Understanding industry experiences: From problem solving to engineering students' learning gains

Surveying Design Skill Development in Work-Integrated Learning Experiences: A Review of the Literature

“…The reviewed publications showed promising ICED21 evidence that students participating in WIL experiences are developing a deep understanding of what it means to design in a larger social context. For example, in Nagel et al (2012), more than 70% of the respondents reported more than an adequate ability or high ability to understand the global and societal impact of engineering solutions. A similar result was found in Pierrakos et al (2008), where around 70% of respondents indicated an understanding of the societal and global impact of engineering solutions (although it was found to be among the fifteen lowest ranked outcomes).…”

“…In a survey study, Yin (2010) reports that WIL graduates had adequate or more than adequate ability to ensure that a process or product meets technical and practical criteria. Nagel et al (2012) conducted a similar study related to the structuredness and complexity of industry experiences, in which they found that 70% of students who participated in their study rank their ability to apply engineering design skills, including computational, numerical, and experimental tools, as having developed significantly from their industry experiences. Likewise, results from Pierrakos et al (2008) highlight that students' ability to apply scientific and engineering knowledge is very high, with 89.5% of respondents ranking the ability with a 4 or 5 (on a 5-point Likert scale).…”

Reviewing affective, behavioural and cognitive learning gains in higher education

“…Cognitive learning gains were measured in 22 studies (e.g., Seymour, Daffinrud, Wiese, & Hunter, 2000;Ojennus, 2016), comprising 39 student samples, totalling 18,024 higher education students. Pre-post testing was used in four studies (Wattiaux and Crump 2006;Lim, Hosack, and Vogt 2012;Hatch et al 2014;Stolk and Martello 2015;), and two studies used a form of pre-post testing through reflection (Douglass, Thomson, and Zhao 2012;Nagel et al 2012) all totalling to seven student samples. Only in one sample (Stolk and Martello 2015) did students report lower cognitive ability at the post-test than at the pre-test, but the difference was not significant.…”

Transforming Engineering Education Is Possible! A Descriptive Case Study of Reimagining Engineering Education and Delivering a Wake Forest Engineering Student Experience Promoting Inclusion, Agency, Holistic Learning, and Success

“…(a) Engineering student motivation using theories like expectancy value theory, achievement goal orientation, self-determination theory (France et al, 2010;Pierrakos 2016;Pierrakos 2017;Williamson et al, 2016;McGrath et al, 2013;Panizo et al, 2015) (b) Engineering student identity development (Pierrakos et al, 2009;Curtis et al, 2017a;Curtis et al, 2017b;Beam et al, 2009;Stoup and Pierrakos, 2016) (c) Engineering education pedagogy focusing on project and problem based learning, flipped classrooms, service learning projects and community engagement (Pierrakos et a., 2016;Eladaway et al, 2015;Tucker et al, 2014;Pierrakos and Barrella 2014;Nagel et al, 2011;Swan et al, 2011;Pierrakos et al, 2010a;Pierrakos et al, 2010b;Zilberberg et al, 2010;Watson et al, 2010;) (d) Cognition and learning investigating adaptive expertise, cognitive flexibility, complex problem solving (Majdic et al, 2017;Barrella, Watson, and Pierrakos, 2017;Pierrakos, Anderson, and Welch, 2016;Pierrakos and Barrella 2014;Nagel et al 2012;Zilberberg et al, 2010;Trenor and Pierrakos 2008) (e) Assessment of engineering student learning (Pierrakos, Anderson, and Welch, 2016;Pierrakos, Anderson, Barrella, 2016;Pierrakos et al, 2012;Pappas, Pierrakos, and Nagel, 2011;Pierrakos, Borrego, and Lo, 2008a;Pierrakos, Borrego, Lo, 2008b;Pierrakos, Borrego, and Lo, 2007a;Pierrakos, Borrego, and Lo, ...…”