Coimbra, Portugal September 3 – 7, 2007 International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007 Models for research-based teaching in engineering courses: a case-study at the University of Aveiro (PT) and San José State University (USA) Isabel Huet1, Nikos J. Mourtos2, Nilza Costa3, Osvaldo Pacheco4, José Tavares5 1 University of Aveiro, PT, [email protected] 2 San José State University, USA, [email protected] 3 University of Aveiro, PT, [email protected] 4 University of Aveiro, PT, [email protected] 5 University of Aveiro, PT, [email protected] Abstract - There is considerable educational literature to suggest that the way universities conceive and manage the relationship between research and teaching, impacts negatively or positively teaching practices and student learning in Higher Education. Although the relevance of linking research and teaching is perceived as of central importance by many authors and university leaders, empirical findings suggest that research does not always influence the teaching quality and vice versa. The purpose of this communication is to analyse how institutional policies and practices can help or hinder engineering faculty members to link their teaching and research and how academics perceive the teaching/research nexus with the broader objective to enhance quality teaching and learning in Higher Education. More specifically the objective of this research is to investigate a range of institutional policies and practices at the Universities of Aveiro (PT) and San José State (USA) aiming at understanding how engineering faculty use research-based teaching in their classes. Empirical findings suggest that a research-based teaching model engages more actively the students in the daily tasks and develops deeper critical thinking. Index Terms – engineering education, informed-based teaching, research-based teaching. INTRODUCTION (NATIONAL POILICIES IN PORTUGAL AND USA) Under the Bologna reform, still in progress in Portugal, major changes are being introduced in the organisation of higher education, concerning both the degree structure and the organisation of teaching, with effects that started in the academic year 2006/07. The most visible change is the 3-year undergraduate degree, which replaced the 5- year degree in most fields except some engineering courses which have an ‘integrated masters’. This new structure promotes the mobility of students, researchers and teachers around higher education institutions in Europe. But other changes will affect the higher education institutions. Indeed, Bologna has been a political motive to speed the need of a profound reform in the Portuguese higher education system. One of the Bologna guidelines refers to the student-centred approach to teaching and learning and the design of the curricula based on competences and learning outcomes. In order to achieve a student-centred approach, teaching and learning strategies need to change. Until recently we faced a traditional teaching model, centred on the teacher with the predominance of information passing style in lectures and where assessment did not have a visible effect on the system. Now, academia is discussing best strategies to effectively design the curriculum and evaluate learning outcomes. The importance of teaching best practices, the promotion of inquiry-based learning, research-led-teaching and teaching-led-research are issues strongly discussed for the first time, mainly at engineering and science schools. The need to actively engage students in the process of learning will highlight the importance of a research-based teaching approach. In United States, several factors have played a key role in shaping engineering education, such as: (a) Increased pressure from parents, taxpayers, and legislators, who are dissatisfied with the de-emphasis of undergraduate education at major universities. (b) Employer complaints about the lack of professional awareness, communication and teamwork skills in engineering graduates. (c) Challenges posed by the changing needs of our student populations and in particular the diversity of native ability, background, motivation, attitudes, and learning styles. These challenges seem to escalate as one considers the shrinking pool of applicants for engineering schools. The need to change the way we prepare engineering students, was first emphasized in the famous Green Report [1]. In their own words, ‘…engineering education programs must not only teach the fundamentals of engineering theory, experimentation and practice, but be relevant (to the lives and careers of students), attractive (to highly talented students with a wider variety of backgrounds), and connected (to the needs and issues of the broader community)’. These new realities are also reflected in the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 [2], which introduced newCoimbra, Portugal September 3 – 7, 2007 International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007 concepts for engineering educators, such as ‘outcomes assessment’ and ‘continuous program improvement’. Outcomes assessment shifts the emphasis from what we teach (old criteria) to what engineering students can actually do (new criteria). Moreover, the burden is now on engineering educators to find convincing ways to document the various student abilities specified in Criterion 3 (Outcomes Assessment). Continuous improvement requires a process for using the results of assessment to guide programmatic and / or course changes in a manner that improves the quality of each program. To meet these new demands, engineering educators must change the way they approach teaching and learning [7]. For example, it is now well established that traditional instructional methods are not adequate to equip engineering graduates with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they need to meet the demands of the 21st century workplace [3]. Moreover, focusing engineering courses entirely on technical content and expecting students to develop critical process skills automatically is not realistic [6]. The design of engineering courses must be approached like any other engineering product, i.e., they must have specifications (instructional objectives), made using proper manufacturing methods (learning activities), and tested (assessment) [4] – [6]. For engineering products, if the specifications are not met during testing, the engineer(s) goes back to the drawing board for