Factors affecting transition to second year of an engineering degree

Much research has focused on students’ transition from secondary school to university. Less is known about the transition from first to second year of a university degree programme. Given the difficulties that many students face at this stage of their education, research into the relevant factors is required. Through questionnaires and focus groups, views of second- and third-year aerospace and mechanical engineering students in our university have been gathered. A large majority believed that both the volume and difficulty of work increased in second year. Many stated that first year was slightly too trivial and could have been made more challenging to prepare them better for second year. Different teaching and assessment styles in second year were considered to affect attendance and performance. The survey revealed that students were generally very well settled into university life by the end of first year and were happy with their choice of course and only 23% reported that financial responsibilities have had a negative effect on their academic performance. Differences were observed between male and female students. Male students believed that transition was helped by having regular assessments and by worked examples in lectures. Females found the teaching staff were the most helpful factor for a successful transition. The results indicate that males require more structure and guidance whereas females are more independent and settle in better.

Evaluation of creative problem solving abilities in undergraduate structural engineers through interdisciplinary problem based learning

For a structural engineer, effective communication and interaction with architects cannot be underestimated as a key skill to success throughout their professional career. Structural engineers and architects have to share a common language and understanding of each other in order to achieve the most desirable architectural and structural designs. This interaction and engagement develops during their professional career but needs to be nurtured during their undergraduate studies. The objective of this paper is to present the strategies employed to engage higher order thinking in structural engineering students in order to help them solve complex problem-based learning (PBL) design scenarios presented by architecture students. The strategies employed were applied in the experimental setting of an undergraduate module in structural engineering at Queen’s University Belfast in the UK. The strategies employed were active learning to engage with content knowledge, the use of physical conceptual structural models to reinforce key concepts and finally, reinforcing the need for hand sketching of ideas to promote higher order problem-solving. The strategies employed were evaluated through student survey, student feedback and module facilitator (this author) reflection. The strategies were qualitatively perceived by the tutor and quantitatively evaluated by students in a cross-sectional study to help interaction with the architecture students, aid interdisciplinary learning and help students creatively solve problems (through higher order thinking). The students clearly enjoyed this module and in particular interacting with structural engineering tutors and students from another discipline