Best Practices of Engineering Training in World Leading Universities
https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2021.01.002
Abstract
The paper reviews best educational practices in engineering training provided by world leading universities. Modern landscape of engineering training and education has been viewed; expectations and needs of different stakeholders of educational process have been considered, including those of industry representatives. The main purpose of our research is to study the educational practices of the world leading universities in engineering training, to analyze educational policies and training measures supporting their realisation. There are considered the innovations in educational policies of the universities whose experience in engineering training is determined by new objectives of reforming degree programmes via integrating new technologies of active, project-based, and problem-based learning in order to develop students’ key professional competences and generic skills. The examples of curriculum planning in collaboration with employers are viewed. The university staff training integrated into real industry operating is considered. The authors’ conclusions on the changes in the current state of engineering training are presented in the form of advice, with the orientation towards prospective piloting and integration of the best practices into engineering education in Russian universities.
About the Authors
A. M. Lider
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey M. Lider – Dr. hab. (Engineering), Professor, Head of Department of Experimental Physics, TPU School of Nuclear
Science and Engineering
30 Lenin ave., Tomsk, 634050
I. V. Slesarenko
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Inga V. Slesarenko – PhD (Pedagogy), Associate Professor, Training and Research Center for University Management
30 Lenin ave., Tomsk, 634050
M. A. Solovyev
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mikhail A. Solovyev – PhD (Engineering), Associate Professor, Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs
30 Lenin ave., Tomsk, 634050
References
1. Mejtoft T., Vesterberg J. Integration of Generic Skills in Engineering Education: Increased Student Engagement, available at: http://www.cdio.org/knowledge-library/documents/integration-generic-skills-engineering-education-increased-student (accessed 07.08.2019). (In Eng.).
2. Coskin S., Kayikci Ya., Gencay E. Adapting Engineering Education to Industry 4.0 Vision. Technologies, 2019, vol. 7, Article nr 10, pp. 1–13. doi 10.3390/technologies7010010. (In Eng.).
3. Sysoev A. A., Vesna E. B., Aleksandrov Yu. I. O sovremennoi modeli inzhenernoi podgotovki [About a New Model of Engineering Training]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2019, vol. 28, nr 7, pp. 94–101. doi 10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-7-94-101. (In Russ.).
4. Chuchalin A. I. Inzhenernoe obrazovanie v epokhy industrial’noi i zhifrovoi ekonomiki [Engineering Education in the Epoch of Industrial Revolution and Digital Economy]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2018, vol. 27, nr 10, pp. 47–62. doi 10.31992/0869-3617-2018-27-10-47-62. (In Russ.).
5. Chuchalin A. I. The CDIO-FCDI-FFCD Rubrics for Evaluation of Three-Cycle Engineering Programs. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2019, vol. 28. nr 10, pp. 58–72. doi 10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-10-58-72. (In Eng.).
6. Gant M., Booth A. A. Topology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 2009, vol. 26, nr 2, pp. 91–108. doi 10.1111/j.1471–1842.2009.00848.x. (In Eng.).
7. Raitskaya L. L., Tikhonova E. V. Obzor kak perspektivnyi vid nauchnoi publikatsii: ego tipy i kharakteristiki [Reviews as a Promising Kind of Scholarly Publication, Its Types and Characteristics]. Nauchnyi redaktor i izdatel’ [Science Editor and Publisher], 2019, vol. 4, nr 3/4, pp. 131–139. doi 10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-131-139. (In Russ.).
8. Raitskaya L. L., Tikhonova E. V. Obzor obzorov kak instrument vyyavleniya trendov v issleduemoi oblasti znaniya [An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2020, vol. 29, nr 3, pp. 37–57. doi 10/31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57. (In Russ.).
9. Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 2005, vol. 8, nr 1, pp. 19–32. doi 10.1080/1364557032000119616. (In Eng.).
10. Lee C. A., Pais K., Kelling S., Anderson O. S. A Scoping Review to Understand Simulation Used in Interprofessional Education. Journal of Interprofessional Education and Practice, 2018, vol. 13, pp. 15–23. doi 10.1016/j.xjep.2018.08.003. (In Eng.).
11. Orr K. M., Ngambeki I., Long R. A., Ohland M. W. Performance Trajectory of Students in the Engineering Disciplines. Proceedings – Frontiers in Education Conference, 2011, pp. 1720 –1723. doi 10.1109/FIE.2011.6143005. (In Eng.).
12. R abi nov itch J., Pa r ziale N. T he Caltech Space Challenge: Lessons Learnt and Future Plans. 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, Canada, 2014, pp. 1–8. (In Eng.).
13. Maunder R. G. Innovation in the Undergraduate Microelectronics Programmes at the University of Southampton. 11th European Workshop on Microelectronics Education (EWME), Southampton, 2016, pp. 1– 6. doi 10.1109/EWME.2016.7496459. (In Eng.).
14. Oriogun P., Haynes R., French F. Using the Enhanced Problem-based Learning Grid: Three Multimedia Case Studies. Winds of Changing in the Sea of Learning, Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Auckland, New Zealand, 2002, pp. 8–11. (In Eng.).
15. Cox S. J., Cox J. T., Boardman R., Ossont S., Scott M., O’Brien N. Iridis-pi: A Low-Cost, Compact Demonstration Cluster. Cluster Computing, 2014, vol. 17, pp. 349–358. doi 10.1007/s10586-013-0282-7. (In Eng.).
16. Rosen M. A. Engineering Education: Future Trends and Advances. Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Engineering Education (EDUCATION’09), Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA, 2009, pp. 44–52. doi 10.5555/1864130. (In Eng.).
17. Rewani R., Alam M. A Comparative Review on Generic Attributes in Engineering Education of Different Country. Proceedings of the Joint 8th IFEE2017 and 3rd TSDIC2017 Conferences, Shariah, United Arab Emirates, April 8–20, 2017, pp. 1–10. (In Eng.).
18. Bostroem M., Andersson E., Berf M., Gustafsoon K., Hysing E. Conditions for Transformative Learning for Sustainable Development: a Theoretical Review and Approach. Sustainability, 2018, vol. 10, nr 12, pp. 44–79. doi 10.3390/su10124479. (In Eng.).
19. Robinson M. A., Sparrow P., Clegg Ch., Birdi K. Design Engineering Competencies: Future Requirements and Predicted Changes in the Forthcoming Decade. Design Studies, 2005, vol. 26, nr 2, pp. 123–153. doi 10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.004. (In Eng.).
20. Medland Ch., Tribe J., Dudley A., Smith V., Quince E. ‘Mission Employable’: Creating a Student-led Employability Strategy for the Faculty of Humanities, University of Southampton. Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 2015, vol. 1, nr 1. doi 10.21100/jeipc.v1i1.207. (In Eng.).
21. Preecha T., Lester G., Urairat M. A Study of Students’ Conception of Problem Situations: Using Conceptualization in Scenario-Based Learning. In: G. Hanke, M. Spaniol, K. Osathanunkul, S. Unankard, R. Klamma (eds.), Advances in Web-Based Learning – ICWL 2018, vol. 11007, Springer Verlag, 2018, pp. 47–53. doi 10.1007/978-3-319-96565-9_5. (In Eng.).
22. Runge W. Technology Entrepreneurship. A Treatise on Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship for and in Technology Ventures, 2014, vol. 2, KIT Scientific Publishing, 642 p. doi 10.5445/KSP/1000036460. (In Eng.).
23. DFG ( Deut sche For schu ngsgemei nschaf t). Excellence Initiative at a Glance, Bonn, Brandt GmbH Druckerei und Verlag, 2013. 124 p. (In Eng.).
24. Möller T., Schmidt M., Hornbostel S. Assessing the Effects of the German Excellence Initiative with Bibliometric Methods. Scientometrics, 2016, vol. 109, nr. 3, pp. 2217–2239. doi 10.1007/s11192-016-2090-3. (In Eng.).
25. Rijdt C. de, Stes A., Vleuten C. van der, Duchy F. Influencing Variables and Moderators of Transfer of Learning to the Workplace within the Area of Staff Development in Higher Education: Research Review. Educational Research Review, 2013, nr 8, pp. 48–74. doi 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.007. (In Eng.).
26. Drugova Е. А. Klyuchevye kharakteristiki programm prepodavatel’skogo sovershenstva dlya akademicheskikh liderov [The Key Characteristics of Teaching Excellence Programs for Academic Leaders. A Review of High-Ranking Universities’ Experiences Reflected in International Publications]. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Educational Studies], 2019, nr 4, pp. 8–29. doi 10.17323/1814-9545-2019-4-8-29. (In Russ.).
27. Baran E., Correia A.-P., Thompson A. Transforming Online Teaching Practice: Critical Analysis of the Literature on the Roles and Competences of Online Teachers. Distance Education, 2011, vol. 32, nr 3, pp. 421–439. doi 10.1080/01587919.2011.610293. (In Eng.).
28. Torres J. T., Higheagle Strong Z., Adesope O. Reflection through Assessment: A Systematic Narrative Review of Teacher Feedback and Student Self-Perception. Studies in Higher Education, 2020, vol. 64, Article 100814, pp. 1–7. doi 10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100814. (In Eng.).
29. Trolian T., Jach E., Hanson J., Pascarella E. Inf luencing Academic Motivation: The Effects of Student-Faculty Interaction. Journal of College Student Development, 2016, vol. 57, nr 7, pp. 810–826. doi 10.1353/csd.2016.0080 (In Eng.).
30. Hagenauer G., Volet Simone E. Teacher – Student Relationship at University: an Important yet UnderResearched Field. Oxford Review Education, 2014, vol. 40, nr 3, pp. 370–388. doi 10.1080/03054985.2014.921613. (In Eng.).
Review
For citations:
Lider A.M., Slesarenko I.V., Solovyev M.A. Best Practices of Engineering Training in World Leading Universities. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2021;25(1):18-34. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2021.01.002
Views:
752
Email this article 