Current People: Lorena Grundy, Deja Preusser
Sample Papers
Koretsky, M. D., & Magana, A. J. (2019). Using Technology to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Engineering. Advances in Engineering Education, 7(2) P4:1-53 (2019).
Koretsky, M., Montfort, D., Nolen, S. B., Bothwell, M., Davis, S., & Sweeney, J. (2018). Towards a stronger covalent bond: pedagogical change for inclusivity and equity. Chemical Engineering Education, 52(2), 117-127.
Koretsky, M. D. (2015). Program level curriculum reform at scale: Using studios to flip the classroom. Chemical Engineering Education, 49(1), 47-57.
Quardokus Fisher, K., Sitomer, A., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., & Koretsky, M. (2019). Using social network analysis to develop relational expertise for an instructional change initiative. International journal of STEM education, 6(1), 1-12.
Koretsky, M. D., McColley, C. J., Gugel, J. L., & Ekstedt, T. W. (2022). Aligning classroom assessment with engineering practice: A design‐based research study of a two‐stage exam with authentic assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(1), 185-213.
Quardokus Fisher, K., & Koretsky, M. D. (2021). Socially enabled actors: the emerging authorship of fixed-term instructional faculty to enact and sustain organizational change. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(6), 1268-1282.
Michor, E., & Koretsky, M. (2020). Students’ Approaches to Studying through a Situative Lens. Studies in Engineering Education, 1(1).
In this thread, we are interested in addressing programmatic changes to instructional practice and culture in ways that are better supported by learning research and that better align with professional practice. In the Enhancing STEM Education at Oregon State University (ESTEME@OSU) project (NSF: WIDER), we created an interdisciplinary community among multiple science and engineering departments to leverage distributed expertise and provide a place to cross-pollinate innovative instructional practices. In the Revolution in CBEE (NSF: RED) project, we participated in a large change initiative within a specific department. Both of these projects focus on enabling faculty to grow their instructional practice through emergent change using design-based implementation research. In design-based implementation research, ongoing analyses are used to inform ongoing design decisions. Implementation “problems” and “successes” provide important information for redesign and elaboration decisions. Central elements include a focus on persistent problems of practice from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives; a commitment to iterative, collaborative design; and a concern with developing theory and knowledge through systematic inquiry.
For example, an article from the ESTEME@OSU project (Quardokus Fisher & Koretsky, 2021) describes how fixed-term instructors became socially enabled actors (SEAs) through developing social connections provided by interactions with the change initiative. Each SEA pursued a personal vision toward effective change in STEM education. Over the three-year study, each SEA’s vision became more tangible, more sustained, and wider-spread. The emergence of these SEAs helped to relieve the tensions between the traditional roles and responsibilities of administrators and instructors by engaging instructors as leaders in STEM education change. In addition, these SEAs maintained authority and developed system-level efforts that could sustain change beyond the end of the funded project. Importantly, the SEAs’ statuses shifted as they were repositioned to become more valued members of the STEM education community doing challenging and important work.
The Revolution in CBEE project builds on our previous work in program reform that transitioned the majority of CBEE (Chemical, Biological, and Environmental Engineering) core courses to a studio structure. In studio, large lecture sections (100 – 350 students) are interspersed with smaller studio meetings (approximately 24 students). During studio, students work together in mostly 3-person teams, facilitated by trained student instructors. Studios are designed to extend students’ thinking and problem-solving techniques while simultaneously reinforcing core content and developing teamwork and communication skills. The Studio 2.0 reform in Revolution in CBEE shifts studio activity to equitable, consequential work that directly and clearly relates to professional practice and desired professional attitudes and behaviors. Assessment is formative and immediate, focused on whether teams are “making progress” in grappling with the task. In this framing, as learners struggle with difficult concepts and may even sometimes fail to accomplish their short-term goals, they are continually positioned as engineers seeking meaningful progress towards a viable solution, rather than students following directions to get a grade. To support this development, we have cultivated a faculty community of practice (CoP) of studio instructors, led the professional development of graduate teaching assistants and undergraduate learning assistants (LAs), and used both laboratory and classroom video studies of small group collaborative learning.