“We learn things to solve real-life problems”: Understanding how nature of engineering beliefs situate developing pedagogical content knowledge in a modular engineering education professional development program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing numbers of studies in STEM fields indicate that there are higher gains in student outcomes in classroom environments implementing evidence-based teaching approaches focused on learners and their learning when compared to traditional lecture-based classrooms. However, despite the compelling results, studies show that lecture is still the most common instructor behaviour in undergraduate education. Professional learning programs have been shown to be crucial in closing this gap and promoting sustained adoption of student-centred teaching approaches in undergraduate education. In order to understand how faculty members in engineering experience the development of their pedagogical understandings and practice, we invited seven engineering professors of different ranks and disciplines to participate in a professional learning program, Scholarship of Pedagogy and Application of Research Knowledge in Engineering (SPARK-ENG), designed specifically for engineering education. The participants’ interactions during the community of practice and individual and group interviews after completing their modules were recorded, transcribed, and analysed through a thematic analysis process. The study findings indicated that the participants demonstrated a complexity of pedagogical understanding and preferences toward practical aspects of engineering education based on external constraints and perceptions about engineering knowledge and engineering teaching. They further valued community-based interactions to develop pedagogical reflection and possibilities of implementation in their own classroom situations. The study points to the need for further research and discussion surrounding professors’ epistemologies of disciplinary knowledge and unique cultures of certain professions to support the development of effective student-centred pedagogies in university professional development programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it