@article{felder_2021, title={A note from the (distant) past}, volume={532}, ISSN={["1879-0224"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.fluid.2020.112936}, journal={FLUID PHASE EQUILIBRIA}, author={Felder, Richard}, year={2021}, month={Mar} }
 @article{felder_2021, title={STEM education: A tale of two paradigms}, volume={20}, ISSN={["1541-4329"]}, DOI={10.1111/1541-4329.12219}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION}, author={Felder, Richard M.}, year={2021}, month={Jan}, pages={8–15} }
 @book{felder_rousseau_bullard_2016, title={Elementary principles of chemical processes}, ISBN={9780470616291}, publisher={Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons}, author={Felder, R. M. and Rousseau, R. W. and Bullard, L. G.}, year={2016} }
 @article{felder_hadgraft_2013, title={Educational Practice and Educational Research in Engineering: Partners, Antagonists, or Ships Passing in the Night?}, volume={102}, ISSN={["2168-9830"]}, DOI={10.1002/jee.20015}, abstractNote={For most of the 20 century, engineering education research mainly consisted of using student satisfaction surveys and instructors’ impressions to assess the effectiveness of teaching methods, courses and curricula. In the 1980s and 1990s the emphasis shifted to less anecdotal methods involving statistical comparisons between experimental and control groups (Wankat et al., 2002). Starting early in the new millennium, a movement arose to make engineering education research more “rigorous” by using methods and philosophies drawn from the social sciences.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION}, author={Felder, Richard M. and Hadgraft, Roger G.}, year={2013}, month={Jul}, pages={339–345} }
 @article{felder_brent_2010, title={The National Effective Teaching Institute: Assessment of Impact and Implications for Faculty Development}, volume={99}, ISSN={["1069-4730"]}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01049.x}, abstractNote={Background}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION}, author={Felder, Richard M. and Brent, Rebecca}, year={2010}, month={Apr}, pages={121–134} }
 @article{adams_felder_2008, title={Reframing Professional Development: A Systems Approach to Preparing Engineering Educators to Educate Tomorrow's Engineers}, volume={97}, ISSN={["1069-4730"]}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00975.x}, abstractNote={The articles in this special issue present research on who engineering students are, how they learn, and what they need to know. The challenge to engineering education is that the answers to those issues are different now than they were just a few years ago, and they will inevitably continue to change. Due in part to the rapidly increasing power of technology, routine tasks that were traditionally performed by engineers are now performed by technicians using computers while engineers are called upon to develop innovative products and processes, exercise new and unfamiliar technical and professional skills, and function in an increasingly global environment. What it will mean to be an engineer in the twenty-first century and the incompatibility of current engineering curricula with that meaning have been the subject of many high-level studies. The debate so far has had little impact on engineering educators. In view of the broadening and rapidly shifting scope of the engineering profession, it is imperative to shift the focus of engineering curricula from transmission of content to development of skills that support engineering thinking and professional judgment. Future engineers will need to adapt to rapidly changing work environments and technology, direct their own learning, broaden an understanding of impact, work across different perspectives, and continually revisit what it means to be an engineer. Traditional approaches to engineering education (chalk-and-talk lectures, individual homework, three years of “fundamentals” before an introduction to engineering practice) is incompatible with what we know from decades of cognitive and classroom research. Furthermore, research on student engagement has moved the boundaries of learning environments beyond formal classrooms to informal spaces such as student lounges, professional work spaces, and virtual community spaces. What remains crucial is the importance of social learning as students interact with others—e.g., peers, educators, campus administrators, and internship supervisors. As such, the teaching decisions engineering educators make can impact learning in and out of the classroom. While these challenges may seem formidable, they present considerable opportunity for reframing what it means to be an engineering educator preparing tomorrow’s engineers. Future engineering educators will have access to a variety of exciting new roles for enabling engineering education to dynamically respond to the evolving nature of the engineering profession: ● Educational philosopher and provocateur: Engage in the international dialogue about the content, skills, and values engineering graduates should be equipped with and how these should be addressed. Advocate new perspectives that challenge traditional views and enable innovative curricula, content and pedagogy. ● Educational researcher: Imagine educational and workplace environments as learning laboratories to delve into how, what, and why students are learning, and how engineers use this learning. Design experiments to develop, assess, and disseminate new instructional materials, methods, and learning environments. ● Interdisciplinary educator: Integrate engineering content with content from other STEM disciplines, economics and business, humanities, and the social sciences. Provide opportunities such as interdisciplinary projects for students to learn from peers in other disciplines. ● Teaching leader: Share effective instructional methods and materials with colleagues; help to adapt them for their own classes. Embrace opportunities to be a decision maker and change agent, build networks for making an impact, and have intellectually stimulating discussions with colleagues about good teaching practice. ● Scholarly teacher and reflective practitioner: Read the literature and attend education conferences to keep abreast of new education practices. Imagine links between research findings and teaching practice. Engage in collaborative and systematic reflection about what works and what does not (and why) as an essential part of life long learning and continuous improvement. These habits of mind might even be initiated as part of graduate training. Engineering educators would not be expected to assume all these roles but gravitate to those they feel most comfortable, competent, and passionate; department heads would ensure that each role is filled by one or more faculty members. The idea is to encourage activities that facilitate greater synergy between being an engineer and being an educator. Ideally, all educators would assume a role of scholarly teacher and reflective practitioner.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION}, author={Adams, Robin S. and Felder, Richard M.}, year={2008}, month={Jul}, pages={239–240} }
 @article{litzinger_lee_wise_felder_2007, title={A psychometric study of the Index of Learning Styles (c)}, volume={96}, ISSN={["2168-9830"]}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00941.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION}, author={Litzinger, Thomas A. and Lee, Sang Ha and Wise, John C. and Felder, Richard M.}, year={2007}, month={Oct}, pages={309–319} }
 @article{oakley_hanna_kuzmyn_felder_2007, title={Best practices involving teamwork in the classroom: Results from a survey of 6435 engineering, student respondents}, volume={50}, ISSN={["0018-9359"]}, DOI={10.1109/TE.2007.901982}, abstractNote={A teamwork survey was conducted at Oakland University, Rochester, MI, in 533 engineering and computer science courses over a two-year period. Of the 6435 student respondents, 4349 (68%) reported working in teams. Relative to the students who only worked individually, the students who worked in teams were significantly more likely to agree that the course had achieved its stated learning objectives (p < 0.001). Regression analysis showed that roughly one-quarter of the variance in belief about whether the objectives were met could be explained by four factors: 1) student satisfaction with the team experience; 2) the presence of instructor guidance related to teamwork; 3) the presence of slackers on teams; and 4) team size. Pearson product-moment correlations revealed statistically significant associations between agreement that the course objectives had been fulfilled and the use of student teams and between satisfaction with teams and the occurrences of instructor guidance on teamwork skills. These and other results suggest that assigning work to student teams can lead to learning benefits and student satisfaction, provided that the instructor pays attention to how the teams and the assignments are set up.}, number={3}, journal={IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION}, author={Oakley, Barbara A. and Hanna, Darrin M. and Kuzmyn, Zenon and Felder, Richard M.}, year={2007}, month={Aug}, pages={266–272} }
 @article{prince_felder_brent_2007, title={Does faculty research improve undergraduate teaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergies}, volume={96}, ISSN={["2168-9830"]}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00939.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION}, author={Prince, Michael J. and Felder, Richard M. and Brent, Rebecca}, year={2007}, month={Oct}, pages={283–294} }
 @misc{prince_felder_2006, title={Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases}, volume={95}, ISSN={["2168-9830"]}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x}, abstractNote={Traditional engineering instruction is deductive, beginning with theories and progressing to the applications of those theories. Alternative teaching approaches are more inductive. Topics are introduced by presenting specific observations, case studies or problems, and theories are taught or the students are helped to discover them only after the need to know them has been established. This study reviews several of the most commonly used inductive teaching methods, including inquiry learning, problem‐based learning, project‐based learning, case‐based teaching, discovery learning, and just‐in‐time teaching. The paper defines each method, highlights commonalities and specific differences, and reviews research on the effectiveness of the methods. While the strength of the evidence varies from one method to another, inductive methods are consistently found to be at least equal to, and in general more effective than, traditional deductive methods for achieving a broad range of learning outcomes.}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION}, author={Prince, Michael J. and Felder, Richard M.}, year={2006}, month={Apr}, pages={123–138} }
 @article{the national engineering education research colloquies_2006, volume={95}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00899.x}, abstractNote={Journal of Engineering EducationVolume 95, Issue 4 p. 257-258 The National Engineering Education Research Colloquies First published: 02 January 2013 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00899.xCitations: 17AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume95, Issue4October 2006Pages 257-258 RelatedInformation}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Engineering Education}, year={2006}, pages={257–258} }
 @article{felder_sheppard_smith_2005, title={A  new Journal for a field in transition}, volume={94}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Sheppard, S. D. and Smith, K. A.}, year={2005}, pages={10-} }
 @article{felder_spurlin_2005, title={Applications, reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles}, volume={21}, number={1}, journal={International Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Spurlin, J.}, year={2005}, pages={103–112} }
 @article{passos_felder_fleming_mcfeeters_ollis_2005, title={Dynamic model for mass transfer of solutes in cucumber fermentation}, volume={68}, ISSN={["0260-8774"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.06.002}, abstractNote={A mathematical model for the mass transfer of solutes between whole cucumbers and brine in cucumber fermentation has been developed that takes into account permeation of solutes through stomata in the cucumber skin and through the epidermal cells in the skin, as well as film diffusion through the surrounding brine boundary layer. The model was used to fit experimental data for the time-dependent concentrations of solutes that permeate into the cucumbers (glucose and malate) and out of them (lactic acid, acetic acid, ethanol, and sodium chloride). The rate of lactic acid transport through the stomata was found to be three orders of magnitude greater than that through the epidermis, and the permeabilities of lactic and acetic acids were effectively independent of the brine circulation rate. These results indicate that the rate of permeation of solutes into and out of cucumbers was controlled by mass transfer through the stomata, with neither film diffusion nor epidermal diffusion having a significant effect. The model differential equation for solute transfer combined with a set of rate equations for microbial growth will provide a good basis to establish a complete mechanistic model for the cucumber fermentation process.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING}, author={Passos, FV and Felder, RM and Fleming, HP and McFeeters, RF and Ollis, DF}, year={2005}, month={Jun}, pages={297–302} }
 @book{felder._2005, title={Elementary principles of chemical processes}, publisher={Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.}, author={Felder., Richard M.}, year={2005} }
 @misc{felder_brent_2005, title={Understanding student differences}, volume={94}, ISSN={["2168-9830"]}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00829.x}, abstractNote={Students have different levels of motivation, different attitudes about teaching and learning, and different responses to specific classroom environments and instructional practices. The more thoroughly instructors understand the differences, the better chance they have of meeting the diverse learning needs of all of their students. Three categories of diversity that have been shown to have important implications for teaching and learning are differences in students' learning styles (characteristic ways of taking in and processing information), approaches to learning (surface, deep, and strategic), and intellectual development levels (attitudes about the nature of knowledge and how it should be acquired and evaluated). This article reviews models that have been developed for each of these categories, outlines their pedagogical implications, and suggests areas for further study.}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION}, author={Felder, RM and Brent, R}, year={2005}, month={Jan}, pages={57–72} }
 @article{felder_spurlin_2004, title={Applications, reliability, and validity of the index of learning styles}, volume={21}, number={1}, journal={International Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Spurlin, J. E.}, year={2004}, pages={103–112} }
 @article{felder_brent_2004, title={The intellectual development of science and engineering students. Part 1: Models and challenges}, volume={93}, ISSN={["1069-4730"]}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00816.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION}, author={Felder, RM and Brent, R}, year={2004}, month={Oct}, pages={269–277} }
 @article{felder_brent_2004, title={The intellectual development of science and engineering students. Part 2: Teaching to promote growth}, volume={93}, ISSN={["1069-4730"]}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00817.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION}, author={Felder, RM and Brent, R}, year={2004}, month={Oct}, pages={279–291} }
 @article{brent_felder_2003, title={A model for engineering faculty development}, volume={19}, number={2}, journal={International Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Brent, R. and Felder, R. M.}, year={2003}, pages={234–240} }
 @article{felder_2002, title={Designing tests to maximize learning}, volume={128}, DOI={10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2002)128:1(1)}, abstractNote={This is a continuing series of quarterly articles on lessons learned and best practices in civil engineering education. The intent of the series is to reinforce good practices, describe new or developing practices, and provide a forum for what works well and what does not. It is hoped that this series will be an important quarterly read for all civil engineering educators and all those interested in what’s going on in civil engineering education today. Authors and topics will vary from issue to issue. Contact the associate editor, Mark Evans, if you wish to contribute to an upcoming issue.}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={2002}, pages={1–3} }
 @inproceedings{brawner_felder_allen_brent_2002, title={How important is effective teaching to engineering faculty and administrators}, number={2002 June}, booktitle={2002 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 2002}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Brawner, C. E. and Felder, R. M. and Allen, R.H. and Brent, R.}, year={2002} }
 @inproceedings{ollis_felder_brent_2002, title={Introducing new faculty to multidisciplinary research collaboration}, number={2002 June}, booktitle={2002 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 2002}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Ollis, D. F. and Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={2002} }
 @article{felder_2002, title={So you want to win a CAREER award}, volume={36}, number={1}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={2002}, pages={32–33} }
 @article{roskowski_felder_bullard_2002, title={Student Use (and Non-Use) of Instructional Technology}, volume={2}, number={2002}, journal={Journal of SMET Education: Innovations and Research}, author={Roskowski, A. M. and Felder, R. M. and Bullard, L.}, year={2002}, pages={41–45} }
 @inbook{wankat_felder_smith_oreovicz_2002, title={The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Engineering}, booktitle={Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground}, publisher={Washington: AAHE/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching}, author={Wankat, P.C. and Felder, R. M. and Smith, K. A. and Oreovicz, F. S.}, editor={M. T. Huber and Morreale, S.Editors}, year={2002} }
 @article{felder_felder_dietz_2002, title={The effects of personality type on engineering student performance and attitudes}, volume={91}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00667.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Felder, G. N. and Dietz, E.J.}, year={2002}, pages={3–17} }
 @article{felder_2001, title={A brief history of elementary principles of chemical processes}, volume={35}, number={3}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={2001}, pages={180–181} }
 @inproceedings{brawner_felder_allen_brent_miller_2001, title={A comparison of electronic surveying by e-mail and web}, booktitle={2001 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 2001}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Brawner, C. E. and Felder, R. M. and Allen, R. H. and Brent, R. and Miller, T. K.}, year={2001} }
 @article{felder_brent_2001, title={Effective strategies for cooperative learning}, volume={10}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={2001}, pages={69–75} }
 @article{felder_brent_2001, title={FAQs-3}, volume={35}, number={2}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={2001}, pages={102–103} }
 @article{felder_brent_2001, title={FAQs-4. dealing with student background deficiencies and low student motivation}, volume={35}, number={4}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={2001}, pages={266–267} }
 @inproceedings{roskowski_felder_bullard_2001, title={Instructional software: if you build It, they may or may not come}, booktitle={2001 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 2001}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Roskowski, A. M. and Felder, R.M. and Bullard, L. G.}, year={2001} }
 @article{felder_brent_2001, title={Issues relating to group composition}, journal={Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education}, publisher={New York: Routledge Falmer}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={2001}, pages={201–204} }
 @inproceedings{brent_felder_rajala_gilligan_lee_2001, title={New faculty 101: an orientation to the profession}, DOI={10.1109/fie.2001.964046}, abstractNote={In August 2000 the North Carolina State University College of Engineering (USA) with partial sponsorship from the SUCCEED Coalition organized and presented a one-week orientation workshop for new faculty members. The workshop goal was to equip new faculty members to become what Robert Boice calls "quick starters", who meet or exceed their institution's expectations for both research productivity and teaching effectiveness in their first one to two years. Two days were devoted to research program startup and management, two to effective teaching, and the final morning to managing time, integrating into campus culture, and earning tenure and promotion. The participants were unanimously and overwhelmingly positive in their responses following the workshop, and their enthusiasm has continued at gatherings and in surveys in the months that followed. This paper describes the workshop content and activities, summarizes follow-up support and assessment plans, and offers suggestions for planning and implementing similar programs.}, number={2001 October}, booktitle={2001 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, Reno, NV, October 2001}, author={Brent, R. and Felder, R. M. and Rajala, S. A. and Gilligan, J. G. and Lee, G.}, year={2001} }
 @inproceedings{anderson_hoit_felder_brent_zorowski_ollis_ohland_phillips_2001, title={SUCCEED: a multiple university collaborative approach to systemic curriculum change}, number={2001 August}, booktitle={2001 International Conference on Engineering Education Proceedings, Oslo, Norway, August 2001}, author={Anderson, T. and Hoit, M. and Felder, R. and Brent, R. and Zorowski, C. and Ollis, D. and Ohland, M. and Phillips, H.}, year={2001} }
 @article{felder_2001, title={Technology-based instruction and cooperative learning}, number={2001 August}, journal={Interface (IEEE Education Society)}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={2001}, pages={2–3} }
 @inproceedings{brawner_felder_allen_brent_2001, title={The impact of faculty development activities on engineering faculty teaching practices}, booktitle={2001 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 2001}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Brawner, C. E. and Felder, R. M. and Allen, R. H. and Brent, R.}, year={2001} }
 @article{felder_2001, title={Truth in advertising}, volume={35}, number={1}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={2001}, pages={25} }
 @article{kaufman_felder_fuller_2000, title={Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams}, volume={89}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00507.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Kaufman, D. B. and Felder, R. M. and Fuller, H.}, year={2000}, pages={133–140} }
 @article{felder_brent_2000, title={All in a day's work}, volume={34}, number={1}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={2000}, pages={66–67} }
 @article{haller_gallagher_weldon_felder_2000, title={Dynamics of peer interaction in cooperative learning workgroups}, volume={89}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00527.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={3}, journal={Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Haller, C. R. and Gallagher, Victoria and Weldon, T. L. and Felder, R. M.}, year={2000}, pages={285–293} }
 @book{felder_rousseau_2000, title={Elementary principles of chemical processes (3rd ed.)}, ISBN={0471534781}, publisher={New York: John Wiley and Sons}, author={Felder, R. M. and Rousseau, R. W.}, year={2000} }
 @inproceedings{brent_felder_regan_walser_carlson-dakes_evans_malave_sanders_mcgourty_2000, title={Engineering faculty development: a multicoalition perspective}, booktitle={2000 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 2000}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Brent, R. and Felder, R. M. and Regan, T. and Walser, A. and Carlson-Dakes, C. and Evans, D. and Malave, C. and Sanders, K. and McGourty, J.}, year={2000} }
 @inproceedings{brent_felder_2000, title={Helping new faculty get off to a good start}, booktitle={2000 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 2000}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Brent, R. and Felder, R. M.}, year={2000} }
 @article{felder_brent_2000, title={Is technology a friend or foe of learning?}, volume={34}, number={4}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={2000}, pages={326–327} }
 @inproceedings{michel_felder_genzer_fuller_2000, title={Student use of instructional technology in the introductory chemical engineering course}, DOI={10.18260/1-2--28492}, abstractNote={An introductory computer engineering course where students learn about combinational and sequential circuits is fundamental to any Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) curriculum. Many of these courses are taught using a hardware description language (HDL) such as Verilog or VHDL. However, younger students traditionally struggle with HDLs due to their abstract nature. The students are used to designing with traditional logic gates and structures, but are often confused by the software-like interface that an HDL provides. This creates a disconnection between the student's experience in the classroom where the students learn with one method (visually with gates and structures) and in labs or projects where they are asked to implement designs using text descriptors. Often times a student's frustration with HDLs leads to them being disinterested in digital systems or even computer engineering as a major. This paper will describe the transition of an introductory Computer Engineering course from primarily using Verilog for its assignments to instead using a combination of schematic capture (which is very similar to what they see in class) and Verilog. With this course's redesign, the author saw the student's self-reported confidence in their design skills improve by 44% (from 41% to 85%) and their interest in taking additional computer engineering courses improve by 10% (from 66% to 76%).}, booktitle={2000 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 2000}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Michel, A. and Felder, R.M. and Genzer, Jan and Fuller, H.}, year={2000} }
 @article{woods_felder_rugarcia_stice_2000, title={The Future of engineering education. Part 3. Developing critical skills}, volume={34}, number={2}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Woods, D. R. and Felder, R. M. and Rugarcia, A. and Stice, J. E.}, year={2000}, pages={108–117} }
 @article{stice_felder_woods_r._rugarcia_2000, title={The Future of engineering education. Part 4. Learning how to teach}, volume={34}, number={2}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Stice, J. E. and Felder, R. M. and Woods, D. and R. and Rugarcia, A.}, year={2000}, pages={118–127} }
 @article{felder_rugarcia_stice_2000, title={The Future of engineering education. Part 5. Assessing teaching effectiveness and educational scholarship}, volume={34}, number={3}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Rugarcia, A. and Stice, J. E.}, year={2000}, pages={198–207} }
 @article{felder_stice_rugarcia_2000, title={The Future of engineering education. Part 6. Making reform happen}, volume={34}, number={3}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Stice, J. E. and Rugarcia, A.}, year={2000}, pages={208–214} }
 @article{felder_2000, title={The alumni speak}, volume={34}, number={3}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={2000}, pages={238–239} }
 @article{rugarcia_felder_stice_2000, title={The future of engineering education part 1: a vision for a new century}, volume={34}, number={1}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Rugarcia, A. and Felder, R. M. and Stice, J. E.}, year={2000}, pages={16–25} }
 @article{felder_woods_rugarcia_2000, title={The future of engineering education part 2: teaching methods that work}, volume={34}, number={1}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Woods, D. R. and Rugarcia, A.}, year={2000}, pages={26–39} }
 @article{felder_2000, title={The scholarship of teaching}, volume={34}, number={2}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={2000}, pages={144} }
 @inproceedings{brent_felder_hirt_switzer_holzer_1999, title={A model program for promoting effective teaching in colleges of engineering}, booktitle={1999 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 1999}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Brent, R. and Felder, R. M. and Hirt, D. and Switzer, D. and Holzer, S.}, year={1999} }
 @article{felder_1999, title={Carol Hall of North Carolina State University}, volume={33}, number={3}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={1999}, pages={184–188} }
 @article{beichner_bernold_burniston_dail_felder_gastineau_gjertsen_risley_1999, title={Case study of the physics component of an integrated curriculum}, volume={67}, ISSN={["0002-9505"]}, DOI={10.1119/1.19075}, abstractNote={Over a four-year time span, several departments at North Carolina State University offered experimental sections of courses taken by freshman engineering students. The acronym IMPEC (Integrated Math, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry curriculum) describes which classes were involved. This paper discusses the physics component of the curriculum and describes the impact of the highly collaborative, technology-rich, activity-based learning environment on a variety of conceptual and problem-solving assessments and attitude measures. Qualitative and quantitative research results indicate that students in the experimental courses outperformed their cohorts in demographically matched traditional classes, often by a wide margin. Student satisfaction and confidence rates were remarkably high. We also noted substantial increases in retention and success rates for groups underrepresented in science, math, and engineering. Placing students in the same teams across multiple courses appears to have been the most beneficial aspect of the learning environment.}, number={7}, journal={AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS}, author={Beichner, R and Bernold, L and Burniston, E and Dail, P and Felder, R and Gastineau, J and Gjertsen, M and Risley, J}, year={1999}, month={Jul}, pages={S16–S24} }
 @inproceedings{haller_gallagher_weldon_felder_1999, title={Dynamics of peer interactions in cooperative learning}, booktitle={1999 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 1999}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Haller, C. R. and Gallagher, V. J. and Weldon, T. L. and Felder, R. M.}, year={1999} }
 @article{felder_brent_1999, title={FAQs}, volume={33}, number={1}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={1999}, pages={32–33} }
 @article{felder_brent_1999, title={FAQs. II: active learning vs covering the syllabus and dealing with large classes}, volume={33}, number={4}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={1999}, pages={276–277} }
 @book{brawner_felder_brent_allen_miller_1999, title={Faculty survey of teaching practices and perceptions of institutional attitudes toward teaching: 1997-1998}, number={1999}, journal={ERIC Document Reproduction Service Report ED428607, 1999}, author={Brawner, C. E. and Felder, R. M. and Brent, R. and Allen, R. H. and Miller, T. K.}, year={1999} }
 @inproceedings{brawner_felder_brent_miller_allen_1999, title={Faculty teaching practices in an engineering education coalition}, volume={1}, DOI={10.1109/fie.1999.839273}, abstractNote={This paper discusses the findings from a survey of engineering faculty at the eight colleges of engineering that make up SUCCEED, one of the National Science Foundations engineering education coalitions. Faculty members were surveyed on their use of various teaching methods in their undergraduate classes. Findings show that faculty members who reported attending teaching seminars in their careers were more likely to use active learning methods regularly than those who had not attended any such seminars. Significant usage differences were also found based on the Carnegie classification of the respondents' schools, their primary job function (teaching, teaching/research, or administration), their involvement in SUCCEED-sponsored activities, their rank, and their sex.}, number={1999 November}, booktitle={1999 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, ASEE/IEEE, November 1999.}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Brawner, C. E. and Felder, R. M. and Brent, R. and Miller, T. K. and Allen, R. H.}, year={1999}, pages={12a5-11256} }
 @article{al-holou_bilgutay_corleto_demel_felder_frair_froyd_hoit_morgan_wells_1999, title={First-year integrated curricula: design alternatives and examples}, volume={88}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.1999.tb00471.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Al-Holou, N. and Bilgutay, N. M. and Corleto, C. and Demel, J. T. and Felder, R. M. and Frair, K. and Froyd, J. E. and Hoit, Marc and Morgan, J. and Wells, D. L.}, year={1999}, pages={435–448} }
 @article{felder_brent_1999, title={How to improve teaching quality}, volume={6}, DOI={10.1080/10686967.1999.11919183}, abstractNote={The applicability of TQM (total quality management) to teaching is investigated, as opposed to investigating academic or research programs and administration. When higher education adopted TQM in the 1980s, changes were made primarily in business and s..}, number={2}, journal={Quality Management Journal}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={1999}, pages={9–21} }
 @article{brent_felder_1999, title={It's a start}, volume={47}, DOI={10.1080/87567559909596071}, abstractNote={Getting off to a good start in a class is a real challenge, however. A source of the difficulty is identified by Peter Elbow (1986), who in his superb collection of essays on teaching, Embracing Con traries, observes that we have two prima ry and conflicting roles as professors? gatekeeper and coach. As gatekeepers, we must set standards high enough to certify that our students will be qualified to enter their intended professions and the broader community of scholars. But as coaches, we must help our students surpass the hurdles we set for them as gatekeepers. Being a professor means walking a tightrope between these two roles. The key to success is to maintain a good balance. As Elbow observes, it is hard enough to fulfill these contrary roles over the course of a semester. The challenge we examine in this paper is that of establish}, number={1}, journal={College Teaching}, author={Brent, R. and Felder, R. M.}, year={1999}, pages={14–17} }
 @article{cardellini_felder_1999, title={L' apprendimento cooperativo: un metodo per migliorare la preparazione e l'acquisizione di abilita cognitive negli studenti}, volume={21}, number={1}, journal={Chimica Nella Scuola}, author={Cardellini, L. and Felder, R. M.}, year={1999}, pages={18–25} }
 @article{felder_1999, title={Memo to students who are disappointed with their last test grade}, volume={33}, number={2}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={1999}, pages={136–137} }
 @inproceedings{kaufman_felder_fuller_1999, title={Peer ratings in cooperative learning teams}, booktitle={1999 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 1999}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Kaufman, D. B. and Felder, R. M. and Fuller, H.}, year={1999} }
 @article{felder_1999, title={Speaking of education-II}, volume={33}, number={3}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={1999}, pages={196–197} }
 @article{felder_felder_dietz_1998, title={A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. v. comparisons with traditionally-taught students}, volume={87}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00381.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Felder, G. N. and Dietz, E. J.}, year={1998}, pages={469–480} }
 @article{felder_1998, title={ABET criteria 2000: an exercise in engineering problem solving}, volume={32}, number={2}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={1998}, pages={126–127} }
 @inproceedings{felder_brent_miller_brawner_allen_1998, title={Faculty teaching practices and perceptions of institutional attitudes toward teaching at eight engineering schools}, volume={1}, DOI={10.1109/fie.1998.736812}, abstractNote={All engineering faculty members in the eight universities that comprise the SUCCEED Coalition were surveyed about their use of a variety of instructional methods and their perceptions about attitudes toward teaching on their campuses. The results provide a unique snapshot of engineering education at a transitional moment in its history. The same survey will be administered two years and four years from now. The results should provide an indication of the degree to which the SUCCEED faculty development program is meeting its objectives, which are to promote facility adoption of proven instructional methods and materials and to improve institutional support for effective teaching.}, number={1998 November}, booktitle={1998 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, ASEE/IEEE, November 1998}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R. and Miller, T. K. and Brawner, C. E. and Allen, R. H.}, year={1998}, pages={101–105} }
 @inproceedings{felder_brent_1998, title={Getting faculty buy-in to innovative teaching}, booktitle={1998 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 1998}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={1998} }
 @article{felder_1998, title={Ships passing in the night}, volume={32}, number={1}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={1998}, pages={46–47} }
 @article{brent_felder_1998, title={The new faculty member}, volume={32}, number={3}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Brent, R. and Felder, R. M.}, year={1998}, pages={206–207} }
 @article{felder_1998, title={The night somebody slipped the truth serum in the punch bowl at the department head's Christmas party}, volume={32}, number={4}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={1998}, pages={278–279} }
 @inproceedings{felder_1997, title={Beating the numbers game: Effective teaching in large classes}, booktitle={1997 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 1997}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={1997} }
 @article{brent_felder_1997, title={It takes one to know one}, volume={31}, number={1}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Brent, R. and Felder, R. M.}, year={1997}, pages={32–33} }
 @inproceedings{felder_felder_dietz_1997, title={Longitudinal study of alternative approaches to engineering education:  survey of assessment results}, DOI={10.1109/fie.1997.632656}, abstractNote={In the fall of 1990, the authors began a longitudinal study of a cohort of students enrolled in the introductory engineering course. These students were taught in a sequence of five engineering courses in five consecutive semesters, using a variety of instructional methods including extensive collaborative (team-based) learning, routine assignment of open-ended problems and problem formulation exercises, and other techniques designed to address the spectrum of learning styles found in all engineering classes. The students enrolled in the introductory course in the fall 1992 semester were designated as a comparison group. Academic performance and retention data were collected and attitudes and self-confidence levels were assessed for both groups throughout their second, third, and fourth years of college. This paper provides a mostly qualitative summary of the assessment data analyzed so far.}, number={1997 November}, booktitle={1997 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, ASEE/IEEE, November 1997}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Felder, Gary N. and Dietz, E. J.}, year={1997}, pages={1284–1289} }
 @article{felder_1997, title={Meet your students: 7. Dave, Martha, and Roberto}, volume={31}, number={2}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M.}, year={1997}, pages={106–107} }
 @article{passos_fleming_felder_ollis_1997, title={Modeling growth of Saccharomyces rosei in cucumber fermentation}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1095-9998"]}, DOI={10.1006/fmic.1997.0118}, abstractNote={Abstract Objectives of this study were to assess the effects of key variables involved in cucumber fermentation on growth of the yeast, Saccharomyces rosei , and to develop a mathematical description of those effects. The growth medium for the studies was cucumber juice. Effects of concentrations of lactic, acetic, and hydrochloric acids and sodium chloride on growth at 30°C were determined in batch culture. Effect of substrate concentration on the specific growth rate was also defined. The specific growth rate decreased from 0.355 h −1 at pH 6.0 to 0.189 h −1 at pH 3.2. The undissociated form of lactic acid was more inhibitory than that of acetic acid. A predictive equation for specific growth rate was developed for predicting growth of S. rosei in batch culture. The molar yield of ethanol was 1.75 (±0.07) mM ethanol per mM hexose. Malate was not utilized, and glycerol was produced. The apparent biomass yield under anaerobic condition was 12.2 (±1.3) g cells/mol hexose. Aerobically, the biomass yield was 30.7 g cells/mol hexose. Similar specific growth rates were observed anaerobically (0.358 h −1 ) and aerobically (0.352 h −1 ). The predictive model for growth of S. rosei in cucumber juice should prove useful in modeling the mixed culture (yeast and lactic acid bacteria) fermentation of brined, whole cucumbers.}, number={6}, journal={FOOD MICROBIOLOGY}, author={Passos, FV and Fleming, HP and Felder, RM and Ollis, DF}, year={1997}, month={Dec}, pages={533–542} }
 @article{felder_brent_1997, title={Objectively speaking}, volume={31}, number={3}, journal={CEE, Chemical Engineering Education}, author={Felder, R. M. and Brent, R.}, year={1997}, pages={178–179} }
 @article{beaudoin_felder_1997, title={Preparing the professoriate: a study in mentorship}, volume={4}, number={3}, journal={Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development}, author={Beaudoin, S. P. and Felder, R. M.}, year={1997}, pages={87–91} }
 @book{richard m. felder_1986, title={Elementary principles of chemical processes}, publisher={New York: Wiley}, author={Richard M. Felder, Ronald W. Rousseau}, year={1986} }