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.

Accountability et confiance dans l'institution scolaire

Dans quelle mesure la montée de la reddition de comptes et de l’évaluation en éducation est-elle significative d’un déclin de la confiance de l’Etat, des administrateurs scolaires et des usagers dans la capacité des organisations scolaires à remplir correctement leurs missions ? N’est-elle pas également symptômatique d’une perte de confiance à l’égard des enseignants et de leur professionnalisme? Nous traiterons ces questions en proposant une réflexion à partir des théories de la confiance en sciences sociales. Nous distinguerons en particulier les théories qui s’interrogent sur les conditions de confiance dans les transactions économiques et celles qui raisonnent la confiance « politique » dans les institutions. Nous argumentons que les dispositifs d’accountability tendent surtout à réduire l’incertitude des clients/managers quant aux risques d’opportunisme et d’opacité des opérateurs scolaires. Il s’agit de favoriser la bonne marche « du marché » ou de « l’organisation productive » scolaire, au risque d’une perte d’autonomie professionnelle des enseignants et sans pour autant que l’Ecole ne redevienne une institution politique «digne de confiance ».

Processus de traduction et institutionnalisation d’outils de régulation basés sur les connaissances dans l’enseignement primaire en Belgique

Depuis une quinzaine d’années, on assiste en Belgique francophone au développement d’une politique d’évaluation externe des écoles. Notre étude analyse la réception de cette politique par les acteurs locaux (directeurs et enseignants d’écoles primaires) et intermédiaires (inspecteurs) et montre comment les outils de régulation basés sur les connaissances mis en place par ces acteurs affectent la réception et la légitimité de la politique d’évaluation dans son ensemble. À l’aide de la sociologie de la traduction (Callon & Latour) et de la théorie néoinstitutionnaliste, nous comparons deux modes de construction et de mise en oeuvre de cette politique dans deux zones d’inspection. Dans la première, le dispositif repose pour l’essentiel sur la bureaucratie, tandis que dans la seconde la politique est construite par un réseau d’acteurs locaux et intermédiaires. Nous montrons que 1) les rôles et les stratégies des acteurs intermédiaires diffèrent considérablement ; 2) les différences constatées dans la construction de la politique d’évaluation (co-construction des outils par un réseau d’acteurs intermédiaires d’un côté, mise en oeuvre hiérarchique et bureaucratique de l’autre) sont liées aux différents effets des outils de régulation sur les pratiques des enseignants et sur la légitimité de cette politique.

Enseignement de la structure prédicative du verbe au primaire : étude expérimentale à partir du verbe DÉCIDER

Mémoire numérisé par la Direction des bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal.

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.

Higher education, equality & ethnicity:the attainment gap – what should we be doing?

This brief paper draws upon part of the findings of a HEA Sponsored evaluation of work conducted in 8 Universities across UK aimed at addressing the attainment gap between BME and White students. Following a grounded theory approach, semi-structured interviews with staff at each of the institutions were analysed and three main themes identified: Organisational Sensitivities: Language: and, Ownership. This paper provides a brief discussion of the issues identifying two areas where positive change is needed in institutional practice. The conclusion highlights the complexities of the underlying issues impacting and shaping the Attainment Gap before reaffirming the need to identify and evaluate which interventions are most likely to be transferable across the Sector so as to address the issues and thus enhance the experiences of all students.