ijtee.orgijtee.org/ijtee/system/db/pdf/52.pdf · international journal of technology and...

International Journal of Technology and Engineering Education

Editor David W. S. Tai H ungkuang University, Taiwan

Associate Editor Chih-Feng Chuang N ational Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan David F. S. Chen N ational Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan Joseph C. Chen Iowa State University, Iowa, U.S.A.

Assistant Editors Jia-Ling Chen N ational Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan Pao-Kuang Chien H ungkuang University, Taiwan Wen-Ling Wang H ungkuang University, Taiwan

Publication Committee Chi-Cheng Chang N ational Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan Huo-Tsan Chang N ational Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan Chien Chou N ational Chiao Tung University, Hsinshu, Taiwan Lance N. Green T he University of New South Wales, Australia Norbert Grünwald W ismar University of Technology, Business and Design, Germany Jeou-Shyan Horng J inwen University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan Fei-Bin Hsiao N ational Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan Hsi-Chi Hsiao C heng Shiu University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Yoau-Chau Jeng N ational Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan Ming H. Land A ppalachian State Universi ty, North Carolina, U.S.A. Steven Lung-Sheng Lee N ational Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan Shi-Jer Lou N ational Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung, Taiwan Sam Stern T he new School of Education, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A Chuen-Tsat Sun N ational Chiao Tung University, Hsinshu, Taiwan Shir-Tau Tsai N ational Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan Kuo-Hung Tseng M ei-Ho Institute of Technology, Pingtung, Taiwan Clyde A. Warden N ational Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan

Copyright © 2008 Association of Taiwan Engineering Education and Management (ATEEM) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of Association of Taiwan Engineering Education and Management (ATEEM). Published on December 31st, 2008

International Journal of Technology and Engineering Education Vol. 5 No.2, Winter 2008

1

Contents

Articles An Overview of the Research into the Design and Effectiveness of a Global Curriculum for Environmental Engineering By Dianne Q. Nguyen & Zenon J. Pudlowski………….….....……………...…………. …………. … Activities, Learning Outcomes and Assessment Methods in Cooperative Engineering EducationBy M. Watters, J.L. Johrendt, K. Benzinger, G. Salinitri, A. Jaekel, & D.O. Northwood….…...…. Continuous Professional Development by Work Based Learning for Engineers: Utilising the Integration of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge By D. M Holifield, C. U. Chisholm, & M. S. G. Davis…….…..………...…………………….……... The Combination and Using of Work and Risk Breakdown Structure on Risk Management of R&D Projects By Kuang-De Jen & Szu-Hua Fu…………………………………………………..….…...…………… Authors Index ………………………………………………………………………………… Call for Paper …………………………………………………………………………………

5

13

23

31

39

41


2


3

Articles


4

Dianne Q. Nguyen & Zenon J. Pudlowski Int. j. technol. eng. educ. Copyright 2008, ATEEM 2008, Vol. 5, No. 2

An Overview of the Research into the Design and Effectiveness of a Global Curriculum for Environmental Engineering

Dianne Q. Nguyen & Zenon J. Pudlowski

UNESCO International Centre for Engineering Education (UICEE)

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT

In the era of rapid development and globalisation, sustainability, sustainable development and environmental engineering are key issues to be tackled by contemporary engineering education, as they will determine the foundation for the knowledge, skills and attitudes essential for the formation of a global engineer in the 21st Century. There have been many approaches to the development of curricula in environmental engineering education; most suffer from a lack of innovative and comprehensive coverage of environmental issues and the integration of these issues with engineering subject matter. Therefore, comprehensive research is required into the nature, design, development, implementation and effectiveness of a global environmental engineering curriculum. The authors have been involved in research and development activities in this area for several years now and have undertaken a new research programme to fulfil this requirement. An overview of the current international situation, discussing the major deficiencies in environmental engineering education, as well as up-to-date research is presented in this paper. The adopted research methodology, which includes a wide range of research steps and activities, as well as preliminary findings, is presented and discussed briefly in this paper.

Keywords: globalisation, sustainability, global environmental engineering curriculum INTRODUCTION

The findings of past and recent literature reviews supplemented with a comprehensive content analysis of the existing environmental engineering curricula show that there are problems and deficiencies that require immediate attention. Some of the problems relating to the content, the structure, quality and methods employed in the development of environmental engineering curricula are reported elsewhere (Nguyen & Pudlowski, 2003).

The researchers strongly advocate for change and

modernisation of environmental engineering education to address these deficiencies. The principle objective of this research is to develop a global curriculum, with the initial focus on environmental engineering, to be implemented on a worldwide basis. Should this project prove to be successful, the idea can be extended to other engineering specialties.

It seems there are advantages to having a global

curriculum, when compared to individual programmes developed by each educational institution. The need and benefits of a global curriculum are outlined elsewhere (Nguyen & Pudlowski, 2003).

The inspiration for this idea was sparked by the

onset of globalisation, especially now that the world has become a more globalised place. It is apparent that it would be ideal for engineering institutions around the world to collaborate in formulating and developing a standard curriculum, a so-called global curriculum that

could be utilised by the global engineering education community. GLOBALISATION OF ENGINEERING CURRICULA

Since the increase in globalisation, universities around the world have been forced to review current engineering education curricula mainly because of the problems that exist from different standards, accreditation, recognition and diversity of engineering courses offered around the world. Universities are reviewing the situation in order to cope with the needs and demands of the ever increasingly globalised world. Also, universities are assessing and looking at various ways in which they can successfully achieve globalisation of engineering curricula.

One common approach taken by many

universities is working towards accomplishing worldwide recognition and accreditation of engineering qualifications. An example of such an activity is the harmonisation of the educational systems in many institutions in Turkey, since its first attempt to join the European Union in 1991. In selecting a university of study, many students in Turkey base their decision largely on internationally recognised accreditation institutions. For this reason, Turkish universities are facing immense pressure from students to obtain international accreditation. Also, Turkey is potentially seeking accreditation of their engineering programmes through professional bodies such as ABET and FEANI (Akduman, Ozkale, & Ekinci, 2001).

5


A similar situation can also be observed in Japan. Many institutions in Japan are also trying to establish an accreditation system suitable for Japan, in parallel and harmony with other systems abroad, as they too have found problems with the existing conventional system in place. In addressing this issue, one of the planned fundamental policies of the Japan Accreditation Board of Engineering Education (JABEE) is to develop a system that consists of the following: quality assurance and continuous improvement of engineering education, so that graduates are able to work worldwide, having international mutual recognition and educational quality assurance for professional engineers (Ohnaka, 2001). From the two examples presented, it is important that institutions recognise that engineering is truly a global profession, with multinational and transnational corporations employing engineers around the world. Therefore, it is essential that engineering educators teach future engineers in order to prepare them for an increasingly international workplace (Phillips, Peterson & Aberle, 2000). More on the issue of globalisation and its effect on education are presented by D.Q. Nguyen in a separate article (2002). THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Evidence from statistics provided concerning the state of our planet indicates that our planet is not in a healthy state and environmental issues continue to be a global concern. The results gathered from a global survey on emerging issues that was conducted with 200 environmental experts in more than 50 countries, suggest that many of the major environmental problems expected in the next century are problems that exist now or have been present for quite some time, but which are not receiving enough policy attention (GEO 2000).

Some of the emerging environmental issues that

were highlighted from the survey were climate change (51%), freshwater scarcity (29%), and deforestation/desertification (28%) and freshwater pollution (28%). This was followed by environmental problems stemming from poor governance (27%), loss of biodiversity (23%), and the two social issues of population growth and movements (22%) and changing social values (21%) [6]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING – A NEW FIELD

The general engineering profession and in particular environmental engineers of today are pressured and encouraged to think and practice along this path of sustainable development, cleaner production, greener technology, ecological design, waste prevention and recycling, energy efficiency, resource conservation and environmental protection.

All of these are key topics in the future of engineering development and fall under this new study area of environmental engineering. A discipline that was first made available in the United SA and introduced at Australian universities about fifteen years ago. In recent years, there has been a proliferation in the number of environmental engineering courses available worldwide. This growing demand is evidence of the importance of this relatively new disciplinary area.

Environmental engineering is undoubtedly an

important area and will expand in the future as the environmental problems worsen. If this is the likely scenario facing the planet in the future, there will be a higher demand for environmental specialists, namely environmental engineers to find solutions to these problems. Such achievements can only come about with proper education and training and through a well-structured and designed curriculum in environmental engineering.

The field of environmental engineering can make a huge contribution to the overall engineering profession. Some of these benefits include: increasing the number of female engineers, developing environmental technologies to solve environmental problems, improving the quality of life by conserving resources, improving efficiency for industry through recycling initiatives, raising the public image of engineers and, finally, contributing to global sustainability (Varcoe, 1991). ENGINEERING – A GLOBAL PROFESSION

Increasingly, engineers conduct their work in more than one country and in countries other than where they received their education. Those countries have different laws, cultures, procedures and standards concerning the education and practice of engineering.

It is anticipated that the growth of major trading

blocs, such as the European Union, the Pacific/Asian area and the Americas, will intensify this process of mobility. Also, instant worldwide communication is a strong catalyst for the development of the global practice of engineering and engineering education. It is appropriate for the world’s engineering profession to recognise this developing situation and to take steps to ensure the orderly transition into the worldwide practice of engineering, and the education of engineers in particular (Yeargan, 1991).

Environmental engineering in particular is fast

becoming a global profession and it is essential that future global environmental engineers are provided with the relevant education and training to enable them to carry out their work and duties in resolving environmental problems and protecting the environment.

6


THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONS

It has been asserted that environmental engineers are a hybrid of an engineer and a scientist, thus making them the best professionals to deal with environmental problems. Indeed, this view is illustrated by Reible, where he forms a relationship and a connection between environmental engineers and other professionals in similar roles (see Figure 1) (1999).

Therefore, the work of an environmental

engineer involves comprehensive knowledge and understanding of both the engineering (eg chemical, civil, materials, mechanical engineering, etc) and science (eg biology, chemistry, environmental science, etc) disciplines. This just emphasises the broadness of this field. This multidisciplinary requirement may be viewed as a serious problem in the environmental engineering profession as those engineers may be expected to acquire and display similar knowledge and experience to practising engineers in other fields namely, chemical, civil and mechanical engineering, as well as be knowledgeable in the scientific field (Reible, 1999). RESEARCH PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the study is to investigate the need, nature, design, structure, development, implementation and evaluation of a global curriculum for environmental engineering. The most challenging task is to design a curriculum that will address and take into account possible solutions to many global problems, as well as remove some of the barriers experienced in existing programmes (mentioned above). An additional objective is to develop a curriculum that would enhance students’ awareness, attitudes, values and skills towards the resolution of environmental problems, and that it would reflect the global scene. The final project outcome is to develop a common model, a so-called global curriculum, specialising in the field of environmental engineering that may be utilised and applied on a worldwide basis. The steps and procedures of this research project are discussed in detail elsewhere (Nguyen, 2002). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The aim of the study is to compare the responses of the two independent sample groups under investigation, using the mean value, in order to ascertain the views on various issues surrounding the development of a global curriculum, as well as the perceived level of support for the development of a global curriculum from international engineering educators. Secondly, the aim of this study is to

determine whether there are any significant differences in the responses that exist between the two independent groups due to their professional backgrounds and their fields of specialisation. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The study attempts to test and verify the following research hypotheses:

• H1: There is no significant difference between the

environmental engineering and general engineering educators in the level of agreement that uniformity should be maintained in engineering education programmes across all nations.

• H2: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement on the need for a global curriculum.

• H3: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will replace traditional curriculum in the future.

• H4: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that the internationalisation of national standards in engineering education is imperative for the future.

• H5: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will ease the process of mobility of staff and students in the global arena.

• H6: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will improve the accreditation of courses in the global marketplace.

• H7: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will increase the recognition of qualifications in the global marketplace.

• H8: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will increase the possibility of offering education at a distance.

• H9: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will ensure a level of uniformity in the various curricula on offer.

• H10: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will help increase the sharing and transferring of teaching facilities between institutions at a distance.

• H11: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will assist developing countries.

• H12: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will help build a bank of resources (eg courseware, teaching ware, etc).

7


Results of the t-Test for Two Independent Samples; Two-tailed Test

• H13: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will help institutions save time and financial resources in developing their own course material.

The t-test for two independent samples has been

utilised in order to test for any significant differences that may exist between the means of the two selected groups. Table 1 presents the mathematical expressions used for the statistical analysis of the variables, whereas the results of the t-test obtained from the two independent samples are presented in Table 2.

• H14: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement in the support of the idea of building a curriculum suitable for global application.

• H15: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will help maintain the quality of education and hence graduates.

The test results confirm conclusively hypotheses

H3 to H17. Further, there appears to be no statistically significant differences that exist in the responses obtained from the two groups at the 0.05 significant level, despite their professional backgrounds and the field of specialisation.

• H16: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement that a global curriculum will simplify the process of employment of engineers globally.

• H17: There is no significant difference between the two populations in the level of agreement in favour of creating a global curriculum.

Table 1 The mathematical formulae used for the statistical analysis.

Table 2 The results of the t-test obtained from the two independent samples.

Hypotheses 2111 ,, σMN

2222 ,, σMN

2ρ

σ 21 MM −

σ obtt df

Group 1 (environmental engineering):

2111 ,, σMN

Group 2 (general engineering): 2222 ,, σMN

( )( ))1

22

2

−

Χ−Χ= ∑∑

NNN

σ( ) ( )

111

21

222

2112

−+−+−

=NN

NN σσσρ

2

2

1

2

21 NNMMρρ σσσ +=−

21

21obt

MM

MMt

−

−=

σ

critt critobt , tt 210 : μμ =HH1 89, 3.61, 1.01 97, 3.67, 1.60 1.31 0.028 2.14 184 1.96* 2.14>1.96 Reject H2 89, 3.40, 0.95 97, 3.14, 1.71 1.34 0.029 8.97 184 1.96* 8.97>1.96 Reject H3 89, 3.06, 1.01 97, 2.93, 1.84 1.44 0.176 0.74 184 1.96* 0.74


The test results confirm conclusively hypotheses H3 to H17. Further, there appears to be no statistically significant differences that exist in the responses obtained from the two groups at the 0.05 significant level, despite their professional backgrounds and the field of specialisation.

Hypotheses 1 and 2 have not been confirmed,

and it is reasonable to conclude that there is a statistically small, however significant, difference that exists between Group 1 and Group 2. The results obtained for H1 and H2 are significant at the 0.05 level.

Generally, the results revealed that both groups

from the investigated population are in favour of creating a global curriculum with the average mean for group 1 (M= 3.49) and group 2 (M=3.66). These are based on a Likert Scale with 1 representing the strongly disagree level to 5 representing the strongly agree level.

The information gathered in this study, supported

by the views of a sample population of global engineering educators, has provided a reasonably good measure of the perceived level of support for the development of a global curriculum. The information gathered will assist in the overall design of such a global curriculum. CONCLUSION

Environmental engineering education has a particular relevance in an era of advancing technologies and globalisation, as it comprises a multitude of scientific concepts, ideas, principles, methods and technologies used for the benefit of humankind. It is, therefore, particularly important that environmental engineering education curricula address the most pressing issues and challenges, as well as demonstrate effective scientific solutions to the environmental problems, that the world faces today.

The need for a global curriculum in environmental engineering education has been discussed in this article along with the benefits that would emerge from such a curriculum.

The results obtained in this study reveal that

there is general support from the two investigated groups of environmental engineering educators for the development of a global curriculum for environmental engineering education.

However, at this stage, the task is too great for a

small institution like the UICEE to be able to undertake this development, without considerable financial and human resources being made available. It is recognised that the design, development and implementation of a global environmental curriculum itself is a mammoth task.

Figure 1: The relationship of environmental engineers with other professions working within the technical,

societal and economic constraints (Reible, 1999). But it is believed that the research methodology,

with its clearly defined steps, and, in particular, the use of the Modelling Method, is sound and should form an excellent foundation and the basis for guidelines in this work.

Engineering is becoming a global profession due to the impact of globalisation and the establishment of free trade agreements, such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This will open up more channels than ever before for engineers to seek employment, practise the art of engineering and interact with other cultures and countries. This process may be restricted if engineering educators around the world do not address and resolve the differences that exist in the recognition and accreditation of engineering education curricula within and between countries.

It is hoped that the work presented in this paper,

which involves comprehensive research concerning the development of a global curriculum in environmental engineering education, will meet a positive climate and response from the global engineering education community. Therefore, the paramount objective of this article is to elicit support from international academics for this important and timely endeavour. REFERENCES 1. Akduman, I., Ozkale, L. and Ekinci, E. (2001).

Accreditation in Turkish universities. European J. of Engng. Edu., 26, 3, 231-239.

2. Global Environment Outlook 2000 (GEO 2000) http://www.grida.no/geo2000/english/index.htm

9


3. Nguyen, D. (2002). Searching for a global model for environmental engineering education. World Transactions on Engng. and Technology Educ., 1, 1, 51-55.

4. Nguyen, D.Q. and Pudlowski, Z.J. (2003). Achieving global standards with a global curriculum in environmental engineering. Proc. 6th UCEE Annual Conf. on Engng. Educ., Cairns, Australia, 315-318.

5. Ohnaka, I. (2001). Introduction of an accreditation system in Japan. European J. of Engng. Educ, 26, 3, 247-253.

6. Phillips, W.M., Peterson, G.D. and Aberle, K.B. (2000). Quality assurance for engineering education in a changing world. Inter. J. of Engng. Educ, 16, 2, 97-103.

7. Reible, D.D. (1999). Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering, Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1-10.

8. Varcoe, J.M. (1991). The environment, engineering and education. Proc. 3rd Annual AAEE Convention and Conf., Adelaide, Australia, 400-405.

9. Yeargan, J.R. (1991). International accreditation of engineering and technology programs. Inter. J. of Engng. Educ., 7, 6, 464-466.

BIOGRAPHIES

Dianne Q. Nguyen graduated with a Bachelor of Applied Science, majoring in chemistry and environmental management, from Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, in 1994, and then completed her Honours year in 1997 and Masters in Engineering Science (Research) at Monash University, Clayton, Australia, in 2000.

She has spent time working in research

laboratories before entering academia. Since December 1995, she has been with the UNESCO International Centre for Engineering Education (UICEE) in the Faculty of Engineering at Monash University.

She is currently a Research Fellow and finalising

her PhD in environmental engineering education. Her special research interests include environmental engineering, engineering education, sustainable engineering, global education, curriculum analysis and design, statistical analysis, research methods, and women in engineering. Also, she has external interests in Web design and programming in Java and Javascript. In her spare time, she enjoys doing high impact aerobics, weight training, tae-box and reading. Her hobbies include fashion, shopping, computers, travelling, playing music and watching movies.

Her awards include: UICEE’s Women in

Engineering Education Scholarship (1997-2000); and the UICEE Silver (1998) and Gold (2007) Badge of

Honour for her exceptional contribution to engineering education and to the operation of the UICEE.

She is a recipient of several best paper awards, including the UICEE Best Paper Diamond (First Grade) Award for a distinguished contribution in delivering an outstanding paper to the Global Congress on Engineering Education (July 1998); the UICEE Best Paper Silver (Fourth Grade) Award at the 8th Baltic Region Seminar on Engineering Education (September 2004); the UICEE Best Paper Diamond (First Grade) Award at the 9th UICEE Annual Conference on Engineering Education (February 2006); the UICEE Best Paper Gold (Third Grade) Award (first place) at the 10th UICEE Annual Conference on Engineering Education (March 2007); and her latest award, the UICEE Best Paper Diamond (First Grade) Award at the 11th Baltic Region Seminar on Engineering Education (June 2007).

She is also a recipient of the prestigious Australian Postgraduate Award (October 2000 - October 2003), Monash Departmental Award (October 2000 - October 2003) and Monash Travel Grant (October 2001).

Ms Nguyen has also served on several national and international engineering education conference organising committees. She has already published close to 50 conference and journal papers. She is the current Treasurer of the International Liaison Group on Engineering Education (IL-GEE).

Zenon Jan

from the AMining and

Doctor of Philo

1979, respectively.

From 1969 to 1976, he was

He is presently Associate Professor and Director of the

Pudlowski graduated Master of Electrical Engineering

cademy of Metallurgy

(Kraków, Poland), and sophy from

Jagiellonian University (Kraków), in 1968 and

a lecturer in the Institute of Technology within the University of Pedagogy (Kraków). Between 1976 and 1979, he was a researcher at the Institute of Vocational Education (Warsaw) and from 1979 to 1981 was an Adjunct Professor at the Institute of Pedogogy within Jagiellonian University. From 1981 to 1993, he was with the Department of Electrical Engineering at The University of Sydney where, in recent years, he was a Senior Lecturer.

UNESCO International Centre for Engineering Education (UICEE) in the Faculty of Engineering at Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia. He

10


was Associate Dean (Engineering Education) of the Faculty of Engineering between 1994 and 1998.

In 1992, he was instrumental in establishing the

International Faculty of Engineering at the Technical University of Lodz, Poland, of which he was the Foundation Dean (1992-1995) and Professor (in absentia) (1992-1999). He was also appointed Honorary Dean of the English Engineering Faculty at the Donetsk National Technical University in the Ukraine in 1995.

His research interests include circuit analysis,

electrical machines and apparatus, implementation of

computer technology in electrical engineering, software engineering, methodology of engineering education and industrial training, educational psychology and measurement, as well as human aspects of communication in engineering. His achievements to date have been published in books and manuals and in over 350 scientific papers, in refereed journals and conference proceedings.

He is a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers,

Australia, and of the World Innovation Foundation (WIF), UK. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of the International Journal of Engineering Education. He is the founder of the Australasian

Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) and the Australasian Journal of Engineering Education (AJEE), and was the 1st Vice-President and Executive Director of the AAEE and the Editor-in-Chief of the AJEE since its inception in 1989 until 1997. Currently, he is the Editor-in-Chief of the Global Journal of Engineering Education (GJEE) and the World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education (WTE&TE). He was on the editorial boards of the International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education (1993-2005) and the European Journal of Engineering Education (1993-2005). He was the Foundation Secretary of the International Liaison Group for Engineering Education (ILG-EE) (1989-2006) and is currently its Chairman (2006-).

Z.J. Pudlowski was a member of the UNESCO International Committee on Engineering Education (ICEE) (1992-2000). He has chaired and organised numerous international conferences and meetings. He was the Academic Convener of the 2nd World Conference on Engineering Education, the General Chairman of the East-West Congress on Engineering Education. He was also General Chairman of the UNESCO 1995 International Congress of Engineering Deans and Industry Leaders, and General Chairman of the Global Congress on Engineering Education, to name a few.

He received the inaugural AAEE Medal for Distinguished Contributions to Engineering Education (Australasia) in 1991 and was awarded the Order of the Egyptian Syndicate of Engineers for Contributions to the Development of Engineering Education on both National and International Levels in 1994.

In June 1996, he received an Honorary Doctorate

from the Donetsk National Technical University in the Ukraine in recognition of his contributions to international engineering education. In July 1998, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Technology from Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, and in February 2008, he received an Honorary Doctorate in Engineering from Kingston University, London, England, UK.

He was elected a member of the Ukrainian

Academy of Engineering Sciences in 1997. In 2002, he was awarded the title of an Honorary Professor of the Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia, and was an External Professor at Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark (2002-2007). He is listed in 14 Who's Who encyclopaedias, including the Marquis Who's Who in the World. He has been recently appointed to the Register for External Reviewers of the Oman Accreditation Council (OAC).

11


12

M. Watters, J.L. Johrendt, K. Benzinger, G. Salinitri, A. Jaekel, & D.O. Northwood

13

Activities, Learning Outcomes and Assessment Methods

Int. j. technol. eng. educ. Copyright 2008, ATEEM 2008, Vol. 5, No. 2

in Cooperative Engineering Education

M. Watters, J. L. Johrendt, K. Benzinger, G. Salinitri, A. Jaekel, & D. O. Northwood

University of Windsor

Windsor, Canada

ABSTRACT

The “Learning Campus Initiative” at the University of Windsor provides a mechanism for operationalizing the University’s learning-centred vision. It is a complex multi-staged long term plan that focuses on ensuring that the University is adequately equipped to meet the needs of students in a learning-centred environment. The University has identified the generic learning outcomes intended for graduates of its programs as a first step towards explicitly pronouncing its commitment to learning-centeredness. Working closely with faculty, The Centre for Career Education has been developing learning outcomes for its cooperative educational programs which include both engineering and computer science. In this paper, the authors describe and discuss the numerous and various activities that comprise the Junior, Intermediate and Senior Levels of the Engineering Cooperative Education Program. For the activities, the corresponding learning outcomes are described and subsequent assessment methods are detailed, or proposed, for the activities. A description is given of how the activities contribute to the overall educational goals. Keywords: Learning Outcomes, Cooperative Education, Assessment, Learning-Centred INTRODUCTION

The University of Windsor has outlined learning outcomes for its graduates as part of the “Learning Campus Initiative.” Institutional excellence now emphasizes learning-based models and how well students develop relevant skills, i.e. student learning outcomes (Astin, 1991; Frye, 2002). According to Frye (2002), assessment for excellence is a feedback process guiding students, faculty, departments and administration in improving effectiveness. Assessment for accountability, however, is a regulatory process, designed for accreditation purposes, aggregate statistics and institutional conformity. Thus, shifting the focus of higher education onto student learning outcomes for many institutions requires a change in educational philosophy and practice (Frye, 2002, Miller, 1998).

In collaboration with the Faculty of Engineering,

the Centre for Career Education has developed learning outcomes as it relates to its cooperative education program (Johrendt, Northwood, Benzinger, Salinitri and Jaekel, 2007). These learning outcomes were established based on strong pedagogical research and consultation. Learning outcomes cover a range of cognitive and affective skills which are a measure of their academic and personal development. The cognitive outcomes demonstrate students’ values, goals, attitudes, self-concepts, beliefs, and world views (Frye, 2002). Cooperative Education lies at the forefront of the pedagogical shift in learning-based models. Changes in workplace environments continually require changes in prerequisite academics, cooperative education programs,

and learning outcomes (Parsons, Caylor, Simmons, 2005). LITERATURE RELATING TO LEARNING OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT

In the applied sciences, such as engineering, there

has been a growing incentive for the assessment of cooperative education programs from the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB). These boards require concise educational objectives, measurable learning outcomes, assessment of student achievement and of program effectiveness before a program can receive accreditation (Davis, Gentili, Trevisan, and Calkins, 2002). According to Parsons et al. (2005), the environment of engineering education has changed over the past decade with new broader learning objectives as required in the ABET criteria. These objectives include ethics, teamwork, and critical thinking. This is supported by Trevelyan (2008a, 2008b), who contends that engineering practice involves more than technical skills. Rather, skills such as self-management and teamwork are equally as important.

Whilst the CEAB criteria for accreditation are

more prescriptive and less outcomes-based than those of ABET, there are numerous outcomes detailed in Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 of the Accreditation Criteria and Procedures (Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, Ottawa, 2006). These outcomes include:

• development of an individual's ability to use

appropriate knowledge and information to convert,

Activities, Learning Outcomes and Assessment Methods in Cooperative Engineering Education

14

utilize and manage resources optimally through effective analysis, interpretation and decision-making (2.1.1).

• develop an engineer who is adaptive, creative, resourceful and responsive to changes in society, technology and career demands (2.1.3).

• make the student aware of the roles and responsibilities of the professional engineer in society and the impact that engineering in all its forms makes on the environmental, economic, social and cultural aspirations of society (2.1.4).

• develop the ability to function as an effective member of a team and to be able to communicate both within the profession and with society at large (2.1.5).

Outcomes assessments are critical to the evaluation

of cooperative education programs for higher education institutions in the current competitive environment (Parsons et al. 2005; Shaeiwitz 1996a, 1996b; McGourty, Sebastian, & Swart, 1998). Defining student learning outcomes is dependent upon the education perspective relating educational objects, competencies, skills or achievement (Besterfield-Sacre et al., 2000). Engineering educators have initiated reform actions focusing on the measurement of student learning outcomes in a systematic and valid manner.

According to the research, outcome-driven assessment processes provide critical information to faculty and administrators on the effectiveness of the design, delivery, and direction of any education program (Parsons et al., 2005; McGourty et al., 1998). Cates and Jones (2000) affirm that effective cooperative education programs are built on the principles and theories of student learning. Behaviours that maximize student learning should be built into co-op programs including: set expectations, expectancy for success, transfer of knowledge, and feedback. Maximizing student learning becomes the most important benefit from linking co-op with academics. This provides the venue to form and assess clearly defined goals and crystallizes the purposes allowing for valuable outcomes assessment. This notion is supported by the work of Brodie and Irving (2007), who underscore the role of educators in assisting students in providing proof-sources of their learning. Proof-sources can include providing work samples, and skill development through critical reflection processes such as learning journals and portfolios.

Besterfield-Sacre et al. (2000) conducted a large study to focus on the eleven intentionally undefined outcomes of EC-2000 as a necessary step to better defining learning outcomes in engineering cooperative education. Through an extensive literature review and a framework based on Bloom’s taxonomy, each outcome has been expanded into a set of attributes that can then be used by engineering faculty in adapting the outcomes to their own program. According to the researchers, these outcomes are in a dynamic state that must be updated

and modified as more is learned about their specificity and use.

Felder and Brent (2003) promote a student-

centered approach that “challenges the beliefs that all knowledge is certain, all problems have one and only one solution and authorities are omniscient and infallible”. They suggest that it have the following five features: “(1) variety and choice of learning tasks; (2) explicit communication and explanation of expectations; (3) modeling, practice, and constructive feedback on high-level tasks; (4) a student-centered instructional environment; and (5) an attitude of respect and caring for students at all levels of development”. Lizzio, Wilson and Simons (2002) suggest, however, that the quality of the experience has an impact on the outcomes. The quality of cooperative education should be based on clear objectives, appropriate assessment and an emphasis on independence. An understanding of the theories related to learning outcomes in Cooperative Education programs, Kolb’s Experiential Learning theory (ELT) (1984, Kolb et al., 1984), Lave’s Situated Learning Theory (1990, 1991), and Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1997, 1986) will shed light on the development of the learning outcomes (Eames, Chris & Cates, Cheryl, 2004).

In this regard it is interesting that Kolb (1984) in

his development of an experiential learning theory identified a series of propositions that underpin experiential learning and from each proposition he indicated an action which followed (Milne, 2007). The first proposition was: “Learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes”. The associated action was: “Learning is continually modified by experience”. LEARNING OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT FOR ENGINEERING COOPERATIVE EDUCATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR

Establishing learning outcomes in the Engineering Cooperative Education program at the University of Windsor began with the process of linking the overall University outcomes as appropriate. Selected outcomes included:

• integration between classroom theory and workplace

practice; • development of greater clarity of career goals as

well as student strengths, weaknesses and work preferences;

• development of critical workplace professional and employment readiness skills;

• development of an understanding of workplace culture;

• creation and maintenance of a network of contacts in their chosen career field;

• development of teamwork and group/ leadership skills; and


15

• the ability to make an effective contribution to the workplace.

Assessors require a number of criteria to evaluate

student demonstrated achievement of the learning outcome. An assessment task must be designed to allow the student to demonstrate how they have met the criteria that have been demonstrated for the outcome. According to Moore and Williamson (2005) the attainment of the criterion is set at a threshold level or minimum standard of achievement with grading standards set above or below this threshold to specify what the student will need to demonstrate to achieve above the threshold. The student generally achieves a set of grades against the criteria where the assessor determines the grade against the Learning Outcome.

Moore and Williamson (2005) suggest that the

designers of the learning outcome model examine assessment strategies. With the use of varied assessment tasks (exams, assignments, lab work, oral or poster presentations, etc.) and mapping of the tasks to the outcomes identifies Learning Outcomes that are over or under-assessed. By determining the criteria and thresholds the designers are able to establish explicit, fixed performance descriptors that reduce the tendency for ambiguity making the process more reliable.

According to Moore and Williamson (2005),

assessment of student learning has a central role in program design and student learning. It is a way of communicating to all stake holders what a student will know, understand and be able to perform as a result of completing the program. In particular the learning outcomes deliver accurate judgments that have been subject to appropriate forms of confirmation. Assessment assures that the students have met a certain standard of performance; a level of achievement and an opportunity to review and consolidate what they have learned. Further, the assessment is carried out in a manner that is not burdensome to the student or the staff.

In response to the research, the University of

Windsor has established several assessment measures to assess the engineering cooperative education learning outcomes. Most notably, co-op learning portfolios have been introduced to more comprehensively gauge student learning throughout the entire co-op process. Portfolios are a powerful tool in assessing student learning and to facilitate student understanding of the “value and transferability of their learning, knowledge and skills to their personal and career development” (Wright, 2001; Hodges, Smith & Jones, 2004; Koretz, 1998; Zegwaard, Coll & Hodges, 2003). In March 1999, a survey was sent to students enrolled in a career development course at Dalhousie University. Of the respondents, most indicated that the construction of the portfolio itself was what they enjoyed most as part of the class (Wright & Barton, 2001). Other assessment measures that will be discussed in this paper support the notion that a

combination of self, peer and instructor assessment of skills is important in fostering the necessary skills needed in experiential education programs (Hodges et al., 2004; Dochy, Janssens, & Schlefhout, 2004).

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Learning outcomes are described for Junior,

Intermediate and Senior level cooperative education students. The work/study sequencing for the five Engineering Co-op programs are shown in Tables 1 to 3: Table 1: Mechanical, Electrical, and Civil Engineering Programs

Year of Study Fall Term

Winter Term

Summer Term

1 Study Study Work/Off 2 Study Study Work 3 Study Work Study 4 Work Study Study

Table 2: Environmental Engineering Program


Winter Term

Summer Term

1 Study Study Work/Off 2 Study Study Work 3 Study Study Work 4 Work Study Study

Table 3: Industrial Engineering Program


Winter Term

Summer Term

1 Study Study Work 2 Study Study Work 3 Study Study Work 4 Study Study

Note that Industrial Engineering students graduate following the final Winter study semester which is one semester earlier than students registered in the other programs as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Alternatively, many Industrial Engineering students choose to complete a three-semester internship following their third year of study. This option provides them with work terms in each of the three semesters.

In those cases where students complete work terms

only during the Summer Term (i.e. some Industrial Engineering students), they may not have the opportunity to work on as many different types of technical skills (if the nature of the work varied by the season worked), but the soft skill development would be the same.

Junior cooperative education students have

completed either two or four study terms and may have had one previous work term. Junior level learning outcomes are:


16

• begin to see possibilities for integrating classroom

theory with workplace practice; • gain a better understanding of personal preferences

related to their academic and career plans; • be able to identify basic workplace skills and assess

their personal competence; • understand how to effectively target a resume, cover

letter and interview to a specific position; • better understand workplace culture; and • be able to identify at least five networking contacts,

comprised of colleagues, supervisors and/or associated contacts in the engineering field.

Students at the Intermediate level are in their third

year of study and have completed four semesters of study and one or two work terms. The Intermediate level learning outcomes are:

• have the ability to provide concrete examples

illustrating the integration of classroom theory with workplace practice;

• articulate a clear picture of potential career options and development of a plan to pursue these options including network development; and

• be able to further enhance required critical skills and continue to improve on identified weaknesses.

Senior level students have completed six semesters

of study and at least two work terms. The Senior level learning outcomes are:

• development of specific competencies, professional

skills and technical knowledge related to their academic major;

• ability to extend their knowledge from their effective access to information, its analysis, synthesis and application to new situations;

• prepare to transfer the understanding and practice of current industry practices, issues, technologies and skills developed in the workplace to their final level of academic study;

• have a clearly defined career path and action plan; • build, maintain and use a network of a colleagues,

supervisors and associated contacts in their career field;

• appreciate and articulate the importance of the pursuit of lifelong learning and personal development; and

• articulate personal growth between the classroom, workplace and community.

ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH LEARNING OUTCOMES

Learning outcomes and supporting activities have

been defined at the Junior, Intermediate, and Senior levels of the Engineering Co-op program. Activities developed to support and promote the learning outcomes

can be described by three categories: pre-employment skills development, portfolio development, and critical workplace awareness skills development.

Pre-employment skills describe the competencies that are required leading up to the work term application and interview processes. The pre-employment skills related activities include use of a unique software program developed by the University of Windsor, coined as ‘Interactive Career Activities Navigator’ (ICAN). Within ICAN, students work to develop resumes, cover letters, interview skills, and perform career mapping exercises. Workshops, peer reviews and individual employment readiness sessions with cooperative education staff also facilitate student learning and development of the identified learning outcomes.

The portfolio is a living document that the students

develop as they work their way through the co-op program. In its entirety, it includes a large collection of career-related documentation and reflection articles. The portfolio-related activities include creation of and/or reflection upon the following documents:

• Career Objective Statement • Skills Profile • Learning Objectives • Work Term Employer Evaluations • Work Term Report and Evaluation • Samples of Work • Networking Contacts/Exercise • Resume/Cover Letter Samples • Portfolio Evaluations • Career Mapping by Year Level • Final Summative Portfolio Reflection Paper

Optionally, the portfolio might also contain the following items:

• Transcripts • Work Term Assessments • Awards, honours, and certificates • Certificates of participation in conferences and

workshops • Writing samples/Academic projects • Certificate/Licenses • Publications • Audio or Video clips • Letters from clients, customers, faculty • News clippings • Photographs

As noted by Hodges, Smith, and Jones (2004), “the importance of reflective practice for professionals is well documented in the literature” (Richert, 1990; Shön, 1987) and “portfolio assessment is open as a valuable tool to capture this form of learning” (Woodward, 1998).

Critical workplace awareness skills are those competencies that support success in the workplace by


17

developing formal and informal communications and provide information related to workplace culture. At the Junior level, activities related to developing this skill set include attending a Senior level presentation in order to better understand, plan and gauge their learning. Students at all three levels are expected to create and present their own work term presentation, complete a networking exercise and attend a variety of professional development workshops.

Junior level workshops:

• Welcome to Co-op Meeting (explaining the co-op process)

• Presentation Skills Workshop • Working in a Unionized Environment • Health & Safety Workshop • A Successful Co-op Work Experience Workshop

Intermediate level workshop:

• Informational Interviewing Workshop

Senior level workshop:

• Negotiating Salaries Workshop in preparation for a full-time job search

• From Co-op to Career Workshop Pre-employment skills development and portfolio

activities specifically work to support the students’ ability to achieve the following Junior, Intermediate and Senior level learning outcomes.

Junior:

• begin to see possibilities for integrating classroom theory with workplace practice;

• gain a better understanding of personal preferences related to their academic and career plans; and

• understand how to effectively target a resume, cover letter and interview to a specific position.

Intermediate:

• have the ability to provide concrete examples illustrating the integration of classroom theory with workplace practice;

• articulate a clear picture of potential career options and development of a plan to pursue these options including network development; and

• be able to further enhance required critical skills and continue to improve on identified weaknesses.

Senior:

• development of specific competencies, professional skills and technical knowledge related to their academic major;

• ability to extend their knowledge from their effective access to information, its analysis, synthesis and application to new situations;

• prepare to transfer the understanding and practice of current industry practices, issues, technologies and skills developed in the workplace to their final level of academic study;

• have a clearly defined career path and action plan; and

• build, maintain and use a network of a colleagues, supervisors and associated contacts in their career field.

The activities that work to develop critical

workplace skills help students to achieve these learning objectives at the Junior, Intermediate and Senior levels.

ASSESSMENT METHODS In order to ensure that the activities described in

the “Activities Associated with Learning Outcomes” section are meeting the overall educational goals and derived learning outcomes, assessment tools have been implemented for each. In turn, assessments are collected and analyzed on a micro and macro-level to determine individual student learning and overall program effectiveness through a mixed-methods approach.

Assessment Strategies include:

• Individual student quizzes on the specific activity; • Pre and post-comparison of documents, such as

resumes and cover letters; • Peer review; • Critical reflection; • Faculty evaluation of academic components of the

work term, such as the technical work term report and presentation;

• Employer evaluations; and • Self-evaluations.

The Co-op Learning Portfolio was selected as a

cumulative approach to assessing student learning upon completion of the cooperative education work terms. The summative review allows students to critically reflect on what was learned during the work terms and to gauge progression of learning. Learning outcomes associated with the summative portfolio review include:

• describing the integration of classroom theory and

workplace practice through reflection of the work term and proof sources from the co-op portfolio;

• identification of personal preferences related to possible academic and career plans which will therefore increase the level of academic motivation;

• creation of an effective professional portfolio; and • documentation of the progress of his/her skills

development


The summative review process asks students pointed questions, divided into three main sections. The intent is to encourage critical reflection in a short paper which is reviewed by the Centre for Career Education to provide feedback and reinforce learning. The sections consist of questions dealing with Professional Development, Skills Acquired and the Portfolio Experience, in general. Questions might include:

• Have you noticed a progression of learning

throughout your co-op experiences and subsequent portfolio development? Please expand on your response.

• What skills or attributes have you improved from your first work term to now? Have you added these to your Profile of Skills? Why are these skills important to you?

18

• How will you transition your Co-op portfolio to your Career portfolio? What other documents, skills, and activities could you include? How would you re-organize your portfolio?

It should be noted that rubrics were developed for

all cooperative education activities which are made available to students and all involved parties to understand the expectations of each as it relates to the overall educational goals. MOVING FORWARD

The use of assessment tools for the previously described activities produces data. The storage and analysis of this data can potentially be used to assist in tracking student achievement and identify those students requiring additional activities to support their success in achieving a level of competency that the program seeks of all its graduates. Also, the data can be used to support curriculum development in the cooperative education program. Currently, work is being done to further develop the assessment tools and the appropriate procedures for processing the data and reacting to the needs of the students or the program. Ultimately, regular audits using the prescribed assessment methods will be conducted to continually measure the effectiveness of the delivery of activities as it relates to the learning outcomes and overall educational goals of the program.

Furthermore, the research team has developed a

survey designed to ask graduating students of the engineering and computer science programs about their self-reflection of learning outcomes as it relates to their experience with the Cooperative Education program. Preliminary results demonstrate that respondents felt that the program significantly impacted their career development and workplace skills (see Figure 1). The full findings are intended to be published once the survey data analysis is complete.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

A B C D E F G H J K L

A: Academic motivation B: Clarity about academic goals C: Clarity regarding career goals D: Identification of personal strengths related to academic options E: Identification of personal weaknesses related to academic options F: Identification of personal preferences related to academic options G: Identification of personal strengths related to workplace options H: Identification of personal weaknesses related to workplace options J: Identification of personal preferences related to workplace options K: Understanding of theories taught in classroom L: Your technical knowledge in your field

Figure 1: Percentage of Engineering and Computer Science students who said that co-op increased learning

outcomes CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the development and

implementation of activities to support learning outcomes associated with cooperative education can prove to be beneficial once assessment methods are put into place. Their presence reinforces the process and can assist in feedback of student performance as well as program success.

The work by the University of Windsor’s Centre

for Career Education has begun with the learning outcomes for all levels of the Engineering Cooperative education programs and progressed through the implementation of the activities and assessment methods at the Junior level. The work will continue to develop as the practices are put into place at the Intermediate and Senior levels of cooperative education.

Challenges exist in defining data management

procedures to support the development of continuous improvement processes for cooperative education learning outcomes.

REFERENCES 1. Astin, A.W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The

philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan/Onyx.


19

2. Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action, a social cognitive theory. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.

3. Bandura, A. (1997) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

4. Besterfield-Sacre, M., Shuman, L., Wolfe, H., Atman, C., McGourty, J., Miller, R., Olds, B., & Rogers, G. (2000). Defining the outcomes: A framework for EC-2000. IEEE Transactions on Education, 40(2), 100-110.

5. Brodie, P., Irving, K. (2007). Assessment in work-based learning: Investigating a pedagogical approach to enhance student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(1), 11-19.

6. Cates, C. & Jones, P. (2000). Learning Outcomes and the Educational Value of Cooperative Education. Retrieved on April 4, 2007 from http://www.waceinc.org/pdf/Cates_Jones_5_31_00.pdf.

7. Davis, D., Gentili, K., Trevisan, M., & Calkins, D. (2002). Engineering design assessment processes and scoring scales for program improvement and accountability. Journal of Engineering Education, 211-221.

8. Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Schlefhout, W. (2004). The use of self, peer and teacher assessment as a feedback system in a learning environment aimed at fostering skills of cooperation in an entrepreneurial context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(2), 177-201.

9. Eames, Chris & Cates, Cheryl (2004). Theories of learning in cooperative education. In R.K. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International Handbook for Cooperative Education (pp. 37-47). Boston, MA: World Association for Cooperative Education, Inc.

10. Felder, R. & Brent, R. (2003). Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET Engineering criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 7-25

11. Frye, R. (2002). Assessment, accountability, and student learning outcomes. Retrieved on October 25,2007from http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dialogue/issue2.html#student

12. Hodges, Dave, Smith, Bruce W. & Jones, Patricia D. (2004). The assessment of cooperative education. In R.K. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International Handbook of Cooperative Education (pp. 49-65). Boston, MA: World Association for Cooperative Education, Inc.

13. Johrendt, J.L., Northwood, D.O., Benzinger, K., Salinitri, G. and Jaekel, A. (2007). Learning outcomes for engineering and cooperative education, Proc. 11th Baltic Region Seminar on Engineering Education, Tallinn, Estonia, 18-20 June 2007, 55-58.

14. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

15. Kolb, D., Rubin, I. & McIntyre, J. (1984). Organizational psychology: An experiential

approach to organizational behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

16. Koretz, D. (1998). Large-scale portfolio assessments in the US: Evidence pertaining to the quality of measurement. Assessment in Education, 5(3), 309-334.

17. Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice, perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

18. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

19. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simon, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.

20. McGourty, J., Sebastian, C., & Swart, W. (1998). Developing a comprehensive assessment program for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(5), 355-361

21. Miller, R. (1998). As if learning mattered: reforming higher education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

22. Milne, Patricia (2007). A model for work integrated learning: optimizing student learning outcomes. WACE 6th International Symposium: The Quest for Quality, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, November 13-15, 2007.

23. Moore, I. & Williamson, S. (2005). The assessment of learning outcomes. UK: The Higher Education Academy – Engineering Subject Centre.

24. Parsons, C., Caylor, E., & Simmons, H. (2005). Cooperative education work assignments: The role of organizational and individual factors in enhancing ABET competencies and co-op workplace well-being. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(3), 309-318.

25. Richert, A.E. (1990). Teaching teachers to reflect: a consideration of programme structure. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 509-527.

26. Shaeiwitz, J. A. (1996a). Capstone experiences. Are you doing assessment without realizing it? Assessment Update, 8(4), 4-6.

27. Shaeiwitz, J. A. (1996b). Outcomes Assessment in Engineering Education, Journal of Engineering Education, 85(3), 239-246.

28. Shön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29. Trevelyan, James (2008). The intertwined threads of work. Engineers Australia, 80(2), 38-39.

30. Trevelyan, James (2008). Teaching the human side of engineering. Engineers Australia, 80(3), 51.

31. Wright, W.A. (2001). The Dalhousie career portfolio programme: A multi-faceted approach to transition

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dialogue/issue2.html#studenthttp://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dialogue/issue2.html#student


to work. Quality in Higher Education, 7(2), 149-159.

32. Wright, W., A. & Barton, B. (2001). Students mentoring students in portfolio development, in Miller, J.E., Groccia, J.E., & Miller, M.S. (Eds). Student-Assisted Teaching: A Guide to Faculty-Student Teamwork (Bolton, MA, Anker).

33. Woodward, Helen (1998). Reflective journals and portfolios: Learning through assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(4), 415-423.

34. Zegwaard, K., Coll, R.K. & Hodges, D. (2003). Assessment of workplace learning: A framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 4(1), 9-18.

BIOGRAPHIES

20

Ms. Watters holds Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and Master of Education Degrees and is a Master of Science Candidate for 2010 at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. She has worked for 12 years in the area of employment counselling and has been a co-op

coordinator for the past nine years, where she helped champion the cooperative education learning outcomes initiative. She has co-created a vocational rehabilitation-training program for employment counsellors and VR specialists in the United Kingdom. She also authored international conference presentations including Best Practices in Cooperative Education presented at the WACE Symposium in Ansbach, Germany. ([email protected])

Ms. Benzinger holds Bachelor of Commerce and Master of Education Degrees. She has implemented student and learning support services for over sixteen years and has served as the University’s Director of the Centre for Career Education for the

past six years. She co-chairs a University-level Cooperative Education Committee aimed at improving and expanding cooperative education at the University. She has initiated a project to identify, support and assess learning outcomes for cooperative education and is part of a group geared at developing a model of assessment for University Career Centres that incorporates learning outcomes. ([email protected])

Dr. Salinitri has taught several Guidance and Career Education courses involving cooperative education, learning strategies and outcomes and assessment, and has developed the mentor/mentee satisfaction and assessment

instruments. For over thirty years, she has been mentoring students and is currently involved in a mentor training program for teachers and student leaders. She is also a member of the Learning-Centred Task Force for the University. She has organized several professional presentations, published work in the area of mentoring, teaching and learning, and is the recipient of numerous awards for teaching and mentoring excellence. ([email protected])

Dr. Jaekel received her PhD in Electrical Engineering from the University of Windsor. She is currently an associate professor in the School of Computer Science at the University of Windsor. Her research interests are in the areas of optical network design and wireless

sensor networks. She has functioned as Chair of the Curriculum Committee for several years. For a number of years, she has been a member of the cooperative education committee and faculty advisor for co-op students, and as a result has gained insight about learning objectives from students’ perspectives. She is also a faculty mentor for female students in under-represented fields. She has published over 50 papers in peer-reviewed journals and conferences, has served on the organizing committee for several well-known international conferences. ([email protected])

Dr. Johrendt is an Assistant Professor of Engineering who, after working for almost ten years as Product Development Engineer, obtained her doctorate in Mechanical Engineering in 2005 from the University of Windsor. Prior to obtaining her

current position as an Assistant Professor of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, she worked for two years as an Experiential Learning Specialist, focusing on the development of hands-on engineering laboratories. She serves as both Departmental and Faculty Cooperative Education representative. She has co-authored several journal paper publications and conference presentations that have featured experiential learning and engineering education topics as well as her engineering research in vehicle structural durability and the use of neural networks to model non-linear materials. ([email protected])

Professor Northwood has over thirty years experience in the field of Engineering Education at the University level. He occupies the posts of Research Leadership Chair and Professor of Engineering

Materials. He is Deputy Chairman of the International Liaison Group-Engineering Education and a member of the Academic Advisory Committee of UNESCO International Centre for Engineering Education. He has


21

been instrumental in research aimed at transitioning the University into a learning centered institution as well as research focusing on Materials Sciences/Engineering and Engineering education. He is also an author and co-

author of over 270 papers in international refereed journals and over 230 papers in international refereed conference proceedings. ([email protected])


22

D. M. Holifield, C. U. Chisholm, & M. S. G Davis Int. j. technol. eng. educ. Copyright 2008, ATEEM 2008, Vol. 5, No. 2

Continuous Professional Development by Work Based Learning for Engineers: Utilising the Integration of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge

D. M. Holifield*, C. U. Chisholm**, & M. S. G Davis**

* University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

** Glasgow Caledonian University

ABSTRACT

The paper describes the development of a model for continuous professional/personal development of Engineers using a work-based learning approach. The basis of the new model is the integration and the interaction of tacit knowledge with, relevant explicit knowledge. The factors affecting integration were investigated within organisations to establish a new operational paradigm. A model is described to achieve the integration and optimise the capture of tacit knowledge. The flow of tacit knowledge and tacit knowledge transfer in organisations are suggested to be directly related to effective learning and the development of personal/professional competence. It is concluded that the model offers a novel approach to off-campus learning. Key findings from an EU funded Leonardo-project (2003) are described that relate to Chisholm and Holifield (2003). Keywords: Tacit knowledge, Explicit knowledge, Continuous Professional Development, Work Based Learning Introduction and Objectives

The paper outlines the key findings from an (EU funded Leonardo-project, 2003) are described that relate to the development of a model for continuous professional/personal development of Engineers using a work-based learning approach (Chisholm and Holifield, 2003).

The study investigates the nature of knowledge

within the personal engineering competencies and in particular explores the role of tacit knowledge and its interaction with explicit knowledge in relation to off-campus continuous personal/professional engineering learning (Wright, 1994). The study was based on using previous work-based learning studies. The overall objective of the work was to provide society with a new learning paradigm through a work-based knowledge transfer strategy to provide effective integration of tacit with explicit knowledge (Chisholm and Holifield, 2003). As a basis for the project a study was conducted of how tacit knowledge could be identified and effectively articulated with explicit knowledge.

Another objective of the work was to understand

the factors controlling the flows of and the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and to understand tacit knowledge transfer in organisations in relation to continuous personal/professional learning in the work-based environment (Krogh et al, 2000). Various models were explored as to how best to take forward an effective operational model led by the academic staff of the educational institution.

• Why is tacit knowledge now so important for the

education of engineering professional practitioners?

Considering this question raises further questions which require to be addressed.

• What exactly is the definition of tacit knowledge?

If we can define it and show its importance to educating practitioners, this raises further questions as follows:

• Can an understanding of tacit knowledge be introduced to the undergraduate?

• Is tacit knowledge understanding more suited to the postgraduate practitioner or for continuous professional development?

• If it is possible to introduce it at undergraduate and postgraduate levels can it be understood using traditional learning on-campus or should tacit knowledge understanding be introduced in an alternative learning environment such as in the workplace?

• How does tacit knowledge integrate with explicit knowledge?

It is well understood in both industry and among

academics that codified, digitized or material knowledge known as explicit knowledge can be much more easily understood and transferred than what is known as tacit knowledge. In developing competences for practitioners, the technical aspects can be transferred fairly easily provided it is the explicit knowledge component which is the dominant aspect. So far transfer and understanding of the tacit component presents a much greater difficulty. For example if we take a senior team of practitioners operating in an organisation it is extremely difficult if not impossible at present to transfer the operational competences being employed to another team being developed. If educators could develop practitioners with an ability to understand the tacit aspects of knowledge

23

Continuous Professional Development by Work Based Learning for Engineers: Utilising the Integration of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge

and how they function, then this could yield graduates with a much greater capability to deliver in their organisations. Theoretical Framework

To develop the continuous personal/professional engineering learning it was decided that work-based learning offered the optimum theoretical framework (Harvey and Slaughter 2004). Work-based learning is now a well established mode of learning (Boud and Solomon, 2001; Burns and Chisholm, 1998; Burns and Holifield, 2001) and is increasingly regarded as supportive of mode 2 learning (Gibbons, 1998; Chisholm, 2003) which puts emphasis on transdisciplinary learning and is largely concerned with the development of tacit knowledge as well as explicit knowledge. Thus for the investigation and development of a CPD model, the work-based framework appears to be highly relevant. Mode 1 learning is essentially discipline-orientated and is usually delivered within an on-campus community of practice dealing almost exclusively with explicit knowledge (Gibbons, 1998). Continuous personal/professional engineering learning is often more about transdisciplinary learning within real world environments such as organizations, industry and public service. While society is driven by explicit knowledge it is now accepted that in most organizations the greater level of knowledge is unarticulated tacit. Thus whilst it is accepted that explicit knowledge is essential to a learning society, there is obviously a need to develop learning models which provide for integration of tacit with explicit knowledge to underpin non-subject specific personal/professional development (Saint-Onge, 1996).

The work-based learning framework can be

interpreted through the theory of constructivism (Billet, 1993). Essentially, a work-based continuous learning model has, as its core, the learner actively constructing knowledge in their own workplace by taking new information and experiences and using them to test against what they already understand, followed by in-depth reflection and finally by reinterpreting the old knowledge such that it can be reconciled with the new information and experience gained (Billet, 1994). This forms the basis of the underpinning of the continuous personal/professional learning model being investigated. The model development also benefits from using the theoretical framework of reflective practices (Moon, 2000) and social learning theories where research on the thinking and learning has shown that the public learn by interaction with others (Stamps, 1997; Farmer et al, 1992).

The concepts of situated learning, where

knowledge developed is interpreted within the context in which it is acquired, are also used and we believe that the workplace provides the basis for a new operational paradigm of continuous learning where it is no longer about subject disciplines but involves persons using their

base of constructed knowledge to solve problems in new situations as they arise in their operational transdisciplinary environments.

In terms of supporting the development model it is considered that academic staff will require to train in the relevant approaches as these contrast with the traditional behaviouralist approach taken by most academic staff involved in on-campus teaching (Johnson et al 1994, Stevenson 1994). Thus whilst the model is based on academic staff providing coaching and mentoring (Rossett, 1990) the reality is that participants need to internalise the learning by constructing their own knowledge base and understanding, based on relevant tacit and explicit knowledge. Defining Tacit Knowledge and its Relationship to Explicit Knowledge

"Tacit knowledge - the kind of knowledge that is the subtext of a conversation, the intuitions that are gained through experience, and the sense of competency one acquires by participating in communities of practice - plays a key role in the way people work, both alone and, perhaps more importantly, in collaboration with others." (Saint-Onge, 2001)

This quote comes from the contents of a workshop

on managing tacit knowledge and reveals much about the underlying concepts of what is meant by tacit knowledge. It is fundamental to practitioners in terms of professional development. It is obvious from this description that tacit knowledge cannot be understood or realised by attending lectures on an on-campus basis alone. Current research in tacit knowledge is motivated by the acceptance that much of what underpins a successful career whether engineering or non-engineering is directly associated with implicit knowledge and learning. The problem with tacit knowledge is its implicit nature which makes it difficult to discuss scientifically and explain in a similar manner to explicit knowledge.

(Saint-Onge, 1996) gives the following

interpretation and description:

"At the individual level, tacit knowledge forms a mental grid-- a unique set of beliefs and assumptions through which we filter and interpret what we see and do. The grid guides our "auto-pilot" and our behaviour. It acts like a lens that filters our interpretation and understanding of our personal experiences and communication and places boundaries around our behaviour. In this way it delimits our performance and, thus our results."

24

D. M. Holifield, C. U. Chisholm, & M. S. G Davis

This illustrates the importance of tacit knowledge

to the individual as this description places in-depth emphasis on how the tacit component is fundamental to the individual's every action in life and work. (Saint-Onge, 1996) also shows another dimension to tacit knowledge in terms of a collective mindset based on a community of practice within the organisation.

"In an organisation, tacit knowledge is made up of the collective mindsets of everyone in the organisation. Out of its experience, the organisation assumes a unique set of beliefs and assumptions through which it collectively filters and interprets how it sees the world and reacts to it."

So it would seem important to educate practitioners such that they are well prepared to be part of this tacit driven community of practice to serve the public good and increase the competitiveness of our public and private organisations.

From these definitions it is easy to understand the

importance of realising the value of tacit knowledge in the development of complex problem solving for the public good. The question is - how can aspects such as intuition, perspectives, beliefs and values, which are formed by individuals from their experiences and are in the public interest be taught to the future generations of engineering learners? Essentially it is about mindset change where the tacit aspects have a dynamic effect on everything that an individual does and as the undergraduate and the postgraduate process is already about mindset change using explicit knowledge, so it simply means that the study of tacit components should be integrated within study programmes. Theoretical Framework Related to Tacit Knowledge

(Polyanyi, 1966) distinguished between tacit and explicit knowledge; tacit being personal, contact specific and hard to formalise and communicate, whilst, explicit knowledge is transmittable in formal systematic language, "we can know more than we can tell...". According to (Smith, 2003) Polyanyi's argument was that "...the informed guesses, hunches and imaginings that are part of explo

ijtee.orgijtee.org/ijtee/system/db/pdf/52.pdf · international journal of technology and...

Documents