Considering the Development and Evaluation of Engineers as Teachers

Engineering faculty are required to teach but are rarely trained in evidence-based practices in teaching and learning. While many faculty often mirror how they were taught and slowly develop their curriculum and skills over time, the methods for their development cannot keep pace with the rapidly changing landscape of engineering classrooms. This includes changes in students’ needs, pedagogical advances, and the technology accessible to students. In response to the need for training, development, and continuous improvement of engineering faculty’s teaching beyond the limited feedback that student and peer evaluations provide, our department piloted a program offering 18 different options for teaching development activities. Faculty could choose from these options to enhance their teaching practices. Three focus groups were conducted with a total of 12 faculty participants to iterate and improve upon the piloted program. Qualitative analysis of these focus groups, involving multiple phases of coding and general theming of the focus group transcript data, revealed more than just the faculty’s impressions of the piloted program. Our analysis revealed that two value systems exist when it comes to teaching and teaching development: what is valued personally by a faculty member and what is valued systemically by the department, college, university, or field they work within. The identification of these two distinct value systems revealed that misalignments exist between them. What faculty personally value about their teaching and teaching development might not be valued by the systems in place, and vice versa. We present examples of how faculty discuss these two value systems and explore the implications of conflicting value systems, as well as opportunities for departments to enhance alignment between these value systems to boost faculty motivation for regular engagement with teaching development practices.