Assessment/Research (91) Engineering - Materials Science (57) Building upon recommendations from national initiatives, this project is testing the proposition that carefully mediated feedback from students to instructors on the effectiveness of engineering course design (instructional practices and curricular materials) can lead to substantial improvements in both instructional practice and student performance. It is examining thoroughly the pedagogical practices of 32 engineering graduate student instructors and faculty with various levels of pedagogical knowledge and teaching experience. This examination is being done through the Global Real-time Assessment Tool for Teaching Enhancement (G- RATE). G-RATE is a multidimensional feedback tool that provides pedagogical feedback to instructors about teaching at various points throughout the semester, frames this feedback within the How People Learn (HPL) framework, and engages instructors in self-assessment to identify areas of pedagogical strength and weakness.
During the course of this project, 2,500 undergraduate engineering students are providing quantitative and qualitative feedback to their instructors about their learning experiences throughout the semester, using the G-RATE tool. Two research questions being addressed. (1) Does feedback through G-RATE improve the development of instructor pedagogical expertise? (2) What is the relationship between this feedback and undergraduate student outcomes (e.g., grades) within observed environments? Quantitative data are being collected from students' class deliverables (e.g., lab reports, exam scores, quizzes) as well as components of the G-RATE. Qualitative data are being collected using interviews with engineering instructors and their students.
Designed outcomes of this project are (1) enhanced instructor pedagogical expertise via the implementation of evidence-based teaching assessments in first-year engineering and materials science and engineering courses; (2) improved undergraduate student outcomes from more effective teaching and curriculum choices (utilizing a mixed-methods approach by integrating both qualitative and quantitative data); and (3) a community support network of engineering instructors engaged in open dialogues about teaching and curricular design for undergraduate engineering courses.
