Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 451

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations: A Survey of Awareness and Adoption Rates in U.S. Engineering Departments

Borrego, Maura, Froyd, Jeffrey E., Hall, T. Simin·2010·Journal of Engineering Education

Abstract

B ackground Despite decades of effort focused on improvement of engineering education, many recent advances have not resulted in systemic change. Diffusion of innovations theory is used to better understand this phenomenon. P urpose (H ypothesis) Research questions include: How widespread is awareness and adoption of established engineering education innovations? Are there differences by discipline or institutional type? How do engineering department chairs find out about engineering education innovations? What factors do engineering department chairs cite as important in adoption decisions? D esign/M ethod U.S. engineering department chairs were surveyed regarding their awareness and department use of seven engineering education innovations. One hundred ninety‐seven usable responses are presented primarily as categorical data with Chi square tests where relevant. R esults Overall, the awareness rate was 82 percent, while the adoption rate was 47 percent. Eighty‐two percent of engineering departments employ student‐active pedagogies (the highest). Mechanical and civil engineering had the highest rates, in part due to many design‐related innovations in the survey. Few differences by institution type were evident. In the past, word of mouth and presentations were far more effective than publications in alerting department chairs to the innovations. Department chairs cited financial resources, faculty time and attitudes, and student satisfaction and learning as major considerations in adoption decisions. C onclusions The importance of disciplinary networks was evident during survey administration and in the results. Specific recommendations are offered to employ these networks and the engineering professional societies for future engineering education improvement efforts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01056.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 451

Metadata

Authors
Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S.
Venue
Journal of Engineering Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07
Volume
99
Issue
3
Pages
185-207
ISSN
  • 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-9830
OpenAlex
W2029784831
Cited by
451
References
3
FWCI
37.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations: A Survey of Awareness and Adoption Rates in U.S. Engineering Departments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01056.x
The paper
Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations: A Survey of Awareness and Adoption Rates in U.S. Engineering Departments. Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01056.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.