scholarly journals WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS, UNDERGRADUATE LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE AND THE ENGINEERING PORTFOLIO

Author(s):  
Anne Parker ◽  
Kathryn Marcynuk

Abstract – In this paper, we will summarize some of the results, first, from our course syllabi project that we conducted at the University of Manitoba and, secondly, from our study of second-year students’ levels of confidence in a communication class. In the course syllabi project, we discovered that course outlines in our Engineering school gave little information on the assignments expected of students, so much so that students may have found completing them to be difficult. In the second study, we found that students generally lacked confidence in writing tasks, especially at the beginning of term.  These two studies suggest that we need to find a way to guide students in the writing of the assignments that we expect of them if they are to develop the necessary confidence in their ability to write well within a professional context. One way to do that may be the introduction of a portfolio requirement within the Engineering curriculum, A portfolio will serve as a record of students’ ongoing achievements in written assignments throughout their academic programs and, as they compile their portfolios, they can reflect on that achievement and move forward – more communicatively competent and more confident.  

Author(s):  
Kathryn Marcynuk ◽  
Anne Parker

This paper reports on two iterations of our study of course syllabi in the Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba. The first iteration was part of a national study investigating the writing demands placed on students in a variety of disciplines, including those in the Social Sciences and the Humanities as well as Engineering. This first iteration followed an accreditation visit and the Faculty’s introduction of the C.E.A.B. graduate attributes and outcome-based assessment. Although one would expect Engineering to have far fewer written assignments than these other disciplines, such was not always the case. For example, the national study captured results for Political Science that closely matched those for Mechanical Engineering; Political Science students typically wrote, on average, 2.3 written assignments in year 2 of their program, 2.4 written assignments in year 3, and 4.2 written assignments in year 4, while Mechanical Engineering students wrote 4, 3 and 4.2 written assignments in those same years. Such a finding suggested that more writing was happening in the Faculty of Engineering than we might realize – and quiteapart from that done in the mandatory communication class. So, our second iteration of the study followed another accreditation cycle, but this time we focused solely on the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba. In this second iteration, our goal was to refresh the data so that we could clarify how Attribute 7, “communication skills,” is being met in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba.  


Author(s):  
Jillian Seniuk Cicek ◽  
Sandra Ingram ◽  
Nariman Sepehri

This paper describes the process in the second year of a three year study at the University of Manitoba that looks at how the 12 CEAB graduate attributes are manifested and measured in the engineering curriculum. The four attributes chosen for this year’s study were Problem Analysis, Use of Engineering Tools, Communication Skills, and Ethics and Equity. Nine instructors from each of the Departments of Biosystems, Civil, Electrical and Computer, and Mechanical Engineering were asked to consider the presence of these attributes in one of their engineering courses taught in Fall 2012. The checklist for this study was revised based on the results of the pilot study conducted in 2011-12, and in an effort to begin to define student attribute competency levels and demonstrate outcomes-based assessment. Similar to last year, this study found that the hard skills in engineering were assessed more frequently than the soft skills, and inparticular, there was little assessment evidence of Ethics and Equity. The majority of instructors reported using assignments and reports as evaluation tools, and communicating evaluations to students using numerical marks and written comments. Competency levels were defined in a variety of ways, highlighting the need to establish a common language for assessment. Finally, this paper reports on the challenges observed in the construction and administration of the survey and outlines next steps.


Author(s):  
Kathryn Marcynuk ◽  
Anne Parker

This paper reports on two iterations of our study of course syllabi in the Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba. The first iteration was part of a national study investigating the writing demands placed on students in a variety of disciplines, including those in the Social Sciences and the Humanities as well as Engineering. This first iteration followed an accreditation visit and the Faculty’s introduction of the C.E.A.B. graduate attributes and outcome-based assessment. Although one would expect Engineering to have far fewer written assignments than these other disciplines, such was not always the case. For example, the national study captured results for Political.  Science that closely matched those for Mechanical Engineering; Political Science students typically wrote, on average, 2.3 written assignments in year 2 of their program, 2.4 written assignments in year 3, and 4.2 written assignments in year 4, while Mechanical Engineering students wrote 4, 3 and 4.2 written assignments in those same years. Such a finding suggested that more writing was happening in the Faculty of Engineering than we might realize – and quite apart from that done in the mandatory communication class. So, our second iteration of the study followed another accreditation cycle, but this time we focused solely on the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba.  In this second iteration, our goal was to refresh the data so that we could clarify how Attribute 7, “communication skills,” is being met in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba.  


2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 76-93
Author(s):  
Ruby Grymonpre ◽  
Christine Ateah ◽  
Heather Dean ◽  
Tuula Heinonen ◽  
Maxine Holmqvist ◽  
...  

Interprofessional education (IPE) is a growing focus for educators in health professional academic programs. Recommendations to successfully implement IPE are emerging in the literature, but there remains a dearth of evidence informing the bigger challenges of sustainability and scalability. Transformation to interprofessional education for collaborative person-centred practice (IECPCP) is complex and requires “harmonization of motivations” within and between academia, governments, healthcare delivery sectors, and consumers. The main lesson learned at the University of Manitoba was the value of using a formal implementation framework to guide its work. This framework identifies key factors that must be addressed at the micro, meso, and macro levels and emphasizes that interventions occurring only at any single level will likely not lead to sustainable change. This paper describes lessons learned when using the framework and offers recommendations to support other institutions in their efforts to enable the roll out and integration of IECPCP.  


Author(s):  
Mohamed Galaleldin ◽  
Justine Boudreau ◽  
Hanan Anis

Makerspaces are informal sites in which people with similar interests can collaboratively build creative projects by using emerging technologies. In recent years, makerspaces have been created on most campuses and often linked to STEM learning practices. However, integrating makerspaces in engineering curriculum is often not done formally. In this paper, we discuss how the University of Ottawa integrated its makerspace into its cornerstone design curriculum and its design challenges. Cornerstone engineering design includes first- and second-year courses where students learn and apply design knowledge while working in teams. Each team is expected to develop three prototypes during the semester and solve a design problem for a client. Maker components are integrated in the labs, where many makerspace technologies, such as 3D printing and laser cutting, are taught and used in the development of the prototypes. In addition, the makerspace offers a yearly multidisciplinary client-based design challenge that is open to all students. This paper explores the integration of maker ideology and technology in curricular and extracurricular design activities. The paper outlines the connection between making and engineering design, the maker capacity for inclusion and sharing, the role of making activities in developing the identity of future engineers and the integration of course work into the makerspace.


Author(s):  
Anne Parker ◽  
Kathryn Marcynuk

This paper will report on some of our findings from a national study investigating the writing demands placed on students in various disciplines,   including   Engineering.   This  is  a  timely study given that Reave notes that a “well-­‐designed program  [in  Engineering]  will  include  a  solid foundation  in  communication  skills,”  something  she says also requires high quality feedback. For our part of the study, we investigated which courses in our Engineering school target Attribute 7 (A7, Communication Skills) and then analyzed the course syllabi to determine whether they required written assignments. We then described these assignments according to 20 variables, such as the total number of assignments  written per year, feedback provided and genre.Ever   since   the   accreditation   board introduced them, the graduate attributes and their assessment  have  become  the  focus  of  most Engineering   schools,   so  much  so  that  Engineering course syllabi will necessarily include both a series of course outcomes and a complex chart of the expected competency levels. However, information on the assignments themselves can be far less detailed. Consequently,     our    findings    tend    to    be    more suggestive than definitive, though certain trends do stand out. For example, while many writing scholars, such as Paretti and Reave, would argue that students should   learn   the  various   discipline-­‐specific   writing genres  and  then  be  able  to  shape  their  material  to satisfy the specific rhetorical demands, many course syllabi in our study simply listed “assignments”  rather than  specifying  the  kind  of  assignment:  Civil Engineering listed 16 “assignments” of 33 (total) and Mechanical Engineering 47 of 105.Finally,  even  though  this  paucity  of  detail may  reflect  what  Broadhead  calls  the  general “paucity of requirements for writing instruction” in an Engineering  school,  one of the goals  of the national study   was   to   initiate   discussions   about   the   way writing     is    taught     and     supported     within     the departments   of   the   schools   involved.   Our   study’s findings,   suggestive   as   they   are,   may   be   able   to initiate that discussion.


Author(s):  
Danny D Mann ◽  
Kris J Dick ◽  
Sandra A Ingram

In previous years, several improvements to the teaching of engineering design were made by staff in the Department of Biosystems Engineering at The University of Manitoba. The first innovation occurred when a trilogy of courses spanning the final three years of the program was introduced as a replacement for a single capstone course in the final year of the program. In its original conception, engineering students were to get three opportunities to be involved in design problems originating from industry, with greater expectations with each subsequent experience. A second innovation occurred when technical communication was formally integrated within the trilogy of design courses. This innovation has helped engineering students realize the value of professional communication skills in collaborating with each other and in preparing reports and presentations for an industry client. A third innovation occurred three years ago when the decision was made to allow students to participate in the prototyping of their designs. The so-called “Design Trilogy” now consists of a single course (Design Trilogy I) taken during the second year of the engineering program (which builds upon the first-year design experience with the requirement of a conceptual solution in response to a design problem provided by industry) and two courses taken during the final year of the program. Students are required to have a design completed on paper by the completion of Design Trilogy II and fabrication of the prototype occurs during Design Trilogy III. The student experience in the Design Trilogy, with particular emphasis on curriculum innovations in Design Trilogy III, will be discussed.


Author(s):  
Sandra Ingram ◽  
Jillian Seniuk Cicek ◽  
Nariman Sepehri

This paper describes a recent effort at the University of Manitoba to identify how CEAB graduate attributes are manifested and measured in the engineering curriculum. For this study, four attributes were chosen: Investigation and Design, part of the engineering hard skills, and Professionalism and Lifelong learning as representative of the professional skills of engineering. One third year course each from the Departments of Biosystems, Civil, Mechanical, and Electrical and Computer Engineering were selected to examine the four target attributes during the 2011 Fall term. The respective instructors were involved in completing a self-administered checklist with the intent to survey instructors’ understanding of how the four CEAB attributes were manifest in their courses, and mapping the targeted attributes to the identified courses. Results show that there is much more research needed in this area, with continued emphasis on the manifestation of the twelve CEAB attributes in individual courses, as well as research on student proficiency, and methods of communicating assessment. Although this study did not set out to compare the attributes to one another, there was some evidence that of the four attributes being measured across the four courses, hard skills were more prominently assessed than professional skills.


10.28945/3529 ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 217-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen L MacLennan ◽  
Anthony A Pina ◽  
Kenneth A Moran ◽  
Patrick F Hafford

Is the Doctor of Business Administration (D.B.A) a viable degree option for those wishing a career in academe? The D.B.A. degree is often considered to be a professional degree, in-tended for business practitioners, while the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree is por-trayed as the degree for preparing college or university faculty. Conversely, many academic programs market their D.B.A. programs to future academicians. In this study, we investigat-ed whether the D.B.A. is, in fact, a viable faculty credential by gathering data from univer-sity catalogs and doctoral program websites and handbooks from 427 graduate business and management programs to analyze the terminal degrees held by 6159 faculty. The analysis indicated that 173 institutions (just over 40% of the total) employed 372 faculty whose ter-minal degree was the D.B.A. This constituted just over 6% of the total number of faculty. Additionally, the program and faculty qualification standards of the six regional accrediting agencies and the three programmatic accrediting agencies for business programs (AACSB, IACBE, and ACBSP) were analyzed. Results indicated that all these accrediting agencies treated the D.B.A. and Ph.D. in business identically and that the D.B.A. was universally considered to be a valid credential for teaching business at the university level. Suggestions for future research are also offered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document