Simplified framework for managing team learning in engineering subjects

Teamwork has been included as a major component of graduate attributes in all engineering programs at universities. In spite of enormous research advances in theoretical aspects of learning and working in teams, anecdotal evidence suggests that most engineering academic staff are inundated by student complaints of not being able to learn and work in teams due to numerous reasons. In order to facilitate engineering academic staff and engineering schools, this study develops a simplified framework for managing learning teams in engineering subjects that integrates theoretical conceptions, empirical evidences and anecdotal practices by reviewing a substantial body of existing literature. The framework identifies that in addition to managing student complaints about learning and working in teams more effectively and efficiently, engineering academic staff and engineering schools need to focus on specifying learning outcomes of teamwork, identifying appropriate approaches to achieve these learning outcomes, judging the suitability of teamwork-based learning in a particular educational context, developing a clear plan for implementing teamwork, implementing and monitoring teamwork, and reflecting and re-evaluating teamwork. The developed framework can be a useful tool to help understand these essential components and complexities of team learning.

Participation of women in engineering: challenges and productive interventions

Building science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills in students at all school levels is essential to building the next generation of engineering workers and engineering skills. Despite more than two decades of initiatives, the under-representation of women in engineering has been a longstanding concern in Australia. This is related to concerns about levels of participation in engineering overall, and to current concerns about attitudes to and participation in STEM subjects and career pathways generally, and for women in the natural and physical sciences and higher level mathematics at school, university and the workplace. This review analyses factors affecting the participation of women in engineering, covering the full extent of the STEM pipeline across the schooling years but focusing particularly on girls’ exposure to and engagement with engineering across those years.

Engineering fundamentals in a new undergraduate curriculum

CONTEXTIn recent years there has been a push in Engineering education to change the basic model fromstudents learning discrete subjects, followed by design projects in third and fourth year, to learningand practicing the design process from the first year. At the same time, there has also been a pushtowards “active learning” (Prince, 2004) as opposed to the more traditional lecture/tutorial/practicalapproach. This year, Deakin University has launched a new design-centred curriculum inundergraduate engineering. Named “Project-Oriented Design-Based Learning” (PODBL), the newcourse structure is running in first and second years. In semester one of first year in the new course,students enrol in one double-unit of design, one unit of maths, and one unit of fundamental science.PURPOSEThis work seeks to determine whether a new fundamental-science unit called “EngineeringFundamentals” fulfils the educational needs of first-year students in the PODBL curriculum. It alsoseeks to determine student perceptions of the new unit.APPROACHThe unit was first offered in semester-one, 2016 to two separate on-campus cohorts and an offcampuscohort. Innovations in this unit include using the CADET model for teaching combinedpractical-tutorial seminars, a shift in lectures from delivering conceptual content to teaching problemsolving and applications (flipping the classroom), and extensive use of online videos and study guidesfor delivering primary content (Cloud Learning). Student learning was assessed by means of problembasedonline quizzes, practical reports, and a final exam. Student perceptions were queried by astandard unit-evaluation system and by a more focussed set of surveys given to students in threeseparate cohorts.RESULTSThe academic results in this unit were compared with those in the previous unit. No substantialdifferences were observed in the marks of this unit in 2016 compared with the 2015 marks of thecorresponding previous physics unit. On-campus students showed more general satisfaction with theunit than did off-campus students. However, not all on-campus students were happy with the flippedclassroommodel.CONCLUSIONSAs the course changes from a traditional approach to a design and project-based approach, it is best ifall units in the course adapt in some way to the new teaching style. Not all units need be completelyproject or design based. In the case of “Engineering Fundamentals,” we believe that due to the widevariety of topics covered, making the entire unit design-based is inappropriate. However, some designand project components can be built into the unit via the practicals. Semester one 2016 was asuccessful first offering of the unit. We recommend that in future years a design/project component beconsidered for the unit’s practicals.