CHAPTER 1
Chronological and Ontological
Development of Engineering Education
as a Field of Scientific Inquiry
Jeffrey E. Froyd and Jack R. Lohmann
Introduction
Engineering education as an area of in-
terest for curriculum development and ped-
agogical innovation emerged in the United
States in the period around 1890 to 1910 with
the founding of the Society for the Pro-
motion of Engineering Education (SPEE)
in 1893 (American Society for Engineering
Education, n.d.). Founding dates for a few
other engineering education associations
may provide some indication of when inter-
est in engineering education emerged across
the world: Internationale Gesellschaft
für Ingenieurpadagogik (IGIP, 1972);
Société Européenne pour la Formation des
Ingénieurs (SEFI, 1973); and Australasian
Association of Engineering Education
(AAEE, 1989). Other associations interested
in engineering education include Associação
Brasileira de Educação em Engenharia
(ABENGE), Asociación Nacional de Fac-
ultades y Escuelas de Ingenieria (ANFEI),
International Association for Continuing
Engineering Education (IACEE), Korean
Society for Engineering Education (KSEE),
Latin American and Caribbean Consortium
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
of Engineering Institutions (LACCEI), and
Mühendislik Dekanlari Konseyi (MDK).
Given the date of the founding of the SPEE
and historical data available on the society
and its growth, in relation to similar infor-
mation about other engineering education
associations or societies, the authors have
elected to use the chronology of events in
the United States as the principal framework
to describe the evolution of engineering
education as a field of scientific inquiry with
references to similar events internationally.
A transition, which is not nearly com-
plete, to an interdisciplinary, more scholarly
field of scientific inquiry into engineering
education is occurring nearly 100 years later
(Borrego & Bernhard, 2011; Continental,
2006; Haghighi, 2005; Jesiek, Newswander, &
Borrego, 2009; Lohmann, 2005). Contextual
factors, which are too numerous to describe
exhaustively, have and will influence evo-
lution of the field of engineering educa-
tion research; however, the authors would
like to draw attention to four important
factors. First, although engineering is taught
at K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels,
professional licensure currently requires a
3
 4 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
baccalaureate degree in engineering. There-
fore, undergraduate education has been the
primary avenue through which engineers
enter the profession, and the literature in
engineering education has focused predom-
inantly on undergraduate education. As a
result, research questions in undergradu-
ate engineering education have tended to
dominate attention of researchers; however,
this is changing. Second, unlike mathemat-
ics and science education in K–12, K–12
engineering education has traditionally been
lacking. As a result, research in K–12 engi-
neering education has been minimal. How-
ever, the situation is changing. “Although
K–12 engineering education has received lit-
tle attention from most Americans, includ-
ing educators and policy makers, it has
slowly been making its way into U.S. K–
12 classrooms. Today, several dozen differ-
ent engineering programs and curricula are
offered in school districts around the coun-
try, and thousands of teachers have attended
professional development sessions to teach
engineering-related coursework. In the past
15 years, several million K–12 students have
experienced some formal engineering edu-
cation” (Committee on K–12 Engineering
Education; Linda Katehi, 2009, p. 1). As a
result of increasing interest in engineering
education in K–12, research questions asso-
ciated with this focus are growing in impor-
tance. However, a large percentage of engi-
neering faculty members, who traditionally
have been viewed as primary stakehold-
ers in findings from engineering education
research, may not take much interest in find-
ings from engineering education research in
K–12. Third, research in education and the
learning sciences can make significant con-
tributions as researchers in any disciplinary-
based educational field address their com-
plex research questions (Froyd, Wankat, &
Smith, 2012; Johri & Olds, 2011; also see
Chapters 2 by Newstetter & Svinicki and
29 by Pellegrino, DiBello, & Brophy in this
volume). However, much of the scholarly
literature in education and the learning sci-
ences has focused on precollege education,
an area that traditionally has attracted less
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
attention from most engineering faculty
members (Johri & Olds, 2011), because of
their focus on undergraduate education. It
will take time and energy for familiarity and
interest of engineering practitioners at the
undergraduate level in research and learn-
ing sciences to reach a level that it begins to
influence practice. Fourth, engineering edu-
cators, in general, receive little or no for-
mal preparation for their instructional duties
during their doctoral training or later as fac-
ulty. As a result, for most engineering fac-
ulty members, lack of familiarity with the
education and learning sciences literature,
reliance on familiar research methodologies
that were often ill suited for educational
studies, and complacency with accepting
student satisfaction surveys as indicators
of efficacy of course changes generated “a
rich tradition of educational innovation, but
until the 1980s assessment of innovation was
typically of the ‘We tried it and liked it
and so did the students’ variety” (Wankat,
Felder, Smith, & Oreovicz, 2002, p. 217).
Changing practice in engineering education
so that faculty members apply findings in
engineering education research, education
research, and research in the learning sci-
ences to their practice in engineering class-
rooms is a major challenge for engineering
education practice and research (Jamieson
& Lohmann, 2009, 2012).
Catalysts, including major National Sci-
ence Foundation (NSF) funding for edu-
cational research and development begin-
ning in the late 1980s and emergence of the
outcomes-based ABET Engineering Crite-
ria led to significant publications in engi-
neering education research in the 1990s. In
the last twenty years, engineering education
research has begun to emerge as an inter-
disciplinary research field seeking its own
theoretical foundations from a rich array
of research traditions in the cognitive sci-
ences; learning sciences; education; and edu-
cational research in physics, chemistry, and
other scientific disciplines.
The remainder of the chapter is divided
into two parts. First, we provide a
brief chronology of the development of
 chronological and ontological development of engineering education
engineering education as a field of study.
We then describe the ontological transfor-
mation of the field into engineering edu-
cation research using criteria for defining
the field of science education research (Fen-
sham, 2004). A brief conclusion projects the
near future of the field.
The Chronological Evolution of U.S.
Engineering Education as a Field of
Scientific Inquiry
The first engineering program in the United
States, civil engineering, was established
at the United States Military Academy,
which was founded in 1802 to reduce the
nation’s dependence on foreign engineers
and artillerists in times of war (United States
Military Academy, 2010). Other parts of
the world also began engineering programs
during the 1800s and especially the lat-
ter half of the century (Continental, 2006).
Nonetheless, higher education was largely
inaccessible to many Americans until the
passage of the Morrill Act1 in 1862 (Light-
cap, 2010), which accelerated the nation’s
growth throughout the last half of the cen-
tury fueled by such engineering efforts as
the transcontinental railroad, electric power,
the telegraph and telephone, and steam
and internal combustion engines. Mechan-
ical, electrical, and chemical engineering
emerged as distinct disciplines toward the
end of the nineteenth century and near
the beginning of the twentieth century
(Grayson, 1993). Other engineering disci-
plines, for example, industrial, biomedi-
cal, environmental, petroleum, mining, and
nuclear, emerged during the twentieth
century.
For the first half of the twentieth cen-
tury, U.S. engineering and engineering edu-
cation was characterized by its practical arts
(Seely, 1999; also see Chapter 7 by Stevens,
Johri, & O’Connor in this volume). This
focus changed abruptly when the world
observed the power of science and its appli-
cations during World War II (Seely, 1999).
When coupled with creation of NSF in 1950
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
5
(National Science Foundation [NSF], 2010),
and several other programs within exist-
ing federal agencies, federal funding largely
transformed the American higher education
system into research-based institutions of
higher learning, especially in science and
engineering. Engineering education shifted
from hands-on, practicum-oriented curric-
ula to ones that emphasized mathematical
and scientific foundations (Grayson, 1993;
Seely, 1999). The shift was codified when
ASEE issued its landmark study commonly
called the Grinter Report in 1955 (Amer-
ican Society for Engineering Education,
1994). It outlined more research-oriented
and science-based curricula, from which ini-
tial transitions to more design-oriented cur-
ricula are recent occurrences (Froyd et al.,
2012).
The first engineering society, the Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers, was estab-
lished in 1852 (American Society of Civil
Engineers, 2010) and the first engineering
education society, the Society for the Pro-
motion of Engineering Education (SPEE),
was founded in 1893 (Reynolds & Seely, 1993)
and is now known as the American Soci-
ety for Engineering Education (ASEE). As
mentioned in the introduction, the growth
of similar engineering education societies
appears to have occurred mostly after the
Second World War (Journal of Engineer-
ing Education, 2010). SPEE established the
first periodical “devoted to technical educa-
tion” in 1910, called the Bulletin (American
Society for Engineering Education, 1910),
which nearly a century later evolved into
the discipline-based (engineering) education
research journal Journal of Engineering Edu-
cation (Journal of Engineering Education, 2010;
Lohmann, 2003).
In 1986, the National Science Board issued
an overdue wake-up call about the state of
U.S. engineering, mathematics, and science
education (National Science Board, 1986).
Its report provided a number of recommen-
dations and made clear that one among them
played a critical role: “The recommenda-
tions of this report make renewed demands
on the academic community – especially
 6 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
that its best scholarship be applied to the
manifold activities needed to strengthen
undergraduate science, engineering, and
mathematics education in the United States”
(National Science Board, 1986, p. 1, empha-
sis added). It was instrumental in reviving
the NSF’s role to “initiate and support sci-
ence and engineering education programs at
all levels and in all the various fields of sci-
ence and engineering” (NSF, 2006, p. 5). The
report was also among those that sparked
a vigorous national dialogue on the role of
scholarship in improving the quality of U.S.
higher education. For example, the highly
influential 1990 report, “Scholarship Recon-
sidered: Priorities of the Professoriate,” by
Ernest Boyer of the Carnegie Foundation,
offered a new taxonomy and terminology
to describe academia’s multifaceted forms
of scholarship (Boyer, 1990). In engineer-
ing, introduction of EC2000 by ABET in
the 1990s was a major driver to improve
the quality of engineering education (ABET,
1995; Prados, 2005). Its outcomes-focused,
evidence-based cycle of observation, evalua-
tion, and improvement characterized many
aspects of a scholarly approach to educa-
tional innovation.
Dialogue and decisions made in the 1990s
paved the way for engineering education to
become a field of scientific inquiry as it
became increasingly clear that the intuition-
based approaches of the past were not pro-
ducing the quantity and quality of engi-
neering talent needed to address society’s
challenges (Continental, 2006; National
Academy of Engineering [NAE], 2004;
National Research Council [NRC], 2005;
NSF, 1992). More scholarly and systematic
approaches based on the learning sciences
were needed (Gabriele, 2005; Haghighi,
2005; NRC, 2000, 2002); concurrently,
research on engineering science should con-
tribute to the development of the learning
sciences (Johri, 2010; Shulman, 2005), espe-
cially in areas closely linked to engineer-
ing, such as design. Consequently, embry-
onic and globally diverse communities began
to emerge and collaborate such that by
the mid-2000s engineering education as a
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
scientific field of inquiry (research) had
passed the “tipping point” both within the
United States and elsewhere (Borrego &
Bernhard, 2011; Jesiek, Borrego, & Beddoes,
2010). Integrating and expanding these com-
munities was a major point of discussion in a
recent NSF-funded ASEE study, Creating a
Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Inno-
vation in Engineering Education (Jamieson
& Lohmann, 2009, 2012).
For a more detailed chronological des-
cription of the development of engineer-
ing education and engineering education,
the authors (together with the support of
others in the engineering education research
community [please see Acknowledgments])
have compiled a timeline in Appendix 1.1.
In the next section, we describe the cur-
rent state of engineering education research,
much of it having been created within the
last decade or so. Figure 1.1 presents a picture
of the largest authorship network within
engineering education research and shows
a core group that is linked to several other
groups and nodes on peripheries.
An Ontological Description of the
State of Engineering Education
Research
A chronological description of a field of
research uses time and temporal ordering as
its organizational framework. An alternative
organizational framework describes entities
and relationships among the entities, that is,
a conceptualization (Genesereth & Nilsson,
1987). To describe a conceptualization of
the state of engineering education research
requires an ontology, that is, a specification
for a conceptualization (Gruber, 1993). An
ontology for evaluating maturation of fields
of disciplinary-based education research has
been formulated with three categories of cri-
teria: structural, research, and outcome, as
summarized in Table 1.1 (Fensham, 2004).
We believe this framework is appropriate
for organizing and critiquing the evolu-
tion and maturity of engineering education
research.
 chronological and ontological development of engineering education 7

Figure 1.1. The largest co-author network in EER. (From Madhavan et al., 2011. Reprinted with
permission.)

Table 1.1. Fensham’s (2004) Criteria for Defining the Field of Science Education Research
Category Criteria Exemplars of Criteria
Structural Academic Recognition Full faculty appointments in the area of research
Research Journals Successful journals for reporting quality research
Professional Associations Healthy national and international professional
associations
Research Conferences Regular conferences for the direct exchange of research
that enable researchers to meet in person
Research Scientific Knowledge Knowledge of science content required to conduct the
research
Asking Questions Asking distinctive research questions not addressed by
other fields
Conceptual and Theoretical Theoretical models with predictive or explanatory power
Development
Research Methodologies Invention, development, or at least adaptation of
methodologies, techniques, or instruments
Progression Researchers are informed by previous studies and build
on or deepen understanding
Model Publications Publications that other researchers hold up as models of
conduct and presentation of research studies in the
field
Seminal Publications Publications recognized as important or definitive
because they marked new directions or provided new
insights
Outcome Implications for Practice Outcomes from research that are applications to the
practice of science education

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
 8 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
Structural Criteria
1. Academic Recognition: Academic recog-
nition examines extent to which schol-
ars in the field are recognized by their
institutions. One metric for recogni-
tion is establishment of organizational
units for scholarship in the discipline,
that is, centers for engineering education
research. In Europe, a “specific goal of
the Bologna declaration is to promote
mobility amongst engineering students
in Europe. As a consequence, universi-
ties will have to engage in an interna-
tional competition to attract students.
This results in a growing interest for
improvement and innovation in engineer-
ing education. All over Europe “Cen-
tres of Expertise on Learning and Teach-
ing” are being established or, in case of
older existing institutes are re-installed.
The position of a centre of this kind
within the university organisation varies
as well as tasks and responsibilities. Some
establishments are divided into a research
group and a teacher-training and consul-
tant division” (Hawwash, 2007, p. 30).
In the United States, there are about
twenty centers involved in engineering
education research of which most were
established in the last decade (Center for
the Advancement of Scholarship in Engi-
neering Education, 2010). Departments of
Engineering Education were established
at Purdue and Virginia Tech, and were
the first to provide tenured positions in
engineering education. Later, Utah State
University established a Department of
Engineering Education and Clemson Uni-
versity established a Department of Engi-
neering and Science Education.
2. Research Journals: The field has one jour-
nal focused exclusively on research, the
Journal of Engineering Education (JEE),
and five whose missions encompass
research: Engineering Studies, European
Journal of Engineering Education (EJEE),
International Journal of Engineering Edu-
cation (IJEE), Engineering Education, and
Chemical Engineering Education (Borrego
& Bernhard, 2011).2 Two are listed on
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Thomson-Reuters citation indices (IJEE
and JEE) and three are ranked by the Aus-
tralian Research Council (EJEE, IJEE,
and JEE).
3. Professional Associations and Research
Conferences: There are many interna-
tional engineering education societies
including a federation of such societies
(International Federation of Engineering
Education Societies, 2010). The dominant
ones are ASEE, the Australasian Associa-
tion for Engineering Education (AAEE),
and the Société Européenne pour la For-
mation des Ingénieurs (SEFI). Annual
conferences focus on curriculum devel-
opment; however, increasingly some host
engineering education research tracks
and some have groups whose focus is
engineering education research, notably
AAEE, ASEE, and SEFI. An independent
research symposium Research on Engi-
neering Education Symposium (REES)
was established in 2007 to facilitate a peri-
odic global gathering of researchers in the
field (Research in Engineering Education
Network, 2010).
4. Funding and Honors: The authors believe
there are two additional structural crite-
ria of importance to engineering. Peer-
reviewed extramural support has been a
critical to U.S. engineering research since
World War II. Educational initiatives,
however, have been supported mostly
within university budgets. In the late
1980s, the NSF established programs for
curriculum development and pedagogi-
cal innovation whose support mirrored
their technical research counterparts, and
a number of programs are now available
for discipline-based education research.
Awards and honors for teaching are ubiq-
uitous but recognitions for engineering
education research are nearly nonexis-
tent. Two publication awards include
ASEE’s Wickenden Award for the best
paper published annually in JEE and the
Outstanding Research Publication Award
by Division I (Education in the Pro-
fessions) of the American Educational
Research Association.
 chronological and ontological development of engineering education
Research Criteria
1. Scientific Knowledge and Asking Ques-
tions: The NSF-funded Engineering Edu-
cation Research Colloquies held in 2004–
2005 were among the more notable efforts
to begin to frame a scientific basis for
thinking about the research challenges
in the field of engineering education
(The Steering Committee of the National
Engineering Education Research Collo-
quies, 2006a, 2006b). They produced a
taxonomy organized around “five priority
research areas (Engineering Epistemolo-
gies, Engineering Learning Mechanisms,
Engineering Learning Systems, Engineer-
ing Diversity and Inclusiveness, and Engi-
neering Assessment)” that merge disci-
plinary engineering and learning sciences
knowledge. Other efforts have recently
emerged in the European community
(Borrego & Bernhard, 2011; European and
Global Engineering Education Network,
2010). Although the global community
has not reached consensus on a tax-
onomy, it clearly feels a pressing need
for such and is working to develop it
(Borrego & Bernhard, 2011).
2. Conceptual and Theoretical Development
and Research Methodologies: These two
areas form the intellectual core of any
disciplinary-based educational research
field. Currently, conceptual and theoret-
ical frameworks and research method-
ologies in engineering education research
show considerable similarity to those of
educational research in general, a condi-
tion that reveals its lack of maturity. Like
other educational research fields, one
foundation is research in the learning sci-
ences, with its vast literature base and dif-
ferent theoretical frameworks (Greeno,
Collins, & Resnick, 1996). At present,
theoretical frameworks for research in
engineering education do not distinguish
themselves itself from frameworks for
educational research in general, which
tend to emphasize individual learn-
ing. Research in the cognitive sciences,
for example, brain physiology, might
contribute to a theoretical framework;
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
9
however, constructing bridges from func-
tions of individual or small groups of
neurons to complex engineering concepts
and processes would be a formidable task
(Johri & Olds, 2011). Also, because engi-
neering faculty members teach as col-
lections or organizations of individuals,
a potential contributor to future theo-
retical frameworks may be organizational
change (Weick & Quinn, 1999).
Similar statements can also be made about
applicable research methodologies, that is,
engineering education research does not
have a distinctive set of research method-
ologies. Engineering faculty members who
apply engineering education research have
backgrounds that condition them to under-
stand quantitative research methodologies
more easily than qualitative or mixed
methodologies. As a result, efforts have been
made to educate a large segment of the
audience for engineering education research
about the nature and value of the latter
two sets of methodologies (Borrego, Dou-
glas, & Amelink, 2009), but further progress
is required.
3. Progression, Models, and Seminal Pub-
lications: Strobel, Evangelou, Streveler,
and Smith (2008) think the first doc-
toral thesis on engineering education was
published in 1929, and additional theses
appeared occasionally up to about 1980.
However, for the years between 1980 and
1989, they found five to eleven theses
published every year; thereafter, thesis
production increased markedly, and sev-
eral widely cited articles on research
in engineering education were published
(Atman, Chimka, Bursic, & Nachtmann,
1999; Besterfield-Sacre, Atman, & Shu-
man, 1997; Felder, Felder, & Dietz, 1998)
in the 1990s. These papers laid founda-
tions for (i) further understanding of how
students learn the engineering design pro-
cess and how verbal protocol analysis
methodologies can support the research
(Atman & Bursic, 1998; Atman et al.,
1999); (ii) rigorous assessment and adop-
tion of cooperative learning (and later,
other innovations) in engineering (Felder
 10 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
et al., 1998; Haller, Gallagher, Weldon,
& Felder, 2000); and (iii) the impor-
tance of and instruments for understand-
ing engineering student attitudes and
the roles they play in retention and
learning (Besterfield-Sacre et al., 1997).
In the first decade of the new millen-
nium, significant publications in engi-
neering education research have become
too numerous to mention in this short
review.
Outcome Criteria (Implications
for Practice)
One key set of criteria in evaluating matu-
rity of any research field are its influences
on practice. Examining one metric related
to the criteria was a survey of engineer-
ing department chairs about the extent to
which seven innovations in engineering edu-
cation had been adopted in engineering
departments (Borrego, Froyd, & Hall, 2010).
Each of the innovations was well supported
by research demonstrating its efficacy. Sur-
vey results showed that engineering depart-
ment chairs were aware of the innovations,
but adoption of the innovations lagged well
behind awareness. These findings in engi-
neering echo similar findings in physics edu-
cation (Dancy & Henderson, 2012).
Anticipating these findings, in 2006,
ASEE launched a major initiative in engi-
neering education community to persuade
members of the synergistic and complemen-
tary roles played by innovation and research,
beginning with the ASEE Year of Dialogue.
Culmination of this initiative was publica-
tion of two ASEE reports: Creating a Cul-
ture for Scholarly and Systematic Innova-
tion in Engineering Education (Jamieson &
Lohmann, 2009) and Innovation with Impact
(Jamieson & Lohmann, 2012). However, the
fact that such an initiative was required
is indicative of a culture in which most
engineering education practitioners are con-
tent to continue to focus on innovations
and less concerned about theoretical foun-
dations that might catalyze innovations or
methodologies with which the efficacy of
the innovations might be evaluated.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Other factors besides a focus on inno-
vations contribute to the lack of influ-
ence of engineering education research
on practice in engineering classrooms.
Research in physics education suggests that
researchers expect that their curricular inno-
vations will be adopted by faculty mem-
bers “with minimal changes, while fac-
ulty expect researchers to work with them
to incorporate research-based knowledge
and materials into their unique instruc-
tional situations” (Henderson & Dancy,
2008, p. 79, emphasis added). For exam-
ple, a study of adoption of research-based
instructional strategies by chemical engi-
neering faculty members showed that the
primary faculty concern was classroom
time that might be required to imple-
ment the instructional strategy (Prince, Bor-
rego, Cutler, Henderson, & Froyd, 2013),
but efficacy with respect to student learn-
ing is often a primary focus when evalu-
ating an instructional strategy. Other fac-
tors that influence adoption lie outside of
the control of an individual faculty mem-
ber. These include student attitudes toward
school (Henderson & Dancy, 2007); expec-
tations of content coverage (J. L. Cooper,
MacGregor, Smith, & Robinson, 2000; M. M.
Cooper, 1995; Henderson & Dancy, 2007),
which may be linked to classroom time; time
required to prepare a lecture period (Hen-
derson & Dancy, 2007; Prince et al., 2013);
departmental norms (Henderson & Dancy,
2007); student resistance (J. L. Cooper et
al., 2000; Henderson & Dancy, 2007); class
size and room layout (M. M. Cooper, 1995;
Henderson & Dancy, 2007); and constraints
imposed by how class periods are scheduled
(Henderson & Dancy, 2007).
In addition to the aforementioned factors,
numerous articles have suggested that adop-
tion of innovations from disciplinary-based
educational research, educational research,
and research in the learning sciences is
hindered by institutional reward systems
that value research far more than they
value teaching (Cuban, 1999; Diamond,
1993; Handelsman et al., 2004). An often-
repeated rationale for emphasis on research
is that quality in research and teaching are
 chronological and ontological development of engineering education
Figure 1.2. A case study of frontiers in education conference – ten years
(Madhavan et al., 2010. Reprinted with permission.)
correlated (Fairweather, 2002; Hattie &
Marsh, 1996; Prince, Felder, & Brent, 2007).
However, scholarly inquiries into this key
assertion have not found support for it (Fair-
weather, 2002; Hattie & Marsh, 1996). Thor-
ough inquiries into questions such as the
following are beyond the scope of this chap-
ter, but might be possibilities for future
research:
1. What is the extent of compatibility
between university reward systems that
placed greater emphasis on teaching and
short-term (five to ten years) progress
toward achievement of institutional mis-
sions?
2. How might faculty evaluation systems
be modified to address more balanced
emphases on teaching and teaching
(Arreola, 1995)?
3. What external incentives might promote
changes in faculty evaluation and reward
systems?
There are many possible ways of exam-
ining these issues, and one possible solu-
tion is the use of cyberinfrastructure to
analyze patterns of topics and authorship
over time. Madhavan et al. (2010) adopted
such an approach to re-create visually the
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
11
growth of one important conference associ-
ated with engineering education research –
Frontiers in Education. An image is pre-
sented in Figure 1.2 and the movie is
available online: http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=Oqd6vpjzqBI.
Conclusions: The Path Forward
Engineering education research has become
an established field within the last decade,
although its recognition and acceptance
within the broader engineering community
remains a challenge. It has established the
critical physical infrastructure, for exam-
ple, centers, departments, journals, confer-
ences, and funding, necessary for it to now
devote increasing attention to its intellec-
tual growth, for example, conceptual and
theoretical development, research method-
ologies, and progression. We foresee two
major developments in the next decade:
(1) major national or regional efforts to bet-
ter integrate engineering education research
into engineering programs, such as ASEE’s
effort Creating a Culture for Scholarly and
Systematic Innovation in Engineering Edu-
cation and the European effort, European
and Global Engineering Education Network
 12 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
(EUGENE), and (2) increasing collaboration
(and occasional tensions) among the grow-
ing global communities of engineering edu-
cation researchers as the field continues to
mature.
Forecasts for development of the schol-
arly, interdisciplinary field of engineer-
ing education research are often, perhaps
inevitably, intertwined with conversations
about reform, improvement, and change in
engineering education practice. In response
to concerns that engineering education has
never and will never change, inquiry into
the history of engineering education of engi-
neering shows that substantive changes have
occurred and are occurring (Froyd et al.,
2012; Seely, 1999). Studies have also demon-
strated periodic reform in science and math-
ematics education at the K–12 level (Tyack &
Cuban, 1995). However, pace of the changes
may not satisfy many stakeholders with aspi-
rations for major changes by 2020 (NAE,
2004).
Acknowledgments
Alone, the two authors could only provide
an incomplete portrait of the development
of engineering education and engineering
education research. Other people have con-
tributed to provide a more complete pic-
ture and we would like to acknowledge their
valuable contributions: Cynthia J. Atman,
Richard M. Felder, Larry J. Shuman, and
Karl A. Smith.
Footnotes
1. The Morrill Act (often called the Land Grant
Act) gave each U.S. senator and representative
30,000 acres of land, which was to be used to
provide for colleges in each of the states. The
colleges were to educate citizens in agricul-
ture, home economics, mechanical arts (i.e.,
engineering), and other professions practical
for the times.
2. There are other engineering education journals
but their primary focus is curriculum develop-
ment and pedagogical innovation.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
References
ABET. (1995). Vision for change: A summary
report of the ABET/NSF/Industry workshops,
95-VIS. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2010). His-
tory of ASCE. Retrieved from http://www
.asce.org/PPLContent.aspx?id=2147485181.
American Society for Engineering Education.
(1910). Bulletin of the Society for the Promotion
of Engineering Education, Vol. XVIII, No. 1.
Ithaca, NY: Society for the Promotion of Engi-
neering Education.
American Society for Engineering Education.
(1994). Report on evaluation of engineering
education (reprint of the 1955 report). Journal
of Engineering Education, 83(1), 74–94.
American Society for Engineering Education.
(n.d.). American Society for Engineering Edu-
cation: Our history. Retrieved from http://
www.asee.org/about-us/the-organization/
our-history.
Arreola, R. A. (1995). Developing a comprehensive
faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college
faculty and administrators on designing and oper-
ating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system.
Bolton, MA: Anker.
Atman, C. J., & Bursic, K. M. (1998). Verbal
protocol analysis as a method to document
engineering student design processes. Journal
of Engineering Education, 87(2), 121–132.
Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., &
Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of
freshman and senior engineering design pro-
cesses. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152.
Besterfield-Sacre, M. E., Atman, C. J., & Shu-
man, L. J. (1997). Characteristics of freshman
engineering students: Models for determining
student attrition in engineering. Journal of Engi-
neering Education, 86(2), 139–149.
Borrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011). The emer-
gence of engineering education research as
an internationally-connected field of inquiry.
Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 14–47.
Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T.
(2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
research methods in engineering education.
Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66.
Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Dif-
fusion of engineering education innovations: A
survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S.
engineering departments. Journal of Engineer-
ing Education, 99(3), 185–207.
 chronological and ontological development of engineering education
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Pri-
orities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Center for the Advancement of Scholarship
in Engineering Education. (2010). Engineering
education centers roundtable. Retrieved from
http://www.nae.edu/cms/11785.aspx.
Committee on K–12 Engineering Education;
Linda Katehi, Greg Pearson, and Michael
Feder, & National Academy of Engineer-
ing and National Research Council (Eds.).
(2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Under-
standing the status and improving the prospects.
Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Continental. (2006). In search of global engineer-
ing excellence: Educating the next generation of
engineers for the global workplace. Hanover,
Germany: Continental, AG.
Cooper, J. L., MacGregor, J., Smith, K. A.,
& Robinson, P. (2000). Implementing small-
group instruction: Insights from successful
practitioners. New Directions in Teaching and
Learning, 81, 64–76.
Cooper, M. M. (1995). Cooperative learning: An
approach for large enrollment courses. Journal
of Chemical Education, 72(2), 162–164.
Cuban, L. (1999). How scholars trumped teachers:
Change without reform in university curriculum,
teaching, and research, 1890–1990. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Dancy, M. H., & Henderson, C. (2012). Peda-
gogical practices and instructional change of
physics faculty. American Journal of Physics,
78(10), 1056–1063.
Diamond, R. M. (1993). Changing priorities and
the faculty reward system. New Directions for
Higher Education, 81, 5–12.
European and Global Engineering Education
Network. (2010). Home page. Retrieved from
http://www.eugene.unifi.it/.
Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of
faculty productivity: Implications for institu-
tional policy and decision making. The Journal
of Higher Education, 73(1), 26–48.
Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., & Dietz, J. E. (1998).
A longitudinal study of engineering student
performance and retention. V. Comparisons
with traditionally-taught students. Journal of
Engineering Education, 87(4), 469–480.
Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The
evolution of science education as a field of
research. New York, NY: Springer.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
13
Froyd, J. E., Wankat, P. C., & Smith, K. A.
(2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineer-
ing education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(13),
1344–1360.
Gabriele, G. A. (2005). Advancing engineering
education in a flattened world. Journal of Engi-
neering Education, 94(3), 285–286.
Genesereth, M. R., & Nilsson, N. J. (1987). Logical
foundations of artificial intelligence. Los Altos,
CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Grayson, L. P. (1993). The making of an engineer:
An illustrated history of engineering education in
the United States and Canada. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B.
(1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner
& R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach
to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition,
5(2), 199–220.
Haghighi, K. (2005). Quiet no longer: Birth of
a new discipline. Journal of Engineering Educa-
tion, 94(4), 351–353.
Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T.
L., & Felder, R. M. (2000). Dynamics of
peer interaction in cooperative learning work-
groups. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3),
285–293.
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R.,
Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., . . . Wood,
W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science,
304(5670), 521–522.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relation-
ship between research and teaching: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4),
507–542.
Hawwash, K. (2007). Promotion of pedagogical
abilities of engineering lecturers. In C. Borri,
C., & F. Maffioli (Eds.), Re-engineering engineer-
ing education in Europe (pp. 17–44). Florence,
Italy: Firenze University Press.
Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2007). Barri-
ers to the use of research-based instructional
strategies: The influence of both individual and
situational characteristics. Physical Review Spe-
cial Topics – Physics Education Research, 3(2),
020102-1–020102-14.
Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2008). Physics
faculty and educational researchers: Divergent
expectations as barriers to the diffusion of
innovations. American Journal of Physics, 76(1),
79–91.
 14 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
International Federation of Engineering Educa-
tion Societies. (2010). Home page. Retrieved
from http://www.ifees.net.
Jamieson, L. H., & Lohmann, J. R. (2009). Cre-
ating a culture for scholarly and systematic inno-
vation in engineering education, Phase 1. Wash-
ington, DC: American Society for Engineering
Education.
Jamieson, L. H., & Lohmann, J. R. (2012). Inno-
vation with impact: Creating a culture for schol-
arly and systematic innovation in engineering
education. Washington, DC: American Society
for Engineering.
Jesiek, B. K., Borrego, M., & Beddoes, K. (2010).
Advancing the global capacity for engineer-
ing education research (AGCEER): Relating
research to practice, policy, and industry. Jour-
nal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 107–199.
Jesiek, B. K., Newswander, L. K., & Borrego, M.
(2009). Engineering education research: Disci-
pline, community, or field? Journal of Engineer-
ing Education, 98(1), 39–52.
Johri, A. (2010). Creating theoretical insights in
engineering education. Journal of Engineering
Education, 99(3), 183–184.
Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engi-
neering learning: Bridging engineering educa-
tion research and the learning sciences. Journal
of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185.
Journal of Engineering Education. (2010). Journal
of Engineering Education, home page. Retrieved
from http://www.jee.org.
Lightcap, B. (2010). Morrill Act. Retrieved from
http://www.nd.edu/˜rbarger/www7/morrill
.html.
Lohmann, J. R. (2003). Mission, measures, and
ManuscriptCentralTM . Journal of Engineering
Education, 92(1), 1.
Lohmann, J. R. (2005). Building a community of
scholars: The role of the Journal of Engineer-
ing Education as a research journal. Journal of
Engineering Education, 94(1), 1–6.
Madhavan, K., Xian, H., Johri, A., Vorvoreanu,
M., Jesiek, B. K., Wankat, P. C. (2011). Under-
standing the engineering education research
problem space using interactive knowledge
networks. In Proceedings of 2011 Annual Con-
ference and Exposition of the American Soci-
ety of Engineering Education, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.
Madhavan, K. P. C., Xian, H., Vorvoreanu, M.,
Johri, A., Jesiek, B., Wang, A., & Wankat, P.
(2010). The FIE Story 1991 to 2009. Invited
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
video presentation featured at the Frontiers
in Education Conference 2010, October 2010.
The video is available online at: http://www
.youtube.com/watch?v=bKA4zJc3bsA.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2004).
The engineer of 2020. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). How
people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Sci-
entific research in education. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2005). Ris-
ing above the gathering storm: Energizing and
employing America for a brighter economic future.
Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
National Science Board. (1986). Undergraduate
science, mathematics and engineering education,
NSB 86010. Washington, DC: National Science
Foundation.
National Science Foundation (NSF). (1992).
America’s academic future: A report of the Pres-
idential Young Investigator colloquium on U.S.
engineering, mathematics, and science education
for the year 2010 and beyond, NSF 91–150. Wash-
ington, DC: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2006).
Approved Minutes, Open Session, 393rd
Meeting, National Science Board. Retrieved
from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/2006/
0809/minutes.pdf.
Prados, J. W. (2005). Quality assurance of engi-
neering education through accreditation: The
impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its
global influence. Journal of Engineering Educa-
tion, 94(1), 165–184.
Prince, M. J., Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Hender-
son, C., & Froyd, J. E. (2013). Use of research-
based instructional strategies in core chemical
engineering courses. Chemical Engineering Edu-
cation, 47(1), 27–37.
Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007).
Does faculty research improve undergraduate
teaching? An analysis of existing and poten-
tial synergies. Journal of Engineering Education,
96(4), 283–294.
Research in Engineering Education Network.
(2010). Research in Engineering Education Net-
work, home page. Retrieved from http://grou
.ps/reen/home.
 chronological and ontological development of engineering education
Reynolds, T. S., & Seely, B. E. (1993). Striving
for balance: A hundred years of the American
Society for Engineering Education. Journal of
Engineering Education, 82(3), 136–151.
Seely, B. E. (1999). The other re-engineering of
engineering education, 1900–1965. Journal of
Engineering Education, 88(3), 285–294.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). If not now, when? The
timeliness of scholarship of the education of
engineers. Journal of Engineering Education,
94(1), 11–12.
Strobel, J., Evangelou, D., Streveler, R. A., &
Smith, K. A. (2008). The many homes of engi-
neering education research: Historical analysis
of PhD dissertations. Paper presented at the
Research in Engineering Education Sympo-
sium, Davos, Switzerland. Retrieved from
http://www.engconfintl.org/8axabstracts/
Session%204A/rees08_submission_16.pdf.
The Steering Committee of the National
Engineering Education Research Colloquies.
(2006a). Special report: The National Engi-
neering Education Research Colloquies. Jour-
nal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 257–
258.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
15
The Steering Committee of the National
Engineering Education Research Colloquies.
(2006b). Special report: The research agenda
for the new discipline of engineering educa-
tion. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4),
259–261.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward
utopia: A century of public school reform. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
United States Military Academy. (2010). A brief
history of West Point. Retrieved from http://
www.westpoint.edu/wphistory/SitePages/
Home.aspx.
Wankat, P. C., Felder, R. M., Smith, K. A., &
Oreovicz, F. S. (2002). The scholarship of
teaching and learning in engineering. In M. T.
Huber & S. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary
styles in the scholarship of teaching and learn-
ing: Exploring common ground (pp. 217–237).
Washington, DC: American Association for
Higher Education/Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Orga-
nizational change and development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

16

Appendix 1.1. Timeline of Events in Engineering Education and Engineering Education Research
Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF
1973 Stice paper: Hereford, S.
M., & Stice, J. E. (1973). A
course in college teaching in
engineering and the physical
sciences. Paper presented at
the ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition.
1976 Stice papers: (1) Stice, J. E.
(1976). A first step toward
improved teaching.
Engineering Education, 66(5),
394–398; (2) The what, why,
and how of faculty
development, or who, me?”
1981 Cooperative learning is First in a series of papers on
introduced at the cooperative learning
Frontiers in Education published in Engineering
Conference, one of the Education, Smith, K. A.,
two major conferences Johnson, D. W., & Johnson,
on engineering education R. T. (1981). Structuring
in the United States. learning goals to meet the
goals of engineering
education. Engineering
Education, 72(3), 221–226.
1986 NSB releases the Neal
Report calling for more
scholarship in engineering,
science, and mathematics
education.
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
1987 Stice publications: (1) Stice,
J. E. (1987). Using Kolb’s
learning cycle to improve
student learning.
Engineering Education, 77,
291–296; (2) Stice, J. E.
(Ed.). (1987). Developing
critical thinking and
problem-solving abilities
(Vol. 30). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
1988
17
NSF launches first program
for curriculum
development; NSF funds
grant that leads to
development of the E4
program at Drexel
University (E4 program was
the foundation for the
Gateway Engineering
Education Coalition funded
in 1992); NSF funds grant
that leads to development
of the Engineering Core
Curriculum at Texas A&M
University the Engineering
Core Curriculum was a
pillar in the formation of
the Foundation Coalition, a
NSF Engineering Education
Coalition funded in 1993).
(continued )
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

18

Appendix 1.1 (continued)

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF
1989 NSF funds grant that leads
to development of the
Integrated, First-Year
Curriculum in Science,
Engineering and
Mathematics (IFYCSEM)
(IFYCSEM was a pillar in
the formation of the
Foundation Coalition, a
NSF Engineering Education
Coalition funded in 1993).
1990 ECSEL and Synthesis America’s Academic
Engineering Education Future: A Report of the
Coalitions started. Presidential Young
EXCEL and Synthesis Investigator Colloquium on
were engineering U.S. Engineering,
education Coalitions. Mathematics, and Science
NSF invested about Education for the Year
$30 million in each 2010 and Beyond
Coalition to catalyze
systemic improvement in
engineering education;
Leonhard Center for
Enhancement of
Engineering Education
was established at
Pennsylvania State
University; Presidential
Young Investigator (PYI)
Colloquium held and
report published.
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

1991 Cooperative Learning Johnson, Johnson & Smith, First edition published:
Publications Cooperative Learning Johnson, D. W., Johnson,
ASHE-ERIC Research R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998).
Report Active learning: Cooperation
in the college classroom (2nd
ed.). Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
1992 SUCCEED and Gateway “ABET President John
Engineering Education Prados challenged the
Coalitions started. Board of Directors to
consider radical revisions
in accreditation
philosophy, criteria, and
procedures” (Prados,
J. W., Peterson, G. D., &
Lattuca, L. R. (2005).
Quality assurance of
engineering education
through accreditation:
The impact of
Engineering Criteria 2000
and its global influence.
Journal of Engineering
Education, 94(1), 165–184,
p. 168)
(continued )
19
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

20

Appendix 1.1 (continued)

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF
1993 Foundation Coalition Part I of longitudinal study NSF funds the first
(Engineering Education of cooperative learning in Presidential Young
Coalition) started. chemical engineering: Investigator (PYI) awards in
Felder, R. M., Forrest, K. engineering education (PYI
D., Baker-Ward, L., Dietz, was the precursor to
E. J., & Moh, P. H. (1993). CAREER program).
A longitudinal study of
engineering student
performance and retention.
I. Success and failure in the
introductory course. Journal
of Engineering Education,
82(1), 15–21.
1994 Greenfield Coalition Report: Engineering ABET holds three Part II of longitudinal study
(Engineering Education Education for a Changing consensus-building of cooperative learning in
Coalition) started. World. Report by the workshops for the chemical engineering:
Engineering Deans Council Accreditation Process Felder, R. M., Mohr, P. H.,
and the Business Review Committee. Dietz, E. J., & Baker-Ward,
Roundtable of the Workshops involve more L. (1994). A longitudinal
American Society for than 125 participants study of engineering
Engineering Education from academia, industry, student performance and
and government. retention. II. Rural/urban
student differences. Journal
of Engineering Education,
83(3), 209–217.
1995 Frontiers in Education ABET Board of Directors Part III and IV of
Conference (FIE): The approved the publication longitudinal study of
FIE Conference held in of new cooperative learning in
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

Atlanta was the first of a criteria for evaluating chemical engineering: (1)
new format for the engineering programs – Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N.,
conference that attracted Engineering Criteria 2000 Mauney, M., Charles
a relatively large crowd (EC2000) for public Hamrin, J., & Dietz, E. J.
and made a substantial comment. (1995). A longitudinal study
profit, enabling of engineering student
Education Research and performance and retention.
Methods (ERM) Division III. Gender differences in
of ASEE to begin to take student performance and
on a number of creative attitudes. Journal of
activities. Engineering Education, 84(2),
151–163; (2) Felder, R. M.
(1995). A longitudinal study
of engineering student
performance and retention.
IV. Instructional methods.
Journal of Engineering
Education, 84(4), 361–367.
1996 Pilot evaluations
conducted using
Engineering Criteria
2000 at five diverse
institutions.
1997 Frontiers in Education USEME (precursor to
(FIE) Conference: The DUE) formed.
FIE Conference held in
Pittsburgh introduced
the New Faculty Fellows
program and published
the outstanding papers
from the Conference in
the Journal of
Engineering Education.
(continued)
21
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

Appendix 1.1 (continued)

22

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF

1998 Center for Engineering Part V of longitudinal study
Learning and Teaching of cooperative learning in
(CELT) at University of chemical engineering:
Washington established. Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N.,
& Dietz, E. J. (1998). A
longitudinal study of
engineering student
performance and retention.
V. Comparisons with
traditionally-taught
students. Journal of
Engineering Education,
87(4), 469–480.
1999 National Research Atman et al publish first NSF funds the first
Council (NRC) Board on study comparing Engineering Research
Engineering Education performance with respect Center (VaNTH) with a
moved to National to engineering design. Paper focus on engineering
Academy of Engineering compared engineering education; NSF initiates its
(NAE) and renamed to design performance of Action Agenda program to
Committee on first-year and senior facilitate adaptation of
Engineering Education engineering students: innovations in engineering
(CEE). Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., and science education
Bursic, K. M., &
Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A
comparison of freshman
and senior engineering
design processes. Design
Studies, 20(2), 131–152.
2000 Center for Engineering
Education was
established at the
Colorado School of
Mines.
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

2001 The Engineer of 2020 Outcomes-based criteria

Project was started by (formerly referred to as
the Committee on Engineering Criteria
Engineering Education of 2000) become the only
the NAE. criteria used for
accrediting engineering
degree programs.
2002 Center for the
Advancement of
Scholarship in
Engineering was
established at the NAE as
one of the initiatives of
the Committee on
Engineering Education.
2003 National Academy of NSF funds the first Center
Engineering (NAE) on Teaching and Learning
established the Bernard (CLT) on engineering
M. Gordon Prize for education, Center for
Innovation in Advancement of
Engineering and Engineering Education
Technology Education (CAEE).
($500,000 award);
Journal of Engineering
Education focuses
exclusively on research in
engineering education.
2004 Purdue University and Report: Engineer of 2020
Virginia Tech each create
a Department of
Engineering Education.
(continued )
23
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

24

Appendix 1.1 (continued)

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF
2005 Engineering Education Special Issue of Journal of
Research Colloquies Engineering Education; John
(EERC). A series of four Heywood book
colloquies designed to “Engineering Education:
spur discussion on the Research and Development
future of engineering in Curriculum and
education. The first of Instruction.”
these colloquies occurred
in September 2005.
Invited scholars known
for their experience and
expertise in the field
begin preparing a
roadmap for engineering
education and an
engineering education
research agenda; JEE
publishes first special
issue, the Art and Science
of Engineering Education
Research, whose articles
are the most cited since
the launch of JEE as a
research journal.
2006 Advances in Engineering Not sure of the exact year
Education (AEE) but about this time the
launched. EEC/ENG division started
creating EER programs.
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

2007 The first conference on

engineering education
research, International
Conference on Research
in Engineering Education
(ICREE) launched with
meeting in Honolulu;
Global Colloquium in
Engineering Education
(GCEE) hosts its first
track on engineering
education; JEE initiates a
new monthly column in
Prism, “JEE Selects:
Research in Practice.”
2008 ASEE launches Advances
in Engineering Education
(AEE) as a repository for
successful applications to
complement JEE’s focus
on research; JEE begins
forming international
partnerships, ten created
by 2010; Research in
Engineering Education
Symposium (REES),
successor to ICREE,
holds its first meeting in
Davos, Switzerland.
(continued )
25
at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.003
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 04 Jun 2017 at 07:56:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

26

Appendix 1.1 (continued)

Year Events Reports ABET Papers NSF
2009 REES holds its second Creating a Culture for
meeting in Palm Cove, Scholarly and Systematic
Queensland, Australia. Innovation in Engineering
Education (CCSSIEE),
Phase 1 Report
2010 Creating a Culture for
Scholarly and Systematic
Innovation in Engineering
Education (CCSSIEE),
Phase 2 Report
2011 JEE celebrates centennial
issue.