship. As an example, they refer to studies in response to the question, “Why are some concepts in science and engineering so difficult for students to learn?” The scholarship of discovery corresponds to studies to identify what concepts engineering students find difficult; the scholarship of integration-what makes these concepts difficult (integrates engineering, engineering education and cognitive psychology theory); the scholarship of application-how assessment can be used to identify the existence of student misconceptions; and the scholarship of teaching-what instructional approaches are necessary to correct these misconceptions. Whether someone does education research really depends on the nature and rigor of the educational studies. My awareness and understanding of such studies have been enhanced through collaboration with colleagues in the education field. At Iowa State University we have the Research Institute for Studies in Education (RISE) [3], which supports education research, evaluation, and planning for on- and off-campus clients and assists faculty by facilitating quality research. Many universities likely have similar groups, which are one means to maximize the research potential of our scholarly activities in engineering education.

A growing number of resources available to increase highquality education research are products of the National Academies, i.e., the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy (if Engineering, Institute ot Medicine, and the National Research Council. The Center for Education [4] is the driver for education work at the National Academies. The center addresses national issues in education research, policy, and practice, with special emphasis on science, mathematics, and engineering education, among other foci. The National Academy of Engineering in 2002 created the Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education (caseE) [5], part of a multifold effort on engineering education. An important part of this effort was the modification of its interpretation of the criteria for NAE membership to more explicitly recognize contributions to engineering education. caseE represents the commitment of the NAE to improve engineering education by expanding the capacity for conducting high-quality research on engineering education, integrating engineering education research and practice, and leveraging the efforts and interests of relevant stakeholders. The goal of caseE is “to achieve a climate of continuous improvement in engineering education wherein the excellence of engineering education (at the precollegc, undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education levels) contributes to the sustained maintenance of a high quality engineering workforce.”

Selected resources of the National Academies are the subject of this Academic Bookshelf, including the National Academy Press books Scientific Research in Education; How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School; and Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Of these, only the last one exclusively applies to higher education. The first two draw most of its examples from elementary and secondary education; nonetheless, the concepts presented on scientific research are generally applicable across education levels as well as disciplines. Especially in Scientific Research in Education, particular details may be best left to your education colleague; however, much can be gleaned from cover to cover about scientific research in education. Complementing this, How People Learn delves into the science of learning. Both How People Learn and Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching address effective teaching and assessment of student learning.

Scientific Research in Education includes an excellent Executive Summary, followed by these chapters: (1) Introduction, (2) Accumulation of Scientific Knowledge, (3) Guiding Principles for Scientific Inquiry, (4) Features of Education and Education Research, (5) Designs for the Conduct of Scientific Research in Education, and (6) Design Principles for Fostering Science in a Federal Education Research Agency. The Executive Summary states:

“Research in education has been enhanced by the recent invention of methods: new observational techniques, new experimental designs, new methods of data gathering and analysis, and new software packages for managing and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. … As new methods arcdeveloped, they lead to the identification of new questions, and the investigation of these, in turn, can demand that new methods be devised” [6, p. 18].

Methods are the subject of one of the scientific principles described in Chapter 3: “Use methods that permit direction investigation oi the question.” An example illustrates that particular methods are better suited to address some questions rather than others; in the case described, a particular method enabled stronger inferences about the effects of class size reduction on student achievement. In all, six scientific principles arc listed and elaborated on in Chapter 3.

Scientific Principle 1: Pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically.

Scientific Principle 2: Link research to relevant theory.

Scientific Principle 3: Use methods that permit direction investigation of the question.

Scientific Principle 4: Provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning.

Scientific Principle 5: Replicate and generalize across studies.

Scientific Principle 6: Disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique.

In Chapter 5, three types of education research questions are categorized as description, cause and process. Description questions ask what is happening, in what contexts, so as to characterize a population, setting, or problem. Cause questions ask whether there is a systematic effect, i.e., docs x cause y? Process or mechanism questions ask why or how is it happening, i.e., the means by which x causes y. One of the examples is a study on college women’s career choices. Based on analysis of ethnographic data of the participants (inquiry into description), models were developed and tested to explain how women decide to abandon or pursue nontraditional careers in the fields they studied in college depending on their commitment to school work in college (inquiry into process).

If Scientific Research in Education bridges the dialogue with an education researcher, then How People Learn starts the conversation with a cognitive scientist, How People Learn is divided into four parts: (I) Introduction, (II) Learners and Learning, (III) Teachers and Teaching, and (IV) Future Directions for the Science of Learning. Chapter 1, Learning: From Speculation to Science, highlights the key findings of research on learners and learning and on teachers and teaching as sets of principles [7].

“Learning Principles:

1. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom.

2. To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application.

3. A mctacognitive approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them.”

“Teaching Principles:

1. Teachers must draw out and work with the preexisting understandings that their students bring with them.

2. Teachers must teach some subject matter in depth, providing many examples in which the same concept is at work and providing a firm foundation of factual knowledge.

3. The teach\ing of metacognitive skills should be integrated into the curriculum in a variety of subject areas.”

Each principle has strong implications for both teaching and learning. By focusing on these principles, the many possible teaching strategies-lecture-based, skills-based, inquiry-based, groupbased, technology-enhanced, etc.-can be mixed and matched as needed to meet learning goals. These principles are described and illustrated in Parts II and III.

Finally, Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching speaks directly to the engineering professor (as well as colleagues in the science, technology, and mathematics fields). Its goal is to recommend strategies to evaluate undergraduate teaching and learning. Early on, however, it also puts forth a set of learning principles, synthesized from research in the cognitive, learning, and brain sciences [8, pp. 20-22].

“1. Learning with understanding is facilitated when new and existing knowledge is structured around the major concepts and principles of the discipline.

2. Learners use what they already know to construct new understandings.

3. Learning is facilitated through the use of metacognitive strategies that identify, monitor, and regulate cognitive processes.

4. Learners have different strategies, approaches, patterns of abilities, and learning styles that are a function of the interaction between their heredity and their prior experiences.

5. Learners’ motivation to learn and sense of self affect what is learned, how much is learned, and how much effort will be put into the learning process.

6. The practices and activities in which people engage while learning shape what is learned.

7. Learning is enhanced through socially supported interactions.”

These principles arc credited as excerpted and modified from Scientific Research in Education; the actual source is another National Academy Press book, Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools, available for online reading [9] (see Chapter 6, Learning with Understanding: Seven Principles).

Clearly, education research is a multidisciplinary endeavor involving several communities. With the resources and initiatives of the National Academies supporting high-quality education research, we just might see a few more engineering educators, engineering education scholars, and education researchers talking over coffee.

REFERENCES

[1] Streveler, R.A., Moskal, B.M., and Miller, R.L., “The Center foiEngineering Education at the Colorado School of Mines: Using Boyer’s Four Types of Scholarship,” Proceedings, 2001 see/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

[2] Streveler, R.A., Moskal, B.M., and Miller, R.L., “Using Boyer’s Four Forms of Scholarship to Advance Engineering Education,” Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2003, http:// www.iusb.edu/~josotl/ VOL.3/N0.2Atreveler_voL3_no_2.htm.

[3] http://www.educ.iastate.edu/rise/.

[4] http://www. nationalacademies. org/cfe/.

[5] http://www. nae. edu/NAE/caseeconmew. ns?OpenDatabase.

[6] National Research Council, Scientific Research in Education, Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, Shavelson, R. J. and Townc, L. (eds), Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.

[7] National Research Council, plow People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Committee on Developments m the Science of Learning, Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (eds), Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, Donovan, M.S., Bransford, J.D., and Pellegrino, J.W. (eds), Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000.

[8] National Research Council, Evaluating und Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Committee on Recognizing, Evaluating, Rewarding, and Developing Excellence in Teaching of Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Fox, M.A. and Hackerman, N. (eds), Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2003.

[9] htlp://www. nap. edu/catalog/1012 9.html.

DIANE T. ROVER

Iowa State University

Copyright American Society for Engineering Education Jan 2005