To better equip engineers to enter a dynamic technological and economic environment, educators must improve their understanding of the wide-ranging work of engineers and the flexible skills it demands. To that end, we studied engineering practice in six firms of varying size and industry. We analyzed the similarities and differences of engineering practice across these sites, and gathered narrative examples of what it means to be an engineer at these locations. Our data indicates more similarities across sites than differences. Although workplace cultures differed, most engineers saw their work similarly. They saw their work as problem solving, almost always done in explicitly organized teams or in informal collaboration with others. Engineers cited clear communication as the most important skill, with budgets and time limitations generally noted as the most significant constraints. Engineers generally valued solving a problem, learning, and working in a team more than other aspects of their jobs. This understanding of engineering work can be used to better equip engineers for the workforce and improve organizational practices.

We evaluated the pilot semester of a freshman introduction to engineering course in order to provide an understanding of the students' experience in the course and identify aspects of this experience that could lead to improved student retention in engineering. The course concentrates on having students work in teams to identify customer needs, find solutions, and design and build a final product. We used qualitative research methods for data collection and analysis that included interviewing students using a set of open-ended questions, thus allowing them to introduce issues and describe their experiences. Our analysis indicated that students experienced engineering in a supportive, team-oriented environment that provided a context for making informed career decisions. The students' experiences indicate that courses such as this one can help students face the challenges they encounter in beginning their engineering education. I. INTRODUCTIONIndicators of student success in engineering have been limited largely to quantitative factors such as retention data and trends in engineering degree production. These figures, though crucial, are effects and do not by themselves carry any information about the causes that produced them. In particular, the figures do not reveal the internal processes or characteristics of courses that may lead to student success or failure in engineering. We feel that in order to obtain useable information about the internal processes and characteristics of courses, extensive work with students must be carried out.In this article we present the results of an evaluation of the fall 1994 pilot offering of a freshman introduction to engineering course at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The course, Engineering Professional Development (EPD) 160, concentrates on having students work in teams to identify the needs of a real customer, find solutions, and design and build a final product. We document the students' experiences and how they interpret the course. Our study is student-centered, focusing on their descriptions and perceptions of the course. A. The Retention IssueMany reports have addressed the high attrition rate of students who enter college as engineering majors, pointing out that less than half of these students persist in their engineering curriculum until graduation. Since engineering attracts relatively few recruits from other fields, it is heavily dependent on retaining the students who begin in engineering.What factors explain this high attrition rate? A common assumption is that students who leave engineering lack the ability, preparation, or capacity for hard work. However, Semour and Hewitt found that students who switch out of engineering are similar to those who persist, with no significant differences in high school preparation, performance scores or effort expended.1,2 They propose that both groups experience the same set of problems, including what the students perceive as poor teaching, unapproachable faculty, and a fast-paced, "weed out" curriculum. Student ...

No abstract

While most professional and academic sources have expressed a need for engineers who possess strong communication skills, what these skills are actually defined as on-the-job remains somewhat vague in the literature. In this mixed-method study of practicing engineers from industry and governmental engineering workplaces, we heard and observed some answers to help define what communication skills engineers are actually practicing in their jobs. Through qualitative data collected over the past two years in six workplace case studies (including over 50 hours of observation and more than 50 interviews), interviews of engineers and their managers (N=91), and surveys of engineers and engineering managers (N=162), three main themes emerged to provide insights into what engineers mean when they say they value "effective communication" in other engineers. The first theme was what numerous engineers in our study described as "the big picture," or the ability to effectively speak, write, and interact with audiences who were outside of their specific discipline, work group, or focus. Our second theme centers on an engineer's willingness and self-motivation to initiate communication with others and to seek out resource information through informal interactions. Finally, the third theme involves the ability of engineers to listen carefully to others in order to do their best work and achieve results that are valued by their stakeholders (clients, managers, co-workers). Understanding these three themes can inform more authentic and engaging ways of teaching engineering students. Teaching improvements are needed, as one interviewee put it, because "Good engineers typically are more than just engineers….I need someone who I can drop in [who] can communicate effectively today."

Madison. His research focuses on primary through university STEM education policy and practice, and the alignment of education with professional practice. He previously taught science and math at the secondary level and earned the distinction of National Board Certified Teacher.