Breaking down barriers:teenage girls’ perceptions of engineering as a study and career choice

Background: Stereotypically perceived to be an ‘all male’ occupation, engineering has for many years failed to attract high numbers of young women [1,2]. The reasons for this are varied, but tend to focus on misconceptions of the profession as being more suitable for men. In seeking to investigate this issue a participatory research approach was adopted [3] in which two 17 year-old female high school students interviewed twenty high school girls. Questions focused on the girls’ perceptions of engineering as a study and career choice. The findings were recorded and analysed using qualitative techniques. The study identified three distinctive ‘influences’ as being pivotal to girls’ perceptions of engineering; pedagogical; social; and, familial. Pedagogical Influences: Pedagogical influences tended to focus on science and maths. In discussing science, the majority of the girls identified biology and chemistry as more ‘realistic’ whilst physics was perceived to more suitable for boys. The personality of the teacher, and how a particular subject is taught, proved to be important influences shaping opinions. Social Influences: Societal influences were reflected in the girls’ career choice with the majority considering medical or social science related careers. Although all of the girls believed engineering to be ‘male dominated’, none believed that a woman should not be engineer. Familial Influences: Parental influence was identified as key to career and study choice; only two of the girls had discussed engineering with their parents of which only one was being actively encouraged to pursue a career in engineering. Discussion: The study found that one of the most significant barriers to engineering is a lack of awareness. Engineering did not register in the girls’ lives, it was not taught in school, and only one had met a female engineer. Building on the study findings, the discussion considers how engineering could be made more attractive to young women. Whilst misconceptions about what an engineer is need to be addressed, other more fundamental pedagogical barriers, such as the need to make physics more attractive to girls and the need to develop the curriculum so as to meet the learning needs of 21st Century students are discussed. By drawing attention to the issues around gender and the barriers to engineering, this paper contributes to current debates in this area – in doing so it provides food for thought about policy and practice in engineering and engineering education.

Evaluating and developing project-based learning:an empirical approach to evaluating CDIO

As a global profession, engineering is integral to the maintenance and further development of society. Indeed, contemporary social problems requiring engineering solutions are not only a consequence of natural and ‘manmade’ disasters (such as the Japanese earthquake or the oil leakage in the Gulf of Mexico) but also encapsulate 21st Century dilemmas around sustainability, poverty and pollution [2,6,7]. Given the complexity of such problems and the constant need for innovation, the demand for engineering education to provide a ready supply of suitably qualified engineering graduates, able to make innovative decisions has never been higher [3,5]. Bearing this in mind, and taking account problems of attrition in engineering education [1,6,4] innovation in the way in which the curriculum is developed and delivered is crucial. CDIO [Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate] provides a potentially ground-breaking solution to such dilemmas. Aimed at equipping students with practical engineering skills supported by the necessary theoretical background, CDIO could potentially change the way engineering is perceived and experienced within higher education. Aston University introduced CDIO into its Mechanical Engineering and Design programmes in October 2011. From its induction, engineering education researchers have ‘shadowed’ the staff responsible for developing and teaching the programme. Utilising an Action Research Design, and adopting a mixed methodological research design, the researchers have worked closely with the teaching team to critically reflect on the processes involved in introducing CDIO into the curriculum. Concurrently, research has been conducted to capture students’ perspectives of CDIO. In evaluating the introduction of CDIO at Aston, the researchers have developed a distinctive research strategy with which to evaluate CDIO. It is the emergent findings from this research that form the basis of this paper. Although early-on in its development CDIO is making a significant difference to engineering education at the University. The paper draws attention to pedagogical, practical and professional issues – discussing each one in turn and in doing so critically analysing the value of CDIO from academic, student and industrial perspectives. The paper concludes by noting that whilst CDIO represents a forwardthinking approach to engineering education, the need for constant innovation in learning and teaching should not be forgotten. Indeed, engineering education needs to put itself at the forefront of pedagogic practice. Providing all-rounded engineers, ready to take on the challenges of the 21st Century!

Balancing expectations in engineering education:enhancing student experiences through empirical research - a comparative analysis

This paper draws upon the findings of an empirical study comparing the expectations and concerns of engineering students with students enrolled on business and management programs. It argues that whilst the two groups of students have very similar expectations, motivations and concerns before their start their studies, once at university, engineering students are twice as likely to drop-out than are their compatriots in business studies. Drawing upon the study findings, recommendations are made as to what might be done to counteract this. The conclusion argues that there is a need for more in-depth research to be conducted in this area in order to identify the reasons behind the different attrition rates and to further enhance engineering undergraduate experience.

Heritage and innovative learning approaches:an alternative approach to engineering education

Over recent years, the role of engineering in promoting a sustainable society has received much public attention [1] with particular emphasis given to the need to promote the future prosperity and security of society through the recruitment and education of more engineers [2,3]. From an employment perspective, the Leitch Review [4] suggested that ‘generic’ transferable employability skills development should constitute a more substantial part of university education. This paper argues that the global drivers impacting engineering education [5] correlate strongly to those underpinning the Leitch review, therefore the question of how to promote transferable employability skills within the wider engineering curriculum is increasingly relevant. By exploring the use of heritage in the engineering curriculum as a way to promote learning and engage students, a less familiar approach to study is discussed. This approach moves away from stereotypical notions of the use of information technology as representing the pinnacle of innovation in education. Taking the student experience as its starting point, the paper draws upon the findings of an exploratory study critically analysing the pedagogical value of using heritage in engineering education. It discusses a teaching approach in which engineering students are taken out of their ‘comfort zone’ - away from the classroom, laboratory and computer, to a heritage site some 100 miles away from the university. The primary learning objective underpinning this approach is to develop students’ transferable skills by encouraging them to consider how to apply theoretical concepts to a previously unexplored situation. By reflecting upon students’ perceptions of the value of this approach, and by identifying how heritage may be utilised as an innovative learning and teaching approach in engineering education, this paper makes a notable contribution to current pedagogical debates in the discipline.

Innovating engineering education: the RVS approach:an empirically grounded method to improved practice and enhanced student experience

This paper builds on previous work (Clark, 2009; Clark & Andrews 2011, 2014) to continue the debate around a seemingly universal question…“How can educational theory be applied to engineering education in such a way so as to make the subject more accessible and attractive to students? It argues that there are three key elements to student success; Relationships, Variety & Synergy (RVS). By further examining the purposefully developed bespoke learning and teaching approach constructed around these three elements (RVS) the discourse in this paper links educational theory to engineering education and in doing so further develops arguments for the introduction of a purposefully designed pedagogic approach for use in engineering education.

Tackling transition! Peer mentoring in engineering education:a UK perspective

This paper builds on previous work (Clark, 2009; Clark & Andrews 2011, 2014) to continue the debate around a seemingly universal question…“How can educational theory be applied to engineering education in such a way so as to make the subject more accessible and attractive to students? It argues that there are three key elements to student success; Relationships, Variety & Synergy (RVS). By further examining the purposefully developed bespoke learning and teaching approach constructed around these three elements (RVS) the discourse in this paper links educational theory to engineering education and in doing so further develops arguments for the introduction of a purposefully designed pedagogic approach for use in engineering education.

Engineering education research - the UK perspective at a time of change

Engineering education in the United Kingdom is at the point of embarking upon an interesting journey into uncharted waters. At no point in the past have there been so many drivers for change and so many opportunities for the development of engineering pedagogy. This paper will look at how Engineering Education Research (EER) has developed within the UK and what differentiates it from the many small scale practitioner interventions, perhaps without a clear research question or with little evaluation, which are presented at numerous staff development sessions, workshops and conferences. From this position some examples of current projects will be described, outcomes of funding opportunities will be summarised and the benefits of collaboration with other disciplines illustrated. In this study, I will account for how the design of task structure according to variation theory, as well as the probe-ware technology, make the laws of force and motion visible and learnable and, especially, in the lab studied make Newton's third law visible and learnable. I will also, as a comparison, include data from a mechanics lab that use the same probe-ware technology and deal with the same topics in mechanics, but uses a differently designed task structure. I will argue that the lower achievements on the FMCE-test in this latter case can be attributed to these differences in task structure in the lab instructions. According to my analysis, the necessary pattern of variation is not included in the design. I will also present a microanalysis of 15 hours collected from engineering students' activities in a lab about impulse and collisions based on video recordings of student's activities in a lab about impulse and collisions. The important object of learning in this lab is the development of an understanding of Newton's third law. The approach analysing students interaction using video data is inspired by ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, i.e. I will focus on students practical, contingent and embodied inquiry in the setting of the lab. I argue that my result corroborates variation theory and show this theory can be used as a 'tool' for designing labs as well as for analysing labs and lab instructions. Thus my results have implications outside the domain of this study and have implications for understanding critical features for student learning in labs. Engineering higher education is well used to change. As technology develops the abilities expected by employers of graduates expand, yet our understanding of how to make informed decisions about learning and teaching strategies does not without a conscious effort to do so. With the numerous demands of academic life, we often fail to acknowledge our incomplete understanding of how our students learn within our discipline. The journey facing engineering education in the UK is being driven by two classes of driver. Firstly there are those which we have been working to expand our understanding of, such as retention and employability, and secondly the new challenges such as substantial changes to funding systems allied with an increase in student expectations. Only through continued research can priorities be identified, addressed and a coherent and strong voice for informed change be heard within the wider engineering education community. This new position makes it even more important that through EER we acquire the knowledge and understanding needed to make informed decisions regarding approaches to teaching, curriculum design and measures to promote effective student learning. This then raises the question 'how does EER function within a diverse academic community?' Within an existing community of academics interested in taking meaningful steps towards understanding the ongoing challenges of engineering education a Special Interest Group (SIG) has formed in the UK. The formation of this group has itself been part of the rapidly changing environment through its facilitation by the Higher Education Academy's Engineering Subject Centre, an entity which through the Academy's current restructuring will no longer exist as a discrete Centre dedicated to supporting engineering academics. The aims of this group, the activities it is currently undertaking and how it expects to network and collaborate with the global EER community will be reported in this paper. This will include explanation of how the group has identified barriers to the progress of EER and how it is seeking, through a series of activities, to facilitate recognition and growth of EER both within the UK and with our valued international colleagues.

A matter of professionalism? Reflection and reflexivity in continuing engineering education and practice

The argument that this paper sets out to critique is that in order to promote professionalism in Engineering Education and Practice, graduate level engineering programmes need to introduce the concepts of reflection and reflexivity into the curriculum right from the onset. By focusing upon the delivery of a newly developed „Work Based‟ Master’s level programme in Professional Engineering, this paper provides an overview of the first part of an empirical study which sets out to investigate the challenges associated with embedding reflection and reflexivity into Engineering Education. The paper concludes by noting that whilst student engineers may struggle with the concepts of reflection and reflexivity, with support and encouragement such difficulties can be overcome. Moreover, by encouraging students to reflect upon their Professional Practice, the programme not only enables students to consider how they may apply what they have learnt to their Professional Practice, but also encourages them to think about how they can link their experiences as Professional Engineers to what and how they learn both whilst on the programme but also as lifelong learners.

Getting round pegs into round holes:getting students onto the right engineering programme

Aston University offers a Foundation year in Engineering and Applied Science. The purpose of this programme is to prepare people with the necessary skills and knowledge required to enrol on an undergraduate programme in Engineering and Applied Science. It is acknowledged there are many misconceptions as to what engineering is. This is further compounded by the lack of knowledge of the different engineering disciplines both by pre-university students and careers teachers [1]. In order to ameliorate this lack of knowledge, Aston University offers a unique programme where students are given the opportunity to have a ?taste? of four Engineering Disciplines: Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Computer Science. Alongside these ?taster? sessions, the students study a Professional Skills module where they are expected to keep a portfolio of skills. In their portfolios they comment on their strengths and weakness in relation to six skill areas: independent enquirer, self-manager, effective participator, creative thinker, reflective learner and team worker. The portfolio gives them the opportunity to perform a self-skills audit and identify areas where they have strengths and areas which require work to improve to become a competent professional engineer. They also have talks from engineers who discuss with them their careers and the different aspects of engineering. The purpose of the ?taster? sessions, portfolio and the talks are to encourage the students to critically examine their career aspirations and choose an engineering undergraduate programme which best suits their ambitions and potential skills. The feedback from students has been very positive. The ?taster? sessions have enabled them to make an informed choice as to the undergraduate programme they would like to study. The programme has given them the technical skills and knowledge to enrol on an undergraduate programme and also the skills and knowledge to be a successful learner.

Developing a robust self evaluation framework for active learning:the first stage of an ERASMUS+ project (QAEMarketPlace4HEI)

In ensuring the quality of learning and teaching in Higher Education, self-evaluation is an important component of the process. An example would be the approach taken within the CDIO community whereby self-evaluation against the CDIO standards is part of the quality assurance process. Eight European universities (Reykjavik University, Iceland; Turku University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Aarhus University, Denmark; Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Ume? University, Sweden; Telecom Bretagne, France; Aston University, United Kingdom; Queens University Belfast, United Kingdom) are engaged in an EU funded Erasmus + project that is exploring the quality assurance process associated with active learning. The development of a new self-evaluation framework that feeds into a ?Marketplace? where participating institutions can be paired up and then engage in peer evaluations and sharing around each institutions approach to and implementation of active learning. All of the partner institutions are engaged in the application of CDIO within their engineering programmes and this has provided a common starting point for the partnership to form and the project to be developed. Although the initial focus will be CDIO, the longer term aim is that the approach could be of value beyond CDIO and within other disciplines. The focus of this paper is the process by which the self-evaluation framework is being developed and the form of the draft framework. In today?s Higher Education environment, the need to comply with Quality Assurance standards is an ever present feature of programme development and review. When engaging in a project that spans several countries, the wealth of applicable standards and guidelines is significant. In working towards the development of a robust Self Evaluation Framework for this project, the project team decided to take a wide view of the available resources to ensure a full consideration of different requirements and practices. The approach to developing the framework considered: a) institutional standards and processes b) national standards and processes e.g. QAA in the UK c) documents relating to regional / global accreditation schemes e.g. ABET d) requirements / guidelines relating to particular learning and teaching frameworks e.g. CDIO. The resulting draft self-evaluation framework is to be implemented within the project team to start with to support the initial ?Marketplace? pairing process. Following this initial work, changes will be considered before a final version is made available as part of the project outputs. Particular consideration has been paid to the extent of the framework, as a key objective of the project is to ensure that the approach to quality assurance has impact but is not overly demanding in terms of time or paperwork. In other words that it is focused on action and value added to staff, students and the programmes being considered.

How does problem based learning fit with cognitive load theory?

This paper reports on an investigation with first year undergraduate Product Design and Management students within a School of Engineering. The students at the time of this investigation had studied fundamental engineering science and mathematics for one semester. The students were given an open ended, ill formed problem which involved designing a simple bridge to cross a river. They were given a talk on problem solving and given a rubric to follow, if they chose to do so. They were not given any formulae or procedures needed in order to resolve the problem. In theory, they possessed the knowledge to ask the right questions in order to make assumptions but, in practice, it turned out they were unable to link their a priori knowledge to resolve this problem. They were able to solve simple beam problems when given closed questions. The results show they were unable to visualise a simple bridge as an augmented beam problem and ask pertinent questions and hence formulate appropriate assumptions in order to offer resolutions.