IMPROVING ENGINEERING EDUCATION: TWO KEY AREAS TO FOCUS OUR ATTENTION

Abstract

Engineering remains one of the most traditional and didactic disciplines in higher education. There is low adoption of research-based instructional practices with many educators believing adherence to tried-and-true methods in undergraduate engineering programs outweigh the benefits any change to more active learning could bring. Surveys of student engagement consistently rank the effectiveness of the undergraduate engineering experience lowest among the disciplines, with classroom observations confirming that engineering educators score significantly lower in delivery, teaching, lesson elements, and diversity. This quantitative study sets out to determine in which, if any, specific areas engineering educators score differently than their colleagues in other disciplines. Using Draeger and his team’s model of academic rigour as a framework, this study examines institutional data collected during three years of mandatory teaching observations of new full-time and randomly selected part time educators. The analysis shows that four key areas differentiate the teaching practices of engineering educators from their colleagues in other disciplines: (1) welcoming students, (2) explaining the lesson’s agenda, (3) the organization, pace, and planning of classes, and (4) the way material is presented to students. It is proposed that the undergraduate engineering experience can be improved by making changes to lesson structure, and enhanced by including opportunities for meaningful active learning.