Using an Academic Plan Model to Analyze Canadian Engineering Leadership Curriculum

Klassen, Mike; Donald, John

doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.12981

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traits of effective engineer leaders include several skills typically described by the process of project management (Engineering Management Institute, 2016). Utilizing the model differentiating academic plans from key influences from Lattuca and Stark (2009), Klassen and Donald (2018) developed a curriculum development framework to assess leadership offerings in engineering schools. A comparative study of six programs revealed that lecture remained the most prevalent teaching modality.…”

Section: The Case For Leadership Curriculamentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership education in professional and graduate schools

Simen

Meyer²

2021

New Drctns Student Lead

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Case For Leadership Curriculamentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership education in professional and graduate schools

Simen

Meyer²

2021

New Drctns Student Lead

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Klassen and Donald [17] used the academic plan model to compare engineering leadership curricula in Canadian universities. Their focus was on specific courses and cocurricular programs whereas we recognized that some engineering science units in the consortium are entire schools with multiple departments, programs, and specialisations.…”

Section: The Academic Plan Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is Engineering Science? Defining a Discipline Through a Cross-Institutional Comparison and a Multi-Institutional Workshop

Romkey

Dawe

Khan

2020

PCEEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Division of Engineering Science at the University of Toronto offers a complex, multidisciplinary undergraduate program, commonly known as "EngSci”. We are in the first of a multi-year project titled ROLE (Realigning Outcomes with Learning Experiences), designed to proactively realign curriculum, pedagogy, students, and brand with our program goals. The first step in this process is to understand the state of Engineering Science as an academic discipline more broadly, and to better understand its role in the broader engineering and science landscape. To better understand the discipline, we have used the academic plan model to compare eight engineering science programs from around the globe. The academic plan model supports the identification of internal and external factors that shape academic programs and frames the academic plan itself as seven related components that make up curriculum. Utilizing public-facing documentation such as websites and grey literature, we compared the IESC (International Engineering Science Consortium) programs and found differences in fundamental curriculum content, sub-disciplinary foci, organizational structure, and sources of external influence. Concurrently, we conducted a workshop with members from the IESC to facilitate dialogue on the state of the discipline. This workshop resulted in a number of interesting artifacts, documenting the perspective of the participants. Some key themes that emerged included a strong focus on fundamentals and first principles; a focus on non-traditional and rapidly developing sub-disciplines, using the notion that Engineering Science can act as an “incubator” for new disciplines; and a diversity of views on the relationship between science and engineering within Engineering Science programs. Finally, the paper paves a way forward for the next phase of the work, which involves interviewing program faculty and alumni to further understand perceptions of the discipline and the positioning of the discipline in the broader science and engineering landscape.

show abstract

“…Case Studies, Real-World Labs, Service Learning [26], [32], [15], [17], [28], [34], [31], [35] Course Delivery [26], [27], [29], [36], [37], [30], [33], [38], [39] Assessment [13], [16], [40], [41], [22], [42], [23], [43], [44] Theory Based or Survey Results [11], [45], [46], [47], [10], [19], [48], [1], [39], [49], [24], [25], [50], [51], [52] Out-of-class activities [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] While there have been many successful interventions that improved student motivation discussed in the CEEA 2010-2018 proceedings, the relevant motivation theory behind each intervention is often missing. Understanding motivation theory may not be necessary ...…”

Section: Type Of Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Motivation Theory to Inform Engineering Course Design

Sullivan

Brennan

2019

PCEEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding motivation theory can support engineering educators in effective course design and provide insight into the individual and contrasting motivations of engineering students. This paper explores why there is value for educators to understand motivation theory and how learner orientations influence motivation. A categorization of 2010-2018 CEEA conference proceedings that address student motivation then sets the background for how instructors can use motivation theory to inform course design in lower level technical courses, upper level technical courses, design courses, and assessment.

show abstract

Using an Academic Plan Model to Analyze Canadian Engineering Leadership Curriculum

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

Leadership education in professional and graduate schools

Leadership education in professional and graduate schools

What Is Engineering Science? Defining a Discipline Through a Cross-Institutional Comparison and a Multi-Institutional Workshop

Using Motivation Theory to Inform Engineering Course Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About