Capilano University offers a First Year Engineering transfer program that ladders to large receiving engineering schools. As part of a larger strategy by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Capilano University, the School of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and its Department of Engineering, a new Academic Model was developed to support student success in a rapidly changing education environment, as well as the modern employment landscape. The Academic model consists of four major co-active elements that are ideally suited to support the engineering curriculum, namely: Studio learning; Innovation-enabled thinking; Collaborative leadership; and Region-integrated learning. The subject of this research is to conduct an initial assessment of first-year course offerings within the Capilano University engineering program to (1) evaluate the extent of current alignment with the Academic Model; (2) the extent of potential alignment; (3) constraints to maximum alignment; and (4) opportunities to overcome constraints.
{"title":"New Academic Model for First Year Engineering Program at Capilano University","authors":"M. Wlodyka, Pouyan Mahboubi, Mark Vaughan","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15887","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15887","url":null,"abstract":"Capilano University offers a First Year Engineering transfer program that ladders to large receiving engineering schools. As part of a larger strategy by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Capilano University, the School of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and its Department of Engineering, a new Academic Model was developed to support student success in a rapidly changing education environment, as well as the modern employment landscape. The Academic model consists of four major co-active elements that are ideally suited to support the engineering curriculum, namely: Studio learning; Innovation-enabled thinking; Collaborative leadership; and Region-integrated learning. The subject of this research is to conduct an initial assessment of first-year course offerings within the Capilano University engineering program to (1) evaluate the extent of current alignment with the Academic Model; (2) the extent of potential alignment; (3) constraints to maximum alignment; and (4) opportunities to overcome constraints.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"18 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":"123726116","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 Canada, provincial and territorial level Professional Engineering Codes of Ethics (PECoEs) derived from national guidelines presented by Engineers Canada, provide principles for engineers to aid in decision making and to evaluate the ethical correctness of professional behaviour [1]. Engineers Canada states that engineers must, “Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment and promote health and safety within the workplace” [1]. This is frequently the only guideline directly related to the environment included in Canadian provincial and territorial PECoEs)[2-13]; Notably, Ontario’s PECoE currently does not explicitly mention the environment in any capacity [14]. Present professional engineering ethics guidelines for environmental responsibility are either missing or largely open to interpretation in Canada, and complex environmental issues may require more robust ethical frameworks to be effectively approached long-term within engineering industry. Developing PECoEs requires a better understanding of how engineers view their ethical responsibility with respect to the environment. This paper outlines a study to investigate the ethical beliefs and PECoE interpretations of participants through an online survey with ethical case studies, and interviews. The ultimate goal of this research is to aid the development of PECoEs and engineering ethics education to support sustainable practice.
{"title":"Perceptions of Engineers' Environmental Responsibility and Professional Codes of Ethics","authors":"E. Randall, D. Strong","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15932","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15932","url":null,"abstract":"In Canada, provincial and territorial level Professional Engineering Codes of Ethics (PECoEs) derived from national guidelines presented by Engineers Canada, provide principles for engineers to aid in decision making and to evaluate the ethical correctness of professional behaviour [1]. Engineers Canada states that engineers must, “Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment and promote health and safety within the workplace” [1]. This is frequently the only guideline directly related to the environment included in Canadian provincial and territorial PECoEs)[2-13]; Notably, Ontario’s PECoE currently does not explicitly mention the environment in any capacity [14]. Present professional engineering ethics guidelines for environmental responsibility are either missing or largely open to interpretation in Canada, and complex environmental issues may require more robust ethical frameworks to be effectively approached long-term within engineering industry. \u0000Developing PECoEs requires a better understanding of how engineers view their ethical responsibility with respect to the environment. This paper outlines a study to investigate the ethical beliefs and PECoE interpretations of participants through an online survey with ethical case studies, and interviews. The ultimate goal of this research is to aid the development of PECoEs and engineering ethics education to support sustainable practice.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"274 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":"124550470","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}
Pranav Gavirneni, Jenn Coggan, Wayne H. Chang, Christopher Rennick, Esteban Veintimilla
This paper describes an online, asynchronous learning module on intellectual property (IP) awareness. The learning module described in this paper is the first of a planned set designed as online asynchronous learning activities to give students the foundational knowledge required to practice and develop associated skills to understand the IP landscape and identify and recognize potential new IP opportunities. The first learning module, titled “IP Literacy,” provides an introduction to IP topics including patents, trademarks, copyrights and creative commons, trade secrets, industrial design, and collaboration; and includes curated videos by experts, plus valuable additional tools and resources. The design of the first module was based upon input from capstone course instructors, students and alumni and has undergone a process of pilot-testing and revision. Based on this feedback, the IP Literacy module was designed in the summer/fall of 2021 and was tested with a small population of undergraduate students to refine the content. A pilot offering to one discipline of students took place in the fall 2021 term, before expanding to additional groups in winter 2022. Survey feedback collected from fall 2021 and winter 2022 pilot offerings of the module was generally positive, with the majority of students agreeing that they learned something, and that the module was relevant to their discipline. This paper will summarize this development and pilot-testing process and discuss the next steps for the project.
{"title":"Development and Assessment of a Training Module on Intellectual Property Literacy","authors":"Pranav Gavirneni, Jenn Coggan, Wayne H. Chang, Christopher Rennick, Esteban Veintimilla","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15859","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15859","url":null,"abstract":"This paper describes an online, asynchronous learning module on intellectual property (IP) awareness. The learning module described in this paper is the first of a planned set designed as online asynchronous learning activities to give students the foundational knowledge required to practice and develop associated skills to understand the IP landscape and identify and recognize potential new IP opportunities. The first learning module, titled “IP Literacy,” provides an introduction to IP topics including patents, trademarks, copyrights and creative commons, trade secrets, industrial design, and collaboration; and includes curated videos by experts, plus valuable additional tools and resources. \u0000The design of the first module was based upon input from capstone course instructors, students and alumni and has undergone a process of pilot-testing and revision. Based on this feedback, the IP Literacy module was designed in the summer/fall of 2021 and was tested with a small population of undergraduate students to refine the content. A pilot offering to one discipline of students took place in the fall 2021 term, before expanding to additional groups in winter 2022. Survey feedback collected from fall 2021 and winter 2022 pilot offerings of the module was generally positive, with the majority of students agreeing that they learned something, and that the module was relevant to their discipline. This paper will summarize this development and pilot-testing process and discuss the next steps for the project.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"39 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":"116014566","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}
Yalda Afshar, Majid Bahrehvar, Mohammad Moshirpour, L. Behjat
In recent years, several learning strategies have been adopted to boost students’ learning and performance. Hackathon as a collaborative learning method, gives students the opportunity to investigate the practical usage of concepts by solving a real-world project in a limited time. Many researchers have investigated the effect of hackathons on students’ engagement, team work and learning motivation. In this paper, we integrate a hackathon component in a software development and architecture course curriculum to evaluate the effect of working on a real-world web development project in a hackathon setting on deepening the theoretical concepts learnt in lectures. The data is collected through two surveys which were accessible to students before and after the hackathon and students code commits on GitHub. By comparing the students’ code quality as well as their answers to survey questions before and after the hackathon against the Bloom’s taxonomy, we understand their knowledge state in each step and possible improvements in each one of the areas. The research findings show the importance of hackathon participation on students’ performance and state of knowledge.
{"title":"Hackathon as an Effective Learning and Assessment Tool: An Analysis of Student Proficiency against Bloom's Taxonomy","authors":"Yalda Afshar, Majid Bahrehvar, Mohammad Moshirpour, L. Behjat","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15925","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15925","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, several learning strategies have been adopted to boost students’ learning and performance. Hackathon as a collaborative learning method, gives students the opportunity to investigate the practical usage of concepts by solving a real-world project in a limited time. Many researchers have investigated the effect of hackathons on students’ engagement, team work and learning motivation. In this paper, we integrate a hackathon component in a software development and architecture course curriculum to evaluate the effect of working on a real-world web development project in a hackathon setting on deepening the theoretical concepts learnt in lectures. The data is collected through two surveys which were accessible to students before and after the hackathon and students code commits on GitHub. By comparing the students’ code quality as well as their answers to survey questions before and after the hackathon against the Bloom’s taxonomy, we understand their knowledge state in each step and possible improvements in each one of the areas. The research findings show the importance of hackathon participation on students’ performance and state of knowledge.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"34 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":"121370079","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}
R. Pellissier, Faye Siluk, Claudia Flynn, Marwan Kanaan
It is increasingly recognized that integrating concepts of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) into engineering education is critical to the students’ personal and professional development. When engineering students learn about EDI, it can improve their working relationships with teammates and illuminate the social impact of their work on the communities they serve. It is integral to incorporate EDI into the undergraduate engineering curriculum; however, there are several challenges and questions regarding the ideal method of implementation. Since 2019, the E-IDEA (Engineering Inclusivity, Diversity, and Equity Advancement) Teamwork Initiative has been developing a series of workshops focused on EDI and teamwork that are conducted directly in engineering classrooms. Using both problem-based and experiential learning approaches, these workshops teach interpersonal skills through an EDI lens, preparing students for success in diverse teams, in the workplace, and in their communities.
{"title":"Approaching Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice Education as Imperative to Engineering Curricula","authors":"R. Pellissier, Faye Siluk, Claudia Flynn, Marwan Kanaan","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15924","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15924","url":null,"abstract":"It is increasingly recognized that integrating concepts of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) into engineering education is critical to the students’ personal and professional development. When engineering students learn about EDI, it can improve their working relationships with teammates and illuminate the social impact of their work on the communities they serve. It is integral to incorporate EDI into the undergraduate engineering curriculum; however, there are several challenges and questions regarding the ideal method of implementation. Since 2019, the E-IDEA (Engineering Inclusivity, Diversity, and Equity Advancement) Teamwork Initiative has been developing a series of workshops focused on EDI and teamwork that are conducted directly in engineering classrooms. Using both problem-based and experiential learning approaches, these workshops teach interpersonal skills through an EDI lens, preparing students for success in diverse teams, in the workplace, and in their communities.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"28 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":"129932432","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}
Patricia K. Sheridan, Robert K. Irish, Jason A. Foster
For all design instructors, the metaphors we select in teaching inform the process students learn. Visual metaphors of design both shape thinking and reinforce an approach to design. This paper critiques some of the most common design process models to understand how they afford and disafford student learning. We share two metaphors for our design model. We analyze their efficacy and utility for our students to try and improve the quality of our teaching and offer similar support for others making metaphors in design and elsewhere.
{"title":"Metaphors To Design By: Developing Representations of Engineering Design","authors":"Patricia K. Sheridan, Robert K. Irish, Jason A. Foster","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15971","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15971","url":null,"abstract":"For all design instructors, the metaphors we select in teaching inform the process students learn. Visual metaphors of design both shape thinking and reinforce an approach to design. This paper critiques some of the most common design process models to understand how they afford and disafford student learning. We share two metaphors for our design model. We analyze their efficacy and utility for our students to try and improve the quality of our teaching and offer similar support for others making metaphors in design and elsewhere.","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":"129933633","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 Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering (CHBE) at UBC, the lab courses in 2nd and 3rd year require students to complete prescribed (curated and self-contained) experiments, and the 4th year course follows an open-ended Problem-Based Lab (PBL) model which provides students with much less explicit direction. Like other institutions in Canada, all instruction at UBC, including the lab courses, had to shift to remote delivery during the 2020-2021 academic year in response to the pandemic. The result of this is that 3rd and 4th year CHBE students faced either one or two transitions in their lab courses, namely the transition from online to in-person education, and from prescribed to open-ended problem-based labs, each of which presents particular challenges. Students were invited to complete a survey to share their perspectives on the general value of their lab courses for their training as engineers, their perception of the value of online lab course delivery, and their experiences with one or both of the aforementioned transitions. The results are presented here.
{"title":"Double Trouble: Student perspectives on the transition from online prescribed labs, to in-person and open-ended problem-based labs","authors":"Roza Vaez Ghaemi, Gabriel Potvin","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15841","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15841","url":null,"abstract":"In the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering (CHBE) at UBC, the lab courses in 2nd and 3rd year require students to complete prescribed (curated and self-contained) experiments, and the 4th year course follows an open-ended Problem-Based Lab (PBL) model which provides students with much less explicit direction. Like other institutions in Canada, all instruction at UBC, including the lab courses, had to shift to remote delivery during the 2020-2021 academic year in response to the pandemic. The result of this is that 3rd and 4th year CHBE students faced either one or two transitions in their lab courses, namely the transition from online to in-person education, and from prescribed to open-ended problem-based labs, each of which presents particular challenges. Students were invited to complete a survey to share their perspectives on the general value of their lab courses for their training as engineers, their perception of the value of online lab course delivery, and their experiences with one or both of the aforementioned transitions. The results are presented here.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"1 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":"130133833","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}
Until the beginning of the 2020 academic year, the first-year engineering program at McMaster University was organized as traditional courses to form a common curriculum for all students. The first year core courses were organized as i) Design and Graphics, ii) Computation, iii) Profession & Practice, and iv) Materials. Regardless of which engineering discipline a student enters in second year, the core courses provide a common base for important theory and applications required for the engineering design and development process. The challenge with traditional course organization continues to be concept linkages and attention competition. The purpose of this new approach was to integrate the learning objective of each traditional course into one experiential course through sequential Capstone-style project learning experiences– creating the Integrated Cornerstone. As the name implies, the approach offers the foundational blocks in the engineering student’s education. Focusing pedagogy on a tangible outcomes provides the opportunity to incorporate creativity, self-efficacy, and fosters a sense of community. The Achilles’ heel to a siloed collection of courses offering the Cornerstone approach is that students find themselves immersed in parallel independent projects resulting in unintended distraction. The Integrated Cornerstone merges the core courses learning objectives for better focus of pedagogy. While pandemic restrictions have complicated the quantified comparison of pedagogical approaches between the traditional method of curriculum delivery vs. the Integrated Cornerstone delivery we present aggregate qualitative outcomes of student success. The comparison of approaches and lessons learned for integration will be of interest to other educators seeking better integrated learning for the application of engineering theory in design.
{"title":"Integration of Core First Year Engineering Courses into Sequenced Experiential Learning: The Integrated Cornerstone","authors":"T. Doyle, Colin McDonald","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15960","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15960","url":null,"abstract":"Until the beginning of the 2020 academic year, the first-year engineering program at McMaster University was organized as traditional courses to form a common curriculum for all students. The first year core courses were organized as i) Design and Graphics, ii) Computation, iii) Profession & Practice, and iv) Materials. Regardless of which engineering discipline a student enters in second year, the core courses provide a common base for important theory and applications required for the engineering design and development process. The challenge with traditional course organization continues to be concept linkages and attention competition. The purpose of this new approach was to integrate the learning objective of each traditional course into one experiential course through sequential Capstone-style project learning experiences– creating the Integrated Cornerstone. As the name implies, the approach offers the foundational blocks in the engineering student’s education. Focusing pedagogy on a tangible outcomes provides the opportunity to incorporate creativity, self-efficacy, and fosters a sense of community. The Achilles’ heel to a siloed collection of courses offering the Cornerstone approach is that students find themselves immersed in parallel independent projects resulting in unintended distraction. The Integrated Cornerstone merges the core courses learning objectives for better focus of pedagogy. While pandemic restrictions have complicated the quantified comparison of pedagogical approaches between the traditional method of curriculum delivery vs. the Integrated Cornerstone delivery we present aggregate qualitative outcomes of student success. The comparison of approaches and lessons learned for integration will be of interest to other educators seeking better integrated learning for the application of engineering theory in design.","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":"130360947","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}
To provide a framework for engineering educators to map leadership and management skills development in the curriculum, the authors previously created a Leadership-Management Development Model (LMDM). In this paper we look to extend the model to include sustainability by using an “environmental limits approach”, creating a Leadership-Management -Sustainability Development Model (LMSDM). Adding the sustainability dimension provides a contextual purpose for leadership and management development as it relates to creating and stewarding sustainable socio-technical engineering solutions. This can set a common language and a harmonized framework in the context of skills development and application in engineering practice to complex socio-technical problems. Ultimately the model will allow programs and instructors to map and situate the development of leadership, management and sustainability concepts in their programs in an integrated manner., and to examine learning outcomes relevant to the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) graduate attributes (GA). Curricular examples are provided to give insight into application of the LMSDM in engineering courses and programs. Future work will include mapping the developed LMSDM to engineering curriculum at multiple institutions.
{"title":"What about sustainability? Adding the “S” to leadership and management competency development in the engineering curriculum","authors":"Nadine Ibrahim, Marnie V. Jamieson, John Donald","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15856","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15856","url":null,"abstract":"To provide a framework for engineering educators to map leadership and management skills development in the curriculum, the authors previously created a Leadership-Management Development Model (LMDM). In this paper we look to extend the model to include sustainability by using an “environmental limits approach”, creating a Leadership-Management -Sustainability Development Model (LMSDM). Adding the sustainability dimension provides a contextual purpose for leadership and management development as it relates to creating and stewarding sustainable socio-technical engineering solutions. This can set a common language and a harmonized framework in the context of skills development and application in engineering practice to complex socio-technical problems. Ultimately the model will allow programs and instructors to map and situate the development of leadership, management and sustainability concepts in their programs in an integrated manner., and to examine learning outcomes relevant to the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) graduate attributes (GA). Curricular examples are provided to give insight into application of the LMSDM in engineering courses and programs. Future work will include mapping the developed LMSDM to engineering curriculum at multiple institutions.","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":"134322656","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 findings from an engineering alumni survey intended to understand the role of lifelong learning in graduates’ careers. It builds on prior work aiming to clarify how engineering programs should address the important but nebulous CEAB graduate attribute. By contrasting alumni responses to the existing graduate attribute definition, we find opportunities to reconsider and clarify how the lifelong learning attribute is conceptualized. Survey respondents (n = 279) came from two undergraduate engineering departments at our institution and graduated between 1991 and 2020 (i.e. 1-30 years after graduation). Overall, respondents rated “maintaining competence in the field associated with your undergraduate degree” and “contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field associated with your undergraduate degree” as less important than factors related to developing competency and advancing knowledge in domains outside of their undergraduate degree fields. Learning from others, learning for the purpose of innovating, and learning to develop empathy and emotional intelligence were additional factors that are not inherent in the CEAB definition of lifelong learning. These findings have implications for accreditation and licensure body intentions as well as the content and pedagogy of undergraduate curriculum.
{"title":"Survey Results: How Does Lifelong Learning Enable Alumni Careers?","authors":"Nikita Dawe, L. Romkey, Amy Bilton","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15936","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15936","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents findings from an engineering alumni survey intended to understand the role of lifelong learning in graduates’ careers. It builds on prior work aiming to clarify how engineering programs should address the important but nebulous CEAB graduate attribute. By contrasting alumni responses to the existing graduate attribute definition, we find opportunities to reconsider and clarify how the lifelong learning attribute is conceptualized. \u0000Survey respondents (n = 279) came from two undergraduate engineering departments at our institution and graduated between 1991 and 2020 (i.e. 1-30 years after graduation). Overall, respondents rated “maintaining competence in the field associated with your undergraduate degree” and “contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field associated with your undergraduate degree” as less important than factors related to developing competency and advancing knowledge in domains outside of their undergraduate degree fields. Learning from others, learning for the purpose of innovating, and learning to develop empathy and emotional intelligence were additional factors that are not inherent in the CEAB definition of lifelong learning. These findings have implications for accreditation and licensure body intentions as well as the content and pedagogy of undergraduate curriculum.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"19 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":"130052141","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：