Advances in Engineering Education: Using Technology To Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

Advances in Engineering Education
SPRING 2019
Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement

in Engineering
MILO D. KORETSKY
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
AND
ALEJANDRA J. MAGANA
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
ABSTRACT
In this article, we explore how information, communications, and computational technology, or
computer technology for short, influences the way that engineering is taught and learned. The goal
of our analysis it to contribute towards a research, adoption, and policy agenda for propagating
the effective use of computer technology in engineering education and for avoiding pitfalls asso-
ciated with the connectivity that this technology enables. We seek to inform action and generate
conversation amongst instructors, students, researchers, administrators, policy makers, and other
key stakeholders in engineering education.
We organize our discussion through six main issues as the focus for systemic change for the ef-
fective integration of technology in engineering education. These issues were identified through a
Delphi study with a group of engineering education experts. Our analysis of the issues then draws
on major policy reports of the use of technology in education and the extant research literature from
engineering education and science education as well as technology studies and science studies.
Discussion of each of these issues leads to a summary set of recommendations.
Specifically, we address the role of technology in learning engineering, including both technologies
developed specifically for learning engineering (learning innovations) and domain-specific computer
technologies for engineering practice (computational tools). We next address technology-related
issues around instructional design including learning outcomes, assessment, and instructional prac-
tice. We include discussion of professional development that better prepares faculty to effectively
use technology in the classroom. Finally, we outline the broader ways technology interacts with the
work of engineering students and faculty at the systems level - for better and for worse.
Key words: Computer technology, educational innovations, engineering practice, instructional design,
assessment, faculty professional development.
SPRING 2019 1
ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION
Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering
People were being drawn out of their familiar worlds into one more free, less personal, in
which associations that once attached to each person, place, and object came undone. It
was a leap forward of extraordinary liberation and equal alienation.
Rebecca Solnit, 2003, River of Shadows, p. 11
INTRODUCTION
The above excerpt could be describing the impact of the Internet, personal computers, and mobile
devices on human interactions in the early 21st century. However, it was written about a different
network – the network of trains that fundamentally changed transportation, and western society, in
the early 19th century.1 Similarly, in The Signal and the Noise, Nate Silver (2012) comments about the
invention of the printing press, created 400 years before the railroad infrastructure: “paradoxically,
the result of having so much more shared knowledge was increasing isolation” (p. 3). Engineers
are centrally involved in continued improvement of these technologies punctuated by the creation
of revolutionary technology breakthroughs that change the core ways humans interact with the
world and with one another. With an eye toward liberation, it is ethically incumbent for members of
society to reflect on implications of how technology is used, and how it affects the central practices
in which they engage (Mitcham, 1994).
The “information age” that has ushered in the 21st century has been built squarely on information,
communications, and computational technology (ICCT), which we call “computer technology,” for
short. In this article, we explore how rapidly changing computer technology has and will substantially
impact the way that engineering is taught and learned. We seek to be proactive and address the
research and policy agenda for propagating the effective use of computer technology in engineering
education and for avoiding pitfalls associated with connectivity that this technology enables. The
goal of this analysis is to inform action and generate conversation amongst instructors, students,
researchers, administrators, policy makers, and other key stakeholders in engineering education.
We consider two broad perspectives to approach this goal. First, engineering practice has always
advanced its own boundaries through changing its technologies (National Research Council, 1985).
As such, over the last several decades, computer technology has fundamentally shifted the ways engi-
neering work is done by supporting discovery, collaboration, and innovation processes (Clough, 2004;
Madhavan and Lindsay, 2014). In tandem, learning technologies promise to provide an unprecedented
opportunity to improve instruction, provide adaptive learning, and foster increased engagement and
1
Tom Standage (1998) used a similar analogy between the internet and the telegraph in The Victorian Internet.
2 SPRING 2019
broader access to education (Hilton, 2002; Pea et al., 2003; Woolf, 2010). Learning technologies consist
of both tools and resources developed specifically for an educational setting and tools that have been
repurposed and coupled with strategies that make them useful for learning (Johnson, Adams Becker,
Estrada, and Freeman, 2014). However, the engineering education community is facing the challenge
to adopt approaches to computer technology use that are grounded in theory, and educational re-
searchers have called for evidence for the effectiveness of the uses of technology for teaching and
learning (Woolf, 2010). Furthermore, it is unclear what aspects of learning can effectively be sourced
to occur adaptively “in the technology,” or to what degree it is fruitful to view technology primarily
as a tool that augments the person-to-person social processes of learning. In general, like those who
confronted with the opportunities presented by the printing press six centuries ago, educators (includ-
ing engineering educators) have struggled to keep pace with quickly evolving computer technology.
In considering the impact of computer technology, we consider two distinct but related types
of questions:
1. How can educators channel the ever-increasing number of learning technologies in ways that
effectively promote meaningful learning and equitable engagement? How do they identify the
ways that uses of technology circumvent their goals as educators?
2. How do educators best adapt engineering programs (curricula) to prepare students to contribute
effectively in a rapidly changing, technology-rich professional environment?
In this white paper, we begin discussion with the first type of question while recognizing that the two
types are interdependent and we cannot answer the first without elaboration of the second. Specifically,
in the context of engineering learning environments, instructors must first identify what it is possible
to accomplish with such technologies; that is their affordances. ‘Affordance’ refers the perceived and
actual properties of an object, as related to its functional properties that define how such things could
potentially be used (Gibson, 1979). Additionally, we consider computer technology as one element in
the larger ecosystem where engineering learning occurs and the issues we present strongly interact with
aspects of the other two articles in this special issue including learning in the classroom and pathways
for an inclusive and diverse engineering community (Finelli & Froyd, 2019; Simmons & Lord, 2019).
Our premises and working scope for this paper include the following:
1. Computer technology is a tool that has potential to productively support teaching and enhance
student learning especially with increasing class sizes and more diverse populations.
2. To be effective, uses of computer technology need to be approached in conjunction with
content and with pedagogical considerations.
3. We choose to emphasize the use of technology for on-campus programs. While many of these
systems can be used for learning at a distance, we are not directly addressing issues of solely
distance education.
SPRING 2019 3
4. While the use of computer technology for on-campus and distance learning appear interchange-
able at first blush, we believe that where and how technology is situated is foundationally
related to how its uses are conceived and how it affects student learning.
5. We center the discussion on the undergraduate level engineering while acknowledging issues
of technology in K-12 and graduate engineering education are also important.
CLASSIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGY
The uses of technology in education are broad, so it is practical to slice it up into more manage-
able categories. While there are many appropriate ways to approach this categorization, we choose
one that is represented in Figure 1. It shows three ways to classify the use of computer technology
in engineering education: (a) learning innovations specifically developed around instructional de-
sign to foster deep thinking and meaningful learning, (b) computational tools used in engineering
Figure 1. Three classes of computer technology (ICCT) in educational environments.
4 SPRING 2019
practice, and (c) Technology with a capital “T.” Here, the first two categories, learning innovations
and computational tools, sit as overlapping sub-sets within the overencompassing span of Technol-
ogy with a capital “T.” We believe that there is risk for cross-talk in the conversation when different
interlocutors implicitly argue from different lenses. Thus, we make categories explicit and address
each with separate issues. However, we recognize that specific cases can also be considered as
appropriately belonging to multiple categories.
The three categories are defined as follows:
1. Learning innovations. We consider what Fishman and colleagues (2004) call cognitively
o riented technology innovations (COTIs), which we call learning innovations, for short.
Learning innovations form a subset of computer technology that are intentionally devel-
oped for educational uses in classroom settings. They are specifically designed to foster
deep thinking and meaningful learning “rooted in cognitive and constructivist learning
theories” (Fishman et al., p. 45). With these innovations, “technology is employed as a tool
to support teaching and learning, as opposed to the object of learning. These innovations
often use technology to scaffold teaching and learning practices that would be difficult to
achieve otherwise, such as making complex causal modeling accessible to students” (p.
46). In some instances, instruction is delivered entirely though the computer, while in oth-
ers, devices form a distributed resource to promote productive face-to-face interactions
and learning, such as when audience response systems (e.g. clickers) are used to support
peer instruction (Mazur, 1997).
2. Technology uses in engineering practice. We define professional practice as real-world activi-
ties, actions, or applied skills where individuals must think and act in the modes of a particular
discipline. We consider development of students’ skill in technology used in engineering prac-
tice. Important technologies include disciplinary specific design tools like ASPEN in chemical
engineering and SolidWorks in mechanical engineering and more general tools like high-level
scientific computing programming languages (e.g., MATLAB) and software platforms for
analysis and simulation (e.g., COMSOL).
3. Technology with a capital “T.” We consider the broad impact of Technology change on
the instructional environment in engineering. In this aspect, there are both positive (e.g.,
increased resources) and negative (e.g., access to solution manuals) ways that Technology
impacts the learning environment. We need to understand and manage the affordances
between Technology as a large force in society and the uses in education. From this lens,
it is useful to identify how Technology fits into the cultures of engineering programs and
the culture of higher education, with the goal of promoting systemic change towards more
effective instruction.
SPRING 2019 5
ISSUES
Correspondingly, we organize the discussion with six main issues that have been identified through
a Delphi study of engineering education experts as the focus for systemic change for the effective
integration of technology in engineering education (Besterfield-Sacre & Shuman, 2016). Our analy-
sis of the issues then draws on major policy reports of the use of technology in education (Hilton,
2002; Honey & Hilton, 2011; Johnson et al., 2014; Pea et al., 2003; Sharples et al., 2015; Woolf, 2010),
specific discussions of the uses of technology in engineering education (Madhavan & Lindsay, 2014;
Froyd, Wankat, & Smith, 2012; Cheville, 2012), and the general research literature on technology and
learning in engineering, the learning sciences, and other related disciplines (completed Jan. 2017).
We discuss the following six issues as shown in Figure 2:
1. Alignment of technology with learning: well-propagated learning innovations
2. Alignment of technology with learning: computational tools in engineering practice
3. Alignment of technology affordances with learning outcomes: a case study of virtual laboratories
4. Alignment of technology with assessment
5. Alignment of technology with instructional practice: faculty beliefs and pedagogical knowledge
6. Broader considerations: Technology with a “T”
As Figure 2 illustrates, for both learning innovations (Issue 1) and use of computational tools in en-
gineering practice (Issue 2), we consider the interacting components of instructional design including
Figure 2. Six issues of computer technology in undergraduate engineering education.
6 SPRING 2019
learning outcomes (Issue 3), assessment (Issue 4), and instructional practice (Issue 5). These three
components (Issues 3, 4 and 5) are the foundational elements considered when designing learning
experiences and align with the elements of “backwards design” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Finally,
we address how all five issues are situated within the broader considerations of Technology (Issue 6).
For each of these issues, we first present a summary of our argument. We then present a synthesis
of the literature of the current state of practice to support that argument, drawing from the research
reports in the learning sciences, in engineering, and in related fields. We then provide a brief set of
recommendations addressed at instructors, developers, researchers, administrators, policy makers,
and other key stakeholders in engineering education.
Issue 1: Alignment of Technology with Learning: Well-Propagated Learning Innovations
In this section, we argue that educators need to intentionally align the development and use of
learning innovations with learning processes (e.g., sense making, disciplinary practices) and with
student engagement. At the same time, they must seek ways to use technology to scale effective
instructional practices to mitigate ever increasing economic tensions in delivering high quality
education (e.g., see Heller & Rogers, 2006).
We examined a set of exemplar learning innovations that have propagated well in engineering.
These learning innovations were developed by collaborative teams and share the following broad
characteristics:
• Pedagogical Core: They are all grounded in a core pedagogical approach that focuses on en-
hancing the experience of the learner, and the teams include pedagogy experts who centrally
participate in technology development. This core pedagogical approach is usually theory-based
but also has substantial empirical support.
• Emergent Use: They can be used in a diverse set of courses and can be flexibly implemented.
This characteristic builds on a general set of Core Components, which lead to a broad Span
of Participation.
• Community Building: They all contain strong community-building strategies and activities.
• Research-Based: They all have strong research on student learning integrated into the core
project activity that is used to iteratively improve the technology-learning system and also
keeps a core set of researchers engaged.
These four identified characteristics mutually support one another to allow high quality learning
innovations to be developed and to scale. The Pedagogical Core ensures the innovation focuses on
student activity and social interactions that are centered on evidence based practices (e.g., coopera-
tive learning, concept-based active learning). Through Community Building, potential instructors and
students learn about the innovation and are connected to others who use it. Emergent Use allows the
SPRING 2019 7
innovation to be implemented in a variety of settings, both making it better fit the needs of individual
instructors, and also providing the developers access to variations in learning environments to learn
what works and where there might be opportunities for improvement. Research-Based means that the
learning innovations are grounded in learning theory and that there are continued cycles of design-
based implementation research that lead to iterative improvements and expansion of their scope.
We illustrate these four characteristics with four exemplar learning technologies as shown
in Table 1: CATME, the Concept Warehouse, PhETs, and SCALE-UP. The first two systems were
developed specifically for use in engineering while the second two were initiated in the physics
education research community, but have shown significant propagation to engineering. The values
for the extent of propagation reflect the status as of Jan. 2017.
The web-based Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) system is
built upon cooperative learning, a pedagogy developed by Johnson & Johnson (1999) based on
social interdependence theory. Cooperative learning has shown strong positive effect sizes on stu-
dent achievement, interpersonal relations, and psychological health (Johnson et al., 2000; Johnson
& Johnson, 2009). CATME provides a web-based support for cooperative learning that includes
several Core Components to enable instructors to more effectively manage teams. Training modules
and meeting supports help students learn core socio-cognitive concepts of teamwork and teaming
behaviors. One of its tools, the Team-Maker (Layton, et al., 2010), has an algorithm that lets instruc-
tors form teams based on their criteria and information submitted by students. CATME Peer Evalu-
ation (Ohland, et al., 2012) and the associated rater training system allows self- and peer- evaluation
processes that are research-based, building on the team effectiveness research literature to create
a valid and reliable behaviorally anchored rating scale for team-member effectiveness. Through
social media and in-person community building activities, CATME has reached 650,000 students
of 12,000 faculty members at 1,900 institutions since 2005 that includes a Span of Participation
across engineering, business, and other disciplines.
The pedagogical core for the Concept Warehouse is concept-based active learning (Koretsky
et al., 2014). The Concept Warehouse houses a set of tools to lower the activation barrier for in-
structors to implement concept-based active learning in their classes. Its Core Components include
ConcepTests, concept inventories, interactive virtual laboratories, and inquiry-based activities. These
materials support what Chi (2009) calls interactive activities where students are both are cognitively
active (e.g., students responding to conceptual questions) and participate in socially collaborative
discourse where they make connections to the course topics while talking to one another [e.g., by
using peer instruction (Lasry, Mazur, & Watkins, 2008; Mazur, 1997)]. The connectedness of con-
cepts is promoted by having students reason through concept-based questions, link them to more
extensive activities (interactive virtual laboratories, inquiry-based learning activities), reflect on the
8 SPRING 2019
Table 1. Examples of university-developed learning innovations that have evidence of propagation.
Emergent Use
SPRING 2019
Public Pedagogical Span of Community Research Activity
Learning Innovation Release Extent of Propagation Core Core Components Participation Building (Examples)
CATME 2005 12,000 faculty Cooperative Assignment of students Engineering, Linked-in CATME Team assignment
www.catme.org/ 650,000 students Learning – Team into teams; peer business, User group; (Layton et al.,
1,900 institutions skills evaluation; peer rater Workshops at 2010); Peer
USA and International calibration; teaming professional society evaluation (Ohland,
scaffolds meetings et al., 2012;
Loughry et al.,
2007); Teamwork
Skills (Loughry
et al., 2014)
Concept Warehouse 2012 1,000 faculty Concept-based ConcepTests; concept Core chemical Workshops at Propagation
cw.edudiv.org/ 25,000 students active learning inventories; interactive engineering professional society (Friedrichson et al.,
200 institutions virtual laboratories; courses; some meetings; Webinars; 2016; Koretsky
USA and International inquiry based activities related engineering Community et al. 2014); Role of
disciplines (ME, newsletter written justification
MS) (Koretsky et al.,
2016a, 2016b;
Brooks et al., 2016)
PhETs 2002 ~130 simulations Self-guided Interactive simulations Science (physics, Website enabled Simulation design,
phet.colorado.edu/ 40,000,000 “uses” scientific inquiry (feedback, implicit chemistry, biology, support tools, e.g., scaffolding, and
USA and International scaffolding, multiple earth science) and teacher activity exploration (Adams
representations, mathematics sharing; tips and et al., 2008;
pedagogically useful resources to use Podolefsky et al.,
actions, intuitive PhETs and develop 2010); In-class use
interface) activities (Chamberlain et al.,
2014; Finkelstein et
al., 2005).
SCALE-UP 1997 300 departments Cooperative Classroom architecture STEM courses Workshops; website Student learning
scaleup.ncsu.edu/ 200 institutions Learning – and technology (most in physics, with videos (Beichner et al.,
USA and International Learning space support (e.g., round 30%, engineering 2007; Beichner
tables with 9 students; 7.5%) et al., 2000) and
whiteboards, …) retention (Dori
et al., 2003);
Propagation (Foote
et al., 2014)
9
activities, and demonstrate understanding through assessment (concept inventories). The Concept
Warehouse has three distinct but complementary functions: (i) a repository of resources with high
quality topic-specific content, (ii) an audience response system and learning management system
to deliver the content, and (iii) learning analytics that provide assessment data of student responses
to instructors and researchers. Although relatively young, its Community Building activities have led
to propagation within chemical engineering and related disciplines (Freidrichson et al., 2016). The
Concept Warehouse has reached 1,000 faculty members at 200 institutions since 2012 that includes
a Span of Participation across chemical engineering and other related engineering disciplines.
Similarly, the two physics initiated technology systems, PhETs and SCALE-UP, share the charac-
teristics of Pedagogical Core, Emergent Use, Community Building, and Research-Based. PhETs are
a set of over 100 simulations that have been developed primarily for the physical and life sciences
and are based on a core pedagogy of scientific inquiry. The simulations use multiple representations
and have built-in, implicit constraints to allow students to learn scientific principles. In engineering,
they are used mostly in core, introductory engineering science courses like material and energy bal-
ances. Like CATME, SCALE-UP is also built on cooperative learning pedagogy. However, it deploys
technology quite differently. It provides an architectural model to support cooperative learning in
large classrooms. More detail about how PhETs and SCALE-UP align to the characteristics we have
identified is provided in Table 1.
Recommendations
We recommend that, as much as possible, innovators work together to form collaborative teams
and build technology systems with the four characteristics identified above: Pedagogical Core, Emer-
gent Use, Community Building, and Research-Based. While we acknowledge the role of individual
innovators is important, we recommend funding agencies include this type of broad, collaborative
pedagogically-centered innovation as a key component to their portfolios. To this end, funding agen-
cies could support small symposia or workshops that allow targeted networking of PIs with related
but complementary expertise. These projects have potential to “cross the chasm” into mainstream
use and achieve sustainable scalability.
To work towards sustainable scalability, we recommend that education policy makers explore stra-
tegic and holistic approaches to technology development, such as considering technology “genera-
tions” to map out stages in potential university - industry partnerships. We could envision the earliest
stages being single investigator for visionary high-risk proof-of-concepts, then collaborative university
projects like the ones identified in Table 1 for broader implementation with pedagogical integrity, and
finally university-industry partnerships or other vehicles (e.g. open source) to commercialize and
bring to scale. Such strategies would lead to technologies that are not only research-based, but where
10 SPRING 2019
research provides and integral part of the development and propagation. Such an approach would
lead to significant scale through continuous iterative improvement but, importantly, also be likely to
keep the core pedagogical integrity of the innovation.
Through these stages, the engineering education community needs to distinguish between
general approaches that are inherently less effective and poor implementation of potentially fruitful
approaches. While the strategy we recommend partially addresses this by having the innovations
used in different ways and in different contexts, research is needed to identify characteristics that
allow the community to distinguish between ineffective tools and poor implementation. The com-
munity also needs to address issues of technology failure and reliability, which make faculty reluctant.
Current research practices discourage communication of this type of information; rather robustness
and reliability studies could accompany a coordinated approach through technology generations.
We encourage programs like the Innovation Corps for Learning (I-Corps L; Chavela Guerra &
Smith, 2016) where academic technology developers form teams and learn entrepreneurial tools
and methods that underlie successful start-up companies. Importantly, like in I-Corps L, innova-
tors should be challenged to step out of their local contexts and identify the value of the learning
innovation to the broader community.
Issue 2: Alignment of Technology with Learning: Computational Tools in Engineering Practice
We argue that educators need to align expert uses of domain-specific computational tools with
their affordances for connecting to engineering practice and to foundational disciplinary background
knowledge. At the same time, they need to devise proper scaffolding methods or adaptations of the
tools for novice learners to become fluent in the use of professional computational tools.
With Issue 2, we focus on computer technology in engineering practice as domain-specific com-
puter software, tools, and packages that embed mathematics and/or engineering principles (herein
called computational tools). Examples of these technologies include simulation and design tools
like ASPEN in chemical engineering and SPICE in electrical engineering, and more general tools
like numerical computing or analysis tools (e.g., MATLAB, COMSOL). The importance of developing
this type of technical proficiency has been identified by many engineering education stakeholders.
National reports such as the Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering report ([ASEE],
2013), recently identified that industry professionals value the ability to use computational tools to
support problem solving and design thinking. For instance, an ability to use the techniques, skills,
and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice is a stated ABET (2013) student
outcome and is reflected in the Washington (2011) and Dublin Accords (Patil , & Codner, 2007).
The use of these tools has consistently been identified as relevant to engineering practice over
the last 100 years (e.g., Landau & Rosenberg, 1986; Mann, 1918), and consequentially has become
SPRING 2019 11
an important part of undergraduate curricula, especially in the senior year. Typically engineering
students use simulation and design tools as an extension of the analytical methods they learn in
engineering science classes to more complicated systems and processes that they will face in engi-
neering practice (Dahm et al., 2002). In this vein, simulations provide a critical computational tool
for practice and just about every engineering program inevitably uses some type of commercial
simulation, e.g., ASPEN, HYSIS, SolidWorks, or Synopsys TCAD, where students are asked to predict
performance of an artifact or process unit (Lewin et al., 2004). For example, the 64 institutions re-
sponding to a survey of how design is taught in chemical engineering all reported the use of some
kind of domain-specific process simulation software (e.g., ASPEN, ChemCAD) (Silverstein et al.,
2013). Similarly, about 75% of the 73 respondents to a survey of mechanical engineering programs
revealed that students were required to take a course to learn a general numerical computing tools
(e.g., MATLAB, MAPLE) and then use that tool in the upper-division (Steele & Hodge, 2001).
In Figure 3, we present a conceptual organizer for the role of computational tools for learning
engineering. Clearly, students need to learn first how to work with the tool and thereby become
reasonably fluent with it (top circle). With fluency, accompanying mental models form about how a
Figure 3. Computational tools as a bridge between foundational principles and
engineering practice.
12 SPRING 2019
particular type of tool is structured and what the computational sequences entail. This conceptual
understanding allows transfer within tools of the same type. For example, experience with one com-
putational fluid dynamics (or statistics or process design) package can provide a type of knowledge
that makes it easier to use another. We also believe the use of these tools can reinforce foundational
disciplinary principles and concepts, and develop understanding in students of how this knowledge
can be extended and applied to engineering practice (Magana, Falk, Vieira, & Reese, 2016). From
this perspective, the use of computational tools can be seen as a bridge to help connect classroom
learning to practice (dashed line). However, instructional strategies are needed to ensure students
have sufficient fluency with the tool itself so that they are able to make these connections, and to
develop activities and practices that support students in making such connections.
Pedagogical Supports to Develop Fluency
To make expert tools more accessible for novice learners to develop fluency, instructors can
scaffold activity and thereby reduce the cognitive load on students. The cognitive load model
posits that memory resources limit the amount of processing that can occur during problem solv-
ing (Sweller, 1988). When a task exceeds the learner’s cognitive load, the learning benefit becomes
limited (Paas, et al., 2004).
A very common pedagogical approach for developing fluency with computational tools has been
through a guided activity by the instructor (e.g., Khan & Singh, 2015; Toto, Colledge, Frederick, &
Pung, 2014), or by means of a self-paced or online tutorials (e.g., Beg, 2015; Castrellón, Botía, Gómez,
Orozco, & Gil, 2011; El-ZEin, Langrish, & Balaam, 2009; Impelluso, 2009; Uribe, Magana, Bahk, &
Shakouri, 2016). Another scaffolding strategy aimed to reduce cognitive load is the use of worked-
examples. A worked-example is an expert solution to a problem (Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, & Wortham,
2000). By studying worked-examples students can start to solve problems by analogy, until they
reach a stage of fluency in which they are able to solve other problems on their own (Sweller, Ayres,
& Kalyuga, 2011). This scaffolding strategy is especially useful for novice learners who still may not
have background knowledge (i.e. schemata) that would enable them to do problem solving from
the beginning. The use of worked-examples has been identified as a useful strategy in supporting
learning with engineering computational tools (Morrison, Margulieux, & Guzdial, 2015; Vieira, Yan, &
Magana, 2015; Vieira et al., 2019). One way in which students can be prompted to actively explore the
worked-examples is by engaging them in explaining the examples to others or themselves (Atkinson
et al., 2000). Although the benefits of explanations in computer programming have been explored
for more than twenty years (e.g., Pirolli & Recker, 1994), specific strategies on how to implement
these as sense making strategies to help engineering students relate programming knowledge with
disciplinary knowledge have just started to emerge (Vieira, Magana, Falk & Garcia, 2017; Vieira, Roy,
SPRING 2019 13
Magana, Falk, & Reese, 2016; Vieira, Yan, & Magana, 2015). We next address research on how the use
of computational tools ties back to foundational principles and concepts.
Foundational Principles and Conceptual Understanding
Unfortunately, learning gains resulting from the uses of computational tools in the classroom
have not been thoroughly reported in the literature and the few instances identified are not con-
clusive. Studies have primarily reported students’ level of satisfaction and found that students
commonly believed that computational tools are useful for their learning (e.g., Ayasun & Nwankpa,
2006; Brinson, Belytschko, Moran, & Black, 1997; Castrellón et al., 2011; Hoole, Sivasuthan, Karthik, &
Hoole, 2015; Impelluso, 2009; Khan & Singh, 2015). Other studies have reported learning gains when
students’ solutions to projects, exams or homework assignments are compared to other courses or
with previous offerings of the same course before changes were implemented. For example, a study
with 151 students who performed computational analysis and model validation against experimental
response using Java, Maple or MATLAB reported mixed results. Examination of pre and post-activity
testing revealed that the upper 27% of students showed a significant improvement on most of the
questions following the completion of the module while the lower 27% showed mixed results (Khan
& Singh, 2015). Another study that implemented Computational Fluid Dynamics models and analysis
of results in electronics revealed a significant increase in student understanding of fundamental
thermal management principles (Okamoto, Hsu, & Bash, 2009).
A study reporting pretest and posttest evaluations in an undergraduate environmental engineering
course identified that introducing the concept of scaling and its application (using computer mod-
els) into undergraduate engineering courses enhanced students’ learning and decision making skills
(Najm, Mohtar, Cherkauer, & French, 2010). Likewise, Alabi and colleagues (2015) identified similar
results when using the Gibbs tool (Cool, García, & Bartol, 2015) to support students’ understanding of
thermodynamics concepts. They concluded that the use of the Gibbs tool might have helped students
develop representational competence. More work is needed to share instructional design strategies
and practices of how students can explicitly connect foundational disciplinary principles to the use
of computational tools, especially the domain specific design tools. Importantly, research is needed
that provides evidence of how these practices lead to students’ developing conceptual understanding.
Engineering Practice
We next address the ways computational tools can be used in educational settings to extend
student knowledge as it is applied to engineering practice. Several affordances of computational
tools in supporting development of the skills needed in engineering practice have been identified,
including: problem solving (e.g., Delale, Liaw, Jiji, Voiculescu, & Yu, 2011), analysis, calculation and
14 SPRING 2019
optimization (e.g., Brinson et al., 1997; Castrellón et al., 2011; Hoole et al., 2015; Khan & Singh, 2015),
modeling and simulation (e.g., García–Herreros & Gómez, 2013; Najm et al., 2010; Okamoto, Hsu, &
Bash, 2009); 3D modeling (e.g., Toto et al., 2014), integration of programming skills (e.g., El-ZEin
et al., 2009; Impelluso, 2009; Magana, Falk, & Reese, 2013), connecting or enabling operation of
hardware, equipment, sensors and other cyber-physical systems (Magana & Coutinho, 2017), and
characterization and experimentation skills (e.g., Ayasun & Nwankpa, 2006; Beg, 2015). However,
information of how engineering practices were enacted by students and the effects on their learning
these skills (i.e., design skills, modeling and simulation skills, problem solving skills, and computa-
tion skills, among others) are often incomplete or lacking. Additionally, one might consider doing
engineering work effectively within these computational tools as a skill within itself.
To develop instructional strategies, educators should draw on ethnographic studies that have
identified the ways computational tools are used in engineering practice (Vinck, 2003). For example,
Auregemma and colleagues (2013) investigated the design process of a microfluidic lab-on-a-chip
device. The developers used CAD software, COMSOL, and MATLAB in an iterative process that in-
volved mental models, computational models, and building and testing prototypes. In another study
of an authentic and industrially situated process development design task, Sherrett and colleagues
(2013) found that experts used computational tools in a design process which included informa-
tion gathering, problem formulation, and iterative modeling and experimentation. Results from the
ethnographic analysis characterized the experts’ solution into fourteen competencies.
These findings suggest a critical step in the process of designing instruction for the use of com-
putational tools consists of first identifying the ways professionals use them, followed by a clear
definition and proper guidance to enact the practices or competencies the tool affords. Along this
line, Magana and Coutinho (2017) proposed a range of possible affordances of computational tools
for supporting a wide variety of modeling, simulation and experimentation practices. The practices
they proposed were aligned with different curricular levels as informed from experts in industry
and academia. Building on this idea, Magana and colleagues (Magana, Falk, Vieira, & Reese, 2016;
Vieira, Magana, Roy, Falk, & Reese, 2016), explicitly aligned desired professional practices afforded
by the computational tools with disciplinary learning objectives for core undergraduate courses in
a materials science and engineering program.
While experts fluently apply computational tools to their design work, integrating these practices
into the undergraduate curriculum is challenging. Diefes-Dux and colleagues (2004) investigated the
effectiveness of a multi-level, steady-state food process design tool. They evaluated students uses
of Foods Operations Oriented Design System Block Library (FOODS-LIB) running in the MATLAB-
supported SIMULINK simulation toolbox. The activity was delivered via seven online learning modules
where students used the existing unit operations library to study a single effect evaporator model and
SPRING 2019 15
construct a new generalized unit operation: compositional split. The implementation took place over
an eleven-week period. While students successfully completed the learning modules, they were unable
to transfer their knowledge and skills to the design of processes. They identified weak MATLAB coding
skills and students’ inability to conceptualize or write out algorithms for their designs as barriers to
productive use of this tool in practice. A similar conclusion was found by García–Herreros and Gómez
(2013) in a study that evaluated students use of process simulators through the modeling and opti-
mization of a crude distillation unit using PRO/II 8.0. They also found a barrier in using computational
tools in practice and concluded that the main problem was the lack of convergence of the model as
a result of poor initial estimates. They attributed it to student shortcuts amidst deadline pressures
and lack of understanding of the tool’s optimization algorithms. These two studies suggest that algo-
rithmic (computational) thinking may be challenging for students and this way of thinking needs to
be progressively developed and supported when using computational tools in engineering practice.
Integration of Conceptual Tools
We argue that the use of computational tools for teaching engineering is most effective when
there is alignment between learning outcomes, pedagogical methods and supports, and technol-
ogy uses (Chen et al., 2000; Kadiyala & Crynes, 2000). We believe that the alignment of learning
objectives and affordances of computational tools is not enough. We recommend that instructional
design methods, pedagogical strategies, and scaffolding methods be identified and properly em-
bedded into the instructional environment, so students can fully benefit from the integration of
computational tools for learning.
Instructional design principles, such as the How People Learn (HPL) framework (Bransford, Brown,
& Coocking, 2000) can help educators address issues of the types of integration depicted in Figure 3.
The HPL framework focuses on instructional design that is (a) leaner-centered by first considering
students’ required background knowledge and possible challenges they may encounter when learning
with computational tools; (b) knowledge-centered by explicitly connecting disciplinary knowledge
with engineering practices via the computational tool; (c) assessment-centered by providing students
with frequent feedback and opportunities to improve their work; and (d) community-centered by
allowing students to learn from each other. For instance, two studies have reported on scaffolded
instructional design using the HPL framework to plan and integrate engineering computational
tools into engineering courses (Greenberg, Smith & Newman, 2003). These studies show that with
scaffolding students demonstrated significantly better understanding, but they found the demands
extremely challenging compared with other courses. Alternatively, designers have developed scaffolds
based on Cognitive Load Theory (Guzdial, 1994; Sweller, 1994; Vieira, Magana, Roy, Falk, & Reese,
2016). While this approach has elicited positive feedback from instructors and students (Impelluso,
16 SPRING 2019
2009), more research is needed that identifies how and when students are overloaded and what
effective supports can be provided to overcome such difficulties.
Finally, students’ attitudes and beliefs about computational tools can shape how they engage in
learning. One study has found that male students tend to have more positive attitudes than female
students (Hornaes and Royrvik, 2000). In another study (Hutchison, Follman, Sumpter, & Bodner,
2006), researchers found students who listed computing as an important influence on their self-efficacy
beliefs frequently cited their ability to use one or all of the computing tools taught in a course, their
programming abilities, and their ability to use a computer in general. Gender trends emerged in student
responses to factors that affect confidence in success. Specifically, relatively few men saw computing
as negatively affecting their self-efficacy beliefs; while in contrast, nearly one-third of women reported
computing as negatively affecting their self-efficacy beliefs. However, results reported from Magana
and colleagues (2016; Vieira et al., 2018) suggest that frequent exposure to computational tools and
methods may increase students’ self-efficacy beliefs and their value of these tools for their academic
and professional careers.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this issue are addressed to engineering educators and engineering
education researchers. In summary, we posit that students must first develop fluency in using a
domain-specific computational tool, and that associated mental models will develop allowing for
more routinized use and for transfer to other tools of the same type (e.g., between computational
fluid dynamics packages). Fluency can be developed more quickly through pedagogical supports,
embedded scaffolding, or adaptations of the computational tools in order to lower the barrier of
entry and diminish cognitive overload. For example, engineering educators should consider the use
of worked-out examples. However, research is needed to better characterize the mental models that
form in learners while developing fluency, what instructional strategies best develop the models,
and how the models connect to the transfer to other similar tools.
We advocate for two elements to be included in instructional design progressions when integrating
computational tools: (i) have students connect the use of these computational tools to foundational
disciplinary knowledge, and (ii) engage students in uses of the tools that reflects professional practice.
We also posit that increased fluency gives students cognitive bandwidth to make connections to foun-
dational disciplinary knowledge and to engineering practice. But again, research is needed to better
understand these relationships. Indeed, we might imagine that fluent use of computational tools increases
disciplinary knowledge and that such increases feedback to increased capability with the tool itself.
Developing fluency and making connections is a complex process. Therefore, we recommend
vertical integration of the use of the appropriate set of domain-specific computational tools
SPRING 2019 17
throughout the undergraduate curriculum (e.g., Hinds & Somerton, 2007; Hinds, Urban-Lurain, Stick-
len, Amey, & Eskil, 2005; Sticklen, Amey, Eskil, Hinds, & Urban-Lurain, 2004; Urban-Lurain, Amey,
Sticklen, Hinds, & Eskil, 2004), so students not only develop technical fluency but also confidence
and self-efficacy and see the value in using these tools. Strategies need to be developed in the vi-
able ways for faculty to interact in this type of curricular coordination.
We recommend that instructional activities deliberately follow instructional design frameworks,
such as the HPL framework, to guide the learning process. For example, educators could consider
a four-step instructional design process consisting of:
a. deliberately connecting the use of the domain-specific computational tool with both foun-
dational disciplinary principles and with realistic engineering practices,
b. taking those connections and then identify a pedagogical approach and a set of scaffolds
that can properly support student learning,
c. providing frequent feedback along with opportunities to iteratively improve their work, and
d. properly identify assessment mechanisms that truly evaluate students’ gains of foundational
disciplinary principles, but more importantly how students improve their performance in
enacting engineering practices when engaging with computational tools (see Issue 4 for
more details about assessment).
We advocate for research that provides concrete evidence of the learning when using these tools
(e.g., Magana, Fennell, Vieira & Falk, 2019), along with transferrable understandings of how computational
tools of engineering practice can be effectively be incorporated into learning activities, particularly in
ways that respond to the rapid changes in the function and capability of these tools. To this end, we also
advocate development of interaction models between industry and academia that allow identification
of the changing ways that practitioners use computational tools in practice and allow translation to
educational activities and learning systems.
Issue 3: Alignment of Technology Affordances with Learning Outcomes: A Case Analysis of Virtual
Laboratories
With Issue 3, we consider transformative potentials of computer technology for learning. We argue
that the most effective learning innovations are not pallid, clones of traditional learning environments.
Rather, they identify and leverage the affordances of technology to support engaged learning environ-
ments that reconstitute the ways students interact with the content, with each other, and with know-
ing others (e.g., instructors or peer mentors)2. To provide an analogy, we believe too many learning
technologies are developed in a way similar to seeking to provide a credit-card reader for the taxi driver
In analogy, in the Victorian Internet, Tom Standage (1998) describes the initial conceptualizations of the telephone
2
as a “’speaking telegraph’ – an improvement of an existing technology rather than something altogether different”
18 SPRING 2019
to more readily accept fares rather than reconstituting the environment the way companies like Uber
and Lyft have.3 From this perspective, learning innovations are most effective when they do more than
provide an alternative mode for existing instruction but extend to embody paradigmatic shifts in the
ways learners interact with content, peers and instructors to generate learning. These interactions can
lead to shared creation, collaboration, and mastery of knowledge.
When assessing and evaluating technology, there is an inclination to focus on the “category” of
technology rather than thinking about the opportunities for learning the technology affords, the
ways it can fit into instructional design to take advantage of those affordances, and the potential
obstacles that may need to be addressed in different learning contexts. Without articulating the
thinking processes and social interactions they want students to experience, educators may tend to
revert and use technology to support traditional types of instruction. Alternatively, a more fruitful
approach is to recognize ways that technology enables interactions between the student and other
learners, the instructor, and content that are not otherwise possible. Such an approach more fully
utilizes the affordances of technology to engage learners and produce learning.
We choose the virtual laboratory (de Jong et al., 2013; Koretsky et al., 2008; Ma & Nickerson,
2006) as an exemplar to illustrate different ways that a single technology category can be integrated
into learning systems towards different instructional purposes and learning goals. In a virtual labo-
ratory (also called a simulation laboratory), computer simulations based on mathematical models
provide values of output variables in response to user-selected input variables. Students work with
representations of laboratory apparatuses on the computer to observe and make measurements
of targeted phenomena based on the simulated output. We use the term virtual laboratory to con-
trast the students’ orientation in the learning activity with the more common use of simulation in
the post-secondary engineering classroom, as was discussed with Issue 2. In summary, we refer to
engineering simulations as tools students and practicing engineers use to apply theory to engineer-
ing analysis and design whereas we use virtual laboratory to emphasize facilitated “laboratory-like”
student exploration of the phenomena associated with a specific system, device, or process.
We choose the virtual laboratory as an example of the different ways engineering educators and
technology developers have leveraged the affordances of technology in their instructional designs.
We begin with designs that essentially use the technology in the same way as traditional instruction
and progress to other ways that technology is leveraged in unique and deliberate ways. While the
(p. 197). We argue that in a similar way, educators should conceive how computer technologies can transform the
fundamental social and cognitive interactions that produce learning rather than merely reproducing earlier practices.
3
If we pursue this analogy further, educators might consider how these technologies disrupt existing social
systems, and the positive and negative ramifications of the disruption.
SPRING 2019 19
case is made in the context of the virtual laboratory, we argue that these fundamental consider-
ations apply to many emerging learning technologies such as electronic textbooks and audience
response systems. In fact, this example was chosen, in part, since it is straight-forward to envision
the design choices we describe in the development of emergent technologies like immersive virtual
reality where students can have the perception of being physically present in the non-physical world
(Freina & Ott, 2015).
Analog to Current Instructional Laboratory Use (replacement and preparation)
In its most common rendition, the virtual laboratory simulates the same phenomena as a cor-
responding physical laboratory at the university. Virtual laboratories with this instructional design
can be used to replace the analogous physical laboratory where students are asked to do the same
activity, only on a computer screen (Sehati, 2000; Shin et al., 2000; Wiesner and Lan, 2004, Pyatt
and Sims, 2007). In some cases, care is taken to word the tasks identically in the virtual and physical
modes (Finklestein et al., 2005). This use of virtual laboratory technology has benefits: it requires
fewer resources, provides greater flexibility in scheduling, and experiments can be run quickly
providing immediate feedback for students. Learning outcomes between the physical and virtual
modes have been compared via pre-post testing, written and oral exam analysis, and surveys. Find-
ings often show equivalent, and occasionally greater, learning gains in the virtual mode, especially
towards connecting the laboratory activity to foundational disciplinary concepts (Wiesner and Lan,
2004; Campbell, Bourne, and Mosterman, 2002; Powell et al, 2002; Finklestein et al., 2005; Lindsay,
and Good, 2005; Zacharia, 2007; Pryatt and Sims, 2012; Zacharia and Olympiou, 2011). Differences in
learning outcomes between physical and virtual laboratories have been attributed to: shifts in focus
from working with the equipment to collect data to understanding the causal relations between
variables and outputs (Kolloffel and de Jong, 2013); variations in the patterns of collaboration among
students (Corter et al., 2007); and the greater control that each student has over his or her own
learning (Hazel and Baillie, 1998). However, when it is used solely to replace a corresponding physi-
cal laboratory, the enactment of technology sits within a traditional curricular structure. We argue
next that there is greater opportunity for technology to impact student learning when technology
is leveraged to reconceive instructional designs and even more so when it is used to reconceive the
learning system, itself. It is these uses that take greatest advantage of the affordances of technology.
The simplest way to modify an instructional design is to have students use the virtual laboratory
in preparation for the physical laboratory. Here, the virtual laboratory technology allows the ex-
periment to be practiced, stopped and repeated (Abdulwahed and Nagy, 2009; Hodge et al., 2001;
Mosterman, et al., 1994; Rutten at al., 2012; Zacharia, 2007). A number of studies confirm that using
virtual laboratories for preparation enhances the effectiveness of physical laboratories (Akpan &
20 SPRING 2019
Strayer, 2010; de Jong, Linn, & Zacharia, 2013; Jaakkola et al., 2011; Kolloffel and de Jong, 2013; Pyatt
& Sims, 2012; Toth, et al., 2009; Zacharia, Olympiou, & Papaevripidou, 2008).
Added Representations
Rather than adhering to the sensory limits of a physical laboratory, virtual laboratory technol-
ogy affords added representations that are not possible in the physical world. Indeed, Lindgren
and Schwartz (2009) suggest that making the virtual laboratory as faithful as possible to the real
laboratory might deter from its pedagogical effectiveness. Virtual laboratories have been extended
beyond their physical analogs, usually with the intent of more effectively helping students develop
conceptual understanding. One common enhancement is the inclusion of visual cues or alterna-
tive representations not possible to observe in physical laboratories such as emergent molecular
interactions, the flow of electric current, and vector electric or magnetic fields (Bowen, Reid, and
Koretsky, 2015; Brophy, Magana, & Strachan, 2013; Corter et al., 2007; Dorneich & Jones, 2001;
Finkelstein et al., 2005; Schank & Kozma, 2002; Sengupta and Wilensky, 2009; van Joolingen & de
Jong, 2003; Wieman et al., 2008). Additionally, the instructional design strategies of in preparation
and representation can be combined. In a set of electrical circuits experiments, Zacharia and de
Jong (2014) showed similar learning gains between the physical laboratory alone and the virtual
laboratory as preparation for the physical laboratory in simpler experimental configurations, but
higher gains when the virtual mode is included for more complex configurations. They attribute the
latter result to the technological affordance of visualization of the current flow. These molecular
and field representations allow technology to uncover the invisible and provide a dynamic venue
for students to construct conceptual understanding.
Thinking in Disciplinary Contexts
In another approach, instructional developers have used virtual laboratory technology to situate
learning in disciplinary practice (Koretsky et al., 2015, 2019; Shaffer, 2006). Here technology can
be used to simulate processes that would not otherwise be available at the university due to their
complexity or incompatible length and time scales (e.g., Uribe, Magana, Bahk, & Shakouri, 2016).
This pedagogical strategy supports learning by placing learners in real-world contexts and prompt-
ing them to shift from the role of student to the role of scientist or engineer. Learning activities are
then organized to foster productive participation in the practices of disciplinary communities by
providing the learner an opportunity to apply disciplinary tools and concepts to make meaning of
observed phenomena and design processes and products. This context allows students to engage in
interlocking material, conceptual, epistemic, and social aspects of disciplinary practice in ways that
catalyze student learning (Ford & Forman, 2006; Koretsky et al., 2019; Pickering, 1995, Shaffer, 2006;
SPRING 2019 21
Windschitl and Calabrese Barton, 2016). In this way, virtual laboratory technology can complement
and extend student experiences in disciplinary practice beyond capstone projects and internships.
As examples presented below illustrate, when technology is deployed in this manner, it does not
directly replicate typical learning systems at the university, but rather allows students to experience
aspects of the professional context that they would not otherwise have access to.
The use of virtual laboratory technology that is situated in contexts of practice is much more
common in the sciences than in engineering. Thus, we first discuss learning systems that place learn-
ers in the role of scientists and center on the practice of inquiry, then we extend the discussion to
learning systems in engineering around aspects of design.
Scientific Inquiry. A host of virtual laboratories have been developed in response to educators
and policy calls to engage students in scientific inquiry (de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998; Edelson,
Gordin, & Pea, 1999; Nelson and Ketelhut, 2007). In inquiry-based learning, students engage in
experiments in a manner designed to align, as much as possible, with practicing scientists. Such
practices include: formulating questions, developing hypothesis, planning investigations, critiqu-
ing experiments, revising models, arguing from evidence, and negotiating explanations with peers
(National Research Council, 1996; de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998, Linn et al., 2003; Windschitl and
Calabrese Barton, 2016).
One approach to using technology in this way is to create immersive worlds for students to en-
gage in similar types of inquiry processes as experienced in practice. For example, multiuser virtual
environments (MUVEs), such as River City (Dede et al., 2004), Quest Atlantis (Barab et al., 2005),
and Habitable Worlds (Horodyskyj et al., 2018) allow students to take on the role of scientist and
observe and measure phenomena. In contrast to most physical laboratories at the university, students
can gather data continuously over days or weeks, an affordance that allows students to iteratively
modify their hypotheses in light of new information and understanding, and also, gives them time
to develop that understanding (Nelson and Ketelhut, 2007). MUVEs afford an iterative element to
science inquiry by providing opportunities to test hypotheses by manipulating independent variables
and observing any changes in the environment.
Alternatively, the virtual laboratory can provide a resource for dynamic data collection while
the conceptual processing is supported by a pedagogical design that relies on face-to-face
student-student and teacher-student interactions in the classroom. For example, Bell and Trundle
(2008) described the virtual laboratory Starry Night Backyard that allow students to observe
moon phases from any location on earth over long time periods without being hindered by ex-
perimental obstacles like weather, physical obstructions, or time of day. This virtual laboratory
is used in conjunction with McDermott’s (1996) instructional design that promotes the cognitive
22 SPRING 2019
dissonance that can lead to conceptual change. In a variation of the hybrid approach, Raineri
(2001) described an instructional design where students first perform experiments in the physi-
cal laboratory and then use a virtual laboratory to iteratively generate and analyze new data
sets and to perform experiments that are too expensive and time consuming to perform in the
physical laboratory. Raineri’s design allows students to engage in analysis practices and to gain
experience with state-of-the-art techniques in molecular biology that would not be possible in
the physical laboratory alone.
The description of scientific practice as “inquiry” has been criticized as broad and vague
(Windschitl and Calabrese Barton, 2016). An alternative conception is that modeling is a core
scientific practice. Based on this pedagogical commitment, virtual laboratories have been developed
to guide students to construct scientific models to relate the data from the phenomena to scientific
principles and theories (de Jong and van Joolingen, 2008; Giere, 1999) such as modeling photo-
synthesis in Co-Lab (van Joolingen et al., 2005) or the response of airbags in automobile collisions
in WISE (McElhaney and Linn, 2011).
Engineering Design. While the practices of science focus on inquiry, engineering work focuses
on the design of products and processes to meet social needs (Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, & Leifer,
2005; Simon, 1996); therefore, virtual laboratories focusing on engineering practice inevitably center
on design. The design process is built around iteration, where a design idea is improved based on
the identified shortcomings of previous attempts (Crismond, 2001; Cross, 2006; Dym et al., 2005).
Identified shortcomings allow a feedback cycle where the designers can identify gaps in their
knowledge and understanding, providing impetus for further learning. For engineering professionals,
this practice of knowledge building through iterative design cycles is critical (Vincenti, 1990). The
ability of virtual laboratories to simulate phenomena of a wider range of length scales, time scales,
and complexity than available in the physical laboratory affords iteration in realistic design tasks
(Koretsky et al., 2008). However, virtual laboratories based on design tasks are far less common
than those based on scientific inquiry (de Jong et al., 2013).
Xie and colleagues have developed a set of virtual laboratories in which high-school students
either design a house or an entire city block to maximize energy efficiency (Xie et al., 2014; Purzer
et al., 2015; Xie, 2016). Students learn and apply concepts of radiative heat transfer as they need
to account for how solar radiation varies over a day and over the year. This knowledge is used to
address the open-ended design problem and account for competing constraints. The technology
automatically logs fine-grained student use data and the researchers have developed visual process
analytics as a data mining tool to investigate student activity and learning in these complex and
non-linear design tasks (Xie, 2016).
SPRING 2019 23
Shaffer and colleagues have developed the virtual laboratory Nephrotex in which first-year,
undergraduate engineering students take on the role of interns at a high-tech bioengineering firm
tasked with designing a kidney dialyzer based on iterative experimentation (Chesler et al., 2013). The
student teams treat the process as a “black box” and are directed towards statistical experimental
design, completing two iterative cycles. In the first cycle they look at one of the input parameters,
and in the second cycle they look at all four input parameters. The computer provides both the
platform for experimentation and interactive correspondence with simulated co-workers and super-
visors. Shaffer and colleagues described the instructional goal of these Epistemic Games as ranging
far beyond the “conceptual understanding” pursued in many learning environments. Rather, they
are used to develop students’ skills, knowledge, identity, values, and epistemology common to the
community of practice of the engineering workplace (Rupp et al., 2010).
Koretsky and colleagues have developed a set of “industrially-situated” virtual laboratories in
which students take on the role of process development engineers tasked with determining the
process input parameters (the “recipe”) for a chemical or biological engineering process (Koretsky
et al., 2011). The hybrid design uses virtual laboratory technology to simulate complex industrial
processes but relies on in-person social interactions with others on the engineering development
team (played by other students) and their supervisor (played by the instructor). These projects
are designed for senior-level engineering students and allow for professionally productive social
interactions (Gilbuena et al., 2015). For example, instructor feedback on professional skills helps
students recognize how to represent themselves as legitimate members of an industrial commu-
nity of practice. Material and conceptual aspects were found to interlock in this learning system
where students developed and used models to make sense of experimental data and move their
design forward (Koretsky et al., 2019).
Recommendations
In this section, we have argued that technology can enable creation of instructional designs
and learning contexts that can fundamentally shift the type of activity where learning occurs. We
have illustrated this point in detail through the affordances of one “category” of technology, the
virtual laboratory, but such shifts in instructional design apply to other uses of computer technol-
ogy as well. These designs support engaged learning in ways that fundamentally reconstitute the
interactions of students with the content, with each other, and with instructors. We believe that
if educators and developers approach technology genres from this perspective, they can better
utilize the affordances to positively disrupt static and passive learning environments and provide
access to more diverse populations of engineering students. They can also achieve the benefits
at a larger scale.
24 SPRING 2019
In summary, we recommend that technology developers and engineering educators take a systems
approach guided by findings in the learning and cognitive sciences to conceive what is possible
rather than replicate traditional classroom structures, norms, and interactions. Specifically, they
should explicitly connect the technology affordances to how their proposed designs support learn-
ing through articulation of foundational learning theory. We encourage a broad conceptualization
of what learning engineering entails, including: conceptual understanding; disciplinary practices,
discourse, and process and social skills; understanding the nature of engineering; and motivation
and equitable engagement.
However, engineering educators are only beginning to see enactments of computer technology
used in this way, and the instantiations are often local to the direct sphere of the innovator and have
not propagated broadly. There are several reasons for this limited realization. First, not all attempts
to shift the activities in which learning occurs are going to be effective. Engineering educators
need to understand what works, but just as importantly, what has not worked and why. Second,
there is a need for a productive hybrid content-pedagogical-technological development “space”;
innovators and developers need to be grounded with fundamental content knowledge and have
deep understanding of learning, but also stay connected to the possibilities afforded by the wave
of next generation computer technologies. Better understanding is needed of how to create spaces
where content, pedagogy, and technology expertise overlaps. Successful collaborative processes
and environments need to be better characterized and understood. Third, learning and classroom
instruction occur within the culture of higher education. Normative conceptions of learning and
institutional rewards and recognition for teaching can limit the degree to which classes and systems
are ready to take up these innovative uses of technologies. This aspect is addressed in more detail
with Issue 6 below.
We recommend funding agencies prioritize technology innovations that identify paradigmatic
shifts in the learning environment and that empirically and theoretically study the resulting interac-
tions with student learning, engagement, and equitable access. We also recommend that agencies
support research to better understand characteristics of successful collaborations and ways to shift
or overcome cultural barriers in institutions of higher education.
Issue 4: Alignment of Technology with Assessment
We argue that educators need to identify and implement systematic uses of technology that
provide or leverage existing data to inform formative and summative assessment, adaptive instruc-
tion, and research on learning engineering (National Research Council, 2014). Technology-based
assessments have attracted interest in educational contexts because they can enable the design
of learning environments that provide real time feedback, and scalable and personalized support
SPRING 2019 25
([DOEd], 2010, 2016). At the same time, advancements in cyberinfrastructure, cyberlearning in-
novations and online learning environments have resulted in data that can be used for improving
learning and for educational research purposes (Borgman et al., 2008). Challenges however still
remain, in order to fully realize the potential of uses of data from technology. In addition, concerns
of confidentiality, security and privacy must be addressed (Madhavan & Richey, 2016).
Technology and Datasets for Feedback, Assessment, and Personalized Instruction
We advocate for the identification of practices, tools, and methods that can provide formative
feedback to faculty (in addition to summative feedback), so they can appropriately adapt instruc-
tion (e.g., just-in-time teaching). This activity includes identifying what types of feedback are most
effective for learning, relating that to information available through technology, and developing
interfaces that provide that information to students and faculty in ways that they can use. Currently,
a number of commercial personalized or adaptive instruction systems tout the ability to provide
students computer-based formative feedback throughout the learning process. Such tools can help
students with spaced repetition, and rapid and adaptive feedback. These platforms can also be useful
for instructors as the feedback is instantaneous and it reduces grading load. Furthermore, advances
combining artificial intelligence, machine learning and learning analytics offer the possibility of real-
izing personalized learning. For example, learning analytics could be combined with student uses
of learning materials, behaviors, and performance already captured with a classroom management
system (e.g., Arnold & Pistilli, 2012). While the prospect of learning that is solely mediated through
a computer is compelling, it is important to establish its limits. Simultaneously, other ways should
be identified for instructors to use computer-based assessment to support student learning (e.g.,
changing pedagogy, in-person feedback, and so forth), and at the same time explore the effective-
ness of non-traditional models of delivery such as inverted classrooms (e.g., Magana, Falk & Reese,
2013), or hybrid models combining online and face-to-face approaches.
Computer-based assessment methods have had a long tradition in helping educators measure
student learning (e.g., Brown, Race, & Bull, 1999; Mayrath, Clarke-Midura, Robinson, & Schraw, 2012).
According to Recker and colleagues (2016), when compared to paper and pencil assessment meth-
ods, technology-based assessments can offer advantages such as (a) predicting students’ future
learning by creating models that incorporate information such as students’ knowledge, behavior,
motivation, and attitudes; (b) discovering models that characterize the subject matter to be learned
(e.g. math, science, etc.), identify fruitful pedagogical sequences, and suggest how these sequences
might be adapted to students’ needs; (c) studying the effects of varied pedagogical decisions on
student learning; (d) advancing scientific knowledge about learning and learners through building
models of learning processes that incorporate data about students, teachers, understanding of
26 SPRING 2019
subject matter, pedagogies, and principles from learning sciences; and (e) supporting learning for
all students by adapting learning resources to fit the particular needs identified, including adapta-
tions for individual students when warranted.
In higher education settings, computer-based assessment (Miller, 2009) and intelligent tutors
(Goel, 2016) have been used as a mechanism to provide just-in-time formative feedback and to help
improve students’ performance (Tair & El-Halees, 2012). For instance, by identifying technology-
learner interactions that are more conducive to learning, educators and educational technologists
can support personalization by generating content semi-customized to the learner (Cheville, 2012).
When using analyzed data generated from learners’ engagement with technology, educators can
not only make sense of the outcomes and the impact of using such technology, but can also char-
acterize the student learning process and make data-driven decisions to adapt the environment to
better support student learning (Xie, Zhang, Nourian, Pallant, & Hazzard, 2014). However, it is unclear
to what degree the feedback should be provided by the computer itself, and to what degree the
computer should provide information to the instructor to interpret and interact with the learners.
In engineering, randomized computer-generated “rolling problems” have been introduced for
exams in large enrollment courses (West, Silva, and Herman, 2015) and to create individualized
homework problems for textbooks (Vahid, Edgcomb, & Strawn, 2016). These type of personalized
problems have evolved from simply changing the numbers within the same skeletal problem state-
ment to developing more and more sophisticated methods to apply to other problem features that
make them more like “new” problems from the perspective of the learner. With these problems, like
contrived back-of-the-chapter problems of old, educators need to better understand the degree
that students engage with core disciplinary concepts and the degree they can anticipate problem
features and patterns to “game” the assessment process.
Technology-based assessments also offer the opportunity of assessing 21st century competen-
cies such as problem-solving, critical thinking, or design skills ([DOEd], 2010). The open-ended
nature of these processes make them difficult to assess. For example, design skills can neither be
assessed as a product nor as a simple test (Vieira, Goldstein, Purzer, & Magana, 2016); the steps
the students follow to reach a solution is as important as the final solution itself. Specifically for
the case of design skills, by analyzing process data logged through a computer aided design tool,
Xie and collaborators (Xie, Zhang, Nourian, Pallant, & Bailey, 2014; Xie, Zhang, Nourian, Pallant, &
Hazzard, 2014) identified (a) differences in students’ design processes based on gender, (b) different
ways in which students interact with the software, and (c) differences on students’ design processes
after being exposed to an instructional intervention. Likewise, by analyzing logged process data,
Vieira and collaborators (2016) identified students’ approaches to experimentation in engineering
design, and Goldstein and colleagues (2015) assessed students’ idea fluency in their design process.
SPRING 2019 27
However, there is a significant amount of work to be done, particularly on identifying how interac-
tion, process and learning data can result in instruction and feedback tailored for particular learning
outcomes (Cheville, 2012).
Technology and Datasets for Engineering Education Research
Effective practices and guidelines for interpreting and acting on learning and process data are
needed. In order to take advantage of the vast amount of data using information technologies, we
recommend going beyond traditional narrow forms of assessments with the goal of understanding
the learning processes and their nuances (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001) and moving towards
embedded or stealth assessment where the data is provided as part of the core learning activity
(Shute, 2011). To this end, data must be handled and shared properly and mechanisms to guide this
process are highly needed. Such mechanisms should consider not only technological aspects, but
also policy aspects such as ownership, privacy, security, and confidentiality.
As learners engage with technology, they leave a trail of ways in which they use the technology
(interaction and process data) and the outcomes and the impact of using such technology (learning
data) (Borgman et al., 2008). In conjunction, advancements in natural language processing tech-
niques, machine learning, educational data mining, and learning analytics can result in new ways of
making meaning of these complex process and learning data (e.g., Borgman et al., 2008; Haudek et
al., 2012; Worsley & Blikstein, 2014; Xie et al., 2014). These methods can support the development
of domain-specific theories of learning, and the characterization of different aspects of learning
processes at the level of individuals, groups, and institutions.
Engineering education researchers have used longitudinal datasets to answer research ques-
tions about how students navigate through required engineering curriculum and what courses or
policies present obstacles for graduation (Ohland & Long, 2016). For instance, when used with his-
torical data along with university regulations to identify performance probabilities, graduation and
passing rates for engineering students can be computed (Caro, González, & Mira, 2014). In tandem,
advances in educational data mining and learning analytics can now enable ways to use data for
improving teaching and learning. For example, data mining techniques, such as classification meth-
ods, have been used for prediction purposes on student performance in examinations (Yadav & Pal,
2012). Rawson and Stahovich (2013) captured time-stamped record of students’ solutions to their
homework assignments using a smart pen. They quantified the total amount of ink written and the
time of the day at which the student homework was done, and used those metrics to characterize
homework habits and correlate them with the final course grade. They concluded that by the end of
the third week of the quarter, it was possible to explain a significant amount of the variance in final
course grade by considering homework habits. Machine learning algorithms have also been used
28 SPRING 2019
to generate models that predict potential dropouts from engineering majors (Pal, 2012). Results
from those predictions could help educators take on-time action in helping lower performing stu-
dents with additional support (Yadav & Pal, 2012). However, while technology tools show promise
in identifying students who are at risk, more work is needed to identify effective ways to interact
with these students to change those behaviors.
Engineering education researchers have recognized the need for better ways to share research
data, but tensions exists regarding legal, regulatory and ethical considerations (Cheville, 2016). Issues
associated with ownership of the data along with and privacy implications have also been identified
(Johri, Yang, Vorvoreanu, & Madhavan, 2016). Other challenges for adoption of sharing practices
relate to technical and cultural barriers (Gilmore, Adolph, Millman, & Gordon, 2016). Because of the
clear value in using and reusing data for discovery purposes, engineering education researchers have
started to devise principles and heuristics to guide the sharing of data (Cheville, 2016). Ongoing
efforts also include devising methods to help researchers move from sharing to enabling partner-
ships (Adams, Radcliffe, & Fosmire, 2016).
Recommendations
We urge engineering educators and curriculum designers who have successfully taken advantage
of technology-based assessments to share lessons learned and effective practices, tools, and meth-
ods for providing formative feedback. For example, when gaps in student learning are observed,
what are strategies for instructors to respond? What role do advances in machine learning, artificial
intelligence, and learning analytics play in adaptive or personalized feedback? We recommend con-
tinued development of technology and feedback mechanisms to support engineering faculty in (a)
identifying the effects of pedagogical changes, (b) adapting instruction according to students’ prior
knowledge and performance, and (c) advising students based on predictions of future learning and
retention. Critically, exemplary implementations along with lessons learned of such assessments
need to be shared with the wider community to help members evolve in their instructional practice.
To take advantage of the vast amount of data using information technologies for research, we
recommend that engineering educators and engineering education researchers go beyond tradi-
tional narrow forms of outcomes assessments with the goal of understanding the learning process
itself (Pellegrino et al., 2001). For instance, “stealth assessment,” assessment embedded into the
instructional environment, can serve both purposes (Shute, 2011). With these data, inferences can
be made about how to support the learning process as well as how students achieve competency
(Shute & Ventura, 2013). However, care should be taken in over relying on computer-enabled meth-
ods. Learning is complex and requires human interpretation that goes beyond the capability of
technology (Worsley & Blikstein, 2014). Computer-enabled methods should be used as complement
SPRING 2019 29
to qualitative approaches of data analysis where, for instance, human-scored students’ processes
can be used as an input to technology-based assessment tools (Worsley & Blikstein, 2014).
Finally, we recommend that funding agencies identify and implement monitoring programs to
ensure that research data and other products resulted from federal funds are made available to the
research community following guidelines promised and approved in the proposal (i.e., data manage-
ment plans). It is also recommended to university administrators and investigators to implement and
follow proper procedures for data to be handled and shared properly. Effective practices to guide
data sharing and handling process require deliberate effort and are highly needed.
Issue 5: Alignment of Technology with Instructional Practice: Faculty Beliefs and Pedagogical
Knowledge
We argue that programs, strategies and mechanisms are needed to address faculty pedagogical
beliefs, to help develop faculty technological pedagogical content knowledge, and to connect the
two. Faculty pedagogical attitudes and beliefs are a vital first step toward technology acceptance
and eventually productive integration. Additionally, in order to adopt technology effectively, it is
essential for instructors to develop sufficient knowledge of pedagogy and technology, and align
that with the appropriate disciplinary (content) knowledge.
Many faculty commonly hold low digital literacy, which limits their ability to effectively integrate
technology into their teaching practice (NMC, 2014). Part of the problem relates to the lack of effec-
tive faculty professional development. However, deeper challenges that exacerbate this issue relate
to: (a) faculty attitudes and pedagogical beliefs that may influence the decision and the ways faculty
integrate technology in the classroom (Ertmer, 2005); (b) faculty development of technological
pedagogical content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006); and (c) faculty perceptions of usefulness
and ease of incorporating technology (Nolen et al., 2009; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). A rewards
system that systematically and increasingly values research activities over teaching activities can
limit the effort faculty are willing to devote to improving their teaching practices (Fairweather, 1993).
Faculty Attitudes and Beliefs
Faculty attitudes and beliefs are a vital first step toward technology acceptance and eventually
integration (Dusick, 1998; Ertmer, 2005). Faculty attitudes and pedagogical beliefs relate to sup-
positions, opinions, commitments, expectations, and ideologies that they hold about technology
(Ertmer, 2005; Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008). Faculty first need to identify the value
of technology in helping them achieve instructional goals they perceive to be important (Watson,
2006). Faculty also need to develop their knowledge about technology to a point where they are
confident using it (Faseyitan, Libii, & Hirschbuhl, 1996; Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006) and
30 SPRING 2019
overcome levels of anxiety when using the technology (Johnson, Wisniewski, Kuhlemeyer, Isaacs,
& Krzykowski, 2012). Importantly, faculty need a clear understanding about how technology can
enable student achievement of meaningful outcomes (Angeli & Valanides, 2009).
The way that pedagogical beliefs influence technology integration has been hypothesized as
follows: faculty with more instructor-centered pedagogical beliefs will implement more traditional
or “low level” technology uses, whereas teachers with more student-centered (e.g., constructivist)
pedagogical beliefs will implement more “high-level” technology uses (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010; Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007). Two studies were identified that provide some insights about
engineering faculty pedagogical beliefs and some of the forms in which they use technology for
teaching and learning. Middleton and colleagues (2015), identified that faculty can hold student-
centered beliefs, teacher-centered beliefs, and non-discriminatory beliefs. In addition, faculty apply
pedagogies that correlated significantly to their attitudes; faculty with student-centered beliefs en-
gaged in more learner centered practices than either teacher-centered faculty or non-discriminating
faculty. As related to engineering faculty uses of technology, it was identified that faculty com-
monly use Internet for simplistic static tasks (e.g., posting of syllabi) as opposed to dynamic more
complicated ones (e.g., online discussion forums) (St. Clair & Baker, 2003). Faculty also reported
that easiest tools to use were more commonly used and at the same time were perceived as most
effective and efficient. On the other hand, the hardest tools to use were used less often and were
perceived as not so effective and efficient (St. Clair & Baker, 2003).
An initial step towards change in pedagogical beliefs that help faculty become comfortable with
using the technology for teaching and learning can be addressed via faculty development programs
(Faseyitan et al., 1996). However, knowing about pedagogical methods, learning theories, or prin-
ciples of good instruction does not mean that faculty will adopt them (Lin, Yu, Wang, & Ho, 2015).
For example, a study that investigated the effect of an online faculty development program to lead
to a change in faculty beliefs and intentions towards more student-centered learning revealed that
after the training, faculty indeed decreased their intention towards knowledge transmission models.
However their practice did not become more student-centered as a result of participation in profes-
sional development (Rienties, Brouwer, & Lygo-Baker, 2013). What has been identified as a predictor
of shifts in pedagogical beliefs from more instructor-centered to student-centered approaches is
faculty identifying changes in their students’ learning (Levin & Wadmany, 2005), such as the case
presented by Moore and colleagues (Moore et al., 2015) through the use of Model-Eliciting Activities.
Factors such as technology awareness, perceived technology affordances to achieve learning
outcomes, and perceived usefulness and ease of use, may determine intention to use technology and
subsequently, integration (Taylor & Todd, 1995). Researchers have argued that university faculty do
not choose to use technology in the classroom even though they feel some technologies can improve
SPRING 2019 31
students’ learning (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008). For instance, a predictor for technology integration
for learning is faculty perceived value of technology use (Wozney et al., 2006), along with perceived
usefulness and compatibility (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008). That is, faculty may make value judgements
in regards to technology affordances to help them achieve instructional goals they perceive to be
important (Watson, 2006). The more valuable faculty perceive a particular technology is in helping
them achieve instructional goals, the more likely they are to use it (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010). Other predictors for technology integration relate to faculty self-efficacy and confidence in
achieving specific learning outcomes with technology (Faseyitan et al., 1996; Wozney et al., 2006),
as well as the level of anxiety experienced when using the technology (Johnson et al., 2012). For
instance, low personal knowledge about technology may result in stress or anxiety (Kersaint, Hor-
ton, Stohl, & Garofalo, 2003). On the other hand, when faculty believe that the technology is easy
to use and compatible with the way they work, their likelihood of integrating it into the classroom
increases (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008). Developers could better align innovative technologies to the
real needs and practices of faculty through processes such as the “customer discovery” interviews
that are central to the I-Corps L program (Guerra & Smith, 2016)
Faculty Knowledge
Studies in higher education level have identified significant correlations between technology
literacy and integration into pedagogical practice (Georgina & Hosford, 2009; Georgina & Olson,
2008). Specifically, low personal knowledge about technology may be a strong barrier to technology
implementation (Kersaint et al., 2003). In addition, educational researchers have identified that in
order to improve student learning with technology, it is essential for instructors to properly orches-
trate the interplay among content, pedagogy, and technology use. Effective technology integration
for meaningful learning requires that educators comprehend the technology tools themselves, along
with the specific affordances of each tool enable for conceptual understanding, problem solving,
design thinking, or other desired outcomes (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). This interplay among faculty
content, pedagogy and technology knowledge has been referred to as Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPCK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
The TPCK framework has emerged as a form to represent educators’ knowledge on how to in-
tegrate technology into their teaching and learning activities (Abbitt, 2011). It was developed as an
extension of Shulman’s (Shulman, 1986) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). One of the criticisms
of the TPCK framework is that it is complex and difficult to measure (Archambault & Barnett, 2010).
Specifically elements of the TPCK framework are difficult to tease out (Shinas, Yilmaz-Ozden, Mouza,
Karchmer-Klein, & Glutting, 2013). However, clear distinctions have been identified for technology
knowledge (Archambault & Barnett, 2010; Shinas et al., 2013). Similarly, valid and reliable instruments
32 SPRING 2019
have recently been developed that allow faculty to self-report about their own TPCK (Yurdakul
et al., 2012) and students to indicate their views about their university professors knowledge in
technology-supported classroom environments (Shih & Chuang, 2013).
In general, however, understanding of what technology knowledge is needed and the degree
that faculty exhibit such knowledge is sparse. A survey study of 360 engineering faculty from eight
institutions reported on faculty knowledge of specific technologies for teaching and learning (Chen,
Ellis, Lockhart, & Hamoush, 2000). While common technologies such as email, word processing
and the Internet were widely used by engineering faculty, they reported little skill in more specific
class-specific technology uses such as developing multimedia modules, Java applets, or even creat-
ing web pages for a course or holding electronic help-sessions or office hours using conferencing
or collaboration tools. While the landscape has probably shifted somewhat in the years since this
study, more work is needed to identify the types of technological knowledge that faculty have (e.g.,
Magana et al., 2012). Furthermore, valid and reliable ways to measure that knowledge would pro-
vide information to allow support strategies to be developed for more effective use of technology.
Organizational Support and Faculty Development
Some external factors attributed to faculty not choosing to integrate technology relate to the
lack of organizational support, not enough resources, weak leadership in guiding them through the
adoption process, and lack of training to develop technology knowledge and pedagogical knowledge
(Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009). Other barriers include the time and effort needed to learn
how to use a technology, the planning to incorporate it into a classroom setting, and concerns about
negative impacts of instructional innovations on faculty teaching evaluations (Berk, 2005; Kersaint
et al., 2003; St. Clair & Baker, 2003). These external factors or barriers can be addressed. Engineering
colleges and departments can support faculty efforts with incentives and time to explore technology
in order to identify effective ways to use it in the classroom, and get rewarded for doing so (Brownell
& Tanner, 2012; Finley & Hartman, 2004; Surry & Land, 2000). Once faculty have used technology for
one specific purpose, along with sufficient technical support and colleague-supported training, they
are more likely to use technology for other purposes (Jacobsen, 2000; Sahin & Thompson, 2007).
For faculty development, we draw on the literature for development of knowledge for complex
pedagogical practices. For example, a qualitative study that measured the effects after a faculty
development program aimed at integrating problem based learning (PBL) among 31 faculty revealed
transformations on their PCK (Major & Palmer, 2006). After conducting interviews with the 31 faculty
and examining their portfolios, Major and Palmer (2006) identified that faculty implementation of
PBL encouraged them to critically examine their teaching and learning processes. Another useful
example comes from a faculty development program in science education that aimed at implementing
SPRING 2019 33
a cognitive apprenticeship model (Sunal et al., 2001). Part of the workshop dynamics included an
iterative process of exchanging roles from teacher to learner and back again. This exchange of roles
allowed faculty to (a) share beliefs publicly, (b) discuss, reflect and observe alternative approaches for
teaching in order to create cognitive conflict, and (c) reconstruct ideas related to effective learning
and teaching in disciplinary courses. We can draw on this work to develop more effective strategies
for faculty development around complex technological practices in the engineering classroom. Spe-
cific strategies that faculty have identified as useful are interaction of faculty from different colleges,
connections with faculty with similar goals, institutional and administrative support, development
of interpersonal skills, participating in action research, and joining external networks of faculty to
collaborate and disseminate results (Sunal et al., 2001).
Recommendations
Our recommendations for this issue are addressed to university administration and personnel
from units or centers focused on faculty development or instructional innovation programs (e.g.,
centers for instructional excellence). An effective way to shift beliefs and increase faculty knowledge
about technology and how to integrate it effectively into their classrooms starts with participation
on faculty development programs, followed by design of learning materials, and then to actual
integration of the technology in their classrooms (Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009;
Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007). Faculty development programs can not
only help faculty improve their knowledge about how to integrate technologies for teaching and
learning, but can also help them become comfortable with using the technology for such purposes
(Faseyitan et al., 1996). This technology knowledge should go beyond using technology to make
classroom management and delivery more effective. Specifically, faculty need to understand how to
use technology to facilitate and support meaningful learning that can result in students’ connected
knowledge and skills readily available for application to real situations (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).
This recommendation for faculty development programs focuses on strategies designed to improve
faculty pedagogical and technological knowledge. We advocate for following the guidelines similar
to those developed by the National Effective Teaching Institute (NETI) (Felder & Brent, 2010; Felder,
Brent, & Prince, 2011), but adapted so technology integration is considered in the proposed practices.
We recommend that pedagogy-focused faculty development programs specifically address the
use of technology in engineering. These programs should incorporate the design of technology-
enhanced learning materials, and supports for the actual implementation of the technology in their
classrooms. Long-term and organizational benefit can follow if there is a critical examination and
reflection of individuals’ teaching and learning processes and the creation of communities of practice
and mentoring mechanisms.
34 SPRING 2019
Issue 6: Broader Considerations: Technology with a “T”
To this point, we have considered technologies that have been specifically developed for learning
engineering (learning innovations), for domain-specific applications to engineering practice, and for
instructional design including learning outcomes, assessment, and instructional practice. We have
also argued that faculty professional development is a critical component if engineering educators
want widespread deployment of these type of effective technology-based instructional practices.
Our discussion has focused on intentional uses and specific ways that technology can be enacted
in engineering learning environments to improve learning and increase engagement. However, a
broader perspective reveals many ways, both obvious and subtle, that technology interacts with the
work of engineering students and faculty at the university. In this section, we shift the discussion
from developing technologies for specific educational needs towards a broader consideration about
the affordances and tensions with technology towards learning engineering. While it is beyond the
scope of this article to unpack these issues in detail, they are critical to the conversation of how to
approach technology in engineering education.
As illustrated earlier in Figure 1, the specific technologies that have been developed for engineer-
ing learning and practice are situated within the broader context of the role technology plays in the
lives of humans in the 21st century.4 Mobile, wired devices that provide broad and ready access to
information and to other people have redefined fundamental conceptions of space and time (Castells,
2011; Madhavan & Lindsay, 2014; Standage, 1998). In this section, we address some of the ways that
Technology (with a capital “T”) impacts the engineering learning environment for the better (e.g.,
increased access) and for the worse (e.g., access to solution manuals). Capital “T” Technology is
what Arthur (2009) refers to as the “entire collection of devices and practices available to a culture”
(p. 28). Engineering educators need to understand and negotiate the tensions between Technology
as a large and continually changing force in society and their ability to adapt educational systems
and develop educational innovations at pace.
With the goal of promoting systemic change towards more productive learning with equitable
access for all learners, we draw on Arthur’s definition to identify how Technology fits into the cultures
of engineering programs and the culture of higher education. At its core, Technology is a cultural
phenomenon of interlocking material and social practices (Leidner & Kayworth, 2006; Latour &
Woolgar, 2013; Leonardi & Barley, 2008: Pickering, 2010). Engineering faculty and students exist
within the broad culture of higher education, and within specific departmental and institutional cul-
tures, and all of these are changing rapidly. Engineering educators need to create technologies and
4
It is easy to lose sight of how rapidly computer technology is changing, e.g., the widespread use of the personal
computer (began in the 1980s), the internet (1990s), and the smart phone (2000s).
SPRING 2019 35
enact technology-based practices with the understanding of what culture they want to create. Such
strategies need to account for and shift the values, beliefs, and norms that permeate institutions of
higher education. Faculty, administrators, students, and researchers need to begin by creating the
“time” and “space” to have these conversations. For example, one could argue that a cultural norm
typical in Carnegie Research 1 universities is the need for minimally invasive teaching so that faculty
have more time for research. This norm is reflected in the rewards structures for tenure, promotion,
and merit raises, and also in a growing lower-paid, often marginalized, class of fixed term instructors
to carry the teaching load. If it is important to think about Technology as providing affordances that
enhance student learning, the engineering education community needs to change the way people
think about teaching and the value placed on teaching in the context of their work. In this regard,
there may exist tensions between effectiveness and efficiency. Technology should serve to make
teaching more effective, not less intrusive - to improve teaching, not commoditize it. This cultural
context needs to be considered in developing strategies for faculty development discussed above.
Thus, in considering how Technology fits into the educational system, and extrapolating for how
it will fit into the system into the future, it is necessary to fundamentally address core issues of
organizational identity and organizational learning (Kezar & Eckel, 2002).
Students also bring Technology-mediated cultural behaviors to the engineering classroom. In-
coming students are referred to as digital natives, a term that is often interpreted as digital fluency,
but more appropriately refers to their habits, values and beliefs (Howe & Strauss, 2007; Kirschner
& De Bruyckere, 2017; Oblinger, 2003). In general, this group, the IGens (Twenge, 2017) and before
them the Millennials, is tech-savvy and connected. They are characterized as collaborative (crowd-
sourcing), prone to multi-tasking (which in fact is not effective), and accustomed to instant gratifi-
cation5. As students, they seek a greater work-life balance than their predecessors and seek more
immediate meaning and relevancy to their work. They spend a reported 30% less time studying than
their counterparts 50 years earlier (Cheville, 2012). In addition to less time studying, their activity
may be less focused as their use of computers and other devices for work and fun often coalesce.
They believe that if something is digital, it is everyone’s property – an attitude that can lead to con-
flicts with policies on academic misconduct. However, educators should not lose sight that IGen
characteristics can be productive. They bring to the classroom stronger abilities to use information
technology and to collaborate than predecessors; both these skills are needed in engineering work.
Their outlook that “doing is more important than knowing” can be leveraged in authentic project-
based work around engineering design. Finally, we agree with Bennett, Maton, & Kervin (2008) that
5
Behaviors of instant gratification logically follow the assertion that the internet is compressing or annihilating
time and space.
36 SPRING 2019
incoming students’ relationship with technology may be more nuanced and complex than the digital
native characterization implies, and that better understanding is needed to characterize and identify
ways that learning environments can be shifted to better fit this and future generations of learners.
A broad perspective is needed to connect the affordances and tensions of Technology with the
ends for which education should work. Technology has led to tectonic shifts in the amount of infor-
mation available to both students and faculty and the ways they can collaboratively work. However,
the educational processes and systems at the core of many engineering programs remain intact from
the pre-internet era. Engineering education researchers need to better understand tensions between
Technology and the core educational processes and systems through which engineers are formed. We
illustrate this point with three examples. First, faculty and students may have very different perspec-
tives of the role of homework in learning engineering. Faculty could assign homework from a process
orientation, thinking that through engaging in problem solving processes of challenging problems,
students are elicited to make meaning of core concepts and principles. Thus, homework becomes a
central tool in the course design to promote deep learning. On the other hand, students know that
homework problem solutions are often only a click (or a text message) away6. As time constraints and
other stressful factors become salient, they may take a product orientation, prioritizing “getting the
points” for successful completion to genuine engagement. More subtly, students may believe that access
to solutions can be used to “guide” their thinking when stuck, and, even with the best intentions, also
circumvent the meaning making that leads to deep learning in working through challenging problems.
Second, most engineering textbooks are designed for the pre-internet era where the book needed to
serve as both a learning tool and also an encyclopedic resource for future reference. Students have
networked information resources now available rendering textbooks as transient tools only needed
during the term. This shift together with affordances of Technology towards interactivity and adap-
tive feedback discussed above necessitates a need to shift conceptions and manifestations of the
fundamental role of out of class resources in learning engineering (Lee et al., 2013; Edgcomb & Vahid,
2014). Applying the discussion from Issue 3 above, it is better to think about the resources learners
need outside the classroom and use technology to reconstitute those resources to be more effective
rather than simply converting a traditional textbook into an electronic format. From such a perspective,
resources shift from providing static content to interactively developing conceptual understanding
and problem solving skills (Vahid, Edgcomb, & Strawn, 2016). Third, we juxtapose the rich, networked
6
Technology may address this issue by incorporation of “rolling” problems that change in nature for each learner;
however, they may just lead to the next level of a set of students “gaming” homework. An alternative approach is
to develop homework activities within learning environments that prompt students to be interested and to see
the value of completing the work.
SPRING 2019 37
collaborative learning uses of Technology outside of school and the limited, individualized uses in the
classroom. This contrast suggests that better alignment of the activities and assessments educators
choose in the engineering classroom may lead to higher motivation and more meaningful learning.
Recommendations
Studies are needed that explore how Technology interacts with the cultures of engineering
departments, with an emphasis on a systems-level understandings and forecasting. Such research
should draw collaborators with a wide range of expertise, including technology and science studies,
sociology, and anthropology. Rapid changes in Technology are shifting work practices and social
norms. Engineering educators need strategies to keep up with this change. For example, they need
to understand better how students use Technology to get their work done and what aspects of work
practices might misalign with instructors’ conceptions. From such an understanding, educators can
develop strategies to redirect unproductive habits and ideas to leverage others. With the constant
temptation of connectivity, education researchers also need to characterize the relationships between
multi-tasking and deep thinking. Does connectivity form a distraction that subverts complex think-
ing or can it be an affordance to distribute thinking and enhance learning? Ultimately, educators are
responsible for developing learning environments that fit their learners. They must institutionalize
processes that allow them to identify shifts in Technology-based social norms and work practices,
and respond agilely in ways that better match learners’ needs. Importantly, administrators and faculty
need to create space at the university to reward and recognize this challenging work.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
This article seeks to address the questions “What are the potential affordances of computer tech-
nology (ICCT) to make effective tools for teaching and learning engineering?” and “What tools will
scale and propagate?” Often mentioned first is that computers can provide individualized learning
pathways combined with feedback on how the learner is progressing. That is, computers make it
easier to engage in “what if” scenarios. While such scenarios will undoubtedly occupy space in the
educational technology landscape, it is unclear to what extent the social process of learning can be
effectively sourced to a computer tool. If we look at history as a guide, humans are often quick to
project changes to human social systems from the next technology on the horizon, simply by virtue
of the technology itself. For example, a common shared belief was that the telegraph was going
to bring world peace because it would allow humans from different nations to readily interact, and
thereby understand one another (Standage, 1998). But this optimistic prognosis overlooked the hard
38 SPRING 2019
social work of developing that shared understanding. Similarly, one could take the perspective that
the more general value of computer-based learning innovations is to augment, not replace, the social
work done in learning. From this perspective, computer technology allows more possibilities for the
interactions that it can foster to do that challenging work.
We have argued that technology-enabled pedagogical systems can fundamentally shift the space
where learning occurs. By that, we do not mean that learning becomes any less human, just that
there are more possibilities for creating meaningful human interactions,7 interactions that can fore-
ground conceptual understanding or foreground disciplinary practices. To realize this use, educators
need to expand their conceptions of the learning environment at the university. There is a tendency
to see technology in terms of the current structures and systems that are in place. The telephone
was first considered as a “talking telegraph” and the automobile first as a “horseless carriage.” In
each of these cases, technology is viewed as making what was once difficult easier. Alternatively,
educators might ask how Technology affords paradigmatic shifts in the fundamental ways they do
the challenging cognitive and social work of helping students learn engineering.
Ultimately, the ways and degree to which educators choose to reconstitute learning environ-
ments in response to Technology change is inextricably linked to their conceptions of learning and
knowing. They might consider knowledge as an entity to be transferred and skills development as
proceeding through orchestrated behavioral responses to external stimuli. Alternatively, they can
view learning as a socially-mediated process where the learner constructs conceptual understand-
ing building on their prior knowledge and experiences through orchestrated activity. Finally, they
might say that learning is a sociocultural process of increasingly greater participation in the valued
practices of a disciplinary community. These conceptions have implications in the interactions of
educational systems with Technology. One perspective might emphasize personalized and adaptive
learning where the technology provides a responsive diagnostic agent that directly and immedi-
ately responds to the individual learner. Another perspective might prioritize a use of technology
to put students in social situations where they make meaning of activity through interacting with
one another. Failure to make connections to core learning processes can doom instantiations of
technology to the same mistakes as earlier interventions (e.g., see Webel, Krupa, & McManus, 2015).
7
In the mid twentieth century, Claude Shannon (see Shannon, 2001) connected the concept of entropy to informa-
tion. From such a perspective, one could argue that the exponentially increasing amounts of information acces-
sible by computer technology leads to many more system “configurations” in any arena it touches, including the
professional formation of engineers. But, like with entropy, most sets of configurations tend to be disordered. It
takes coordinated input of the right type of work to create “low entropy” configurations that could potentially
be quite beneficial to learning engineering concepts, tools, and practices.
SPRING 2019 39
In some ways, these juxtaposed commitments harken the early debates during the development
of the internet (or ARPAnet) and personal computer (Markoff, 2005). There was one faction that
argued stridently for artificial intelligence (that computers should replace human function) and an-
other who advocated for augmentation (computers should support human thinking and activity).
Clearly, underlying philosophical commitments provide the impetus for the Technology approaches
engineering educators, administrators, and policy makers privilege and where they direct resources.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work reported here was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation,
including DRL 1451263, EEC 1160353, and EEC 1449238. The views represented here are those of
the authors and do not represent the National Science Foundation. The authors are grateful for
the conversations and feedback from Mary Besterfield-Sacre, Alan Cheville, Larry Shuman, Martin
Storksdieck, and Scott Streiner. We are exceedingly grateful to the participants in the Delphi study
and the Workshops at ASEE and the University of Pittsburgh as well as the anonymous reviewers
for their helpful critical feedback.
REFERENCES
Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review
of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281–300.
Abdulwahed, M. & Z.K. Nagy. (2009). Applying Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle for Laboratory Education. Journal
of Engineering Education. 98, 283–293.
[ABET]. (2013). 2014-2015 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Retrieved from Baltimore, MD: http://www.
abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Step_by_Step/Accreditation_Documents/Current/2014_-_2015/
E001%2014-15%20EAC%20Criteria%203-13-14(2).pdf
Adams, R., Radcliffe, D., & Fosmire, M. (2016). Designing for global data sharing, designing for educational transforma-
tion. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(2).
Adams, W. K., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). A study of
educational simulations part II-interface design. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(4), 551.
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical
tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002
Akpan, J., & Strayer, J. (2010). Which comes first the use of computer simulation of frog dissection or conventional
dissection as academic exercise?. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(2), 113.
Alabi, O., Magana, A. J., & Garcia, R. E. (2015). Gibbs computational simulation as a teaching tool for students’ under-
standing of thermodynamics of materials concepts. Journal of Materials Education, 37(5-6), 239–260.
40 SPRING 2019
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development,
and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education,
52(1), 154–168.
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the
TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009
Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success.
Proceedings from the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge.
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Simon and Schuster.
[ASEE]. (2013). Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering (TUEE). Retrieved from Arlington, VA:
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from
the worked examples research. Review of educational research, 70(2), 181–214.
Aurigemma, J., Chandrasekharan, S., Nersessian, N. J., & Newstetter, W. (2013). Turning Experiments into Objects: The
Cognitive Processes Involved in the Design of a Lab-on-a-Chip Device. Journal of Engineering Education.
Ayasun, S., & Nwankpa, C. O. (2006). Transformer tests using MATLAB/Simulink and their integration into undergraduate
electric machinery courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 14(2), 142–150.
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without
guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.
Beichner, RJ, Saul, JM, Abbott, DS, Morse, JJ, Deardorff, D, Allain, RJ, & Risley, JS. (2007). The student-centered
activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University
Physics, 1(1), 2–39.
Beichner, R.J, Saul, JM, Allain, RJ, Deardorff, DL, & Abbott, DS (2000). Introduction to SCALE UP: Student-Centered
Activities for Large Enrollment University Physics. In Proceedings of the 2000 American society for engineering education
annual conference and exposition. St. Louis, Missouri.
Beg, A. (2015). A web–based method for building and simulating standard cell circuits—A classroom application.
Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 23(2), 304–313.
Bell, R. L., & Trundle, K. C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 346–372.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal
of educational technology, 39(5), 775–786.
Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International journal of teaching and
learning in higher education, 17(1), 48–62.
Besterfield-Sacre, M. E., & Shuman, L. J. (2016, June). Innovation through Propagation: A Roadmap for Engineering
Education. Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Borgman, C. L., Abelson, H., Dirks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K. R., Linn, M. C., . . . Salen, K. (2008). Fostering learning
in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge. A 21st century agenda for the National Science
Foundation. Report of the NSF task force on cyberlearning.
Bowen, A., Reid, D., & Koretsky, M. (2015). Development of Interactive Virtual Laboratories to Help Students Learn
Difficult Concepts in Thermodynamics. Chemical Engineering Education, 49(4), 229–238.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Coocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brinson, L. C., Belytschko, T., Moran, B., & Black, T. (1997). Design and computational methods in basic mechanics
courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 159–166.
SPRING 2019 41
Brophy, S. P., Magana, A. J., & Strachan, A. (2013). Lectures and Simulation Laboratories to Improve Learners’ Conceptual
Understanding. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(3), 1–27.
Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and…
tensions with professional identity? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346.
Brooks, B. J., Demaree, D. N., & Koretsky, M. D. (2016). Student Response Times to In-Class Thermodynamics
Concept Questions: A Window into Students’ Thinking Processes. International Journal of Engineering Education,
32(1), 30–38.
Brown, S., Race, P., & Bull, J. (1999). Computer-Assisted Assessment in Higher Education. Staff and Educational
Development Series: ERIC.
Campbell, J., J. Bourne, P. Mosterman, and A. Brodersen. (2002). The Effectiveness of Learning Simulations for
Electronic Laboratories. Journal of Engineering Education. 91:81–87.
Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture (Vol. 1). John
Wiley & Sons.
Caro, E., González, C., & Mira, J. M. (2014). Student academic performance stochastic simulator based on the Monte
Carlo method. Computers & Education, 76, 42–54.
Castrellón, T., Botía, D., Gómez, R., Orozco, G., & Gil, I. (2011). Using process simulators in the study, design, and
control of distillation columns for undergraduate chemical engineering courses. Computer Applications in Engineering
Education, 19(3), 621–630.
Chamberlain, J. M., Lancaster, K., Parson, R., & Perkins, K. K. (2014). How guidance affects student engagement with
an interactive simulation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 628–638.
Chen, J. C., Ellis, M., Lockhart, J., Hamoush, S., Brawner, C. E., & Tront, J. G. (2000). Technology in engineering education:
what do the faculty know and want? Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 279–283.
Chesler, N., Arastoopour, G., D’Angelo, C.M., Bagley, E., & Shaffer, D.W. (2013). Design of a professional practice simulator
for educating and motivating first-year engineering students. Advances in Engineering Education 3(3): 1–29.
Cheville, R. A. (2012). Engineering education today: Capturing the afterlife of sisyphus in five snapshots. Proceedings
of the IEEE, 100 (Special Centennial Issue), 1361–1375.
Cheville, R. A. (2016). Data sharing from a policy perspective. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(2).
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities.

Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.
Clough, G. W. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. National Academy of
Engineering, Washington, DC.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and
mathematics. Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, 18, 32–42.
Cool, T., García, R. E., & Bartol, A. (2015). Gibbs. Retrieved from https://nanohub.org/resources/gibbs
Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: A study of remote,
hands-on, and simulated laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14(2), 7.
Crismond, D. (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: A study of naive,
novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
38(7), 791–820.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing (pp. 1–13). Springer London.
Dahm, K. D., Hesketh, R. P., & Savelski, M. J. (2002). Is process simulation used effectively in ChE courses? Chemical
Engineering Education, 36(3), 192–197.
42 SPRING 2019
Dede, C., Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., & Bowman, C. (2004, June). Design-based research strategies for study-
ing situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning
sciences (pp. 158-165). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education.
Science, 340(6130), 305–308.
de Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual
domains. Review of educational research, 68(2), 179–201.
de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2008). Model-facilitated learning. Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology, 457–468.
Dori, Y. J., Belcher, J., Bessette, M., Danziger, M., McKinney, A., & Hult, E. (2003). Technology for active learning.
Materials Today, 6(12), 44–49.
Delale, F., Liaw, B. M., Jiji, L. M., Voiculescu, I., & Yu, H. (2011). Infusion of Emerging Technologies and New Teach-
ing Methods into The Mechanical Engineering Curriculum at The City College of New York. Advances in Engineering
Education, 2(4).
Diefes–Dux, H. A., Samant, C., Johnson, T. E., & O’Connor, D. (2004). Kirkpatrick’s Level 1 Evaluation of the Implementa-
tion of a Computer–Aided Process Design Tool in a Senior–Level Engineering Course. Journal of Engineering Education,
93(4), 321–331.
[DOEd]. (2010). United States. Department of Education. Office of Educational Technology. Transforming American
education: learning powered by technology.
[DOEd]. (2016). United States. Department of Education. Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the role of technology
in education.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of educational
computing research, 41(3), 319–346.
Dorneich, M.C. & P.M. Jones. (2001). The UIUC Virtual Spectrometer: A Java-Based Collaborative Learning Environment.
Journal of Engineering Education. 90:713–720.
Dusick, D. M. (1998). What social cognitive factors influence faculty members’ use of computers for teaching? A
literature review. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(2), 123–137.

Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning.
Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology
and curriculum design. Journal of the learning sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450.
Edgcomb, A. D., & Vahid, F. (2014, June). Effectiveness of Online Textbooks vs. Interactive Web-Native Content. In Pro-
ceedings of the 2014 American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition. Indianapolis, Indiana.
El-ZEin, A., Langrish, T., & Balaam, N. (2009). Blended teaching and learning of computer programming skills in
engineering curricula. Advances in Engineering Education, 1(3), 1–18.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational
technology research and development, 53(4), 25–39.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs,
and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Fairweather, J. S. (1993). Faculty reward structures: Toward institutional and professional homogenization. Research
in Higher Education, 34(5), 603–623.
SPRING 2019 43
Faseyitan, S., Libii, J. N., & Hirschbuhl, J. (1996). An in service model for enhancing faculty computer self-efficacy.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 214-226.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2010). The National Effective Teaching Institute: Assessment of impact and implications for
faculty development. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 121-134.
Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Prince, M. J. (2011). Engineering instructional development: Programs, best practices, and
recommendations. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 89.
Fernández-Balboa, J.-M., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical content knowledge among college
professors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 293-306.
Fink, L. D., Ambrose, S., & Wheeler, D. (2005). Becoming a professional engineering educator: A new role for a new
era. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 185.
Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., ... & LeMaster, R. (2005).
When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory
equipment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103.
Finley, L., & Hartman, D. (2004). Institutional change and resistance: Teacher preparatory faculty and technology
integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 319.
Finelli, C. J. & Froyd, J. E. (2019). Improving Learning in the Engineering Classroom. Advances in Engineering Education, 7(2).
Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic
technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76.
Foote, K. T., Neumeyer, X., Henderson, C., Dancy, M. H., & Beichner, R. J. (2014). Diffusion of research-based instruc-
tional strategies: the case of SCALE-UP. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 1.
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of research in
education, 30, 1–32.
Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015, January). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and
perspectives. In The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education (Vol. 1, p. 133). “ Carol I”
National Defence University.
Friedrichsen, D. M., Smith, C., & Koretsky, M. D. (2016). Propagation from the start: the spread of a concept-based
instructional tool. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–26.
Friel, T., Britten, J., Compton, B., Peak, A., Schoch, K., & VanTyle, W. K. (2009). Using pedagogical dialogue as a vehicle
to encourage faculty technology use. Computers & Education, 53(2), 300–307.
Froyd, J. E., Wankat, P. C., & Smith, K. A. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education. Proceedings
of the IEEE, 100(Special Centennial Issue), 1344–1360.
García–Herreros, P., & Gómez, J. M. (2013). Modeling and optimization of a crude distillation unit: A case study for
undergraduate students. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 21(2), 276–286.
Garrett, K. N. (2014). A quantitative study of higher education faculty self-assessments of technological, pedagogical,
and content knowledge (TPaCK) and technology training. The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA.
Gaver, W. (1991). Technology affordances. Acm, 79–84.
Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on technology integration and training.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 690–696.
Georgina, D. A., & Olson, M. R. (2008). Integration of technology in higher education: A review of faculty self-perceptions.
The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 1–8.
Guerra, R. C. C., & Smith, K. A. (2016, October). I-Corps™ for Learning: Sustaining and scaling STEM education innova-
tions for impact. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2016 IEEE (pp. 1–2). IEEE.
44 SPRING 2019
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception: Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Giere, R. N. (Ed.). (1999). Science without laws. University of Chicago Press.
Gilbuena, D. M., Sherrett, B. U., Gummer, E. S., Champagne, A. B., & Koretsky, M. D. (2015). Feedback on Professional
Skills as Enculturation into Communities of Practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(1), 7–34.
Gilmore, R. O., Adolph, K. E., Millman, D. S., & Gordon, A. (2016). Transforming education research through open video
data sharing. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(2).
Goel, A. (2016). Artificial intelligence course creates AI teaching Assistant. Georgia Institute of Technology News Center. Re-
trieved on November 27 from http://www.news.gatech.edu/2016/05/09/artificial-intelligence-course-creates-ai-teaching-assistant.
Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, S‚ ., Vieira, C., Zielinski, M., & Douglas, K. A. (2015). Assessing idea fluency through the student
design process. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2015. 32614 2015. IEEE.
Johri, A., Yang, S., Vorvoreanu, M., & Madhavan, K. (2016). Perceptions and practices of data sharing in engineering
education. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(2).
Greenberg, J. E., Smith, N. T., & Newman, J. H. (2003). Instructional module in fourier spectral analysis, based on
principles of “how people learn”. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(2), 155–164.
Guzdial, M. (1994). Software–realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning
Environments, 4(1), 1–44.
Haddad, J. A. (1985). Engineering Education and Practice in the United States. Foundations of Our Techno-Economic
Future. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Haudek, K. C., Prevost, L. B., Moscarella, R. A., Merrill, J., & Urban-Lurain, M. (2012). What are they thinking? Automated
analysis of student writing about acid–base chemistry in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 283–293.
Hazel, E. and C. Baillie. (1998). Improving Teaching and Learning in Laboratories. GoldGuide Series, No. 4 (Canberra:
Higher Education Research & Development Society of Australasia, HERDSA).
Heller, D. E., & Rogers, K. R. (2006). Shifting the burden: Public and private financing of higher education in the United
States and implications for Europe. Tertiary Education & Management, 12(2), 91–117.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs
on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1499–1509.
Hilton, M. (Ed.). (2002). Enhancing undergraduate learning with information technology: A workshop summary.
National Academies Press.

Hinds, T., & Somerton, C. W. (2007). Integrating the teaching of computer skills with an introduction to mechanical
engineering course. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference & Exposition. Honolulu, Hawaii
Hinds, T., Urban-Lurain, M., Sticklen, J., Amey, M., & Eskil, T. (2005). Curricular Integration of Computational Tools: A First
Step. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
& Exposition. Portland, Oregon
Hodge, H., H.S. Hinton, & M. Lightner. (2001). Virtual Circuit Laboratory. Journal of Engineering Education. 90:507–511.
Hoole, S. R. H., Sivasuthan, S., Karthik, V. U., & Hoole, P. R. P. (2015). Flip–teaching engineering optimization, electro-
magnetic product design, and nondestructive evaluation in a semester’s course. Computer Applications in Engineering
Education, 23(3), 374–382.
Hornaes, H. P., & Royrvik, O. (2000). Aptitude, gender, and computer algebra systems. Journal of Engineering
Education, 89(3), 323.
Horodyskyj, L. B., Mead, C., Belinson, Z., Buxner, S., Semken, S., & Anbar, A. D. (2018). Habitable Worlds: Delivering on
the promises of online education. Astrobiology, 18(1), 86–99.
SPRING 2019 45
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). Millennials go to college. Great Falls, VA: LifeCourse Associates.
Hutchison, M. A., Follman, D. K., Sumpter, M., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Factors Influencing the Self-Efficacy Beliefs of
First-Year Engineering Students. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 39–47.
Impelluso, T. J. (2009). Leveraging cognitive load theory, scaffolding, and distance technologies to enhance computer
programming for non-majors. Advances in Engineering Education, 1(4).
International Engineering Alliance. (2011). Washington Accord Program Outcomes. Retrieved from Washington, DC:
http://www.ieagreements.org/Rules_and_Procedures.pdf?4504
Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits
in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 71–93.
Jacobsen, D. M. (2000). Examining technology adoption patterns by faculty in higher education. Proceedings of ACEC.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and
cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365–379.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic
Learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved July,
2017 from the World Wide Web: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition.
Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, T., Wisniewski, M. A., Kuhlemeyer, G., Isaacs, G., & Krzykowski, J. (2012). Technology Adoption in Higher
Education: Overcoming Anxiety through Faculty Bootcamp. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 63–72.
Kadiyala, M., & Crynes, B. L. (2000). A review of literature on effectiveness of use of information technology in
education. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 177–189.
Keengwe, J., Kidd, T., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009). Faculty and technology: Implications for faculty training and
technology leadership. Journal of science education and technology, 18(1), 23–28.
Kersaint, G., Horton, B., Stohl, H., & Garofalo, J. (2003). Technology beliefs and practices of mathematics education
faculty. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4), 549–577.
Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal
principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460.
Khan, F., & Singh, K. (2015). Curricular Improvements through Computation and Experiment Based Learning Modules.
Advances in Engineering Education, 4(4), 1–19.
Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 67, 135–142.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of
technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of educational computing research, 32(2), 131–152.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar:
Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.
Kollöffel, B., & Jong, T. (2013). Conceptual understanding of electrical circuits in secondary vocational engineering educa-
tion: Combining traditional instruction with inquiry learning in a virtual lab. Journal of engineering education, 102(3), 375–393.
Koretsky, M. D., Amatore, D., Barnes, C., & Kimura, S. (2008). Enhancement of student learning in experimental design
using a virtual laboratory. IEEE Transactions on Education, 51(1), 76–85.
Koretsky, M. D., Brooks, B. J., & Higgins, A. Z. (2016a). Written justifications to multiple-choice concept questions
during active learning in class. International Journal of Science Education, 38(11), 1747–1765.
46 SPRING 2019
Koretsky, M. D., Brooks, B. J., White, R. M., & Bowen, A. S. (2016b). Querying the Questions: Student Responses and
Reasoning in an Active Learning Class. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 219–244.
Koretsky, M. D., Falconer, J. L., Brooks, B. J., Gilbuena, D. M., Silverstein, D. L., Smith, C., & Miletic, M. (2014). The AIChE
Concept Warehouse: A Web-Based Tool to Promote Concept-Based Instruction. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(1).
Koretsky, M. D., Kelly, C., & Gummer, E. (2011). Fundamental Research in Engineering Education. Student Learning in
Industrially Situated Virtual Laboratories. Chemical Engineering Education, 45(3), 219–228.
Koretsky, M. D., Nolen S.B., Nefcy, E., Champagne, A.B. (accepted). Affordances of computer and physical laboratory
based design projects for engaging student teams in engineering practice. Cognition & Instruction.
Koretsky, M. D., Nolen, S. B., Tierney, G., & Wetzstein, L. (2015). Productive disciplinary engagement in design tasks.
In Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Dublin, Ireland.
Landau, R., & Rosenberg, N. (Eds.). (1986). The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth.
National Academies Press.
Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer Instruction: From Harvard to Community Colleges Retrieved from http://
mazur-www.harvard.edu/publications.php?function=display&rowid=613
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (2013). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning:
Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of educational research, 77(4), 575–614.
Layton, R. A., Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Ricco, G. D. (2010). Design and validation of a web-based system for
assigning members to teams using instructor-specified criteria. Advances in Engineering Education, 2 (1), 1–28.
Lee, C. S., McNeill, N. J., Douglas, E. P., Koro–Ljungberg, M. E., & Therriault, D. J. (2013). Indispensable resource? A phe-
nomenological study of textbook use in engineering problem solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 269–288.
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology
and organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3), 159–176.
Leidner, D. E., & Kayworth, T. (2006). Review: a review of culture in information systems research: toward a theory of
information technology culture conflict. MIS quarterly, 30(2), 357–399.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom practices of teachers and students in
rich technology-based classrooms [1]. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2005, 14(3), 281–307.
Lewin, D. R., Seider, W. D., & Seader, J. D. (2004). Using Process Simulators in Chemical Engineering [: A Multimedia
Guide for the Core Curriculum. Wiley.
Lin, C. C., Yu, W. W., Wang, J., & Ho, M.-H. (2015). Faculty’s Perceived Integration of Emerging Technologies and Peda-
gogical Knowledge in the Instructional Setting. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 854–860.
Lindgren, R., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Spatial learning and computer simulations in science. International Journal of
Science Education, 31(3), 419–438.
Lindsay, E.D., & Good, M.C. (2005). Effects of Laboratory Access Modes upon Learning Outcomes. IEEE Transactions
on Education. 48:619–631.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science education, 87(4), 517–538.
Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Moore, D. D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member
effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 505–524.
Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. L., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME
Team Tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(1), 5–19.
Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM
Computing Surveys (CSUR), 38(3), 7.
SPRING 2019 47
Madhavan, K., & Lindsay, E.D. (2014). Use of information technology in engineering education. In Johri, Aditya, and
Barbara M. Olds, eds. Cambridge handbook of engineering education research. Cambridge University Press.
Madhavan, K., & Richey, M. C. (2016). Problems in Big Data Analytics in Learning. Journal of Engineering Education,
105(1), 6–14.
Mayrath, M. C., Clarke-Midura, J., Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (Eds.). (2012). Technology-based assessments for 21st
century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research. Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Magana, A. J., Brophy, S. P., & Bodner, G. M. (2012a). Instructors’ intended learning outcomes for using computational
simulations as learning tools. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 220–243.
Magana, A. J., Brophy, S. P., & Bodner, G. M. (2012b). Student Views of Engineering Professors Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge for Integrating Computational Simulation Tools in Nanoscale Science and Engineering. International
Magana, A.J., & Coutinho, G.S. (2017). Modeling and simulation practices for a computational thinking-enabled engi-
neering workforce. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(1), p. 62–78
Magana, A. J., Falk, L. M., & Reese, J. M. (2013). Introducing Discipline-Based Computing in Undergraduate Engineering
Education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 13(4), 1–22.
Magana, A. J., Falk, M. L., Vieira, C., & Reese, M. J. (2016). A case study of undergraduate engineering students’ computational
literacy and self-beliefs about computing in the context of authentic practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 427–442.
Magana, A.J., Fennell, H., Vieira, C., & Falk, M.L. (2019). Characterizing the interplay of cognitive and metacognitive
knowledge in computational modeling and Simulation practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 7(2).
Magana, A.J., Ortega-Alvarez, J.D., Lovan, R., Gomez, D., Marulanda, J. & Dyke, S. (2017). Virtual, local and remote
laboratories for conceptual understanding of dynamic systems. International Journal of Engineering Education. 33(1–A),
p. 91–105.
Mann, C. R. (1918). A study of engineering education: prepared for the Joint committee on engineering education of
the national engineering societies (No. 11). Merrymount Press.
Markoff, J. (2005). What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry.
Penguin.
Major, C. H., & Palmer, B. (2006). Reshaping teaching and learning: The transformation of faculty pedagogical content
knowledge. Higher Education, 51(4), 619–647.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction (pp. 9-18). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McDermott, L.C. (1996). Physics by inquiry. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive
experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 745–770.
Miller, T. (2009). Formative computer–based assessment in higher education: the effectiveness of feedback in supporting
student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 181–192.
Middleton, J. A., Krause, S. J., Rae Beeley, K., Judson, E., Ernzen, J., & Chen, Y. (2015, June 14–17). Examining Relation-
ships and Patterns in Pedagogical Beliefs, Attitudes and Classroom Practices for Faculty of Undergraduate Engineering,
Math and Science Foundational Courses. In Proceedings of the 2015 American society for engineering education annual
conference and exposition. Seattle, WA.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. University of Chicago
Press.
48 SPRING 2019
Moore, T. J., Guzey, S. S., Roehrig, G. H., Stohlmann, M., Park, M. S., Kim, Y. R., . . . Teo, H. J. (2015). Changes in Faculty Mem-
bers’ Instructional Beliefs while Implementing Model–Eliciting Activities. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(3), 279–302.
Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing
problem solving. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International
Computing Education Research.
Mosterman, P.J., M.A.M. Dorlandt, J.O. Campbell, C. Burow, R. Bouw, A.J. Brodersen, & J. Bourne. (1994). Virtual Engi-
neering Laboratories: Design and Experiments. Journal of Engineering Education. 83:279–285.
Najm, M. R. A., Mohtar, R. H., Cherkauer, K. A., & French, B. F. (2010). Effect of integrating hydrologic scaling concepts
on students learning and decision making experiences. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(1).
National Research Council (Ed.). (1985). Engineering Education and Practice in the United States. Foundations of Our
Techno-Economic Future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (Ed.). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
National Research Council (Ed.). (2011). Learning Science through Computer Games and Simulations. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13078.
National Research Council (Ed.). (2014). Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18409.
Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual environments. Educational
Psychology Review, 19(3), 265-283.
Nolen, S. B., Ward, C. J., Horn, I. S., Childers, S., Campbell, S. S., & Mahna, K. (2009). Motivation Development in Novice
Teachers. Contemporary Motivation Research: From Global to Local Perspectives, 265.
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers gen-xers millennials. EDUCAUSE review, 500(4), 37–47.
Ohland, M. W., & Long, R. A. (2016). The multiple-institution database for investigating engineering longitudinal
development: An experiential case study of data sharing and reuse. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(2).
Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Finelli, C. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz, H. R., &
Schmucker, D. G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behavior-
ally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (4), 609-630.
Okamoto, N., Hsu, T.-R., & Bash, C. E. (2009). A thermal management of electronics course and laboratory for under-
graduates. Advances in Engineering Education, 1(3).
Pal, S. (2012). Mining educational data to reduce dropout rates of engineering students. International Journal of
Information Engineering and Electronic Business, 4(2), 1–7.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between
information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional science, 32(1), 1–8.
Patil, A., & Codner, G. (2007). Accreditation of engineering education: review, observations and proposal for global
accreditation. European journal of engineering education, 32(6), 639–651.
Pea, R., Wulf, W. A., Elliott, S. W., & Darling, M. A. (Eds.). (2003). Planning for two transformations in education and
learning technology: Report of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Pickering, A. (2010). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. University of Chicago Press.
Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and instruction,
12(3), 235–275.
SPRING 2019 49
Podolefsky, N. S., Perkins, K. K., & Adams, W. K. (2010). Factors promoting engaged exploration with computer
simulations. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020117.
Powell, R. M., Anderson, H., Van der Spiegel, J., & Pope, D. P. (2002). Using web–based technology in laboratory
instruction to reduce costs. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 10(4), 204–214.
Pyatt, K. & R. Sims. (2007). Learner performance and attitudes in traditional versus simulated laboratory experiences.
In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.
Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance
and access. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 133–147.
Purzer, S‚ ., Goldstein, M. H., Adams, R. S., Xie, C., & Nourian, S. (2015). An exploratory study of informed engineering
design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1–12.
Rawson, K., & Stahovich, T. (2013). Predicting course performance from homework habits. In Proceedings of the 2013
American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition. Atlanta, GA.
Raineri, D. (2001). Virtual laboratories enhance traditional undergraduate biology laboratories. Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education, 29(4), 160–162.
Recker, M., Krumm, A., Feng, M., Grover, S., & Koedinger, K. R. (2016). Educational data mining and learning analytics.
The Center for Innovative Research in CyberLearning. Retrieved from http://circlcenter.org/educational-data-mining-
learning-analytics/
Rupp, A. A., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Evidence-centered design of epistemic games: Measure-
ment principles for complex learning environments. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 8(4).
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science
education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.
Schank, P., & Kozma, R. (2002). Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building
environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(3), 253–279.
Sehati, S. (2000). Re-engineering the practical laboratory session. International Journal of Electrical Engineering
Education. 37, 86–94.
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21–50.
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & education, 46(3), 223–234.
Shannon, C. E. (2001). A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and
Communications Review, 5(1), 3–55.
Sharples, M., Adams, A., Alozie, N., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Means, B., Remold, J., Rienties,
B., Roschelle, J., Vogt, K., Whitelock, D. & Yarnall, L. (2015). Innovating Pedagogy 2015: Open University Innovation Report
4. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Sherrett, B. U., Nefcy, E. J., Gummer, E. S., & Koretsky, M. D. (2013). An Expert Solution to Assess an Industrially Situated,
Computer–Enabled Design Project. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 541–576.
Shin, Dongil, En Sup Yoon, Sang Jin Park, and Euy Soo Lee. (2000) Web-based interactive virtual laboratory
system for unit operations and process systems engineering education. Computers & Chemical Engineering. 24,
1381-1385.
Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. Computer games and instruction,
55(2), 503–524.
Shute, V. J., & Ventura, M. (2013). Stealth assessment: Measuring and supporting learning in video games: MIT Press.
Silver, N. (2012). The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail-but some don’t. Penguin.
50 SPRING 2019
Silverstein, D. L., Bullard, L. G., Seider, W. D., & Vigeant, M. A. (2013, June). How We Teach: Capstone Design.
In P roceedings of the 2013 American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition. Atlanta,
Georgia.
Simmons, D. R, & Lord, S. A. (2019). Removing Invisible Barriers and Changing Mindsets to Improve and Diversify
Pathways in Engineering. Advances in Engineering Education, 7(2).
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Solnit, R. (2003). River of shadows. Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological West. New York: Viking.
Standage, T. (1998). The Victorian Internet: The remarkable story of the telegraph and the nineteenth century’s online
pioneers. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Sticklen, J., Amey, M., Eskil, T., Hinds, T., & Urban-Lurain, M. (2004). Application of object-centered scaffolding to
introductory MATLAB. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education
Annual Conference & Exposition. Salt Lake City, Utah
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4),
295–312.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. M. Spector & S. P. Lajoie (Eds.), Explora-
tions in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies (Vol. 10, pp. 978-971). New
York: Springer.
Steele, W., & Hodge, B. (2001, June). Computational Paradigms in Undergraduate Mechanical Engineering Education.
In Proceedings of the 2001 American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition. Albuquerque,
New Mexico
Tair, M. M. A., & El-Halees, A. M. (2012). Mining educational data to improve students’ performance: a case study.
International Journal of Information, 2(2).
Toth, E. E., Morrow, B. L., & Ludvico, L. R. (2009). Designing blended inquiry learning in a laboratory context: A study
of incorporating hands-on and virtual laboratories. Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 333–344.
Toto, R., Colledge, T., Frederick, D., & Pung, W. H. (2014). Instructional Strategies to Promote Student Strategic Thinking
when Using SolidWorks. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(1).
Twenge, J. M. (2017). IGen: Why Today’s Super-connected Kids are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less
Happy–and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood--and what that Means for the Rest of Us. Simon and Schuster.
Urban-Lurain, M., Amey, M., Sticklen, J., Hinds, T., & T., E. (2004). Curricular Integration of Computational Tools by
Evolutionary Steps. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference & Exposition.
Uribe, M. R., Magana, A. J., Bahk, J. H., & Shakouri, A. (2016). Computational simulations as virtual laboratories for online
engineering education: A case study in the field of thermoelectricity. Computer Applications in Engineering Education,
24(3), 428–442.
Vahid, F., Edgcomb, A., & Strawn, S. (2016). U.S. Patent Application No. 15/010,964.
van Joolingen, W.R. and T. de Jong. (2003). SimQuest, authoring educational simulations. In: T. Murray, S. Blessing, S.
Ainsworth: Authoring Tools for Advanced Technology Learning Environments: Toward cost-effective adaptive, interactive,
and intelligent educational software. pp. 1-31. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: research and
development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in human
behavior, 21(4), 671–688.
SPRING 2019 51
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal
field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186–204.
Vieira, C., Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, S‚ ., & Magana, A. J. (2016). Using learning analytics to characterize student
experimentation strategies in the context of engineering design. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3).
Vieira, C., Magana, A.J., Falk, M.L. & Garcia, R.E. (2017). Writing in-code comments to self-explain in computational
science and engineering education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE). 17(4). DOI:10.1145/3058751
Vieira, C., Magana, A.J., Garcia, R.E., Jana, A., & Krafcik, M. (2018). Integrating computational science tools into a
Thermodynamics course. Journal of Science Education and Technology (JOST), 27(4), 322–333.
Vieira, C., Magana, A. J., Roy, A., Falk, L. M., & Reese, J. M. (2016). Exploring undergraduate students’ computational
literacy in the context of problem solving. Computers in Education Journal, 7(1), 100–112.
Vieira C., Magana, A.J., Roy, A., & Falk M.L. (2019). Student explanations in the context of computational s cience
and engineering education. Cognition & Instruction. DOI:10.1080/07370008.2018.1539738
Vieira, C., Roy, A., Magana, A. J., Falk, L. M., & Reese, J. M. (2016). In-code comments as a self-explanation strategy
for computational science education. In Proceedings of the 2016 American society for engineering education annual
conference and exposition. New Orleans, Louisiana
Vieira, C., Yan, J., & Magana, A. J. (2015). Exploring design characteristics of worked examples to support program-
ming and algorithm design. Journal of Computational Science Education., 6(1), 2–15.
Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Vinck, D. (2003). Everyday engineering: An ethnography of design and innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press.
West, M., & Silva , M., & Herman, G. L. (2015, June). Randomized Exams for Large STEM Courses Spread via Communities
of Practice. In Proceedings of the 2015 American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition.
Seattle, Washington.
Webel, C., Krupa, E., & McManus, J. (2015). Benny goes to college: Is the “Math Emporium” reinventing Individually
Prescribed Instruction. The MathAMATYC Educator, 6(3), 4–13
Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–683.
Wiesner, T.F. and W. Lan. (2004). Comparison of Student Learning in Physical and Simulated Unit Operations Experiments.
Journal of Engineering Education. 93:195–204.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA.: The Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Windschitl, M. & Calabrese Barton, A. (2016) Rigor and Equity By Design: Seeking a Core of Practices for the Science
Education Community. AERA Handbook of Research on Teaching, 5th Edition.
Woolf, Beverly Park. A roadmap for education technology. Research report. <hal-00588291> (2010)
Worsley, M., & Blikstein, P. (2014). Analyzing Engineering Design through the Lens of Computation. Journal of Learn-
ing Analytics, 1(2), 151–186.
Xie, C., Zhang, Z., Nourian, S., Pallant, A., & Bailey, S. (2014). On the instructional sensitivity of CAD logs. International
Xie, C., Zhang, Z., Nourian, S., Pallant, A., & Hazzard, E. (2014). A time series analysis method for assessing engineering
design processes using a CAD tool. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 218–230.
Xie, C Visualizing Engineering Design Processes of High School Students Using a CAD System, AERA 2016, Washington
DC, USA
52 SPRING 2019
Yadav, S. K., & Pal, S. (2012). Data mining: A prediction for performance improvement of engineering students using
classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.3832.
Zacharia, Z.C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students’
conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 23, 120–132.
Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2014). The Effects on Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits of Introducing
Virtual Manipulatives Within a Physical Manipulatives-Oriented Curriculum. Cognition and instruction, 32(2), 101–158.
Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning
and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331.
Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipu-
latives on students’ conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9),
1021–1035.
AUTHORS
Milo D. Koretsky is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Oregon
State University. He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees from UC San
Diego and his Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, all in Chemical Engineering. He
currently has research activity in areas related engineering education
and is interested in integrating technology into effective educational
practices and in promoting the use of higher-level cognitive skills in
engineering problem solving. His research interests particularly focus
on what prevents students from being able to integrate and extend the knowledge developed in
specific courses in the core curriculum to the more complex, authentic problems and projects they
face as professionals. Dr. Koretsky is one of the founding members of the Center for Lifelong STEM
Education Research at OSU.
Alejandra J. Magana is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Computer and Information Technology and an affiliated faculty at the
School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She holds a B.E.
in Information Systems, a M.S. in Technology, both from Tec de Monter-
rey; and a M.S. in Educational Technology and a Ph.D. in Engineering
Education from Purdue University. Her research is focused on identify-
ing how model-based cognition in STEM can be better supported by
means of expert technological and computing tools such as cyber-physical systems, visualizations
and modeling and simulation tools.
SPRING 2019 53

Advances in Engineering Education: Using Technology To Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Engineering Education: Using Technology To Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Engineering Education: Using Technology To Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Engineering Education

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement

In this article, we explore how information, communications, and computational technology, or

key stakeholders in engineering education.

Discussion of each of these issues leads to a summary set of recommendations.

technologies for engineering practice (computational tools). We next address technology-related

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

was a leap forward of extraordinary liberation and equal alienation.

Rebecca Solnit, 2003, River of Shadows, p. 11

in which they engage (Mitcham, 1994).

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

ways that uses of technology circumvent their goals as educators?

effectively in a rapidly changing, technology-rich professional environment?

2. To be effective, uses of computer technology need to be approached in conjunction with

­content and with pedagogical considerations.

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

of technology in K-12 and graduate engineering education are also important.

Figure 1. Three classes of computer technology (ICCT) in educational environments.

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

­appropriately belonging to multiple categories.

The three categories are defined as follows:

ers, devices form a distributed resource to promote productive face-to-face interactions

peer instruction (Mazur, 1997).

2. Technology uses in engineering practice. We define professional practice as real-world activi-

discipline. We consider development of students’ skill in technology used in engineering prac-

analysis and simulation (e.g., COMSOL).

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

We discuss the following six issues as shown in Figure 2:

1. Alignment of technology with learning: well-propagated learning innovations

2. Alignment of technology with learning: computational tools in engineering practice

4. Alignment of technology with assessment

6. Broader considerations: Technology with a “T”

Figure 2. Six issues of computer technology in undergraduate engineering education.

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

recommendations addressed at instructors, developers, researchers, administrators, policy makers,

and other key stakeholders in engineering education.

Issue 1: Alignment of Technology with Learning: Well-Propagated Learning Innovations

education (e.g., see Heller & Rogers, 2006).

participate in technology development. This core pedagogical approach is usually theory-based

but also has substantial empirical support.

keeps a core set of researchers engaged.

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

The web-based Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) system is

across engineering, business, and other disciplines.

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

technology quite differently. It provides an architectural model to support cooperative learning in

identified is provided in Table 1.

use and achieve sustainable scalability.

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

keep the core pedagogical integrity of the innovation.

­innovation to the broader community.

Issue 2: Alignment of Technology with Learning: Computational Tools in Engineering Practice

With Issue 2, we focus on computer technology in engineering practice as domain-specific com-

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

Figure 3. Computational tools as a bridge between foundational principles and

Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering

Pedagogical Supports to Develop Fluency

limited (Paas, et al., 2004).

worked-examples is by engaging them in explaining the examples to others or themselves (Atkinson

content and with pedagogical considerations.

appropriately belonging to multiple categories.

innovation to the broader community.