COVID-19: A MOTIVATOR FOR CHANGE IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION?

Despite recent research and initiatives, learner-centered instructional practices have not made their way into post-secondary Science, Technology,Engineering and Math (STEM) classrooms, even though there is clear evidence showing the benefits include increased grades, higher student engagement, and deeper learning. STEM educators rank the barriers associated with active learning higher than their colleagues in other disciplines, and identify the inability to cover all the content as a key factor in their decision to adhere to didactic practices. Insights and instructional strategies and methods garnered from teaching-related faculty development opportunities are often tried, but their use is not generally sustained unless a personal experiencedrives that change in practice. Unquestionably, COVID-19 has had an immediate, global impact on higher education. Educators have been forced to alter their teaching practices to accommodate the switch to remote learning. Most Teaching and Learning Centers offered myriad workshops to facilitate this change. This quantitative study set out to determine if COVID-19 precautions created the personal experience necessary to initiate a change in STEM teaching practices. Using educator-related threshold concepts as a framework, it analyzed institutional registration records to determine the type of faculty development opportunitieschosen by engineering educators, and the extent to which they participated in those related to learner-centered instructional practices for remote delivery.Analysis shows that engineering educators participated proportionally less than their colleagues in other disciplines, and there is an indication that the pandemic may facilitate an ongoing change in the teaching practices of engineering educators. Opportunities for enhancing faculty development practices for engineering educators are proposed.

Comparative Study of Teaching and Learning Centers in Universities by Country

The purpose of this study is to compare the roles and functions of teaching and learning centers in universities operated in three Asian countries and to find effective management strategies. To this end, periodic or non-periodical literature analysis and interviews with the staffs, were conducted together with the domestic and overseas research. As a result of the study, Korea is in the center of learner support, while Singapore is in the center of teaching support, and the Philippines has only a few programs for learners and teachers. This phenomenon means that the operation of the university’s teaching and learning center focuses on strengthening the teaching and learning capacity to support teachers and learners. In addition, the establishment of teaching and learning centers in each country is composed of institutions affiliated with the College of Education as separate independent institutions, supporting teams or individuals. In terms of financial aspects, Human and financial distinctions were significantly different.

Creating and sustaining teaching and learning centers: US models of resources and support, lessons learned, and building a culture of teaching and learning excellence

This article represents an expanded discussion of a presentation on teaching and learning centers (TLCs) to an Italian national conference on the components of a research project entitled, Preparazione alla professionalitŕ docente e innovazione didattica (PRODID). The article aims to highlight an overview of findings from the research and practice literature regarding TLCs across their history in the United States, including the common structures and roles of these centers. Finally, the author provides theoretical underpinnings from organizational learning and development that are recommended for practice in creating and sustaining effective TLCs including the importance of co-creating value for teaching and learning excellence, building an inclusive learning culture within institutions of higher education, and managing and sustaining organizational change. Suggestions for further research are also provided.

Directors of University teaching and learning centers : an examination of leadership challenges based on administrative policies and institutional culture

This study focused on leaders of teaching and learning centers, typically faculty, who have developed a strong teaching and research portfolio, and are respected by their peers. The researcher conducted a mixed-methods study to understand how academic leaders of teaching and learning centers (the middle managers), could utilize Stewart's (1976) leadership theory of demands, constraints, and choices. Understanding the effect institutional culture and administrative policies can have on their leadership of a faculty TLC, will better inform them as to the challenges they face in performing and leading. Data acquisition was accomplished through a survey sent to the members of the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network comprising leaders of TLCs, supervisors of the leaders, and faculty/staff members of the TLCs. The survey was created and administered using the Qualtrics Survey platform. The findings from this research has strong implications for these leaders as it is important for them to be mentored, trained, and guided to be competent within their TLC and educational institution. A weakness found in the findings was the absence of documentation in training for leaders of TLCs, how to address administrative policies and politics, and understanding the effect of institutional culture on their leadership.