Erik de Graaff

Training complete engineers: Global enterprise and engineering education

For the past few years a discussion has been going on about the specific skills and knowledge a complete engineer should possess. Apart form this discussion, a separate debate has focused on the content of an engineers education. This article is a combination of two joint papers (De Graaff and Ravesteijn 2000, Ravesteijn and De Graaff 2000) bearing on these respective subjects, presented by the authors at the SEFI 2000 conference in Paris. The demands from industry that engineers of the future will have to meet are summarized and related to characteristics of modern training methods. It is argued that a new view on the content of the engineers education implies, at least to a certain extent, a new set of educational tools.

Engineering the future: the social necessity of communicative engineers

It is a long and winding road from invention to innovation. Starting from this observation, this paper presents a historical perspective on the capabilities engineers should possess to do their work. The importance of the ‘communicative competence’ involved in creating a social base for innovation is underpinned. We will present a theoretical framework with regard to engineering and society and argue that this competence requires a good understanding of the social dynamics of technology as well as the ability to communicate on the level of facts, values and emotions. Three particular skills are extensively discussed: orientation on the future and the abilities involved in dialogue and cultural differences. We will argue that engineers can develop this new competence through project learning.

Assessing highly-creative ability

This paper presents a psychological perspective of the educational dilemma of assessing highly (high‐level) creative ability (with some connections to contemporary philosophical debate). Assessment of highly‐creative ability is a topic of longstanding debate involving questions of what constitutes creativity; whether the creative mental process is essentially intuitive or essentially rational; whether creative ability could or should be reduced to quantifiable parameters; and whether the most important aspects of creative achievement reside in the initial thinking (invention of ideas) or in the subsequent process of development of the idea (making a work of art, design, etc) or in the end product (the work of art or design itself). The debate is fueled by various philosophical, psychological and educational perspectives, all of which are continuously evolving. As a consequence, learning objectives and assessment criteria are ambiguous and confound the enhancement of creative ability that is the primary purpose of higher education. This paper traces the research and development path that led to an innovative ‘authenticative assessment’ approach to assessing highly‐creative ability that offers a promising solution.

The engineering of engineering education: curriculum development from a designer's point of view

Engineers have a set of powerful tools at their disposal for designing robust and reliable technical systems. In educational design these tools are seldom applied. This paper explores the application of concepts from the systems approach in an educational context. The paradigms of design methodology and systems engineering appear to be suitable for both analysing existing education and designing new curricula. 1The paper is based on an invited lecture by O. Rompelman at the International Symposium on Engineering Education, Valladolid, October, 2004.

Editorial: Focusing on competence

Training students for professional competence has always been the ultimate goal of engineering curricula. However, a traditional curriculum is defined in terms of content. On the one hand, you have the input side of the system: what do we need to teach the young engineer at the start of his training? And, on the other hand, you have the output: whatever the disciplines taught, educational scientists all recognize that what counts is what the students learn during their studies. This has resulted in a number of publications on “output oriented” or “competence oriented” curricula.† The most tangible product of this development is to be found in the so called “Dublin descriptors”. In fact this is a set of competency based criteria for higher education in Europe. EJEE is fully aware of the current interest raised by those topics and has already published many articles and thematic issues in the last few years concerning “output oriented” pedagogies and training programs. There are lots of references in this literature to terms such as “competence”, “skills”, etc. These terms are used by firm management, in engineers’ training for the development of learners’skills, and at the college-firm interface to certify qualifications. The articulations between these domains and their operational implementations in the training of engineers still have to be clarified. This is why we decided in November 2004 to call for

Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning in Engineering Education: Merging Models

Introduction In the practice of engineering education, there is a wide variety of implementations of problem-based or project-based learning (PBL). In this chapter we aim to explain the relationships between different types of problem-based and project-based learning to help teachers and educational managers make innovative choices and provide benchmarks for educational researchers. We present a combined understanding of problem- and project-based learning, the theoretical and historical background, and the different models of PBL that can capture the existing practices, ranging from small- to large-scale practice, from classroom teaching to institutional models, and from single-subject to interdisciplinary and complex knowledge construction. It is well known that one-way dissemination of knowledge by means of lectures is not very effective in achieving learning (van der Vleuten, 1997). In higher education concepts such as “self-directed-learning,” “case-based learning,” “inquiry based learning,” “experiential learning,” “service learning,” “project-based service learning,” “active learning,” CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement, and Operate), “project-based learning,” and “problem-based learning” were introduced in the decades after the Second World War. All these new learning concepts come under the umbrella of learner-centered or student-centered learning models. Problem-based and project-based learning, both known as PBL, originate from the reform universities, and the new educational models, established between 1965 and 1975. In problem-based learning, problems form the starting point for students’ learning emphasizing a self-directed learning process in teams. The educational model problem-based learning was introduced at curriculum scale at the medical faculty of McMaster University, Canada, followed by Maastricht University in the Netherlands and many others. Project-based learning shares the aspect of students working on problems in teams, but with the added component that they have to submit a project report completed collaboratively by the project team. The problem- and project-based/project organized model adopted at Aalborg University and Roskilde University, Denmark, was inspired by the critical pedagogy in Europe after the student revolts of the 1960s. At Aalborg University both models of PBL were eventually combined in problem-based project organized learning, which was practiced at all faculties – the Faculty of Engineering and Science being the largest. This combined approach is the central point of reference for this chapter, as the pedagogical development in engineering education indicates that both educational practices are successful in their own way and the abbreviation PBL is here defined as including both practices.

Research versus educational practice: positioning the European Journal of Engineering Education

Over the past years, the European Journal of Engineering Education (EJEE), the journal of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) developed as a more research oriented journal. Bibliometric analyses show that EJEE keeps pace with other leading journals in the field of Engineering Education in most respects. EJEE serves a worldwide audience with about as many contributions from Europe as from other parts of the world. Yet, the impact factor of the journal calculated according to the formula of Thomsons ISI Web of Science seems to be lagging behind. As an explanation for this phenomenon, it is argued that EJEE keeps on publishing papers that are appreciated by practitioners in the field, even if they do not generate a lot of citations in scientific journals.Over the past years, the European Journal of Engineering Education (EJEE), the journal of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) developed as a more research oriented journal. Bibliometric analyses show that EJEE keeps pace with other leading journals in the field of Engineering Education in most respects. EJEE serves a worldwide audience with about as many contributions from Europe as from other parts of the world. Yet, the impact factor of the journal calculated according to the formula of Thomsons ISI Web of Science seems to be lagging behind. As an explanation for this phenomenon, it is argued that EJEE keeps on publishing papers that are appreciated by practitioners in the field, even if they do not generate a lot of citations in scientific journals.

Three dimensions of characterizing courses for sustainability in engineering education: Models, approaches and orientations

Worldwide universities are changing their curriculum in response to the Barcelona Declaration. The adaptations include the integration of sustainability courses in engineering education. The various courses have been constructed with different kind of earning objectives and different interpretations of the stainability concept. The paper introduces three dimensions of characterizing sustainability courses in engineering education; models, approaches and orientations. The paper reviews 30 articles and presents examples of sustain ability courses that have been characterized based on the three dimensions. The conclusion is that the three dimensions of characterization can provide concrete perspectives on constructing and designing of sustainability course in engineering education.

Innovation and Research on Engineering Education

Our Western society depends strongly on continuous technological innovation. Engineers, the designers of the future technology need extensive competencies to face the challenge of dealing with ever increasing complexity. In some areas more than half the knowledge they learn in University is obsolete by the time the enter practice. Recognition of these issues has recently resulted in worldwide increase of attention for innovation of engineering education. This chapter presents a brief outline of the traditions in higher engineering education culminating in the stage of research and development in the last century. Next, the recent revival of engineering education research is described, contrasting the developments in the USA with Europe and the rest of the world. The efforts in the USA appear to follow Boyer’s concept scholarship of teaching, and aim for the establishment of engineering education research as a discipline in its own right. The trend in Europe is to build on the experiences with social sciences research in higher education, aiming to involve practitioners in research in their own fields. At the end of the chapter, a taxonomy of engineering education research questions is proposed, based on efforts by the SEFI (European Society for Engineering Education) working group Engineering Education Research (EER) and the European project EUGENE.

Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning in Engineering Education

Introduction In the practice of engineering education, there is a wide variety of implementations of problem-based or project-based learning (PBL). In this chapter we aim to explain the relationships between different types of problem-based and project-based learning to help teachers and educational managers make innovative choices and provide benchmarks for educational researchers. We present a combined understanding of problem- and project-based learning, the theoretical and historical background, and the different models of PBL that can capture the existing practices, ranging from small- to large-scale practice, from classroom teaching to institutional models, and from single-subject to interdisciplinary and complex knowledge construction. It is well known that one-way dissemination of knowledge by means of lectures is not very effective in achieving learning (van der Vleuten, 1997). In higher education concepts such as “self-directed-learning,” “case-based learning,” “inquiry based learning,” “experiential learning,” “service learning,” “project-based service learning,” “active learning,” CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement, and Operate), “project-based learning,” and “problem-based learning” were introduced in the decades after the Second World War. All these new learning concepts come under the umbrella of learner-centered or student-centered learning models. Problem-based and project-based learning, both known as PBL, originate from the reform universities, and the new educational models, established between 1965 and 1975. In problem-based learning, problems form the starting point for students’ learning emphasizing a self-directed learning process in teams. The educational model problem-based learning was introduced at curriculum scale at the medical faculty of McMaster University, Canada, followed by Maastricht University in the Netherlands and many others. Project-based learning shares the aspect of students working on problems in teams, but with the added component that they have to submit a project report completed collaboratively by the project team. The problem- and project-based/project organized model adopted at Aalborg University and Roskilde University, Denmark, was inspired by the critical pedagogy in Europe after the student revolts of the 1960s. At Aalborg University both models of PBL were eventually combined in problem-based project organized learning, which was practiced at all faculties – the Faculty of Engineering and Science being the largest. This combined approach is the central point of reference for this chapter, as the pedagogical development in engineering education indicates that both educational practices are successful in their own way and the abbreviation PBL is here defined as including both practices.