Student Responses to Activities Designed to Develop Generic Professional Skills
Publication: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 126, Issue 4
Abstract
This paper reports on student responses to a range of assessment activities in a final-year engineering unit. Existing assessment activities were supplemented with new activities, the overall aim being to link the assessment activities more effectively to the material being studied, and to develop a range of generic skills important in professional engineering practice. A class survey was undertaken at the beginning of the semester to establish the initial attitudes to the new assessment activities. This was followed up with an end-of-semester survey to determine the change in perceived value of the assessment activities, and to collect student feedback regarding the activities. The perceived value of the assessment activities was determined using a Likert rating scale, while student feedback was collected using open-ended questions. The assessment activities evaluated were group work, case study investigation, report writing, oral presentation, group self-assessment, industrial interviews, and written reflective journals. The responses indicate that engineering students value a range of assessment activities. They value highly visits to real engineering organizations, and—contrary to popular belief—value and enjoy oral presentation exercises.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Adams, D. L. ( 1993). “Instructional techniques for critical thinking and life-long learning in science courses.” J. Coll. Sci. Teaching, 23(2), 100–104.
2.
Adamski, R. E. (1999). “Engineers of the future: PEs or PhDs—bidders or proposers.”J. Profl. Issues in Engrg. Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 125(1), 5–7.
3.
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). ( 1994). The green report: Engineering education for a changing world, Washington, D.C.
4.
Aulich, T. ( 1990). “Priorities for reform in higher education.” Rep. to the Senate Com. on Employment, Educ. and Training, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra, Australia.
5.
Bates, I., Lloyd, B., Martinelli, F., and Vines, J. ( 1992). Skills for the future—engineers and scientists achieving enterprise performance, Association of Professional Engineers and Scientists, Australia (APESA), Melbourne.
6.
Canadian Academy of Engineering. ( 1993). “Engineering education in Canadian universities.” Rep., Ottawa.
7.
Candy, P., Crebert, G., and O'Leary, J. ( 1994). “Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education.” NBEET Commissioned Rep. No. 28, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra, Australia.
8.
Collier, S. T. ( 1999). “Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teaching experience.” J. Teacher Educ., 50(3), 173–181.
9.
Engineering criteria 2000. (1997). Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Baltimore.
10.
Fraser, S., and Deane, E. ( 1997). “Why open learning?” Australian Univ. Rev., South Melbourne, 40(1), 25–31.
11.
Grinter, L. ( 1995). Report on evaluation of engineering education, American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, D.C.
12.
Hargreaves, D. J. ( 1996). “How undergraduate students learn.” Eur. J. Engrg. Educ., Abingdon, U.K., 21(4), 425–434.
13.
Hecker, P. (1997). “Successful consulting engineering: A lifetime of learning.”J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 13(6), 62–65.
14.
Johnson, P. ( 1996). Changing the culture: Engineering education into the future, The Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust), Barton, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
15.
Jolly, L., Radcliffe, D., and McLeod-Palma, A. ( 1999). “Developing reflexivity in undergraduate engineers.” Proc., 11th Annu. Conf. and Convention, Australasian Assn. for Engrg. Educ., Adelaide, Australia, 184–189.
16.
Kolb, D. A. ( 1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
17.
Lloyd, B., Stokes, E., Rice, M., and Roebuck, W. ( 1979). Engineering manpower in Australia, Association of Professional Engineers, Australia (APEA), Melbourne.
18.
MacAlpine, J. M. K. ( 1999). “Improving and encouraging peer assessment of student presentations.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Educ., Abingdon, U.K., 24(1), 15–25.
19.
National Board of Employment Education and Training. ( 1992). “Skills sought by employers of graduates.” Commissioned Rep. No. 20, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra, Australia.
20.
Orsmond, P., and Merry, S. ( 1996). “The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Educ., Abingdon, U.K., 21(3), 239–250.
21.
Riley, M., and Pickering, C. ( 1995). “Professional development skills for civil and environmental engineers.” Eur. J. Engrg. Educ., Abingdon, U.K., 20(2), 255–259.
22.
Schön, D. A. ( 1995). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, Arena, Aldershot, U.K.
23.
Smith, P. L. (1992). “Professionalism: Cornerstone of engineering.”J. Profl. Issues in Engrg. Educ. and Pract., 118(3), 258–260.
24.
Williams, B. ( 1988). Review of the discipline of engineering, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia.
25.
Working Group on Lifelong Learning and Continuing Education in Engineering. ( 1988). “Lifelong learning in engineering education: A call to action.” Rep., Higher Engineering Education for Europe, Leuven, Belgium.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 126 • Issue 4 • October 2000
Pages: 180 - 185
History
Received: Apr 28, 1999
Published online: Oct 1, 2000
Published in print: Oct 2000
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.