Teaching and assessing systems thinking in engineering

This paper presents research on undergraduate engineering students’ perceptions of their learning about systems thinking

Investigating the causes of poor student performance in basic mechanics

Engineering lecturers report difficulties with student learning of concepts and skills associated with the solution of typical basic mechanics problems. The use of both force and moment equilibrium concepts on free-bodies are basic to all mechanics problems. Despite this it apparently remains a difficult area for a significant number of students, even in later years of their degree. An evidence-based approach has been used to analyse two of the suggested reasons for such difficulties. Both quantitative and qualitative methods have been utilised to establish the role of a student\u27s academic history, and the role of gaps in the student\u27s problem analysis process. Theoretical frameworks were also applied, particularly experiential learning, and an application of the van Hiele taxonomy of geometric reasoning. The results of the application of these frameworks were measured through student survey and students\u27 performance on assessment tasks. Indications are that academic history may not be a good predictor of a student\u27s ability to learn the concepts and skills required. This suggests the need to target specific gaps in their basic maths skills and in their analysis process, and to target our teaching approach to those gaps

Application of constructive alignment principles to engineering education: have we really changed?

A survey of some common engineering subjects in four Australian universities shows that despite much discussion of student centred learning, assessment is still very heavily based on examinations. Analysis of exam questions, and other assessment tasks also shows that in some cases there may be significant mismatch between the stated learning objectives of subjects and the way in which students are assessed. Application of constructive alignment to design of assessment has the potential to ensure that assessment tasks reflect the learning objectives, and may help encourage academics to consider alternatives to examinations

Improving Learning in Engineering Mechanics: The Significance of Understanding

Mechanics is a key foundation topic for many engineering disciplines, the study of which usually constitutes a significant proportion of first and second year engineering undergraduate studies. Many engineering students experience substantial difficulties with introductory mechanics, and it is widely noted in the literature that pass rates in mechanics courses tend to be unacceptably low. This paper details the interim findings of, and issues arising from a literature search focusing on how engineering educators understand, describe, identify and deal with the causes of poor performance in introductory mechanics. The most striking conclusion drawn from this literature search is the lack of conclusive research into the more fundamental causes of difficulties for students studying mechanics

A knowledge framework for analysis of engineering mechanics exams

In an ongoing research project focusing on improving learning in first year engineering mechanics, a framework for engineering mechanics knowledge has been identified. The framework has been applied to break down and categorise common mistakes made by students at four separate institutions to find out where students are struggling in their efforts to learn statics and dynamics. The framework separates knowledge into factual, procedural, conceptual, and principle areas in a semi hierarchical manner. In using this framework, it has become clearly evident that the marks students are awarded for their work tend to be biased towards procedural knowledge, rather than conceptual knowledge as one might expect for an introductory course. The implication here is that students make most of their mistakes in the problem solving procedures for which most marks are awarded. We propose in our efforts to encourage a deep conceptual understanding needed for further study in engineering mechanics, we may be inadvertently encouraging surface procedural knowledge

Elastic Practice in Academic Developers

The academic developer’s role is the focus of a growing body of literature. This paper builds the literature by arguing the importance to our current practice of making our theoretical underpinnings explicit. We excise and describe fragments of practice from the work of individual academic developers in order to discuss and consider the relationship between particular theories of academic development and particular approaches that these theories support. The three fragments of academic development practice we detail are related to reflective practice, collegiality and the scholarship of teaching. We also provide a fourth, more fulsome description of an approach to illustrate a highly responsive model of academic development: “Elastic Practice”. Elastic Practice describes the process of tailoring a specific approach or instance of academic development from the full professional ‘toolkit’ (techniques, experiences, ideas, values, theories) that academic developers collect during their evolution as practitioners. The idea of Elastic Practice is that multiple theoretical bases are melded or successively employed to support an adaptive, responsive approach to practice. We suggest Elastic Practice is particularly appropriate for the complex, at times contested, environment within which academic developers work

Engineering curriculum review: processes, frameworks and tools

Periodic review and enhancement of curricula in engineering is vital to maintaining the quality and currency of undergraduate degree programs. The process of reviewing curriculum, however, is challenging on many fronts, and can appear overwhelming to those leading the review and implementing subsequent changes to the curriculum. Particular challenges include: involving all academic staff in the process to promote ownership of change; developing processes to guide the review toward improvements in the quality of content and of students experiences of being taught; and remaining mindful of the constraints and requirements of contextual factors like university policy, needs of external stakeholders and finite time and money for teaching. This paper describes selected processes and tools that the authors have adapted or developed and applied in engineering curriculum review at three different engineering faculties. Two of these faculties were Australian and a third South American. We explain each of the processes and tools, and then discuss how each has contributed to simplifying, representing and facilitating discussion about the unwieldy amount of information embodied in engineering curriculum. We also comment on the different responses to use of these tools and processes at the three engineering faculties in which they have been applied