Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 282 de 957
optional online survey), and 26 agreed (three were teaching half-term classes that had
ended by the time our project was announced, and one was not interested). Our
participants varied by gender (two women and 24 men), faculty rank (six lecturers, three
assistant professors, six associate professors, and 11 full professors), and instructional
department. Information about the respective courses of the 26 participants is shown in
Table 1. At the conclusion of the project, 25 of the 26 faculty participants received a $5 gift
card for the local coffee stand (one participant declined the incentive).
Faculty Perceptions of Teaching
Table 1: Course information
Each participant was invited to complete an optional, online survey. The survey included
basic questions about the course s/he was teaching as well as two short researchvalidated
inventories: Trigwell and Prosser’s revised Approaches to Teaching Inventory
(Trigwell & Prosser, 2005) and Murray’s Teaching Behaviors Inventory (Murray, 1985). We
requested that participants complete the survey using the specific class that we selected
for observation as the context.
The revised Approaches to Teaching Inventory contains 22 items, eleven that represent a
teaching approach that Trigwell and Prosser define as information transmission or
teacher-focused and eleven that represent a conceptual change or student-focused teaching
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011