Architecture educators in India

The architecture teachers at KLE Tech are really enthusiastic about teaching and about learning to do educational research. A number of them attended the engineering education conferences held at their institution in January — the IUCEE conference on engineering teaching and REES, the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, which focuses on research about engineering teaching.

KLE Tech’s lovely Dipanwita Chakravarty was the most enthusiastic among them, delighted as she was to find an architect speaking on a panel at REES.

That architect was me! 🙂

Dipanwita found me soon after I presented, asking me to meet her architecture colleagues. She spirited me away from the events at REES, to meet Deepa Mane and Rohini Mligi, tour a room archiving their architecture students’ work, and then meet even more colleagues for an animated chat about research and curriculum design. And tea! Such excellent tea!

Here’s a glimpse of that afternoon’s tour and interactions:

In that initial discussion in their faculty boardroom, we talked about different types of research they are doing and their interests surrounding architectural accreditation.

They asked me to help them build momentum and capacity to do education research, as they were enjoying seeing work presented at REES but were not quite sure how this type of research would look in the context of architecture rather than engineering.

We decided we needed a group identity. We envisioned collaborating with the engineering education research center on their campus (which has its own building, as it’s the leader in this realm in India). We also envisioned becoming active members of India’s IUCEE (the corollary of ASEE or SEFI for India).

As a step forward, we asked Dr/Prof Vijayalakshmi M., one of the main organizers of IUCEE and this event, if we could start a special interest group for architecture (and design?) within IUCEE. She was supportive. She gave us the Indian head shake and said: sure, just get started, and let’s see how it grows!

Meeting with Dr/Prof Vijayalakshmi M. about setting up a special interest group in IUCEE.

It was a very satisfying exchange, and I returned to REES for the day, happy and energized. I toured KLE Tech’s building for technical engineering later that day alongside the always-smiling, always-energetic Dipanwita Chakravarty and my colleagues from near and far.

The next morning, the architecture staff spirited me away again!

They’d assembled an even larger group to discuss what education research is, how education research differs from technical research on architecture and engineering (like the work they are already doing on thermal comfort and architectural heritage conservation), and how they can get started doing this new type of research.

Here are the lovely photos they took of that impromptu seminar along with a photo of our whole group after that meeting.

You can see they made me feel like a rock star! The meeting was so much fun.

We’ve had a gap in communication since the conference ended, because I was on the lecture circuit (lol!) and then getting caught up back home and inducting a new cohort of BIM BSc students.

But my KLE architecture colleagues and I plan to hold online meetings in the near future to discuss examples of educational research in architectural education. I’ve agreed to help them envision, plan, and get started conducting education research.

One of the architects in the group emailed me later, asking me to share my own examples.

Reflecting on this request, I fear my own examples in this realm pale in comparison to my engineering education research. Architecture teachers tend to publish conference papers showing how they taught their class, and of these, my favorite among my papers reporting what might (optimistically) be called research-informed teaching or the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) would probably be Writing Architecture: The Role of Process Journals in Architectural Education and Beginning with Site in Architectural Education.

However, engineering education research is more rigorous than SOTL.

Although ‘engineering education’ conferences will allow the publication of reports on ‘how I taught my class’, the ‘engineering education research’ journals want empirical research studies. You have to collect and analyze data in a rigorous way. An example of this type of work is the book chapter Designing the Identities of Engineers, for which I collected surveys and compared results statistically between ‘engineering’ and ‘engineering technology’ students. The biggest difference I found, and my team reported, was that the ‘engineering’ students envisioned themselves as designers, whereas the ‘engineering technology’ students did not.

Another worthwhile example is my conference paper, where I first reported the design of the study as the Background and Design of a Qualitative Study on Globally Responsible Decision-Making in Civil Engineering and then published the results in a few different ways. The journal article Above And Beyond: Ethics And Responsibility In Civil Engineering reports what the civil engineers I spoke with discussed about ethics, whereas Opportunities and barriers faced by early-career civil engineers enacting global responsibility provides a more holistic report of what we found overall. The official ‘industry’ report of the study is called the Global Responsibility of Engineering Report and it was published by Engineers without Borders UK.

My primary research group, the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), embraces architects as if they are engineers, which is a reason I identify so strongly with SEFI. Yet, SEFI doesn’t have a special interest group in architecture or architectural engineering, even though the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) does have an Architectural Engineering division. ASEE’s Journal of Engineering Education rarely publishes research on architecture education.

In contrast, SEFI’s European Journal of Engineering Education, for which I am Deputy Editor, has been reviewing an increasing number of articles on architecture and construction-related topics in education. I suspect that’s partially because I have the interest, capacity, and collegial networks to help support such articles’ review, refinement, and publication. But I also have amazing mentors in my Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Kristina Edström, and co-Deputy Editor, Dr. Jonte Bernhard. They are encouraging me to build capacity in this realm. And they understand that building the cadre of reviewers with expertise in this area takes time, patience, and much enthusiasm!

Our merry band of editors has ample patience and enthusiasm!

A past EJEE editors’ dinner in Dublin, with Dr. Kristina Edström and Dr. Jonte Bernhard (right), me and Diana Martin (soon to be appointed Associate Editor after impressing Kristina and Jonte!).

[Edit after posting: SEFI just launched a new journal that does publish SOTL papers, see: https://sefi-jeea.org/index.php/sefijeea/announcement/view/1! It says, “The SEFI Journal of Engineering Education Advancement offers a route to share ideas, emerging research, practice experience and innovations in the engineering education field.”]

In reflecting on what publications I have of my own that truly relate to architecture, I have identified Using Architecture Design Studio Pedagogies to Enhance Engineering Education as a favorite of mine. Unfortunately, it isn’t easy to find on search engines and the platform to download it is far from user-friendly. It doesn’t get the attention it deserves, but you can download it by clicking the title and see how you like it!

Another relevant work of which I am very proud is Comparing the meaning of ‘thesis’ and ‘final year project’ in architecture and engineering education. Yet this paper is more conceptual than empirically based and, thus, isn’t the best place to start the discussion with my colleagues at KLE Tech. I am delighted to report that it’s garnered nearly 1300 views since it was published, just 5.5 months ago.

A good place to start our discussion might actually be Comparing Grounded Theory and Phenomenology, an article I think is one of my best but has a very long and obscure title that I haven’t bored you with here!

My KLE Tech colleagues have a keen interest in architecture accreditation. These days, I am more engaged with engineering accreditation than with architecture accreditation (having uploaded a conference paper earlier today on engineering ethics accreditation, in fact). But in the past, I’ve been quite involved with the USA’s National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), and my colleagues at KLE Tech are using NAAB’s guidelines to help them structure their programs. One day, they may seek affiliate designation from NAAB.

Near the end of REES, I found myself again spirited away to the now-familiar meeting room of KLE Tech’s architecture building to discuss accreditation options with Sharan Goudar and another colleague.

Discussing accreditation with Sharan Goudar (right) and colleague.

A text from Sharan encouraged me to finally craft this blog post, in fact. He responded to my recent blog Why India? Inspired by IUCEE and KLE Tech with a request for me to remember the architects:

Like Sharan, I, too, cherished the moments were shared in Hubli and I look forward to opportunities for more such moments, and a bit of hard (but fun and rewarding) research work, to boot!

My work with VIT Chennai and Dr. Nithya Venkatesan of the Internationalization Office may enable another trip to India, and I will make every effort to include a flight across to KLE Tech’s architecture department while I’m there.

These KLE architecture teachers are lovely, lovely people, and I look forward to getting to know them better and collaborating with them in both research and teaching.

Sandra Cruz’s doctoral milestone

I have an exceptional PhD supervisee at TU Dublin, Sandra I. Cruz Moreno. She is an internally motivated, self-driven learner who needs little to no prompting from me. Supervising her for the past two years has been pure joy.

I am extremely pleased to report that Sandra achieved a major milestone yesterday because she very successfully “defended her Ph.D. proposal” (the term we use in the USA). Here, it’s called a confirmation examination to confirm that a student is on track and suitable to continue onward.

Sandra needed to submit an extensive report. The report is a bit more elaborate than a proposal back home, as it must include the work plan in addition to the first three chapters of the dissertation. She also included preliminary analyses of existing interview data.

TU Dublin is funding Sandra’s PhD so that she can analyze extensive interview data I collected from women studying engineering over the years since 2015. It’s such an enormous amount of data that I’ve never been able to wrap my arms around it fully. Sandra, a sociologist who has worked as a research consultant on rural development for the United Nations and similar organizations, is well-prepared to handle this large dataset. She has embraced the challenge and has made great strides forward.

Sandra’s study is titled “Exploring Women’s Experiences on Collaborative Learning in Engineering Education: A Phenomenological Analysis.” She submitted written reports of the coursework she has done to date, as well as a five-chapter document presenting her research. Both of Sandra’s supervisors, as well as our college’s head of research and the external examiner from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), all read and critically analyzed Sandra’s submission.

The result of this review and of yesterday’s two-hour oral examination concluded that her “Proposed research and progress [are] suitable for [Sandra] to remain on the higher register” and proceed into the final stage of her doctoral research. That’s fancy talk for “It’s a go!” and “Full speed ahead!”

Sandra Cruz with her external examiner, Dr Roland Tormey and lead supervisor, Prof/Dr Shannon Chance, on the day of examination.

Regarding the research Sandra has produced to date, the external examiner’s evaluation states:

The report is very well structured and extremely well written. It demonstrates a high degree of scholarship in dealing with quite a few challenging concepts while, at the same time, managing to make them accessible. There is a very good balance between methodology and methods in chapter three in particular. 

The data available is suitable for completing of the PhD and the initial analysis carried out shows quite a lot of promise. 

-External Examiner Roland Tormey, PhD

Our advisory supervisor, Prof/Dr Brian Bowe, couldn’t attend the examination (he’s the university registrar, after all, and the end of Semester 1 is an extremely busy time of year). Nevertheless, his guidance to Sandra and me has been essential throughout the process. The advice he provides is targeted and highly applicable. Sandra and I have benefited from having him on the team.

I was delighted, but not at all surprised, to hear about the successful outcome. Congratulations, the result reflects your hard work and dedication.

–Prof/Dr Brian Bowe, Head of Academic Affairs at TU Dublin

I have included the cover and table of contents of Sandra’s report so you can see the level of detail required. The report is 96 pages long. While Sandra was rehearsing for the examination, I was off in India delivering a paper she authored on policy to address gender gaps in engineering — policy at the European and Irish levels. The policy paper generated great interest and will form part of the PhD study, although it wasn’t a major component of the confirmation report. In fact, there were a number of topics she researched that didn’t need to be explained in detail at this point, such as critical feminism, which will inform her work going forward.

Working with and learning with and from Sandra is an honor and a privilege. I am grateful to TU Dublin for providing the grant to fund Sandra’s research activity. I am grateful to Brian, Roland, and Marek for the support they have lent Sandra and me. And most of all, I am grateful to Sandra for her diligence, perseverance, openness, and sincerity. I have learned so much from her and from working with her!

Learning civil engineering in India

India is now the most populated country in the world. There’s a pressing need for more and better-educated civil engineers there. A civil engineer working in India today can expect to work 9 AM to 9 PM six days per week and 9 AM to 2 PM on Sundays (according to Dr. Balasubramaniam, Managing Director of Hitech Concrete Solutions Ltd) because their skills are in such high demand.

However, this current weekend is a holiday, so I hope most of them are taking some time off!

Based on my two-week glimpse into life in India, I believe Indian people work extremely hard. Most people working in businesses or projects at the national and international levels work in English. Higher education in India is also in English because India has around 100 languages.

Civil engineers’ work is incredibly important! In a developing nation, the infrastructure and buildings overseen by civil engineers (and architects!) shelter and support a growing population of people – a population working hard to live ethically and build a brighter future.

In the first couple weeks of January 2024, I got an inside perspective by attending events and touring workshops and laboratories at the Chennai branch campus of Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT).

VIT’s Dr. Nithya Venkatesan, Assistant Director of International Relations, and Associate Professor Dr. Shanmuga Sundaram (who goes by Shanmugham) served as my primary hosts. They helped coordinate my entire two-week trip, and without them I never would have managed to make my first venture into this fascinating land.

Dr. Renukadevi Selvaraj, Professor and Head of the Dept. of Education at the National Institute of Technical Teachers Training Institute (NITTTR), run by the Ministry of Education for the Government of India, connected me with VIT after I met her in Blacksburg, Virginia (my hometown) at an ethics symposium last summer.

At VIT, I attended a two-day conclave on civil engineering organized by Shanmugham that included presentations by academic and industry partners. Shanmugham’s areas of specialization include sustainable building materials, special concrete, alternative binding processes.

I delivered the opening keynote address for the conclave. Most of the audience of around 45 participants were civil and structural engineering students, but their teachers, some PhD researchers, and some industry partners also attended.

Other presenters at the conclave talked about structural failures within existing buildings (causes, effects, and ways of avoiding or addressing defects), earthquake resistance and previous structural failures in India due to earthquake activity, and the importance of being part of professional organizations (such as the UK-based Institution of Civil Engineers, ICE). India does not yet have a licensure program for professional/licensed/chartered engineers of the type you see in the US, UK and Ireland, but Professor Johnson Alengaram from the University of Malaya encouraged the audience to join ICE and maintain their learning and their credentials with care.

Shanmugham noted that he’s in the second generation of civil engineers the people of his father’s age with a first generation of civil engineering professional in the country. The students he is educating now, he sees as the third generation of civil engineering in India.

Arvindh Raj Rajendran, who earned a Master of Structural Technology degree, delivered the conclave’s final talk with an extremely well-articulated presentation about an apartment complex that his family’s company, Hitech Civil Engineering Services, Ltd., has worked to diagnosed and remediated. The original construction, by a different company, had severe deficits that had made national news in India. Hitech has made interventions to keep the structure inhabitable and conducted detailed analyses to help the government and the courts decide if the building can be salvaged or must be replaced. He explained the analysis and rectification process in detail. Arvindh showed other faulty structures that Hitect has been able to salvage, as well as the equipment they use (all pictured below).

Before the conclave started, I had the distinct honor of visiting four of the engineering laboratories on the VIT Chennai campus, being shown around by Shanmugham. We visited the soil testing lab where he and his colleague, Associate Professor Dr. Karthiyaini train PhD students and conduct research.

We visited Shanmugham’s materials testing laboratory. He has just gained national certification to test materials (such as concrete samples from active construction sites). He can test the performance of all kinds of concrete steel and concrete-related products. He is also researching possibilities for creating concrete mixed with less embodied carbon than today’s standard material.

He’s working towards a net-zero-type concrete method using byproducts of other industries in India — because concrete is a central construction material in the country. China and India are using a huge portion of the entire amount of concrete fabricated each year currently worldwide.

I also visited a water quality research lab and met the academic leader and her PhD students. They are working on a wide array of topics, including addressing toxic landfill effluents that leak into the soil, reviving microplastics from water, desalination process, and ocean clean-up techniques. I learned so much and wish I’d taken notes!

The geology lab was equally interesting as the students were taking samples from a soil boring to study contaminants. They introduced me to each doctoral research project, and I asked loads of questions, which, again, unfortunately, my brain failed to file into long-term memory. It does this filing in the night while I sleep and in the day when I retell what I’ve learned. But I learned so very much in that single day of touring that my brain couldn’t hold it all.

One thing I will never forget is how many talented women are studying engineering at VIT. To my delight, the research labs are gender balanced.

On the day of the tours, I also met VIT’s vice president for academics, Dr. Sekar Viswanathan. He holds this role on all four VIT campuses. I was very impressed with how attentively he communicated with Dr. Johnson, another international guest speaking at the conclave, and me.

VIT is a private institution that provides itself in excellence and holds academic world rankings. The Chennai campus is currently educating about 10,000 engineering students and is expanding its facilities to double its enrollment. This is very important in a country where many hundred thousand engineers graduate from higher education institutions each year but are not well-prepared for industry. Receiving an education at a highly-ranked institution like this helps ensure the graduate will be ready to perform well in the industry. The country desperately needs more civil engineers who can do this. Hopefully, one day, India’s civil engineers won’t need to work seven days a week!

Shanmugham was an exceptional host during my trip. He and his wife (Rama, an electrical/computer engineer who runs a startup business with a colleague) and their six-year-old daughter (Shanmuga, who speaks English in addition to her mother tongue), took me shopping for Indian outfits — so I’ll fit in better on my next trip to India!

They also invited me to their home, located in a huge complex of apartments. There are 20 buildings, each about 17 stories tall. I met their neighbors, and I learned something about how they live. We got to share a bit of our own cultures with each other, which was a true highlight of my time in Chennai.

At the very start of my trip, I also got the chance to visit some stone temples near Chennai. Shanmugham showed me around the massive site and, in true Indian fashion, took pictures of me at each important structure. These temples, carved from solid granite boulders protruding from the sand at this coastal location, have stood for 1300 years. The craftsmanship was superb and awe-inspiring.

The day we visited the temples (the day I landed in India, January 2) was a holiday. The site was being visited by many busloads of tourists from all over India dressed to the nines. I included pictures of one group of visitors in the gallery below.

“The Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram is a collection of 7th- and 8th-century CE religious monuments in the coastal resort town of Mahabalipuram, Tamil Nadu, India and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It is on the Coromandel Coast of the Bay of Bengal, about 60 kilometres south of Chennai.”

https://www.tamilnadutourism.tn.gov.in/

The Indian people definitely made me feel welcome and safe and thankful for this opportunity to meet and learn from them. Everywhere I went, people stopped and asked to take a picture with me. Little children looked at me in amazement. Shanmugham noted that many visitors to the temple had come from afar, from rural parts of India, and only some of the children had seen anyone like me before.

Incidentally, the food was incredible! During my two-week visit, I enjoyed the taste of every single thing I ate. At VIT, I had the privilege of residing at the international guesthouse. The drivers and guesthouse staff were absolutely incredible and made my stay a joy. At first, they offered me more Western foods, but when they saw that I enjoyed the Indian dishes more, that changed! The entire staff went the extra mile to ensure my safety and comfort.

In this post, I described just five of my days in India. I hope to post another blog this week about my experiences at REES 2024 in Hubli, India, and visiting NITTTR outside Chennai.

From ancient stone temples to teaching labs and structural failure — I got insider perspectives of civil engineering in India from the staff of VIT and I look forward to my next visit to India.

Discovering the new TU Dublin

It’s been a great start-of-semester and welcome-back here in Dublin. I’ve been settling back in at TU Dublin, since the first of the year. I’ve been learning to juggle a host of new job responsibilities along with my favorite existing projects. There’s so much work to be done!

In addition to teaching first-year engineering modules/courses, I have also been helping launch the new MSc in BIM, working on curriculum development (which buys out half my work time), finalizing research projects for publication, and drafting my final report for the 2018-12019 fellowship I had to UCL.

I’ve also attended a host of special events:

  1. The launch of TU Dublin’s new strategic plan
  2. A two-day conference on “Rethinking the Crit” in architecture and design education.
  3. Tech support workshops for staff on Brightspace and Agresso
  4. Personal wellbeing workshops for staff on insurance and personal finance.
  5. A planning sessions with our ever-expanding RoboSlam team preparing for Dublin Maker 2020 (June 2020) and our upcoming Engineering Your Future week (May 2020)

TU Dublin’s new Strategic Plan

The unveiling of the strategic plan was quite well organized and inspiring. The speakers and panelists all did a great job explaining the shared aspirations of our academic community. I hope the details are as well done as the vision they presented.

Soon, I’ll read the plan and see how it matches up against the evaluation rubric I published back during my doc studies, which you can download here.

Chance, S and Williams, B. (2009). Assessing University Strategic Plans: A Tool For ConsiderationEducational planning: the journal of the international society for educational planning, 2009, 18(1), 38-54.

The take-home message of the strategic planning launch was that TU Dublin values diversity and inclusivity. The student voice was clear, strong and impressive. The leaders were well-spoken.

TU Dublin’s workshop on “Rethinking the Crit”

I attended a hands-on conference alongside architecture students from all over Ireland as well as teachers and critics from Ireland and abroad.

The workshop was organized by my College’s office for Learning Development, under the direction of Patrick Flynn, our Head of Learning Development. In many places, his role would be called Vice Dean for Academics, but DIT (the parent of TU Dublin) tended to do things its own unique way.

As I’m part of a team developing a brand new Architectural Engineering curriculum, this conference on how to improve the studio jury system was of great value to me. That Arch Eng course will graduate people ready for architecture licensing.

One of the presenters, Dr. Kathryn Anthony, literally wrote the book that got this conversation rolling: Design Juries on Trial. It was published in 1991 but there’s still a lot more uptake needed of her ideas across the globe. She collected data at Hampton University, where I used to teach, and at HU we used many of the techniques she proposed—with great success.

I hope to use techniques we discussed to help improve architecture education near and far.

Call for Papers: ethics in engineering

As part of my work with the global Research in Engineering Education Network (www.REEN.co), we’re organizing a special focus issue on ethics–and we invite you to submit a manuscript.

The topic is ethics in engineering education and practice.

The special focus issue will be published by Taylor and Francis in the Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. You can find out more about this and all journals in the field of engineering education on a webpage recently launched by REEN–many thanks to my boss here at UCL, Prof. John Mitchell, for collecting that valuable info so REEN could host it as a service to the EER community.

Screen Shot 2019-12-12 at 5.41.07 PM.png

Click https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22054952.2019.1694301 to download the official Call for Papers.

Screen Shot 2019-12-12 at 5.39.41 PM

Full-length papers are due March 1, 2020 to begin the review process–but you can feel free to contact me anytime to request help or advice (irelandbychance at gmail dot com). Papers for this journal are 5,000 to 7,000 words, including the abstract and references.

I’m one of the two Guest Editors for this project; the Associate Editors are all members of the REEN board. The editorial team includes people from Australia, Africa, and South America, as well as Europe and the USA! The journal’s Editor in Chief is the coordinator for REEN’s upcoming symposium (REES 2021) in Perth, Australia December 5-8, 2021

And, I’ve just started on as Chair of REEN for the next two years. Delighted to have worked with such a productive group of people representing every continent over the past two years, and looking forward to two more great years! We’ve just welcomed two new members to the board–Cindy Finelli (from Michigan, USA) and Aida Olivia Pereira de Carvalho Guerra (from Aalborg, Denmark)–to round out our crew. 

Architects Love School, why not teach engineers a similar way?

When I started studying “higher education” as a PhD subject at William and Mary in 2006, I wondered why architecture students seem so engaged–passionate and persistent–and why engineering didn’t use the same methods that seem so “sticky” and engaging.

I’m still asking these questions.

I explore them in the article “Using Architecture Design Studio Pedagogies to Enhance Engineering Education” which I wrote with John Marshall, The University of Michigan 
and Gavin Duffy, Technological University Dublin. It has been published for a while, and I just noticed that since the embargo period has ended, I can direct you to the final version instead of just the pre-press version! It was published by the International Journal of Engineering Education. 

https://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=engscheleart2

The abstract explains:

“Problem-Based Learning pedagogies that require high levels of inquiry and hands-on engagement can enhance student learning in engineering. Such pedagogies lie at the core of studio-based design education, having been used to teach architects since the Renaissance. Today, design assignments and studio-based learning formats are finding their way into engineering programs, often as part of larger movements to implement Student-Centered, Problem-Based Learning (PBL) pedagogies. This spectrum of pedagogies is mutually supportive, as illustrated in the University of Michigan’s SmartSurfaces course where students majoring in engineering, art and design, and architecture collaborate on wickedly complex and ill-defined design problems. In SmartSurfaces and other similar PBL environments, students encounter complex, trans-disciplinary, open-ended design prompts that have timely social relevance.

“Analyzing data generated in studio-based PBL courses like SmartSurfaces can help educators evaluate and track students’ intellectual growth. This paper presents a rubric for measuring students’ development of increasingly refined epistemological understanding (regarding knowledge and how it is created, accessed, and used). The paper illustrates use of the tool in evaluating student blogs created in SmartSurfaces, which in turn provides evidence to help validate the rubric and suggest avenues for future refinement. The overall result of the exploratory study reported here is to provide evidence of positive change among students who learn in PBL environments and to provide educators with a preliminary tool for assessing design-related epistemological development. Findings of this study indicate design-based education can have powerful effects and collaborating across disciplines can help engineering students advance in valuable ways.”

DOI

10.21427/D7V62S

Keywords

Problem-Based Learning, Student-Centered Learning, Design-Based Learning, epistemology, architecture education, design studio pedagogy, engineering education, cognitive development

 

Theories on How Students Learn

UCL’s Centre for Engineering Education is offering a brand new Masters of Science (MSc degree) in Education and Engineering. We have six students enrolled in the first cohort, and my colleague, Dr. Abel Nyamapfene, asked me to provide the second lecture for the winter term, on theories related to learning and teaching in higher education.

Fortunately, I had two modules on this topic as part of my taught Ph.D. coursework, and it’s one of my very favorite subjects. It’s also the topic of a new special focus issue I’m organizing for IEEE Transactions on Education, and this field of research also provides the framework for a new study I’m starting to investigate differences in the ways architecture and civil engineering students perceive the world.

Giving this two-hour lecture also helped support the goals of my current Marie Curie Individual Fellowship, titled “Designing Engineers: Harnessing the Power of Design Projects to Spur Cognitive and Epistemological Development of STEM Students.” An overarching objective of my work is to develop and promote better ways to teach and support diverse STEM students, including women and minority students.

I had a great audience at the MSC lecture!

Even though the student group is small–and two of the six students attend via the Internet, meaning I could hear but not see them–we had a very active discussion. It really helped that a number of my colleagues attended as well. In addition to me, five other staff members from UCL were present, including Jay Derrick, Dr. Abel Nyamapfene, and Dr. Fiona Truscott. In fact, Dr. Inês Direito, my closest colleague, contributed photos of the event:

Before the class meeting, I provided the following synopsis to Able, which he distributed to all everyone involved in the class.

Session speaker:  Prof Shannon Chance

(UCL Faculty of Engineering Science)

As college students take their courses, they’ll gain much beyond the academic benefit. Through their courses, and through the guidance of instructors like you, students can develop attitudes and skills that help them gain confidence, work well with others, and better understand themselves and the world around them. (Strang, 2015)

Outline:

Theories on student development are well known among student affairs professionals who provide extra-curricular and auxiliary support to students, yet these theories are less frequently known or applied by academic staff (Evans, et al., 2009). Understanding these theories may help engineering educators communicate clearly and effectively with students—helping students develop incrementally, providing effective scaffolding for student learning, and providing an appropriate balance of challenge and support. This session provides an introduction to seminal (groundbreaking) theories. It will be presented from an American perspective, as most theories presented in this session originated in the USA.

Studying at the university has been found to promote development including (Strang, 2015):

  1. Soft, professional, generic or transferable skills
  2. Self-knowledge
  3. Values and ethical standards (see identity theories)

A group of theories bridging these topics has deals with epistemological development (or epistemic cognition). Epistemology is the study of how an individual conceptualizes knowledge, where knowledge comes from, and how it originates. Students with sophisticated epistemic cognition consider multiple points of view; they make decisions in context and recognize their own ability to create new solutions and generate new knowledge. Research shows students who can restructure their thinking to do this get more out of their higher education and are much better prepared for their careers than those who do not (Perry, 1970). Such skills are necessary for effective performance in STEM, yet the typical engineering student progresses fewer than two positions along Perry’s nine-position scheme in college (Pavelich & Moore, 1996).

At the end of this introductory session, participants will be able to:

  • Identify several different established theories about how students learn
  • Discuss ideas underpinning at least two of the learning theories discussed
  • Identify some research methods used to construct Perry’s theory
  • Critically analyze one learning theory for its relevance in their teaching practice 

Pre-session tasks:

Please print this hand-out and read this short blog entry prior to our class session:

Additional readings:

The session will provide a brief introduction to each of the following theories, and students are encouraged to follow up in learning about specific theories that interest them from the list below, which is organized in the same sequence as presented during the session. You might want to use a print out of this sheet to help you keep notes during the session.

Excellent overview of theories

  • Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Balance of challenge and support

  • Sanford, N. (1962). The American college. New York, NY: Wiley.

Student involvement

  • Astin, A. W. (1999, September/October). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5).

Student persistence

  • Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Seminal theory of epistemological development

  • Perry, W. (1970). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A scheme. (1st). San Francisco: Wiley.

Subsequent theories of epistemological development

  • Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
  • Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309-328.
  • Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist39(1), 19-29.

Seminal theory of identity development

  • Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and Identity. Jossey-Bass.
  • Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Professional identity

  • Loui, M. C. (2005). Ethics and the development of professional identities of engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education94(4), 383-390.

Gender identity

  • Bilodeau, B. L., & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models and implications for practice. New directions for student services2005(111), 25-39.

Spiritual identity

  • Parks, S. D. (2011). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring emerging adults in their search for meaning, purpose, and faith. John Wiley & Sons.

Racial or ethnic identity

  • Cross, W. E. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence: A review. Journal of Black Psychology5(1), 13-31.
  • Phinney, J. S. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence. Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities61, 79.
  • Helms, J. E. (1997). Toward a model of White racial identity development. College student development and academic life: Psychological, intellectual, social and moral issues, 49-66.

Typology theories

  • Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT Press.
  • Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style inventory technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer.
  • Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Manual.
  • Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by Design: Creating Campus Learning Environments That Work. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tools for Design Educators

I also introduced the students to Crismond and Adams extremely helpful tool for helping teach design-related aspects of engineering and other subjects:

  • Crismond, D. P. & Adams. R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education 101(4), 738-797. (This is Table 1, from pages 748-749 of the article.)

Here’s a copy of the matrix that I typed into the computer when I first read their paper. It may be of use to you.

And here are some of the slides I presented to Abel’s class:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

 

Inaugurating a pioneer in engineering education research, Dr. Bill Williams

img_2510

Bill’s workshop on getting published in EER

Thanksgiving Day had a different look and feel this year. Here in Dublin, we welcomed Dr. Bill Williams to give his inaugural lecture as Visiting Professor in DIT’s School of Multidisciplinary Technologies.

Bill is an energetic and knowledgeable colleague, a close friend, and an excellent mentor to me. We have been working together on various projects since the day we first met, at a SEFI conference in 2012. Bill hosted my 2013 visit to five universities in Portugal, and we are currently co-editing a special focus issue of the journal IEEE Transactions on Education, the second special focus issue we’ve organized together. Because Bill has been so helpful in supporting my development over the years, I wanted others at DIT to benefit from his knowledge, experience, and helpful advice as well. He’s got a can-do attitude that is uplifting and infectious. And so, I nominated him for this prestigious appointment at DIT and am delighted it finally came to pass!

He arrived in Dublin Wednesday, which gave us a bit of time to catch up and compare notes on various projects. We enjoyed a very tasty vegetarian dinner at the newly-expanded Brother Hubbard, to get the ball rolling. If you’ve not eaten there, do hurry! You’re really missing out!

img_2433

Bill’s life path

Bill and I started Thanksgiving Day with a strategy meeting with our schools’ senior leaders, then we met with colleagues, welcomed guests from near and far, and settled in for Bill’s insightful lecture on “14 ways engineers bring value” to society.

Bill described his trajectory into engineering education research, via two stints in Africa where he taught Chemistry. Although he’s originally from Cork, Ireland, he has lived and worked for the past few decades in Barreiro, Portugal. In Lisbon, he earned his Ph.D., just shortly before retiring. Now, I’m quite happy to report, he’s still incredibly active in research and in advising and mentoring researchers new and old. We’ve now made it official by appointing him as an adjunct professor here at DIT!

img_2455-1

After an interesting set of lecture topics followed by Q&A with lively discussion, a small group of the international guests joined Bill and the event organizers for dinner in Dublin’s Italian Quarter–so I had Thanksgiving dinner surrounded by dear friends after all!

 

 

img_2458

Dr. Abel Nyamapfene (UCL) and Professor John Heywood (Trinity)

I was delighted that we had 22 attendees at Bill’s Thursday lecture and nearly as many at the follow-up workshop on Friday–a great turn-out, particularly given the long distances many traveled to attend! Bill himself traveled in from Portugal for the two-day event.

My UCL colleagues, Drs. Inês Direito and Abel Nyamapfene, came across from London. They work with me at the Centre for Engineering Education at University College London.

Dr. John Heywood (Professor Emeritus at Trinity and a global leader in the field of education research) made the trip up from Bray, Ireland.

 

img_2463-1

Drs. Shannon Chance (DIT and UCL) and Inês Direito (UCL)

Dr. Dónal Holland (Assistant Professor at the UCD School of Mechanical & Materials Engineering and an Associate at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences) came up from University College Dublin both days.

All these guests were joined by a host of enthusiastic DIT staff from the Kevin Street, Grangegoreman, and Bolton Street campuses.

Still abuzz from the lecture on Thursday, we prepared to focus on research publication strategies on Friday via a workshop led by Bill. But first, Inês, Abel, and Bill came for lunch at my flat and this provided me a semblance of a Thanksgiving gathering around my own table.

img_2465

Professor Brian Bowe (DIT) with Drs. Dónal Holland (UCD and Harvard) and Gavin Duffy (DIT)

Nevertheless, the main event for Friday was a workshop on getting research published in engineering education. Bill ran this half-day seminar for DIT’s CREATE research group. CREATE seeks to make Contributions to Research in Engineering and Applied Technologies Education. It is based at Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT, soon to be Technological University Dublin, TU Dublin).

Across these two days, we enjoyed sharing ideas informally as well as formally. Bill met with Professor Brian Bowe (the head of CREATE at DIT) and with a number of Ph.D. students and emerging researchers, and with senior leaders of the School.

I photographed some of the memorable moments and have shared them in the gallery below.

Back to School: Engineering Induction at DIT

The first year students have arrived at DIT and are getting orientation this week. Today, the whole group of incoming engineering students were at our Kevin Street campus to learn about electrical and electronics aspects of their first year curriculum. Dr. Ted Burke led the introduction.

I really enjoy the chance to teach in various programs and on multiple campuses of DIT. I’ve posted images from my morning walk from DIT Bolton Street to DIT Kevin Street.

Expanding the Engineers’ Box

Fergus Whelan commented that I need to think outside this box....  Thanks to Frank Daly for the fabulous photo.

Fergus Whelan commented on this image that I need to think outside this box!  Many thanks to Frank Daly for the fabulous photo. My students, having sent his look many times before, certainly empathize with you!

In all corners of the globe today, companies are clamoring for skilled engineers. They want a larger pool of applicants who are creative, flexible thinkers prepared to address complex, emerging questions riddled with interrelated unknowns. Like industry, the sectors of healthcare, education, and government also have great need for well-rounded thinkers with strong engineering acumen.

Simply put: the world needs more people who can think across systems and see how things relate at multiple scales. We need people who can identify problems and create new solutions from the ground up. People who aren’t so closely bound to existing systems, ideas, and protocols that they can’t construct entirely new schemes for thinking and behaving.

Today, governmental organizations (like Science Foundation Ireland and the National Science Foundation in the USA) are working hard to address the shortfall in the number of engineers by generously funding education of, as well as research by, engineers and scientists. They seek better ways to teach and think about engineering and science.

The blogs I will be posting in the near future have to do with:

  • the way we think about and conceptualize engineering
  • how I think this needs to change
  • how architects and education researchers can help

Please note: I’m going to be explaining things that I’m trying to work out in my head and do this as if I’m speaking to a friend or relative who knows little about research. That means I may not be “100% right” in every explanation. But as you’ll see, that is a risk that must be taken for the sake of building knowledge. (It’s all part of this new “paradigm” for working and thinking that engineering needs to implement more widely… more on that to come!)

I do hope you’ll follow along on this research adventure, where I’m working to bring qualitative, social science research and design thinking into more facets of engineering education.  Yes, these are gutsy claims I’m making — particularly since I’m new to research and new to engineering.  Let’s see if I can live up to such promises….