Learning communities may form in the engineering undergraduate programmes through meaningful teamwork activities and positive experiences working with peers. This research study was conducted as part of a programme evaluation to understand how students conceptualised the purpose of a learning community. Through a thematic analysis of six focus groups with students, we have a better understanding of how students find value in maintaining relationships with their peers that they may have worked within team-based work. Each focus group consisted of students studying at the same level of the undergraduate programme – ranging from first-year students to recently graduated students. We synthesized data from these groups to guide inferences about why and how students formed communities with their peers, the motivations to maintain those communities, and any curricular interventions that fostered the sense of community. The findings of this study allow us to understand how a learning community pedagogy can be integrated into the broader engineering curriculum to provide undergraduate engineering students with meaningful and coherent learning experiences.
{"title":"Towards forming learning communities - Understanding the role of collaborative work in an undergraduate engineering program","authors":"Rubaina Khan, L. Romkey, J. Slotta","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15979","url":null,"abstract":"Learning communities may form in the engineering undergraduate programmes through meaningful teamwork activities and positive experiences working with peers. This research study was conducted as part of a programme evaluation to understand how students conceptualised the purpose of a learning community. Through a thematic analysis of six focus groups with students, we have a better understanding of how students find value in maintaining relationships with their peers that they may have worked within team-based work. Each focus group consisted of students studying at the same level of the undergraduate programme – ranging from first-year students to recently graduated students. We synthesized data from these groups to guide inferences about why and how students formed communities with their peers, the motivations to maintain those communities, and any curricular interventions that fostered the sense of community. The findings of this study allow us to understand how a learning community pedagogy can be integrated into the broader engineering curriculum to provide undergraduate engineering students with meaningful and coherent learning experiences.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121278178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Engineering education is still largely offered through traditional, content-heavy approaches, with key technical topics in individual courses separate from those that emphasize the practice of the engineering profession, resulting in fragmented student workloads. Traditional assessments do not accommodate students’ unique, diverse learning perspectives. These issues fail to recognize that engineering is above all else a community-of-practice, requiring practitioners to demonstrate innovation and resilience to address today’s complex challenges in sustainable ways. More recent programs adopt project-based pedagogies, that engage learners in engineering problems that affect their communities. This paper proposes taking the project focus further, with a structure that allows faculty and students to collaborate on real-world engineering work that is not just done for, but also with, the community, and with sustainability built in. Such an approach establishes an overarching connection between the “work” of an engineer and what it is to be a future engineer for society. The authors are developing a 4-year space engineering program proposal, where students from all years will collaborate to design, build, launch and operate a cubesat for, and with, the community as the full focus of their 4-year degree. A six-week pilot slice of the program took place in the summer of 2021 with 20 students from all undergraduate year groups collaborating on a community-focussed, sustainable small space-mission design activity to change power dynamics around water quality data in northern and indigenous Canadian communities. Students worked in organizational teams, with structured teambuilding and collaboration time, focussed working sessions from subject-matter-experts, microcredential learning and unstructured team time to advance their project. This culminated in a mission concept review with a team of expert, industry and community partners. This paper presents some of the key ideas that informed the program, and the tools used to frame the learning journey in an undergraduate engineering degree. The pilot demonstrated students’ readiness to take on complex, unstructured challenges and organize themselves, and the potential to offer undergraduate learning spaces that have a very different connection to community and global issues.
{"title":"RealEngineering: Space – Designing the Community-Applied Space Engineering Program","authors":"O. Alsop, Raghad El-Shebiny, F. Newland","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15830","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15830","url":null,"abstract":"Engineering education is still largely offered through traditional, content-heavy approaches, with key technical topics in individual courses separate from those that emphasize the practice of the engineering profession, resulting in fragmented student workloads. Traditional assessments do not accommodate students’ unique, diverse learning perspectives. These issues fail to recognize that engineering is above all else a community-of-practice, requiring practitioners to demonstrate innovation and resilience to address today’s complex challenges in sustainable ways. \u0000More recent programs adopt project-based pedagogies, that engage learners in engineering problems that affect their communities. This paper proposes taking the project focus further, with a structure that allows faculty and students to collaborate on real-world engineering work that is not just done for, but also with, the community, and with sustainability built in. Such an approach establishes an overarching connection between the “work” of an engineer and what it is to be a future engineer for society. \u0000The authors are developing a 4-year space engineering program proposal, where students from all years will collaborate to design, build, launch and operate a cubesat for, and with, the community as the full focus of their 4-year degree. A six-week pilot slice of the program took place in the summer of 2021 with 20 students from all undergraduate year groups collaborating on a community-focussed, sustainable small space-mission design activity to change power dynamics around water quality data in northern and indigenous Canadian communities. Students worked in organizational teams, with structured teambuilding and collaboration time, focussed working sessions from subject-matter-experts, microcredential learning and unstructured team time to advance their project. This culminated in a mission concept review with a team of expert, industry and community partners. \u0000This paper presents some of the key ideas that informed the program, and the tools used to frame the learning journey in an undergraduate engineering degree. The pilot demonstrated students’ readiness to take on complex, unstructured challenges and organize themselves, and the potential to offer undergraduate learning spaces that have a very different connection to community and global issues.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127084098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the Fall of 2021, the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Engineering implemented a new first year Engineering Design course called GE 142 (Design I). In comparison to similar courses in other Engineering programs, the course was unique in a few respects. First, it ran from mid-October to mid-December, and it included 7 lectures and 4 labs. Second, it was focused almost entirely on problem definition. Third, the assessment system was competency based. Each of these elements made for a unique design course, and each element will be described in detail. The course had a number of Learning Outcome goals in the general areas of knowledge, skills, experiences, and attitudes. Knowledge was assessed using an automated adaptive quiz system employing Mobius™ software, linked to the Canvas™ Learning Management System (LMS). Design skills were assessed through a series of six assignments that focused on the ability to characterize design problems, maintain an effective logbook, make a convincing case to undertake a design problem, communicate in a clear manner, and reflect on how to improve design practice. Experiences included various types of design exercises conducted in lab settings. For example, some design exercises were more open-ended while others were more closed design problems, and students also engaged in the characterization of a design problem with a live client. Assessment of attitudes was carried out at the end of the course using a series of Likert-scale questions that probed students’ perspectives on the value of design, their enjoyment of design, the value of logbooks, their interest in tech innovation, and the importance of group dynamics, project management, and technical communication. As a quality improvement/program assessment exercise, an analysis of grades and student attitudes was conducted and will be presented (n=306). As well, an initial analysis of the performance of students on the Mobius questions was carried out. In general, results were quite favourable both in terms of achievements against different types of Learning Outcomes and in terms of student attitudes towards various perspectives in Design. Student responses for the attitude survey were anonymous and all grade and quiz analyses employed aggregate data. At the end of the course, instructors reflected on what they felt should be continued, started, and stopped in subsequent iterations of the course. The suitability of the student performance data against the Learning Outcomes will also be discussed in the context of accreditation criteria for the CEAB.
{"title":"Description of, and Outcomes from, a Novel First Year Engineering Design Course","authors":"S. Maw, G. Kennell, Whitney Curtis, Zoe Mao","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15933","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15933","url":null,"abstract":"In the Fall of 2021, the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Engineering implemented a new first year Engineering Design course called GE 142 (Design I). In comparison to similar courses in other Engineering programs, the course was unique in a few respects. First, it ran from mid-October to mid-December, and it included 7 lectures and 4 labs. Second, it was focused almost entirely on problem definition. Third, the assessment system was competency based. Each of these elements made for a unique design course, and each element will be described in detail. \u0000The course had a number of Learning Outcome goals in the general areas of knowledge, skills, experiences, and attitudes. Knowledge was assessed using an automated adaptive quiz system employing Mobius™ software, linked to the Canvas™ Learning Management System (LMS). Design skills were assessed through a series of six assignments that focused on the ability to characterize design problems, maintain an effective logbook, make a convincing case to undertake a design problem, communicate in a clear manner, and reflect on how to improve design practice. Experiences included various types of design exercises conducted in lab settings. For example, some design exercises were more open-ended while others were more closed design problems, and students also engaged in the characterization of a design problem with a live client. Assessment of attitudes was carried out at the end of the course using a series of Likert-scale questions that probed students’ perspectives on the value of design, their enjoyment of design, the value of logbooks, their interest in tech innovation, and the importance of group dynamics, project management, and technical communication. \u0000As a quality improvement/program assessment exercise, an analysis of grades and student attitudes was conducted and will be presented (n=306). As well, an initial analysis of the performance of students on the Mobius questions was carried out. In general, results were quite favourable both in terms of achievements against different types of Learning Outcomes and in terms of student attitudes towards various perspectives in Design. Student responses for the attitude survey were anonymous and all grade and quiz analyses employed aggregate data. At the end of the course, instructors reflected on what they felt should be continued, started, and stopped in subsequent iterations of the course. The suitability of the student performance data against the Learning Outcomes will also be discussed in the context of accreditation criteria for the CEAB.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"33 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124973276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cindy Rottmann, Andrea Chan, Jessica Li, Mackenzie Campbell, Dimpho Radebe, Emily Moore
Early studies of engineering leadership in North America suggest widespread resistance to leadership among engineering students and professionals. We explore two integrally linked strategies for overcoming this resistance—one conceptual and one empirical. First, we draw on Giroux’s theory of resistance to reframe the assumption that engineers who have questions about leadership are opposing the notion of engineering as a leadership profession. Second, we investigate the notion of leadership affinity by analyzing 617 open-ended survey responses to the following question: “what inspires you about an engineering profession that embraces leadership?” We conclude with a theoretically informed discussion about the potential impact of leadership affinity on engineers’ professional development and social impact.
{"title":"Engineers Embracing Leadership: Making the World a Better Place through Data-driven Decision Making","authors":"Cindy Rottmann, Andrea Chan, Jessica Li, Mackenzie Campbell, Dimpho Radebe, Emily Moore","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15836","url":null,"abstract":"Early studies of engineering leadership in North America suggest widespread resistance to leadership among engineering students and professionals. We explore two integrally linked strategies for overcoming this resistance—one conceptual and one empirical. First, we draw on Giroux’s theory of resistance to reframe the assumption that engineers who have questions about leadership are opposing the notion of engineering as a leadership profession. Second, we investigate the notion of leadership affinity by analyzing 617 open-ended survey responses to the following question: “what inspires you about an engineering profession that embraces leadership?” We conclude with a theoretically informed discussion about the potential impact of leadership affinity on engineers’ professional development and social impact. ","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122680424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. Marcynuk, W. Kinsner, R. Renaud, Jillian Seniuk Cicek
Advancements in classroom technology and data collection have allowed for new studies into how students interact with course material. This paper presents the development of a new tool designed to process timestamp information from a learning management system in a remote, synchronous course to analyze patterns of behaviour and predict student outcomes in the course. The timestamps are arranged to create a personalized timeline of activity for individual students, focusing on the length of time between successive interactions. Preliminary analysis of the timestamp intervals across a class of students over an entire term is also presented. The lengths of time between successive course interactions follows a long-tail distribution with peaks occurring at approximately 24-hour periods, implying that students were most likely to access course material at daily or multi-day intervals.
{"title":"Towards Personalization of Student Learning and Engagement in a First-Year Undergraduate Course","authors":"K. Marcynuk, W. Kinsner, R. Renaud, Jillian Seniuk Cicek","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15958","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15958","url":null,"abstract":"Advancements in classroom technology and data collection have allowed for new studies into how students interact with course material. This paper presents the development of a new tool designed to process timestamp information from a learning management system in a remote, synchronous course to analyze patterns of behaviour and predict student outcomes in the course. The timestamps are arranged to create a personalized timeline of activity for individual students, focusing on the length of time between successive interactions. Preliminary analysis of the timestamp intervals across a class of students over an entire term is also presented. The lengths of time between successive course interactions follows a long-tail distribution with peaks occurring at approximately 24-hour periods, implying that students were most likely to access course material at daily or multi-day intervals.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128402117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents the German-inspired education model called Dual, as pioneered by l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (Drummondville Campus) for its mechanical engineering undergraduate degree. Focus is on the program structure itself and the ongoing research project which aims to determine and measure outcomes of this novel approach from the student, industry-supervisor and professor perspectives’, specifically pertaining to their respective experience, impact on academic performance, employability, and the development of work-related skill sets. The methodology is set forth in this paper and results from similar experiences across Europe are presented. Qualitative and quantitative data for this specific project are still being collected and analyzed. The proposed model for this research stems from studies on active, experiential and work-integrated Learning. Motivated by a desire to better prepare engineering students for the ever-changing realities of the profession and as a response to the shortage of qualified personnel faced by the industrial sector, the program combines parallel on- and off-site learning over a consecutive two-year period. This differs from the more commonly known co-op structure where students alternate between study terms and work terms. With the proposed dual model, students complete the program within 4 years earning 24 credits, of a total 120, through work-integrated learning directly at the workplace (off-site). Courses completed jointly at the school and in partnership with the company include a 9-credit capstone design project and two 3-credit complementary courses, where reflective journaling and mentorship are central to both. In addition, three 4-month internships are also completed. Since June 2021, the program is accredited by Engineers Canada.
本文介绍了受德国启发的双重教育模式，该模式是由l' universit du qu - trois - rivi (Drummondville校区)为其机械工程本科学位开创的。重点是项目结构本身和正在进行的研究项目，旨在从学生、行业主管和教授的角度确定和衡量这种新方法的结果，特别是与他们各自的经验、对学业成绩、就业能力和工作相关技能发展的影响有关。本文阐述了该方法，并介绍了欧洲各地类似经验的结果。这个具体项目的定性和定量数据仍在收集和分析中。本研究提出的模型源于对主动学习、体验学习和工作整合学习的研究。为了让工程专业的学生更好地为不断变化的职业现实做好准备，并作为对工业部门面临的合格人才短缺的回应，该计划结合了连续两年的并行现场和非现场学习。这与更常见的带薪实习结构不同，在这种结构中，学生在学习学期和工作学期之间交替进行。在提出的双重模式下，学生通过直接在工作场所(非现场)的工作结合学习，在4年内完成课程，获得24个学分，总共120个学分。在学校和公司合作完成的课程包括一个9学分的顶点设计项目和两个3学分的补充课程，其中反思日志和指导是这两个课程的核心。此外，还完成了三个为期4个月的实习。自2021年6月起，该项目获得加拿大工程师协会的认证。
{"title":"Novel Work-Integrated Learning Model Based on the German Education System: UQTR’s Dual Approach for its Mechanical Engineering Program.","authors":"M. Goyette, Marc-André Gaudreau, C. Baril","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15921","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15921","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents the German-inspired education model called Dual, as pioneered by l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (Drummondville Campus) for its mechanical engineering undergraduate degree. Focus is on the program structure itself and the ongoing research project which aims to determine and measure outcomes of this novel approach from the student, industry-supervisor and professor perspectives’, specifically pertaining to their respective experience, impact on academic performance, employability, and the development of work-related skill sets. The methodology is set forth in this paper and results from similar experiences across Europe are presented. Qualitative and quantitative data for this specific project are still being collected and analyzed. The proposed model for this research stems from studies on active, experiential and work-integrated Learning. Motivated by a desire to better prepare engineering students for the ever-changing realities of the profession and as a response to the shortage of qualified personnel faced by the industrial sector, the program combines parallel on- and off-site learning over a consecutive two-year period. This differs from the more commonly known co-op structure where students alternate between study terms and work terms. With the proposed dual model, students complete the program within 4 years earning 24 credits, of a total 120, through work-integrated learning directly at the workplace (off-site). Courses completed jointly at the school and in partnership with the company include a 9-credit capstone design project and two 3-credit complementary courses, where reflective journaling and mentorship are central to both. In addition, three 4-month internships are also completed. Since June 2021, the program is accredited by Engineers Canada. ","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128586643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Angelene Fajardo, Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Kari Zacharias, Renato Bezerra Rodrigues
The ability to acknowledge and respond to the combination of the social and technical aspects of structures and processes encompassed in engineering design is called Sociotechnical Thinking (STT). Integrating STT into engineering education is important, as considering sociotechnical aspects can help students develop more thorough understandings of engineering practice and create more well-rounded and inclusive designs. While numerous attempts have been made to promote STT in undergraduate engineering courses, researchers and instructors characterize STT in different ways. The purpose of this qualitative content analysis was to inductively develop a framework for deductively analysing students’ capacities for STT. An inductive thematic analysis of the research literature was conducted to identify themes of STT in engineering education. Using these themes, a framework for deductive analysis was created. The framework was then used to assess publicly available undergraduate engineering reports written for a second-year technical communication class. All six themes in the STT framework were identified in the reports, though the themes occurred with varying frequency and at varying degrees. Students showed evidence of dualistic, or “instrumental” thinking. This work is a pilot phase of a larger research study that aims to develop a theoretical background for STT, which will explain its characteristics, elements, and thinking processes for use in the teaching and assessment of engineering education.
{"title":"Evidence of Sociotechnical Thinking in Engineering Students","authors":"Angelene Fajardo, Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Kari Zacharias, Renato Bezerra Rodrigues","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15977","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15977","url":null,"abstract":"The ability to acknowledge and respond to the combination of the social and technical aspects of structures and processes encompassed in engineering design is called Sociotechnical Thinking (STT). Integrating STT into engineering education is important, as considering sociotechnical aspects can help students develop more thorough understandings of engineering practice and create more well-rounded and inclusive designs. While numerous attempts have been made to promote STT in undergraduate engineering courses, researchers and instructors characterize STT in different ways. The purpose of this qualitative content analysis was to inductively develop a framework for deductively analysing students’ capacities for STT. An inductive thematic analysis of the research literature was conducted to identify themes of STT in engineering education. Using these themes, a framework for deductive analysis was created. The framework was then used to assess publicly available undergraduate engineering reports written for a second-year technical communication class. All six themes in the STT framework were identified in the reports, though the themes occurred with varying frequency and at varying degrees. Students showed evidence of dualistic, or “instrumental” thinking. This work is a pilot phase of a larger research study that aims to develop a theoretical background for STT, which will explain its characteristics, elements, and thinking processes for use in the teaching and assessment of engineering education.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124115841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Sowinski, P. Dumond, D. Knox, David Bruce, Jason A. Foster, H. Anis
In January 2021, a new academic unit (School of Engineering Design and Teaching Innovation) was created in the Faculty of Engineering for the first time in over 20 years. After identifying needs in the job market for programs with a focus on multidisciplinary skills, the academic unit’s first task was to develop a three-year nonaccredited program, titled “Bachelor’s of Multidisciplinary Design (Internship)”. Fundamentally, the program will include core technical expertise expected from an engineering faculty but will also offer flexibility for students to explore other interests. This type of flexibility and openness may seem daunting for first year students. Therefore, example learning paths were created based on current job market trends, with more learning paths in development. This paper focuses not only on the development of such a unique program in Canada, considering insight provided through stakeholder and focus group meetings, but also the challenges associated with submitting this program proposal through all levels of university bureaucracy, from the faculty committees through to provincial review. While there have been questions, and sometimes doubts, that such a program could be fully developed, the program is on track to pass all levels of approval and welcome its first cohort of students for the Fall 2023 term.
{"title":"joys and challenges of creating a non-accredited multidisciplinary design program in a traditional engineering faculty","authors":"A. Sowinski, P. Dumond, D. Knox, David Bruce, Jason A. Foster, H. Anis","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15969","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15969","url":null,"abstract":"In January 2021, a new academic unit (School of Engineering Design and Teaching Innovation) was created in the Faculty of Engineering for the first time in over 20 years. After identifying needs in the job market for programs with a focus on multidisciplinary skills, the academic unit’s first task was to develop a three-year nonaccredited program, titled “Bachelor’s of Multidisciplinary Design (Internship)”. Fundamentally, the program will include core technical expertise expected from an engineering faculty but will also offer flexibility for students to explore other interests. This type of flexibility and openness may seem daunting for first year students. Therefore, example learning paths were created based on current job market trends, with more learning paths in development. \u0000This paper focuses not only on the development of such a unique program in Canada, considering insight provided through stakeholder and focus group meetings, but also the challenges associated with submitting this program proposal through all levels of university bureaucracy, from the faculty committees through to provincial review. While there have been questions, and sometimes doubts, that such a program could be fully developed, the program is on track to pass all levels of approval and welcome its first cohort of students for the Fall 2023 term.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124177774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The new Sustainable Systems Engineering program at the University of Calgary aims to disrupt sustainability education by imbedding a systems approach and regenerative design mindset throughout. This paper provides an overview of a second-year design course, SUSE 301, Design for Systems and Society. The course introduces students to concepts of design for circular economy, regenerative design, and design for justice. Underlying all of these concepts is the idea of transformative learning through a systems thinking approach. Course assignments include chapter studies and discussions, critical reflection through a praxis experiment, and community-engaged design project. Overall, we hope to foster mindsets to develop engineering students who are able to fundamentally shift the discourse on sustainability engineering within industry, and critically reflect on the role of engineering itself. This course aims to provide students with the necessary tools and mindsets to foster real change across engineering industries to better support the interrelated elements of our society and planet.
卡尔加里大学新的可持续系统工程项目旨在通过嵌入系统方法和再生设计思维来颠覆可持续发展教育。本文概述了二年级设计课程suse301, design for Systems and Society。本课程向学生介绍循环经济设计、再生设计和正义设计的概念。所有这些概念的基础是通过系统思维方法进行变革性学习的想法。课程作业包括章节研究和讨论，通过实践实验进行批判性反思，以及社区参与的设计项目。总体而言，我们希望培养能够从根本上改变行业内可持续发展工程话语的工科学生的心态，并批判性地反思工程本身的作用。本课程旨在为学生提供必要的工具和思维方式，以促进工程行业的真正变革，以更好地支持我们社会和地球的相互关联的元素。
{"title":"Sustainable Systems Engineering Course Design: Design for Systems and Society","authors":"R. Paul, M. Eggermont","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15972","url":null,"abstract":"The new Sustainable Systems Engineering program at the University of Calgary aims to disrupt sustainability education by imbedding a systems approach and regenerative design mindset throughout. This paper provides an overview of a second-year design course, SUSE 301, Design for Systems and Society. The course introduces students to concepts of design for circular economy, regenerative design, and design for justice. Underlying all of these concepts is the idea of transformative learning through a systems thinking approach. Course assignments include chapter studies and discussions, critical reflection through a praxis experiment, and community-engaged design project. Overall, we hope to foster mindsets to develop engineering students who are able to fundamentally shift the discourse on sustainability engineering within industry, and critically reflect on the role of engineering itself. This course aims to provide students with the necessary tools and mindsets to foster real change across engineering industries to better support the interrelated elements of our society and planet.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"10 Suppl 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123636543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
E. Guest, S. Barrington, L. Benedicenti, Ray Gosine, Anne-Marie Laroche, Mya A. Warken
“Accreditation VS COVID.” This was the subject line of an email that a representative from a CEAB-accredited program sent to the CEAB Secretariat in Spring 2020. The COVID-19 global pandemic created multiple shifts in how engineering programs operated, which necessitated a reimagining of how CEAB accreditation (operating in the same novel environment) could survive and thrive. This work provides an overview of the CEAB’s efforts between March 2020 and June 2021 as theory, plans and implementation activities came together to transition the CEAB accreditation system to a completely virtual modality for the 2021/2022 visit cycle; it speaks briefly to identified best practices and lessons learned. Administrators and faculty of baccalaureate engineering programs will find this work to be of interest for the insight it provides into the CEAB’s processes. Moreover, accreditors of other disciplines and members of the general higher education community may find value in the work as part of a larger discussion of best practices for virtual quality assurance evaluations. This work presents the results of an environmental scan and literature review that was undertaken in 2020 (and updated in 2021) and includes reflections on the transition process from members of the CEAB Task Force on Virtual Visits and the CEAB Secretariat. The work this reflection piece will present has enabled the CEAB to offer ongoing accreditation reviews for Canadian baccalaureate engineering programs regardless of disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
{"title":"“Accreditation VS COVID”: The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board’s transition to virtual accreditation visits in 2020/2021","authors":"E. Guest, S. Barrington, L. Benedicenti, Ray Gosine, Anne-Marie Laroche, Mya A. Warken","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15870","url":null,"abstract":"“Accreditation VS COVID.” This was the subject line of an email that a representative from a CEAB-accredited program sent to the CEAB Secretariat in Spring 2020. The COVID-19 global pandemic created multiple shifts in how engineering programs operated, which necessitated a reimagining of how CEAB accreditation (operating in the same novel environment) could survive and thrive. This work provides an overview of the CEAB’s efforts between March 2020 and June 2021 as theory, plans and implementation activities came together to transition the CEAB accreditation system to a completely virtual modality for the 2021/2022 visit cycle; it speaks briefly to identified best practices and lessons learned. Administrators and faculty of baccalaureate engineering programs will find this work to be of interest for the insight it provides into the CEAB’s processes. Moreover, accreditors of other disciplines and members of the general higher education community may find value in the work as part of a larger discussion of best practices for virtual quality assurance evaluations. This work presents the results of an environmental scan and literature review that was undertaken in 2020 (and updated in 2021) and includes reflections on the transition process from members of the CEAB Task Force on Virtual Visits and the CEAB Secretariat. The work this reflection piece will present has enabled the CEAB to offer ongoing accreditation reviews for Canadian baccalaureate engineering programs regardless of disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129397015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：