Shannon M. Chance , Hampton University
Gavin Duffy, Brian Bowe, Dublin Institute of Technology
Abstract: This session describes a research project completed by a cross-disciplinary group of researchers at the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) in Ireland. The team used interpretive, hermeneutic phenomenology to analyze experiences engineering teachers had as part of a peerlearning group seeking to implement changes in the classroom. The group met monthly for a year to discuss how to facilitate group work among students in their classes. The study sought to distill the essence of being part of this group. The research team interviewed members of the group, analyzed transcripts, identified statements about experiences they had, created summative structural and textural descriptions, and synthesized these into one structural-textural composite.
They also created a graphic model that can be used by others who seek to implement change in their own programs. The detailed manuscript reporting this study is under final review with the
Journal of Engineering Education (Chance, Duffy, & Bowe, in press). Major findings will be presented in this session, and the graphic model will be disseminated and explained.
This study investigates a shift from traditional, teacher-centered pedagogies to student-centered learning evident over the past six years at DIT. The transformation involved implementing group-based project-driven activities across the electrical engineering program. In interviewing faculty members, we uncovered a change mechanism that we have defined as a “learning group”. In this case, a small collection of teachers met each month in a comfortable, informal setting. They discussed challenges and ideas related to student group work. Topics included how to grade fairly and provide timely feedback. Discussion spilled over into social settings and administrative program meetings.
The presence of a formalized group helped encourage, implement, and sustain change that is now recognized across the institution as an exemplar.
Literature Review
Today, many teachers at DIT use group-based student-centered pedagogies (including problem- and project-based learning) in place of traditional pedagogical approaches (i.e., lectures, laboratories, and standard tutorials). These new approaches derive support from theory and empirical research. Change is desired in engineering education, but has been difficult to achieve (McKenna et al ., 2011). Deficits in engineering education have been noted by the
Boyer Commission (1998), the National Science Board (2007), and in multiple books (Eastman, McCracken, &
Newstetter, 2001; Sheppard, et al ., 2009), journal articles (Rugarcia et al ., 2000; Walkington, 2010), and conference papers (Shurman et al ., 2002). Moreover, the existing literature suggests that changing teachers’ perceptions of how learning occurs helps them move from teacher-centered lectures to more student-centered conceptions of teaching
(Barrie, 2007). This can transform the learning experience of students: where enough teachers implement change at the level of a course or module, students’ overall experience in a program can be transformed (Chase & Rowland,
2005). For instance, Duffy and Bowe (2010) believe that sustained delivery of student-focused teaching—which facilitates students’ progressive development of technical as well as generic skills—can equip students as selfdirected, lifelong learners (Miflin, Campbell, & Price, 2000). Creating such a shift in the classroom requires changing teachers’ concepts about learning. Ho, Watkins, and Kelly (2001) studied 12 teachers over two years and found that “ without a change in conceptions, no change in practice is likely ” (p. 164). A shift in conceptualization is something that traditional workshops rarely achieve (Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor, 1994).
Methodology
The research question guiding our analysis was: What is it like to experience membership of a learning group in a school where tangible change towards student-centered learning is occurring?
To understand how the people who made this happen experienced and achieved change, out team conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with eight individual faculty members. We followed a phenomenological approach—using the highly structured format developed by Moustakas (1994) and recommended by Creswell (2007)—to analyze interview transcripts. We identified non-repetitive meanings of the experiences and used these to develop a composite textural-structural description of features that were essential to the phenomenon of the learning group.

Results
Our final report describes overarching experiences of ‘learning group’ members during the period of transformative change in the program. The manuscript identifies factors that influenced the group’s success with changing their teaching practices program-wide. It explains what affects group participation had on them and on the transformation.
It identifies characteristics that made the change stick.
Discussion
Our analysis of experiential data identified elements that faculty members perceived as key to the change that had happened in this electrical engineering program. All members of the learning group described having (1) an active champion, (2) an experienced and informed advisor, (3) various forms of institutional support, and (4) a group of colleagues interested in implementing new pedagogies and discussing teaching practice. Our findings are contributing new perspectives to the literature on change management related to engineering education.
References
Barrie, S. C. (2007). A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes. Studies in
Higher Education, 32 (4), 439-458.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities . http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/
Chance, S.M., Duffy, G., & Bowe, B. (in press). Using Learning Groups to Transform Engineering Education: A
Phenomenological Study of Educators’ Experiences of Change. In A. McKenna, T. Litzinger, & J. Froyd
(Eds.). Special Issue of the Journal of Engineering Education .
Chase, G. W., & Rowland, P. (2005). The Ponderosa Project: Infusing sustainability in the curriculum. In P. F.
Bartlett & G. W. Chase (Eds.), Sustainability on campus: Stories and strategies for change (91-105).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Creswell, J W. (2007). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches.
(2 nd ed.).
London : Sage publications.
Duffy, G., & Bowe, B. (2010). A framework to develop lifelong learning and transferable skills in an engineering programme . Paper presented at the 3rd International Symposium for Engineering Education. Fullan, M.
(2001). Leading in a culture of change . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eastman, C. M., McCracken, W. M., & Newstetter, W. C. (2001). Design knowing and learning : cognition in design education . Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42 (2), 143-169.
McKenna, A. F., Froyd, J., King, C. J., Litzinger, T., & Seymour, E. (2011). The complexities of transforming engineering higher education: Report on forum on characterizing the impact and diffusion of transformative engineering education innovations. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering.
Miflin, B. M., Campbell, C. B., & Price, D. A. (2000). A conceptual framework to guide the development of selfdirected, lifelong learning in problem-based medical curricula. Medical Education, 34 (4), 299-306.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods . Sage Publications, Incorporated.
National Science Board, (2007, November 19). Moving forward to improve engineering education . http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07122/nsb07122.pdf
Rugarcia, A., Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., Stice, J. E., (2000). The future of engineering education: A vision for a new century. Chemical Engineering Education , 34(1), 16–25.
Shurman, L. J., Atman, C. J., Eschenbach, E. A., Evans, D., Felder, R. M., Imbrie, P. K., McGourty, J., Miller, R.
L., Richards, L. G., Smith, K. A., Soulsby, E. P., Waller, A. A., Yokomoto, C. F., (2002). The future of engineering education. Proceedings of the 32 nd Annual ASEE/IEEE Conference on Frontiers in Education .
Boston, Massachusetts.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. [Article]. Higher Education, 27 (1), 75.
Walkington, J., (2002). A process for curriculum change in engineering education, European Journal of Engineering
Education, 27 (2), 133-148.