Transformation: From Teacher-Centered to Student-Centered EngineeringEducation

George D. CatalanoDepartment of Civil & Mechanical Engineering

andKaren C. Catalano

Center for Enhanced PerformanceUnited States Military Academy

West Point, New York

Abstract

A student-centered approach to engineering educationis presented. Roles for the instructor/professor wishing toemploy the student-centered model are identified andexamples are given. Case studies from a Research 1institution and a federal service academy are provided.

Introduction

At a recent federal service academies’ conference onteaching and learning, Professor Patricia Cross delivered akeynote address challenging the assembled audience todevelop an environment in which students become “activelyengaged.” [1] After decades of research focused uponteaching and learning strategies, the effectiveness of an“active-learning” model has been clearly documented.Administrations of institutions of higher learning acrossNorth America are challenging their respective faculties toincorporate this relatively new model into their classrooms.Some academic disciplines have embraced this approach toinstruction with enthusiasm while others seem morecautious in moving towards adoption. In engineeringeducation, efforts in design as well as the engineeringsciences are being described [2]-[5].

Our present work seeks to add texture to themovements toward the active-learning model. We prefer aslightly different terminology. For us, active-learning takesplace in an environment in which the student is at thecenter of focus, and, thus, we refer to this approach as astudent-centered model for education. Passive-learning, onthe other hand, occurs in a setting in which the teacher isthe focus and thus may be described as teacher-centered.Though not astronomers by training, we metaphoricallyspeak of shifts of foci from teacher-centered to student-centered, summoning forth images of the profoundrevolution that occurred in science when the cosmos shifted

from earth-centered to solar-centered. Perhaps the impacton engineering education will be as great.

In this work, we shall compare and contrast a student-centered approach to classroom instruction to a teacher-centered approach. In addition, we shall provide specificactivities for teachers who wish to explore a transformationof their own classroom environments. Lastly, we shallattempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the differentactivities through the use of case studies.

Changing Models of Education

According to Halperin [6], most activities today in amajority of classrooms in higher education continue toreflect an ’old’ style of instruction wherein “students sitquietly, passively receiving words of wisdom beingprofessed by the lone instructor standing in front of theclass.” Certainly, “teacher-centered” seems to richlydescribe the minor orbs of the cosmos (the students)revolving eternally about the earth (the teacher).

Bowers and Flinders [7] describe the teacher-centeredmodel using an analogy from industrial production in whichstudents become “products,” and behaviors are expressionsof “exit skills,” “competencies,” and “outcomes.” Implicitin this model of instruction are the following assumptions:

1. an(y) educational process is considered culturallyneutral as well as linear and rationale

2. language serves as a conduit for the transmissionof information and

3. the teacher becomes the “manager” of theclassroom with the learning process heavilydependent upon the pronouncement andenforcement of rules.

Note that little is required or expected from the student tothe very end. Prior to the final quality-control inspection,the student presumably rides the assembly line quietly anddutifully accepting all data transmission in a similar

manner as an automobile’s skeletal frame moves towardsthe new car dealer’s showroom.

Learning, however, rarely if ever occurs passively.Instruction is most effective, according to cognitivepsychologists and educators, when students are encouragedto become actively involved in their own learning.Additionally, an allowance of time must be made formeaningful, open interactions between teacher and studentand groups of students that nurture the student’s naturalcuriosity. King asserts that key to the learning process iswhat professors ask students to do with the material theyare supposedly learning. [8] Decyk has argued that manyconcepts may not be precisely defined and points to use ofexamples as one of the most powerful tools available toteachers. [9] Decyk further points to a problem, a typicalityeffect, when the chosen examples often promote stereotypesor biases in judgments. The importance of integrating andnurturing creativity is described by Cain et al. [10] who haswritten:

Educators can generate much of the excitementand energy they desire by introducing creativityinto the lives of their students ... a student’s desireto know more about a subject is more importantthan a measure of performance t any point in time.

Cooper et al. [11] sought to promote active-learningthrough the use of cooperative learning experiencesincluding peer tutoring, student-faculty research projects,short-term buzz groups, and learning communities.

A survey of the engineering education communityidentifies a similar movement from passive to activelearning. Houshmand et al. [12] have described a“Teaching Effectiveness Improvement Program” based onTQM (Total Quality Management) which usedadministrators, faculty, and students together to develop amethodology for improving the quality of instruction.Others have incorporated “hands-on” experiences rangingfrom the use of interactive multimedia [13] to the design,fabrication, and competition of solar-powered race cars in athousand-mile race across the heartland of America. [14]

The Instructor/Professor’s Roles in “Student-Centered” Education

Perhaps each of us has attended a faculty meetingrecently wherein the department head, college dean, orsome other member of the university’s upper-administrationhaving returned from an educators’ conference haspronounced the goal for each academic unit to movetowards active-learning in the classroom, presumably in avery short period of time! For us, the focus has shifted fromacceptance of the goal to a much more mundane question -how do we get there from here? Our responses to thisinquiry are the thrust of the present work. We shall explore

our path for the proposed transformation from a teacher-centered to a student-centered classroom via a listing of theteacher’s new roles along with a discussion of each (Figure1).

Role 1. Modeling thinking/processing skills.

We feel that one of the most important actions a teachermust take to facilitate the shift from teacher-centered tostudent-centered is to verbally (externally) process how onethinks, what one does, how one hears or makes sense of newmaterial, and how one searches for a solution(s) to problemsposed. Students cannot read our minds, do not know ourworldly experiences, have no idea of our struggles aslearners unless we share this information with them.Haddock [15] refers to this role as a “nurturing professor”.We like to use slightly more colloquial andanthropomorphic imaging: teacher as “border-collie”,shepherding students along a chosen path yet keeping adistance and traveling along with them to the finaldestination.

Model thinking/processing skills.

Know where you want your students to be cognitively.

Develop questions that facilitate student exploration/growth.

Use visual tools to assist students in “seeing” howinformation can be connected and teach them to use thesetools.

Provide group-learning settings.

Use analogies and metaphors.

Provide a non-threatening “no risk” mechanism for indirectdialogue between teacher and student(s).

Figure 1. Roles for a Student-Centered Teacher

Role 2. Knowing where you want your students to becognitively.

In Bloom’s taxonomy [16] of educational objectives,thinking proceeds from the lower levels (knowledge andcomprehension) to the highest levels (synthesis andevaluation). A somewhat more complicated three-dimensional scheme for thinking skills has been proposedby Aschner and Gallagher [17]. In their work, an extensionof Guilford’s structure of the intellect [18] divides themodes of thinking into memory, convergent thinking,divergent thinking, and evaluation. Memory involves the

simple recall of information. Convergent thinking requiresthe use of supportive data to arrive at an objective response.Divergent thinking requires generation of alternatives and,very often, original information. Evaluation requiresjudgments to be made.

Whatever the model chosen, two important points mustbe made. First, the teacher should be aware of the level ofthinking required by students during lectures, quizzes, tests,homework, etc. Secondly, much more than simply beingaware, the teacher should share these ideas with thestudents. A discussion as to the reason(s) why designproblems are often dauntingly difficult and seeminglydifferent (i.e., they encompass higher levels of thinking) cantruly make a difference in a student’s commitment to thecourse work.

Role 3. Developing questions that facilitate studentexploration/growth.

Questioning techniques and their importance indeveloping a student-centered classroom are reviewed byHansen [19], Dantonio [20], Taba [21], and Ehrenburg andEhrenburg [22] describe the questioning processes in termsof the following four categories: (1) gathering information,(2) sorting through the information, (3) organizing theinformation, and finally (4) interpreting, inferring orpredicting. A student-centered teacher would selectquestions from the category that most closely fits the desirededucational directive.

A student-centered teacher should ask frequentquestions not to include the most often used, “Are there anyquestions?” The questions should force the student(s) toindicate what is actually being learned. There should belong and patient pauses in classroom activities providingenough time so that the student could take advantage of thequiet times to formulate his/her own questions. A student-centered teacher should take frequent breaks in class askingstudents to summarize and/or explain what had been justcovered. Lastly, students should be required to askpenetrating questions and teachers role model suchinquiries.

Role 4. Using visual tools to assist students in “seeing” howinformation can be connected and teaching them to use

these tools.

Research on the brain continues to revolutionize ourunderstanding of thinking with the left hemisphereassociated with linear, analytic thought and the righthemisphere dedicated to spatial, integrative thought [23].Student-centered teaching techniques draw upon thehemisphere that has historically been under worked or evenignored -- the right hemisphere.

The visual tool that we have found to be most useful intransforming to a student-centered classroom ismindmapping (graphic organizing) [24]. The constructionof mindmaps illustrates the point that learning is a process,not an end product. New information must be sortedthrough and clustered into categories that eitherdemonstrate relationships and/or connections ordemonstrate that such relationships/connections do not (yet)exist. Mindmaps are ideally suited for a variety ofsituations throughout the semester--at the beginning of asemester, as an overview of the course, during reviewsessions prior to exams, and at the end of the course. Mapscan be generated during a class period, immediately afterone of those important quiet pauses in a lecturer/discussion,in order to consolidate information and for insights togenerate.

Advances in classroom technology offer an entirely newset of visual tools. State-of-the-art presentation graphicsaccording to Head [25] will be an essential component ofthe new classroom model. Ribando et al. [26] haveincorporated such advances into a “partial studio” model forthe teaching of heat transfer. The marriage of computers,audio and video playback systems, and optical storagedevices presents faculty with a whole range of options thathave never been available previously in engaging thestudents, shifting from teacher-centered to student-centeredclassrooms.

Role 5. Providing group-learning settings.

Group-learning settings can take many different formsdepending on class size, subject matter, and instructor’sviews. In small classes, students can be sent to theblackboards in small groups to work out homeworkexercises. The instructor can then move from group togroup ensuring that the experience is meaningful, servingas a quiet observer if the students know how to do the taskat hand or as a coach to enable them to surmount obstaclesalong the way. Outside of the class period, student-runrecitation periods can be effective. Here, students ask thequestions while other students answer the questions. It isoften the case that peer-learning is more effective than otherforms of learning environments. Cooper et al. [27] providescritical features for group learning: positiveinterdependence (i.e., all members of a group feel a sense ofresponsibility for their teammates), individualaccountability, appropriateness of the assignment, teacherperforms as facilitator, explicit attention to social skills, andemphasis on face-to-face problem solving. Here again, theinstructor serves as either silent observer or coach. In anassessment of group-learning setting, Weimer [31] offersthree “tests of involvement”: (1) How much class time isactually geared to group-learning? (2) How many students

participate? And (3) How deep is the students involvementin the activities/settings? Weimer goes on to add thatgroup-learning settings must include plentiful opportunitiesfor involvement (quantity), the more students involved thebetter (extent) and extensive rather than superficial studentparticipation (depth).

Role 6. Using analogies and metaphors.

Rather than discussing the possible pitfalls inherent ina technology-based society, Mary Shelley [28] described theterrifying yet innocent young monster, created byFrankenstein. Rather than an essay on the inner conflictseach of us feels, Jack London [29] wrote of a wolf-dog thathears haunting howls from the primordial past and forsakesthe trappings of a modern life for the higher calling offreedom. Would not we as educators focused on thestudents rather than ourselves be well-served by followingthe examples from the humanities? In Thermodynamics,we could explain energy, the availability of energy, and theSecond Law in terms with which the students couldidentify: gross income, net income, and the passage of time[30]. In Fluid Mechanics, we could use the ReynoldsTransport Theorem to frame the current debate onimmigration policies. The Reynolds Transport Theorem isoften used as an analytical tool for quickly developing thebasic conservation laws of the engineering sciences (mass,momentum and energy). For classroom discussion, thepopulation of a given state or region of the country could beidentified as the property to be “conserved”. In a student-centered model, the goal would be to nurture studentstoward devising their own metaphors to describe newconcepts that they have encountered.

Role 7. Providing a non-threatening “no-risk” mechanismfor indirect dialogue between teacher and student(s).

Our suggestion for providing the “no-risk”environment centers upon the use of a “discovery sheet.”Examples of variations of the “discovery sheet” areprovided in Ref [31]. There is one essential key tosuccessful usage. Students must have a sense that you as ateacher do want to hear their opinions and that you arewilling to address their concerns. No, we are notadvocating capitulation, but we are simply encouragingopen, honest communication. “Discovery sheets” can begiven as often as a teacher wishes - after quizzes, tests, newsubject topics, in the midst of a difficult chapter, etc. Ourexperiences with their use is that the mere exchange ofideas, thoughts, and feelings can transform the classroomenvironment from one of indifference (or at its worstconfrontation), to one with a sense of community, a placewhere a set of individuals come together for a journey intothe unknown.

ASSESSMENT

Assessment of the actual learning that takes place ina classroom environment is perhaps the most dauntingchallenge facing us as engineering educators. We havegathered data that documents our experiences in attemptingto implement a student-centered model of teaching at twovastly different institutions - a Research 1 university(Louisiana State University) and a federal service academy(United States Military Academy).

Our analysis of the data from Louisiana StateUniversity was quite promising and has been detailed in anearly article. [30] Two sections of a first course inundergraduate fluid mechanics were formed with onesection taught in a traditional “teacher-centered “style withthe other employing a student-centered model. On theaverage, students in student-centered situations performedbetter on exams and seemed more pleased by theirprofessor’s efforts. One point that deserves specialemphasis is that the professors developing the examsworked in close cooperation with one another and reliedheavily on their collective decades of personal experience asteachers.

Our next data set and analysis focuses upon teachingthermodynamics during the fall semester 1996 at USMA.Ten different sections of thermodynamics were offered withthe “student-centered” model employed in three of thesections. Ground-rules for collaboration were muchdifferent. Due to the historical structure of USMA, theacademy relies upon standardized exams which remainfairly consistent from year to year. Thus, we had minimalinput to the actual makeup of the exams and/or theirgrading schema. For this case, at least, we could not beaccused of unduly influencing the results by manipulation ofthe test(s) questions! The results are shown in Table 1.Herein, we have presented the data in two ways. First,overall percentages for each of the three “student-centered”sections are presented and compared to the cumulativepercentage for all ten sections. Note that one student-centered section performed higher than the average, onelower, and one nearly the average. Second, the collectiveincoming grade point averages are compared to the grade-point average for the different sections in thermodynamics.

With all the data presented herein, one observation canbe obtained. At the very least, a student-centered approachto teaching thermodynamics did not penalize students whowill be tested using standardized exams with identifiedstandards prepared by teachers using the more traditionalmodel. Rather than being disadvantaged, the cadets on theaverage showed slightly greater improvement than theirclassmates in the other teacher-centered classrooms. The

class with the lowest incoming grade point average of notonly the student-centered but of all the sections actuallyimproved the most.

Final Comments

Any transformation from a teacher-centered classroomto a student-centered classroom, since it involvesfundamental change, will meet with resistance in at leastthe following three ways:

(1) Some students will not like to become the focus ofclassroom activities preferring the more comfortable style ofsimply being there in body only these kinds of studentsnaturalize that if learning does not occur, then certainly itmust be the fault of the teacher, text, the institution, etc.

(2) Some colleagues will judge a student-centeredclassroom to be lacking in sufficient rigor. Because most ofus received our formal training in the teacher-center model,many believe that certainly we should teach as we weretaught to “keep the standards high”. Paraphrasing earlierthoughts on patriotism (i.e., “patriotism is the last refuge forscoundrels”), we would assert that far too often rigor is thelast refuge for ineffective teaching.

(3). Perhaps the greatest resistance to embarking onsuch a transformation comes from within ourselves. It israther threatening to relinquish authoritarian control in theclassroom and allow what may appear at first glance to beutter chaos. It is much less threatening to stand behind apodium issuing streams of information while not worryingabout the actual data collection. As all questions eventuallybecome personal, so too does this question: do we want

willing to risk change with all its inherent promise andpotential failure.

References

1. Cross, Patricia, Keynote Address at Federal ServiceAcademies Conference on Teaching and Learning inthe 21st Century, United States Military Academy, WestPoint, New York, September 1996.

2. Knox, P.C. Sabatini, D. A., Sachs, R. L., Haskens, P.D., Roach, L. W., and Fairbarn, S. W., “A Practitioner-Educator Partnership for Teaching EngineeringDesign,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol-84,No. 1, Jan 1995, pp. 5-12.

3. Carroll, J. A., Fearn, R. Rivers, R., “Flight TestEngineering - An Integrated Design LaboratoryCourse”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol-85,No. 1, Jan 1996, pp. 73-76.

4. Crease, R. C., “A Project Centered EngineeringProgram”, Engineering Education, Nov 1987, pp. 100-105.

5. Quinn, R. G., “The E4 Introductory Engineering Test,Design and Assimilation Laboratory,” EngineeringEducation, April 1990, pp. 423-425.

6. Halperin, Diane, Changing College Classrooms,Jossey- Bass Publications, San Francisco, Ca., 1994,pp. 11-12.

7. Bowers, C. A., and Flinders, D. J. ResponsiveTeaching, Teachers College Press, New York, NewYork, 1990, pp. 5-14.

Table 1. Comparison of Performance in Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Sections ofUndergraduate Thermodynamics.

FINAL GRADE(%)

DIFFERENCEFROM AVERAGE

INCOMINGGPA

OUTGOINGTHERMO

GPA

DIFFERENCE

FROMINCOMING

GPAStudent Centered I

(13 Cadets)87.65 -0.4% 2.95 3.40 +.45

(+15%)Student Centered II

(14 Cadets)89.87 +0.2% 3.02 3.48 +.46

(+15%)Student Centered III

(19 Cadets)85.46 -2.98% 2.82 3.31 +.49

(+17%)Student Centered I,

II , IIIAverage (46 Cadets)

87.66 -0.47% 2.93 3.39 +.46

(+15.6%)Overall Average

(156 Cadets)88.08 - 2.99 3.41 +.42

(+14%)

8. Bowers, C. A., and Flinders, D. J. ResponsiveTeaching, Teachers College Press, New York, NewYork, 1990, pp. 5-14.

9. 10. King, Alison, “Inquiry as a Tool in Critical Thinking”,

Changing College Classrooms (ed.) D. H. Halperin,Jossy-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, Ca. 1994, pp. 13-38.

11. Decyb, Besty Newell, “Using Example to TeachConcepts,” Changing College Classrooms, (ed). D. H.Halperin, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, Ca.1994, pp. 39-63.

12. Caine, R., and Caine, G., Making Connections:Teaching and the Human Brain, Alexandria, Va.:Associates for Supervision an CurriculumDevelopment, 1991, p. 134.

13. Cooper, J. L., Robinson, P., and McKinny, M.,Cooperative Learning and College Instruction:Selective Use of Student Learning Teams, CSUInstitute for Teaching and Learning., Long Beach,California, 1990.

14. Houshmand, A. A., Papadabis, C., McDonough, J. F.,Fowler, T. W., and Markle, G., “Methodology forImproving Quality of Instruction,” Journal ofEngineering Education, Vol-85, No. 2, April 1996, pp.117-122.

15. Lamb, Annette C., “Multimedia and the Teaching-Learning Process”, Teaching in the Information Age(ed.) M. J. Albright and D. L. Albright and D. L. Graf.,Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, Co. 1992, pp.33-42.

16. Catalano, G. D., “The Sunrayce ’95 Idea: AddingHands on Design to an Engineering Curriculum”,Journal of Engineering Education, Vol-85, No. 3, July1996, pp. 193-200.

17. Haddock, Joyce, “Profile of a Nurturing CollegeProfessor”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol-82,No. 1, Jan. 1993, pp34-37.

18. Bloom, B. S., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,Vol. 1., Cognitive Domain, New York: McKay 1956.

19. Aschner, M. J., and Gallagher, J. J., A System forClassifying Thought Processes in the Context of VerbalInteraction, Urbana: Institute for Research onExceptional Children, University of Illinois, 1965.

20. Hansen, C. Bobbi, “Questioning Techniques for theActive Classroom”, Changing College Classrooms, (ed)D. H. Halperin, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco,CA. 1994, p. 95.

21. Hansen, C. Bobbi, “Questioning Techniques for theActive Classroom”, Changing College Classrooms,(ed.) D. H. Halperin, Jossey-Bass Publishers, SanFrancisco, CA. 1994, p. 93-106.

22. Dantonio, M. How Can We Create Thinkers?Bloomington, IN: National Education Service, 1990.

23. Taba, H., Hilda Taba Teaching Strategies Program,Miami, FL: Institute for Development, 1971.

24. Ehrenberg, S. D. and Ehrenberg, L. M. Building andApplying Strategies for Intellectual Competencies inStudents (Basics), Miami, FL: Institute for Curriculumand Instruction, 1978.

25. Williams, Linda V., Teaching for the Two-Sided Mind,Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 1983.

26. Wycoff, Joyce, Mindmapping, Berbly Books: NewYork, 1991.

27. Head, J. Thomas, “New Directions in PresentationGraphics: Impact on Teaching and Learning”,Teaching in the Information Age, (ed.) M. J. Albrightand D. L. Graf., Jossey- Bass Publishers, SanFrancisco, Ca., 1992, pp. 17-32.

28. Ribando, R. J., and O’Leary, G. W., “TeachingModules for Heat Transfer”, Private communication.

29. Cooper, J. L., Robinson, P., and McKinney, Molly,“Cooperative Learning in the Classroom”, ChangingCollege Classrooms, (ed.) D. H. Haperin, Jossey-BassPublishers, San Francisco, Ca., 1992, pp. 74-91.

30. Shelley, Mary, Frankenstein, Penguin Classics, NewYork, New York.

31. Londen, Jack, Call of the Wild, Penguin Classics, NewYork, New York.

32. Arnas, Ozer, personal communication, ProfessorEmeritus, Louisiana State University.

33. Catalano, G. D., “Some Ideas on the Teaching ofEngineering Science: A Student-Centered Approach”,Journal of Engineering Education, Vol-84, No.1, Jan1995, pp. 21-24.

34. Weimer, Maryellen, “Active Learning: Quantity,Extent, Depth Count,” The Teaching Professor, Vol 10,No. 10, December 1996.