International journal of engineering education pdf

Householder and Christine E. Review of the book Fostering human development through engineering and technology education , D. Householder and C. Kelley; Journal of Technology Studies. Metacognition in an engineering design project , O. Lawanto and S. Johnson; International Journal of Engineering Education. Understanding of the relationship between interest and expectancy for success in engineering design activity in grades , O.

Lawanto, H. Santoso, and Y. Liu; Educational Technology and Society. Engineering design: Diverse design teams to solve real-world problems , M. McSpadden and T. Kelley; Technology Teacher. Student attitude and achievement with computer-based instrumentation , P. Schreuders and M. Lammi; Journal of Engineering Education.

How programming fits with technology education curriculum , G. Wright, P. Rich, and K. Leatham; Technology and Engineering Teacher. Open courseware and STEM initiatives in career and technical education.

Brown, J. Brown, K. Reardon, and C. Teaching engineering concepts in high school project , R. Custer and J. Daugherty; Journal of Technology Education. Mapping engineering concepts for secondary level education , J. Experts vs. Dixon and S. Johnson; Journal of Technology Education. Using the discipline of agricultural engineering to integrate math and science , T.

Foutz, M. Navarro, R. Hill, S. Thompson, K. Miller, and D. They will be copy-edited and typeset. The proofs in PDF format will be sent to the authors before publication.

Manuscripts intended for a special issue are to be submitted directly to the guest-editor s as indicated in the specific Call-for Papers. The accepted, revised manuscripts will be forwarded to the Editor for further processing. By submitting a manuscript the authors declare that the manuscript was not published before, that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere, and that if accepted for publication in the IJEE, will not be published anywhere else.

If accepted for publication in the IJEE, the authors agree to transfer the copyright to the Journal and to honour the page charges. Jawitz Table 2. Project types. Assessment of research Experimentation, literature and results in a professional, written form. Interviews with staff in programme C, prototype, reverse engineering a discipline with several distinct sub-disciplines, revealed a variety of views about the nature of the final year project and what it should be assessing.

Different specializations within the programme were required to be involved in super- department favoured different kinds of projects, vising and marking with staff: student ratios some with a significant design component and ranging from to While The organisational culture in some departments all projects were linked in some way to a super- was relatively formal with regular staff meetings visor's particular research interest, some super- and clear guidelines issued on most aspects of visors intentionally used the project to identify academic life A and B while in others, such as future postgraduate students for their research programme C, there was minimal evidence of groups.

Other supervisors had defined projects in departmental guidelines and each staff member close consultation with industry. These projects was left to develop their own ways of working thus had as objectives often unstated the profes- with very little organised support or discussion. It is Project definitions and learning outcomes clear that these different project definitions have The documentation from the small and medium inevitably resulted in the application of different programmes included relatively clear definitions often implicit assessment criteria.

In the inter- around the type of projects set in the final year. Assessment tasks Most of the programmes surveyed had students A wide range of assessment tasks was evident do two separate projects in final year, usually a across the projects. In contrast, in programmes made explicit links with the overall programmes A, B and D, students were assessed programme outcomes. For example: both summatively and formatively using a range of methods throughout the project Table 3. Nowhere did we find across the programmes was the level of support evidence that any of the programmes attempted to given to students during the final year project.

This assess student ability to work in groups, as included being given clear details of what the end explicitly required by the new ECSA engineering product should look like, information on how to graduate outcomes Appendix A. In In most cases marking schedules were found to the remaining programmes students were left to exist but it was unclear whether they were used in fend for themselves and expected to draw on their any consistent way.

These marking schedules experiences and resources obtained from other consisted of a grid specifying the different areas courses. In some departments students had that marks need to be allocated to e. Interviews with project coordinators and taught earlier. However there was conflicting staff revealed that some staff felt at liberty to evidence on whether the formats used in this decide whether or not to use the marking schedule.

For example, students were used. In most cases the levels of support were left views suggested that this understanding was not to the discretion of the supervisor. It was marked and formed discrepancy between the first and second markers.

A number of reasons were given for this discre- In the case of the Individual Research Project in pancy. While both the first marker, which in the programme E the submission of a draft thesis to case of programme C was the supervisor, and the the supervisor was explicitly discouraged as the second marker mark the same written project, they entire final year project was regarded as examin- have access to different contextual information able.

This view was shared by some staff in about the project. The supervisor knows the programme C who argued strongly that the student, has watched the student's progress, thesis was to be treated as an examination script knows the project and so on, whereas the second and therefore drafts should not be reviewed by marker may have little information other than the staff. However as there was no official departmen- written project itself. Some assessors felt strongly tal position on the matter some staff accepted that only the written product should be assessed drafts and gave extensive feedback, whilst others while others felt that the related contextual infor- refused to do so.

This variation in practice across mation inevitably influenced the final assessment. None of the departments Moderation refers to the re-marking of a sample or surveyed had any explicit way of helping new all products by another examiner to strengthen staff learn how to assess these projects. The reliability of marks awarded, both to individuals, expectation in most of the departments was that and across cohorts.

One junior member of staff related to the authors how the trial and error. Featured Article. Much of the research has been focused in a particular area of concern such as. Interested in being a peer-reviewer? Please fill in the application form and send it back to the editor, then your application will be processed soon.