Scholarly Dimensions of Academics' Beliefs about Engineering Education

Abstract

The educational beliefs of seven mechanical engineering academics are examined in the context of their department and the history of the engineering education. Despite commonalities at one level, key differences were found among the academics' educational beliefs about the nature of the profession, learning goals for students, teaching approaches, and their analysis of student dif® culties. Illustrative case examples are included. It is concluded that the faculty beliefs found in this department of mechanical engineering recapitulate major developments in and professional differences about the ® eld. Implications for research on teaching and educational development are discussed.

Orientations to research higher degree supervision

“…This, together with work like Quinlan's (2002) -which documents differences in academics' beliefs about the undergraduate engineering curriculumought to dispel the commonly held misconception that engineers are alike in their love of machines and algorithms over their concern for people (Horschette 1994).…”

“…The research is thus potentially constrained by the specific academic and cultural contexts involved. Nevertheless, it has the potential to contribute to investigations of RHD supervision in engineering (e.g., Whittle 1992;Delamont et al 1997;Pole et al 1997;Exley and O'Malley 1999;Smeby 2000) as well as to belief studies in specific disciplines in higher education (e.g., Irby 1994; van Driel et al 1997;Quinlan 1999Quinlan , 2002Hativa 2002). Moreover, given the well documented differences between the disciplines in their educational and epistemological practices (Becher and Trowler 2001), we were interested in whether the range of orientations (anticipated in working assumption (b) above) would be limited to those centred on the highly structured and task-focussed practices often attributed to the technology disciplines (Macauley 2001;Smeby 2000) or would be more diverse in character.…”

“…The beliefs approach has assisted researchers to understand why school teachers usually teach as they do (e.g., Nespor 1987;Pajares 1992;Calderhead 1996), and why university teachers value and enact particular approaches to teaching and learning (e.g., Fox 1983;Samuelowicz and Bain 1992Gow and Kember 1993;Kember and Gow 1994; van Driel et al 1997;Quinlan 1997Quinlan , 2002Samuelowicz 1999).…”

Systemic Intervention in a University Department: Reflections on Arrested Action Research

“…Changing the thinking of engineers is difficult and demanding even in supportive contexts (Ragsdell 2000). And engineers in education bring conflicting conceptions and beliefs to their work (Quinlan 2002). Much of the literature on change points to the importance of leadership from academic heads in enabling change in departmental cultures (Askling and Stensaker 2002;Knight and Trowler 2000;Newton 2002).…”

La formation à l’enseignement des professeurs d’université : un aperçu

“…Les pressions exercées sur les professeurs, pour obtenir des subventions et publier, sont fortes et bien connues, et elles varient en intensité selon les domaines et les universités. Plusieurs professeurs, par ailleurs experts dans leur discipline à laquelle ils s'identifient exclusivement (Quinlan, 2002), résistent à la formation et aux programmes de développement professionnel, car ils sont surchargés de travail et jugent la formation importante pour leurs collègues et non pour eux (Frey et Overfield, 2002). Faute de temps et d'intérêt, les professeurs qui en ont besoin ne les fréquentent pas, et un faible pourcentage seulement s'en prévaut.…”