Changing Engineering Education: Views of U.S. Faculty, Chairs, and Deans
Abstract
Background Many reports present a vision of what engineering education should look like, but few describe how this should happen. An American Society for Engineering Education initiative in 2006 attempted to bridge this gap by engaging faculty, chairs, and deans in discussion of change in engineering education; results were reported in a Phase I report (2009). In a second phase, survey data were integrated into a Phase II report (2012). Purpose This article uses the ASEE survey results to identify promising pathways for transforming engineering undergraduate education. Design/Method The survey asked faculty, chairs, and deans at engineering departments at 156 U.S. institutions to reflect on the recommendations of the Phase I report. Quantitative and qualitative responses were separately analyzed and then mixed by mapping findings to the Four Categories of Change Strategies model developed by Henderson et al. (2011), which frames the results and illustrates gaps and opportunities. Results Responses mapped to three of the four categories of the model that were most commonly used in other STEM education efforts: developing and disseminating new instructional approaches, supporting faculty members in their own scholarly teaching, and implementing policies that enable and reward teaching innovation. No responses mapped to developing a shared vision through activities such as strategic planning. Conclusions The greatest promise for transformative change in engineering education lie…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This facilitates the building of educator agency, particularly if supported with professional development and incentivization.
“This facilitates the building of educator agency (Annala et al., 2023; Jamieson & Lohmann, 2012), particularly if supported with professional development (Besterfield-Sacre et al., 2014; Caratozzolo & Membrillo-Hern andez, 2021; Dai et al., 2023) and incentivization (Besterfield-Sacre et al., 2014).”
From Global challenges, local responses: Exploring curriculum reform in South African engineering education (2025) · cites this paper as Besterfield-Sacre et al., 2014
Cites
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20439 · Cited by 1,055 · see citing works
Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty
Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.3446763 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20040 · Cited by 463 · see citing works
Self-citationResponse strategies for curriculum change in engineering
Kolmos, A., Hadgraft, R. G., & Holgaard, J. E. (2016) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9319-y · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Wolff, K., Hattingh, T., & Smith, L. (2025) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.70006 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Computing Education Research Today
Fincher, S. A., Tenenberg, J., Dorn, B., Hundhausen, C., McCartney, R., & Murphy, L. (2019) · The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research · doi:10.1017/9781108654555.003 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Besterfield‐Sacre, M., Cox, M. F., Borrego, M., Beddoes, K., & Zhu, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Virginia Tech (US)
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
- Venue
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 193-219
- ISSN
- 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-9830
- OpenAlex
- W1822760109
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 15.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Engineering Education (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- American Society for Engineering Education
- National Science Board
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Engineering Education and Curriculum Development
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Engineering Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Development › Engineering Education and Global Impact
- Keywords
- engineering education reform, transformative change, university deans, instructional innovation, faculty development, shared vision, strategic planning, American Society for Engineering Education
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