Cited by 170Engineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentEngineering Education and PedagogyEngineering Education and Global Impact

Changing Engineering Education: Views of U.S. Faculty, Chairs, and Deans

Besterfield‐Sacre, Mary, Cox, Monica F., Borrego, Maura, Beddoes, Kacey, Zhu, Jiabin·2014·Journal of Engineering Education

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

Crossref · 10.1002/jee.20043

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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