Background

We report on the results of a joint initiative between the European Journal of Engineering Education and Journal of Engineering Education titled Advancing Global Capacity for Engineering Education Research (AGCEER). More specifically, we present findings from a series of moderated interactive sessions held at international engineering education conferences between July 2007 and December 2008, where participants were asked to discuss the current state and future trajectory of engineering education research.

Purpose (Hypothesis)

How did AGCEER session attendees describe: (1) the relationship between engineering education research and educational practice, policy considerations, and industry, and (2) important stakeholders, mechanisms/strategies, and challenges for relating research to practice, policy, and industry?

Design/Method

Thematic analysis was used to categorize and understand the textual data of report back transcripts and note pages from ten AGCEER sessions involving 300 participants on six continents. An open coding procedure was used to capture issues raised in each of the sessions on the relation of research to practice, policy, and industry.

Results

We observed frequent discussion and widespread consensus among AGCEER participants about the need to relate engineering education research to the practice of engineering teaching. Discussions about relating research to policy and industry remain formative, but appear to be gaining traction.

Conclusions

We propose a cyclic model to better conceptualize how engineering education research can be strategically related to practice, profession, and industry across diverse local and global contexts.

Advancing Global Capacity for Engineering Education Research (AGCEER): Relating Research to Practice, Policy, and Industry

Findings are presented from a series of moderated interactive sessions held at international engineering education conferences between July 2007 and December 2008, where attendees discussed the current state and future trajectory of engineering education research. More specifically, this study examines how session attendees described: (1) the relationship between engineering education research and educational practice, policy considerations and industry; (2) important stakeholders, mechanisms/strategies and challenges for relating research to practice, policy and industry. Thematic analysis and open coding procedures were used to analyse the data collected at each session. In summary, frequent discussion and widespread consensus was observed about the need to relate engineering education research to the practice of engineering teaching. Discussions about relating research to policy and industry remain formative, but appear to be gaining traction. The paper concludes by proposing a cyclic model to better c...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03043791003596928

Advancing global capacity for engineering education research: relating research to practice, policy and industry

Responding to globalization trends, many engineering schools are internationalizing their courses and curricula to prepare graduates for careers that involve working across countries and cultures. As a result, both students and staff are looking beyond study abroad to international work, research, and service learning opportunities as alternate pathways for high-impact experiential learning in global context. However, such programs can also pose unique challenges related to preparing students for professional practice abroad and systematically evaluating program outcomes and impacts among students and other stakeholders. This paper responds to these challenges by reporting on International Research and Education in Engineering (IREE) 2010 China, a summer engineering research abroad program. It describes orientation strategies designed to improve student readiness for global practice, and presents mixed-method assessment methods and results for global engineering competency and other key learning outcomes. The main audience for this paper includes faculty and staff who develop and support global learning experiences in engineering and other professional degree programs.

/pdf/developing-globally-competent-engineering-researchers-3rqvn2ijev.pdf

Developing Globally Competent Engineering Researchers: Outcomes-Based Instructional and Assessment Strategies from the IREE 2010 China Research Abroad Program.

“ There is an urgent need for research on engineering in a global context . The phenomenon of global engineering is still emerging. There is a need for a theoretical foundation on learning behaviors and models as well as on organizational processes and management methods focused on instilling global competence in engineers.” Global Engineering Excellence Initiative (GEEI) Report (Italics in original, 2006, p. 2) Introduction Although globalization has been a political and economic concern for centuries (O’Leary, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2002), its impact on the engineering education community has become particularly salient since the publication of the Engineer of 2020 (National Academy of Engineering [NAE], 2003) and The World Is Flat (Friedman, 2005). These and subsequent publications (Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy [CSEPP], 2006; Duderstadt, 2008, Engineers Against Poverty (EAP)/Institute of Education (IOE), 2008; GEEI, 2006; Grandin & Hirleman, 2009; NAE, 2005) have emphasized the critical need to train globally competent engineers. Academics, practitioners, and policymakers alike have realized that solving the critical problems facing the world today, including addressing the NAE Grand Challenges (NAE, http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/) and achieving a “better quality of life,” will require close collaboration among engineers from around the world. Not surprisingly, educational institutions are investing millions of dollars to train students for success in the globalized economy through initiatives such as study abroad. Students, in turn, are spending significant amounts of money to participate in these programs. Recent efforts to pass a study abroad bill provide still another indication of the importance of this issue at the national level (Study Abroad Bill, 2009). And from a research perspective, the National Science Foundation (NSF) itself spends upwards of $50 million each year funding international programs (Office of International Science and Engineering [OISE], 2008). The greatest investment by far, however, has been by industry. In 2011 alone, U.S. firms spent more than $156 billion on workforce training, an average of $1,182/employee (American Society for Training & Development [ASTD], 2012). Almost 21% of that amount was spent on training people to work more effectively with others, and global issues are becoming a bigger slice of that pie amidst growing recognition that global work experiences give a boost to industry careers. It is within this context that engineering educators are trying to make an impact to better prepare future engineers for the global world of work.

Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research: Global and International Issues in Engineering Education

Global educational experiences can help engineering students attain intercultural skills and understand how cultural differences impact engineering practice. Effective global programs make appropriate links and project meaningful pathways for students from the advancement of cultural orientation to the development of global competency. This study examines the extent of current engineering students’ awareness and potential acceptance of cultural similarities and differences. We conducted survey assessment using the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale short form (MGUDS-S) to measure and compare orientation toward diversity among four groups of engineering student populations, including those entering three different types of global engineering programs and a baseline population of first-year engineering students. We proposed and tested a set of research hypotheses for multiple group comparisons of MGUDS-S results, including across three subscales, and concluded with a series of significant results. In particular, significantly higher levels of universal-diverse orientation (UDO) among students opting into global programs suggest that these individuals are predisposed to participate in global experiences due to their more advanced cultural outlook. Further, significant differences in UDO among student populations participating in different types of international program suggest a self-selection factor at work among the participants when choosing the type, duration and orientation of global engineering programs. These results are useful for instructors and administrators as they recruit students into global programs and then tailor orientation and program activities based on different levels of cultural awareness and appreciation among participants. These results also point to new opportunities for further research. Particularly, this study represents a significant step towards developing and testing an integrated assessment model for global engineering programs that brings together measures of readiness assessment, orientation toward diversity, and global engineering competency.

Cultural Orientation and Global Competency: A Comparative Assessment of Engineering Students

/pdf/engineering-the-world-4ptz5pf2er.pdf

Engineering the World

This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.

/pdf/engineering-the-world-x1t3bj3tkm.pdf

Darlene Bremer

Papers

Engineering the World

Engineering the world