AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CROSS-DISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT IN UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17501.24246700.2023.9107Keywords:
engineering education, cross-disciplinary units, operations management, project management, computer simulation, hybridisationAbstract
Cross-disciplinary courses in university engineering programmes provide supplemental knowledge that core technical subjects alone cannot provide. However, studies have shown that engineering students do not interact with such courses even when they appear complex, which affects educational success. Therefore, this study's main objective is to determine the root causes of such limited levels of engagement, using fishbone diagrams (FBDs), fault tree analysis (FTA), and reliability block diagrams (RBDs) for data collection and analysis. Data was collected from a multidisciplinary cohort of mechanical, aerospace, and civil engineering students over a 5-year period. The top root causes were identified as "perception of engineering" and "nature of contents." The findings of this study were then used to create a revamped industry-inspired curriculum and multi-faceted assessment that is now currently deployed.
Downloads
References
Ammar, S., and Wright, R. (1999). Experiential learning activities in operations management. International Transactions in Operational Research, 6(2), 183-197.
Friedman, P., Rodriguez, F., and McComb, J. (2001). Why students do and do not attend classes: Myths and realities. College teaching, 49(4), 124-133.
Hoddinott, J., and Young, D. (2001). Generic skills teaching in materials science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 707-711.
Iheukwumere-Esotu, L. O., and Yunusa-Kaltungo, A. (2020). Assessment of barriers to knowledge and experience transfer in major maintenance activities. Energies, 13(7), 1721.
Ku, H., and Fulcher, R. (2012). Using computer software packages to enhance the teaching in Engineering Management Science—part 2: Programming techniques. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 20(1), 114-123.
Pawley, A. L. (2009). Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty members define “engineering”. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 309-319.
Pearson, G. (2008). Changing the conversation: messages for improving public understanding of engineering.
Porter, S. R., and Umbach, P. D. (2006). Student survey response rates across institutions: Why do they vary?. Research in Higher education, 47(2), 229-247.
Pulko, S. H., and Parikh, S. (2003). Teaching ‘soft’skills to engineers. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 40(4), 243-254.
Shinde, D. D., Ahirrao, S., and Prasad, R. (2018). Fishbone diagram: application to identify the root causes of student–staff problems in technical education. Wireless personal communications, 100(2), 653-664.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 A Yunusa-Kaltungo, CM Cheung, RM Jungudo, Q Qingyao, DK Abideen, AH Gumel, S Al-Sanad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
