|Teaching and Learning|
|ie the miscellaneous stuff not in Online Learning or Physics Education|
|Home||Learning Styles | Assessment|
|Active Learning||Strategies | Theory|
|Subject Specific||Languages | Engineering | Biology | Mathematics | Statistics|
|Other Topics||Communities of Practice | Learning Communities | Open Content | Clickers|
Mega List Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education
Rationale Guiding Resources Featured by CASEE http://www.nae.edu/NAE/caseecomnew.nsf/weblinks/NFOY-5J3GZB?OpenDocument
In their paper "The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Engineering" (published in Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Conversation, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Menlo Park, CA, 2002), Wankat, Felder, Smith, and Oreovicz contend that if scholarship on engineering education is to fully develop, then it must be valued in the faculty reward system on par with traditional research within the disciplines. An interpretation of the challenges they cite that may contribute to an uneven playing field is the follow
- Educational research is inherently a [small “s”] social science and therefore, the goals, research methods, and assessment metrics are subject to debate and interpretation. This causes particular problems in attempting to apply such research in engineering where precise definitions and clear rules are believed to be in abundance.
- Because educational research is not part of their training or experience, it is neither easily assessed (important for promotion and tenure) nor used (important for achieving impact) by most engineering faculty.
- Educational research has a relatively weak financial support base placing it at a disadvantage compared to traditional engineering research with respect to raising funds for faculty and student support, equipment and supplies, and indirect costs.