There are frequent calls for engineers to build integrated approaches to complex social and environmental problems. However, engineering education provides little opportunity to explore these "wicked problems". Given the complexity of the challenges, engineers face upon graduation, introducing students to systems thinking approaches and wicked problems could greatly benefit their ability to deal with complex challenges in the real world. At the University of Toronto, we have been taking part in the initiative to design a course with the primary topic of Systems Thinking targeted towards upper-year students from all disciplines. The objective of this course is not for student teams to get to a solution, but more so to develop an understanding of the wicked problem they are working on while educating them to leverage system thinking tools for visualizing their problem space and system mapping techniques to look at open systems. This presentation will share our observations of the interactions, lessons learned, and challenges we faced during our first iteration of this course. The objective of this paper is to start an ongoing thread about the progress of teaching systems thinking concepts to engineering students throughout the upcoming years, along with the learning outcomes established from this course. In the future, we want to extract the data gathered from this course and research systems thinking principles and their benefits in approaching wicked problems.
人们经常要求工程师建立综合方法来解决复杂的社会和环境问题。然而，工程教育很少提供机会来探索这些“邪恶的问题”。考虑到工程师在毕业时面临的挑战的复杂性，向学生介绍系统思维方法和棘手的问题可以极大地提高他们处理现实世界中复杂挑战的能力。在多伦多大学(University of Toronto)，我们参与了一项计划，旨在设计一门以“系统思维”为主要主题的课程，面向所有学科的高年级学生。本课程的目标不是让学生团队获得解决方案，而是培养对他们正在研究的棘手问题的理解，同时教育他们利用系统思考工具来可视化他们的问题空间和系统映射技术来查看开放系统。本演讲将分享我们的互动，经验教训的观察，以及我们在本课程的第一次迭代中所面临的挑战。本文的目的是在接下来的几年里，随着本课程的学习成果的建立，开始一个关于向工程学生教授系统思维概念的进展的持续线索。在未来，我们希望提取从这门课程中收集到的数据，并研究系统思维原理及其在解决邪恶问题方面的好处。
{"title":"Lessons Learned From Teaching System Thinking To Engineering Students","authors":"Amin Azad, Emily Moore","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15907","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15907","url":null,"abstract":"There are frequent calls for engineers to build integrated approaches to complex social and environmental problems. However, engineering education provides little opportunity to explore these \"wicked problems\". \u0000Given the complexity of the challenges, engineers face upon graduation, introducing students to systems thinking approaches and wicked problems could greatly benefit their ability to deal with complex challenges in the real world. At the University of Toronto, we have been taking part in the initiative to design a course with the primary topic of Systems Thinking targeted towards upper-year students from all disciplines. The objective of this course is not for student teams to get to a solution, but more so to develop an understanding of the wicked problem they are working on while educating them to leverage system thinking tools for visualizing their problem space and system mapping techniques to look at open systems. \u0000This presentation will share our observations of the interactions, lessons learned, and challenges we faced during our first iteration of this course. The objective of this paper is to start an ongoing thread about the progress of teaching systems thinking concepts to engineering students throughout the upcoming years, along with the learning outcomes established from this course. In the future, we want to extract the data gathered from this course and research systems thinking principles and their benefits in approaching wicked problems.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"54 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":"124161107","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}
Elizabeth Hassan, Sloane Kowal, Katherine Jamieson
McMaster University has recently made major investments in competitive engineering teams. Student participants in the teams benefit from technical skill development, career relevant experiences, and leadership opportunities. However, the number of students involved in these activities is currently limited, and we would like to serve more students with these programs. The objective of this work is to better understand the factors associated with participation or non-participation in the competitive teams. The research team studied both competitive team participators and non-participators through quantitative and qualitative methods (mixed-methods). The first (qualitative) stage of the study was an online 15-question survey. Students who fully completed the survey had the option to participate in focus groups. Overall, the students’ responses were more similar than they were different. The differences between the groups were: Hours per week on extracurricular, Do not currently have enough time, Existing extracurriculars of interest, Do not have time due to religious or cultural activities, Prefer to work alone, and Feel welcome in engineering. The small number of significant differences between groups is an encouraging finding, because it means that the barriers to broader participation in the teams may be small. If the students who currently participate are similar to the non-participants, similar excellent learning outcomes may be possible. The quantitative findings were examined for insights to establish best practices for encouraging broad participation.
{"title":"Ordinary students, extraordinary results: What factors affect student participation in experiential opportunities in Competitive Teams?","authors":"Elizabeth Hassan, Sloane Kowal, Katherine Jamieson","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15883","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15883","url":null,"abstract":"McMaster University has recently made major investments in competitive engineering teams. Student participants in the teams benefit from technical skill development, career relevant experiences, and leadership opportunities. However, the number of students involved in these activities is currently limited, and we would like to serve more students with these programs. The objective of this work is to better understand the factors associated with participation or non-participation in the competitive teams.\u0000The research team studied both competitive team participators and non-participators through quantitative and qualitative methods (mixed-methods). The first (qualitative) stage of the study was an online 15-question survey. Students who fully completed the survey had the option to participate in focus groups.\u0000Overall, the students’ responses were more similar than they were different. The differences between the groups were: Hours per week on extracurricular, Do not currently have enough time, Existing extracurriculars of interest, Do not have time due to religious or cultural activities, Prefer to work alone, and Feel welcome in engineering.\u0000The small number of significant differences between groups is an encouraging finding, because it means that the barriers to broader participation in the teams may be small. If the students who currently participate are similar to the non-participants, similar excellent learning outcomes may be possible. The quantitative findings were examined for insights to establish best practices for encouraging broad participation.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"102 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":"121058906","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}
Empathy is a necessary soft skill for 21st century engineers that can support engineering design, creativity, ethical skills, and collaboration. Empathy-based pedagogical research has predominantly focused on course or project-specific approaches. This paper presents instructor (n = 40) perceptions on empathy as a professional skill and as a pedagogical area captured in a survey distributed to the Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo. Instructors identified empathy as a moderately to extremely important professional skill but expressed a wider range of opinions on the importance of empathy-based pedagogy ranging from not at all important to extremely important. This difference in perceptions may be connected to self-identified gender, professional engineering status, and perceived connections between empathy and a wider range of graduate attributes. Future work will focus on a qualitative analysis of survey statements to better understand the broader context of instructor perceptions and developing a larger multi-institution study.
{"title":"Where We Are: Understanding Instructor Perceptions of Empathy in Engineering Education","authors":"Jennifer Howcraft, Kate Mercer","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15913","url":null,"abstract":"Empathy is a necessary soft skill for 21st century engineers that can support engineering design, creativity, ethical skills, and collaboration. Empathy-based pedagogical research has predominantly focused on course or project-specific approaches. This paper presents instructor (n = 40) perceptions on empathy as a professional skill and as a pedagogical area captured in a survey distributed to the Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo. Instructors identified empathy as a moderately to extremely important professional skill but expressed a wider range of opinions on the importance of empathy-based pedagogy ranging from not at all important to extremely important. This difference in perceptions may be connected to self-identified gender, professional engineering status, and perceived connections between empathy and a wider range of graduate attributes. Future work will focus on a qualitative analysis of survey statements to better understand the broader context of instructor perceptions and developing a larger multi-institution study. ","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"47 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":"127350174","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}
k2i (kindergarten to industry) academy within the Lassonde School of Engineering at York University is an innovative ecosystem that works to meaningfully design and integrate equity and inclusion based STEM programs that address persistent problems in education. In order to address these barriers, k2i academy has developed an Inclusive Design Framework that guides our work and ensures that our programs are designed with equity, diversity and inclusion as the central principle. This framework was implemented in the Bringing STEM to Life: Work Integrated Learning program to address inequities for underrepresented high school students. The program participants earned a high school physics credit during the summer while gaining employment experience as a Lab Assistant working on projects with mentors. Through collaborations with Lassonde Faculty researchers, industry partners, and educational leaders in school boards, the program identified that these experiences allowed youth and K-12 educators to broaden their understanding of STEM, developed critical technical and professional skills and enabled youth to imagine and see themselves in a STEM career.
{"title":"k2i academy: An Innovative Ecosystem Addressing System Barriers in STEM from Kindergarten to Industry","authors":"Lisa Cole, J. Goodyer, Vanessa Ironside","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15876","url":null,"abstract":"k2i (kindergarten to industry) academy within the Lassonde School of Engineering at York University is an innovative ecosystem that works to meaningfully design and integrate equity and inclusion based STEM programs that address persistent problems in education. In order to address these barriers, k2i academy has developed an Inclusive Design Framework that guides our work and ensures that our programs are designed with equity, diversity and inclusion as the central principle. This framework was implemented in the Bringing STEM to Life: Work Integrated Learning program to address inequities for underrepresented high school students. The program participants earned a high school physics credit during the summer while gaining employment experience as a Lab Assistant working on projects with mentors. Through collaborations with Lassonde Faculty researchers, industry partners, and educational leaders in school boards, the program identified that these experiences allowed youth and K-12 educators to broaden their understanding of STEM, developed critical technical and professional skills and enabled youth to imagine and see themselves in a STEM career.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"21 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":"122197364","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}
M. Zhang, E. Croiset, F. Pantazi, Marios Ioannidis
We present an integrated project-based learning (PBL) asset integrating 360° virtual reality tour, high-fidelity simulation, and simulation-based design for chemical engineering laboratory courses. The 360° virtual reality tour integrated with videos and learning lessons of distillation equipment components is based on a pilot-scale distillation column of the standard industrial design and an authentic separation system of renewable bioethanol. The dedicated simulation modules, tailored for process simulation and simulation-based design anchored on rigorous theoretical methods, provide students with accurate process performance scenarios and genuine process design practice. The unique combination of virtual reality and high-fidelity simulation enables students of all academic years to explore the connections among the process equipment and operation, underlying concepts, simplifying assumptions and sustainable design with high-level efficiency, depth, and flexibility. The integrated learning modules also contain content-appropriate learning activities and expected learning outcomes for all academic levels, and culminates in senior year as a project-based design laboratory focusing on sustainable design of equipment, systems, and processes, along with hands-on laboratory. Altogether, the integrated learning based on the exploration of the real-world process is structured to support efficient, student-oriented, and design-centric learning for students to acquire knowledge and engineering skills of integrated real-world systems and develop cognitive ability for problem solving. In particular, the integrated learning in the open-ended PBL with design component is expected to help students achieve higher-level learning outcomes and critical engineering skills.
{"title":"Achieving Deep Learning through Integration of 360° Virtual Reality Tour, Hands-on Experience, and Simulation-Based Design in a Project-Based Laboratory","authors":"M. Zhang, E. Croiset, F. Pantazi, Marios Ioannidis","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15857","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15857","url":null,"abstract":"We present an integrated project-based learning (PBL) asset integrating 360° virtual reality tour, high-fidelity simulation, and simulation-based design for chemical engineering laboratory courses. The 360° virtual reality tour integrated with videos and learning lessons of distillation equipment components is based on a pilot-scale distillation column of the standard industrial design and an authentic separation system of renewable bioethanol. The dedicated simulation modules, tailored for process simulation and simulation-based design anchored on rigorous theoretical methods, provide students with accurate process performance scenarios and genuine process design practice. The unique combination of virtual reality and high-fidelity simulation enables students of all academic years to explore the connections among the process equipment and operation, underlying concepts, simplifying assumptions and sustainable design with high-level efficiency, depth, and flexibility. The integrated learning modules also contain content-appropriate learning activities and expected learning outcomes for all academic levels, and culminates in senior year as a project-based design laboratory focusing on sustainable design of equipment, systems, and processes, along with hands-on laboratory. Altogether, the integrated learning based on the exploration of the real-world process is structured to support efficient, student-oriented, and design-centric learning for students to acquire knowledge and engineering skills of integrated real-world systems and develop cognitive ability for problem solving. In particular, the integrated learning in the open-ended PBL with design component is expected to help students achieve higher-level learning outcomes and critical engineering skills.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"3 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":"116130035","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}
Renaissance Engineering 1 is a first-year engineering course that is the “flagship course” of Lassonde School of Engineering, where students are introduced to essential concepts and practices in ethics, communication, and creative problem solving. It is a large course that impacts over 600 students per year. Since Fall 2020, partly as a response to the pandemic, we fundamentally transformed the content and delivery of the course. This year, we have continued this transformative journey with an emphasis on reinventing the assessment approach. The limitations of normative grading are wellknown in the education field. Specifically, to our situation, the appropriateness of this practice in professional education where the goal is to ensure every student acquires the necessary competence, is suspect. Specification grading bridges normative and competencybased grading paradigms and has been shown to be effective in the engineering education setting. We applied specification grading to Renaissance Engineering 1. In all assignments, including the final case study, students are asked to satisfy a number of requirements distributed across four levels of competencies: Level 1: Foundational requirements for being a well-adjusted citizen, Level 2: Foundational requirements for being a contributing engineer, Level 3: Advanced requirements for being a well adjusted citizen, and Level 4: Advanced requirements for being a contributing engineer. Students are assigned grades from D to A based on their requirement satisfaction. Students have a limited number of chances to revise and resubmit their work if they have failed to satisfy all requirements in order to demonstrate competency. If they fail to meet multiple level 1 requirements after resubmission, they will fail the course. During the Fall-2021 term, we faced a number of unexpected challenges and surprises. Compared to previous years, this cohort - having experienced tremendous difficulties through the pandemic - were more tentative and insecure and took to a new grading scheme with notable trepidation initially. Surprisingly, many students had notable difficulty following clear written instructions, which is likely another pandemic-induced abnormality. Nevertheless, the majority of the students became comfortable with the scheme by the end of the term and achieved satisfactory learning outcomes. Significantly, while the majority of the students (~58%) achieved A or B grades, a significant minority (~18%) of students had failed the course. The course is offered to a new cohort of students in Winter 2022. Following a system thinking approach, we adjusted the grading scheme implementation based on our experience and learnings from the Fall-2021 term through winter term that led us to new and consistent findings. However, the benefits of specification grading in ensuring students meet critical competencies is particularly relevant for a professional education program such as engineering. Indeed, the bimodal grad
{"title":"Journey Continues: Piloting Competency-based Assessment in a First-year Engineering Course on Ethics, Communication, and Creative Problem Solving","authors":"Kai Zhuang, J. Harris, S. Mattucci, M. Jadidi","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15929","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15929","url":null,"abstract":"Renaissance Engineering 1 is a first-year engineering course that is the “flagship course” of Lassonde School of Engineering, where students are introduced to essential concepts and practices in ethics, communication, and creative problem solving. It is a large course that impacts over 600 students per year. Since Fall 2020, partly as a response to the pandemic, we fundamentally transformed the content and delivery of the course. This year, we have continued this transformative journey with an emphasis on reinventing the assessment approach. The limitations of normative grading are wellknown in the education field. Specifically, to our situation, the appropriateness of this practice in professional education where the goal is to ensure every student acquires the necessary competence, is suspect. Specification grading bridges normative and competencybased grading paradigms and has been shown to be effective in the engineering education setting. We applied specification grading to Renaissance Engineering 1. In all assignments, including the final case study, students are asked to satisfy a number of requirements distributed across four levels of competencies: Level 1: Foundational requirements for being a well-adjusted citizen, Level 2: Foundational requirements for being a contributing engineer, Level 3: Advanced requirements for being a well adjusted citizen, and Level 4: Advanced requirements for being a contributing engineer.\u0000Students are assigned grades from D to A based on their requirement satisfaction. Students have a limited number of chances to revise and resubmit their work if they have failed to satisfy all requirements in order to demonstrate competency. If they fail to meet multiple level 1 requirements after resubmission, they will fail the course. During the Fall-2021 term, we faced a number of unexpected challenges and surprises. Compared to previous years, this cohort - having experienced tremendous difficulties through the pandemic - were more tentative and insecure and took to a new grading scheme with notable trepidation initially. Surprisingly, many students had notable difficulty following clear written instructions, which is likely another pandemic-induced abnormality. Nevertheless, the majority of the students became comfortable with the scheme by the end of the term and achieved satisfactory learning outcomes. Significantly, while the majority of the students (~58%) achieved A or B grades, a significant minority (~18%) of students had failed the course. The course is offered to a new cohort of students in Winter 2022. Following a system thinking approach, we adjusted the grading scheme implementation based on our experience and learnings from the Fall-2021 term through winter term that led us to new and consistent findings. However, the benefits of specification grading in ensuring students meet critical competencies is particularly relevant for a professional education program such as engineering. Indeed, the bimodal grad","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"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":"117071977","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 teaching practice paper describes and reflects on the Engineering Observation, a multimodal communication assignment in a first-year engineering communication and design course. The assignment is designed to accomplish two major goals. First, it fills a pedagogical gap by establishing multimodality and engineering discourse as the foundations of communications instruction and practice in the course, while also establishing communication as an integral part of—and not separate from—design practice. Second, it helps solve problems stemming from the complexity and scale common to large design courses by contributing to the systematic stability of the course. This second goal depends on framing such a course as a system, from the “ecological perspective.” These dual goals are found to be inherently connected, and deliberate care has been given to ensure that they are aligned, mutually supportive, and as effective as possible while ensuring that the assignment supports, and does not negatively impact, connected aspects of the course. Finally, I assess the assignment in its current iteration and consider future directions for the assignment itself as well as this research.
{"title":"Communication as Design: How a Multimodal Assignment Establishes Communication’s Role in Engineering Design and Provides Stability to a Large Course System","authors":"E. Nolan","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15875","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15875","url":null,"abstract":"This teaching practice paper describes and reflects on the Engineering Observation, a multimodal communication assignment in a first-year engineering communication and design course. The assignment is designed to accomplish two major goals. First, it fills a pedagogical gap by establishing multimodality and engineering discourse as the foundations of communications instruction and practice in the course, while also establishing communication as an integral part of—and not separate from—design practice. Second, it helps solve problems stemming from the complexity and scale common to large design courses by contributing to the systematic stability of the course. This second goal depends on framing such a course as a system, from the “ecological perspective.” These dual goals are found to be inherently connected, and deliberate care has been given to ensure that they are aligned, mutually supportive, and as effective as possible while ensuring that the assignment supports, and does not negatively impact, connected aspects of the course. Finally, I assess the assignment in its current iteration and consider future directions for the assignment itself as well as this research.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"63 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":"116778229","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 explores the tension between entrenched engineering beliefs about technological development and the limits of growth required for a sustainable planet. In a second year required Engineering & Society course, students were asked to use a postsustainability trilemma framework to explain one of three possible approaches to sustainability and analyze it as an ethical or unethical choice: Techno-business-as-usual; Environmental Authoritarianism and Post-Growth. This work-in-progress paper, which is part of a larger project, focuses on an examination of students who selected environmental authoritarianism as their selected approach. Analysis, based on the papers and student interviews, demonstrated both problematic assumptions about environmental authoritarianism, and different relationships between moral foun
{"title":"Questioning Green Growth and Sustainable Development in Undergraduate Engineering","authors":"L. Romkey, Robert K. Irish","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15978","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15978","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the tension between entrenched engineering beliefs about technological development and the limits of growth required for a sustainable planet. In a second year required Engineering & Society course, students were asked to use a postsustainability trilemma framework to explain one of three possible approaches to sustainability and analyze it as an ethical or unethical choice: Techno-business-as-usual; Environmental Authoritarianism and Post-Growth. This work-in-progress paper, which is part of a larger project, focuses on an examination of students who selected environmental authoritarianism as their selected approach. Analysis, based on the papers and student interviews, demonstrated both problematic assumptions about environmental authoritarianism, and different relationships between moral foun","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"32 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":"114650745","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}
Student awareness of complex problems increased by collaborating in teams through curricular and co-curricular deliveries. Pedagogical partnerships between faculty and students were created to investigate the Canadian Engineering Grand Challenge (CEGC), access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy. The open-ended and broad nature of the CEGC represented a natural fit for the design thinking process (DTP) framework where users and their needs are identified, and the problem statement and specification are formulated. The difficulties encountered by students while navigating the complex nature of the CEGC will be reported and steps for success are identified.
{"title":"Two tales of the Design Thinking Process for the Sustainable Energy Canadian Engineering Grand Challenge","authors":"C. Moresoli, Monika Mikhail","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15910","url":null,"abstract":"Student awareness of complex problems increased by collaborating in teams through curricular and co-curricular deliveries. Pedagogical partnerships between faculty and students were created to investigate the Canadian Engineering Grand Challenge (CEGC), access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy. The open-ended and broad nature of the CEGC represented a natural fit for the design thinking process (DTP) framework where users and their needs are identified, and the problem statement and specification are formulated. The difficulties encountered by students while navigating the complex nature of the CEGC will be reported and steps for success are identified.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"14 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":"126169084","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}
Austin Martins-Robalino, Aurora Wang, Bronwyn Chorlton, J. Gales
Trends in engineering education have shifted over time, with teaching methods adapting to facilitate student learning [1], and the importance of equity, diversity and inclusivity (EDI) coming to the forefront [2]. It is important to understand the trends in engineering education to assess where we are coming from and where things currently stand in terms of teaching methods, culture, and pedagogy, to guide engineering educators and researchers moving forward. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of thematic trends in past CEEA papers over the previous five years (2017-2021), exploring shifts and evolutions in the major topics discussed as well as looking at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on engineering education research. Papers were analyzed from the 2017-2021 CEEA proceedings. By studying the frequency of main themes in papers for each year, the popularity of subjects that have been trending were determined, allowing for an analysis of the major trends seen year over year. During the period under review, institutions across Canada transitioned to online learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in a prevalent thematic shift in paper topics towards an increased interest regarding pure online delivery of a course during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the 2021 proceedings, which saw 41 (41.8%) papers discuss online learning in some form, research into this topic generally had little traction with 2017 having the next highest frequency of 17 (10.2%) publications, and 2018-2020 each having under five publications on this topic. Up until 2021, the focus on teaching beyond conventional formats had been primarily on mixed delivery (such as flipped classrooms and blended learning), as opposed to purely online. Other trends observed from the analysis include the importance of K-12 outreach with this theme seeing most focus at the CEEA 2020 conference with seven (7.9%) papers discussing this topic. In addition to the changing trends in topics, a discussion on the ambiguity of research and practice-based papers and their definition was undertaken. This analysis will assist engineering educators to understand the research topics of interest that past CEEA submissions have gravitated towards, and will highlight topics that are important, but are presently understudied.
{"title":"Thematic Review of Canadian Engineering Education Research between 2017-2021","authors":"Austin Martins-Robalino, Aurora Wang, Bronwyn Chorlton, J. Gales","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15952","url":null,"abstract":"Trends in engineering education have shifted over time, with teaching methods adapting to facilitate student learning [1], and the importance of equity, diversity and inclusivity (EDI) coming to the forefront [2]. It is important to understand the trends in engineering education to assess where we are coming from and where things currently stand in terms of teaching methods, culture, and pedagogy, to guide engineering educators and researchers moving forward. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of thematic trends in past CEEA papers over the previous five years (2017-2021), exploring shifts and evolutions in the major topics discussed as well as looking at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on engineering education research. Papers were analyzed from the 2017-2021 CEEA proceedings. By studying the frequency of main themes in papers for each year, the popularity of subjects that have been trending were determined, allowing for an analysis of the major trends seen year over year. During the period under review, institutions across Canada transitioned to online learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in a prevalent thematic shift in paper topics towards an increased interest regarding pure online delivery of a course during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the 2021 proceedings, which saw 41 (41.8%) papers discuss online learning in some form, research into this topic generally had little traction with 2017 having the next highest frequency of 17 (10.2%) publications, and 2018-2020 each having under five publications on this topic. Up until 2021, the focus on teaching beyond conventional formats had been primarily on mixed delivery (such as flipped classrooms and blended learning), as opposed to purely online. Other trends observed from the analysis include the importance of K-12 outreach with this theme seeing most focus at the CEEA 2020 conference with seven (7.9%) papers discussing this topic. In addition to the changing trends in topics, a discussion on the ambiguity of research and practice-based papers and their definition was undertaken. This analysis will assist engineering educators to understand the research topics of interest that past CEEA submissions have gravitated towards, and will highlight topics that are important, but are presently understudied.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"33 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":"122016269","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：