Contributors Michael Alley, The Pennsylvania State University; Cindy Atman, University of Washington; David DiBiasio, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Cindy Finelli, University of Michigan; Heidi Diefes‐Dux, Purdue University; Anette Kolmos, Aalborg University; Donna Riley, Smith College; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University; Maryellen Weimer, The Pennsylvania State University; Ken Yasuhara, University of Washington Background Although engineering education has evolved in ways that improve the readiness of graduates to meet the challenges of the twenty‐first century, national and international organizations continue to call for change. Future changes in engineering education should be guided by research on expertise and the learning processes that support its development. Purpose The goals of this paper are: to relate key findings from studies of the development of expertise to engineering education, to summarize instructional practices that are consistent with these findings, to provide examples of learning experiences that are consistent with these instructional practices, and finally, to identify challenges to implementing such learning experiences in engineering programs. Scope/Method The research synthesized for this article includes that on the development of expertise, students' approaches to learning, students' responses to instructional practices, and the role of motivation in learning. In addition, literature on the dominant teaching and learning practices in engineering education is used to frame some of the challenges to implementing alternative approaches to learning. Conclusion Current understanding of expertise, and the learning processes that develop it, indicates that engineering education should encompass a set of learning experiences that allow students to construct deep conceptual knowledge, to develop the ability to apply key technical and professional skills fluently, and to engage in a number of authentic engineering projects. Engineering curricula and teaching methods are often not well aligned with these goals. Curriculum‐level instructional design processes should be used to design and implement changes that will improve alignment.
Presentation slides are often used for teaching engineering classes, presenting engineering research, and explaining engineering designs. For those presentations in which the presenter desires to communicate and defend results, using a succinct sentence headline for all slides but the title slide has three advantages over relying on a phrase headline. The first is that a sentence headline not only can identify the topic, but also can state an assertion about the topic. Emphasizing the assertions in an engineering presentation is advantageous, because audiences are more inclined to believe an argument if they realize the assertions and sub-assertions. Also, for a presentation that serves as a classroom assignment, having the student write sentence headlines provides a written record for the faculty member of that student's assertions in the presentation. A second advantage of using sentence headlines, rather than phrase headlines, is that a sentence headline can clarify much more effectively the role of the slide in the presentation. Such a clarification not only helps the audience during the presentation, but also serves the audience reviewing the slides days or weeks later. Yet a third advantage, and perhaps the most important, is that a sentence headline forces the presenter to come to grips with the main purpose of each slide. If the presenter cannot create a sentence headline that states the slide's main purpose in the presentation, then the presenter should consider cutting that slide from the presentation. For engineering presenters who have used this design, the result has been that significantly fewer slides are presented, thus helping the presenters avoid a frenetic pace, which undermines so many engineering presentations. This paper uses several examples from the Mechanical Engineering Department at Virginia Tech to show these three advantages. The paper also analyzes why faculty and students are reluctant to use sentence headlines. Finally, the paper includes a preliminary assessment on the effectiveness of these sentence headlines in engineering presentations.
Although engineering departments have worked hard at improving the communication skills of their students, a large percentage of industry managers consider the communication skills of engineering graduates to be weak. Why does industry consider these skills to be weak? Also, what particular aspects of written and oral presentation skills does industry consider to be weak in engineering graduates? This paper addresses these two questions through a review of multiple studies that have assessed the communication skills of recent engineering graduates.Our review has found that part of the disparity arises because the communication assignments that engineering students perform in college significantly differ from the writing situations (audiences, purposes, and occasions) that engineering graduates encounter in industry. New engineering graduates do not typically possess the expertise to realize what communication principles from classroom assignments apply, or do not apply, in different professional situations. Yet a third problem is that what constitutes strong communication skills in professional engineering settings may differ considerably from what is taught or expected in classroom settings.Although the literature provides these insights into the disparity, much still needs to be learned about the specific deficiencies in communication skills of entry-level engineers. One step that could be taken is for engineering departments to conduct longitudinal studies about how well their instruction on writing and oral communication prepares students for later classes, for internships and co-ops, and for employment. Departments at different institutions should consider adopting a core of common survey questions so that survey results can be compared.Another recommendation is that when incorporating writing into a course, engineering departments should consider the following two questions:1. What communication skills do we want students to acquire? 2. How can technical assignments be designed to help students achieve those desired communication skills?To answer the first of these questions, engineering departments would do well to identify the specific communication traits that the employers of their graduates see as important. To answer the second question, engineering departments should consult with communication specialists, and preferably those familiar with the kinds of communication that engineers do.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.