Bridging the Gaps between Engineering Education and Practice

Brunhaver, Samantha Ruth; Korte, Russell; Barley, Stephen R.; Sheppard, Sheri

doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226468471.003.0005

Cited by 86 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As observed by Brunhaver et al [9], it has been found in a survey that 40% of the employees working in engineering projects feel that they are not appropriately skilled or trained for the roles that they have been assigned. To identify the skill gaps, it is essential to analyse the skills that are the most important in such roles.…”

Section: Skills Gap Overviewmentioning

confidence: 94%

Improving Knowledge Transfer Processes to Address Skills and Knowledge Gaps Between Senior and Junior Staff in Engineering Projects

Zackarias¹,

Bond-Barnard²,

Waveren³

2022

SAJIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skills and knowledge gaps between senior and junior staff is prevalent in engineering projects. This study aimed to identify the factors that affect knowledge transfer and methods to retain transferred knowledge between senior and junior staff in the South African engineering environment. Although several studies have examined the factors that influence knowledge transfer, very few have studied the factors affecting knowledge transfer between senior and junior staff in engineering projects. This study found that knowledge transfer is not made a priority in projects, and that there is a lack of knowledge transfer platforms and structures in projects. Incentivising knowledge transfer by making it a work outcome would improve knowledge transfer in projects. Keywords Knowledge Transfer; Engineering Projects

show abstract

Section: Skills Gap Overviewmentioning

confidence: 94%

Improving Knowledge Transfer Processes to Address Skills and Knowledge Gaps Between Senior and Junior Staff in Engineering Projects

Zackarias¹,

Bond-Barnard²,

Waveren³

2022

SAJIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, the discourse of grit is fundamentally about teaching students to accept and function within the status quo. In engineering education, the status quo has been critiqued on many fronts, from generating a lack of interest in public welfare concerns (Cech, 2014) and empathy (Walther et al, 2020), to having a very narrow sense of ethics (Foley & Gibbs, 2019), to having a culture of stress (Jensen & Cross, 2021), to being racist/raced, sexist/gendered, and ableist (Beddoes, 2012(Beddoes, , 2019Holly, 2020;McCall et al, 2020;Mills et al, 2010;Pawley, 2019;Riley, 2008), to not adequately preparing students for the workplace (Brunhaver et al, 2018), among other things. Grit fundamentally normalises those aspects of engineering education by not challenging them and teaching students they should adapt to them.…”

Section: Contributing To Lack Of Change In Diversity Equity and Inclu...mentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s wrong with grit? – Considerations and Better Alternatives for Engineering Education Research

Beddoes

Schimpf

2022

9th Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES 2021) and 32nd Australasian Association for Engineering Education Confere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grit is conceptualized as a combination of passion and perseverance. Engineering education researchers are increasingly interested in studying grit as factor in student persistence, retention and success. The number of engineering education publications on grit is steadily rising each year, and there has been enough research on the topic that a systematic literature review was recently conducted. Despite the growing interest however, studying grit is problematic for a variety of methodological and philosophical reasons. PURPOSEThe purpose of this paper is to identify and explain eight methodological and philosophical problems with the concept of grit in the context of engineering education research. Our aim in doing so is to help engineering education researchers reflect more critically on its use and identify research questions that avoid the methodological and philosophical pitfalls identified. The paper contributes to this year's theme of 'capability development' by providing researchers with critical perspectives for better understanding the current research landscape and planning future studies. APPROACHThis paper treats grit as a discourse and utilizes a post-structural discourse analysis approach to analyse its problematic assumptions and functioning. The evidence supporting the analysis and argument is historical, sociological, philosophical, and methodological in nature. Drawing on perspectives and insights from these other disciplines allows us to introduce critiques not yet widely recognized in engineering education. OUTCOMESThe eight methodological, philosophical and functional problems with grit that this paper elucidates are divided into three aspects. The first aspect is assumptions and blind spots in study conceptualization. The second aspect is construct and evidentiary issues. The third aspect is effects on the engineering education system. CONCLUSIONSThe reasons to reconsider researching grit are numerous and multifaceted. Perpetuating the problematic features of grit research is not in the best interest of students or the field. Both will be better served by framing persistence and retention studies with questions about institutional, structural, and cultural factors instead.

show abstract

“…Despite the fact that there is a consensus regarding teamwork as an essential component of engineering education [3][4][5]17] teamwork skills seem hard to define [18,19]. Engineering faculty tend to teach teamwork skills in less structured ways than other constructs such as effective communication [19].…”

Section: Teamwork As a Learning Outcome For Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Teamwork Different Online Versus Face-to-Face? A Case in Engineering Education

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teamwork has been systematically studied in engineering education as an educational method and a learning outcome. Based on the recent advances in socially-shared regulation as a framework for teamwork processes, this study explores the impact of the transition to online learning. The purpose of this study is to understand if face-to-face and online team dynamics differ concerning the prevalence of personal goals, team challenges, and individual/social strategies. The Adaptive Instrument for Regulation of Emotions (AIRE) Questionnaire was used to compare two semesters in project-based learning engineering courses that were face-to-face (2019) and then converted to an online modality (2020) due to the COVID-19 crisis. Our results show that both modalities report mostly the same prevalence of goals, challenges, and strategies. However, online students tend to manifest a significantly lower prevalence of specific challenges and strategies, suggesting that online teamwork may have involved less group deliberation. These results provide evidence for the "equivalency theory" between online and face-to-face learning in a context where all systemic levels transitioned to a digital modality. These findings raise the question of whether online teaching encourages the emergence of team conflict and deliberation needed for creative thinking.

show abstract

Bridging the Gaps between Engineering Education and Practice

Cited by 86 publications

References 25 publications

Improving Knowledge Transfer Processes to Address Skills and Knowledge Gaps Between Senior and Junior Staff in Engineering Projects

Improving Knowledge Transfer Processes to Address Skills and Knowledge Gaps Between Senior and Junior Staff in Engineering Projects

What’s wrong with grit? – Considerations and Better Alternatives for Engineering Education Research

Is Teamwork Different Online Versus Face-to-Face? A Case in Engineering Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About