adopting a strategy for enhancing generic skills in engineering education
DESCRIPTION
It is remarkable how often academic staff discovers students’ weaknesses in expressing their thoughts either in a written, or an oral context, as well as in team working. The above skills are considered essential for their successful performance during their studies, which in turn requires writing technical reports, presenting their work, or participating in group projects, laboratory work, field work, etc. In this respect, we designed and conducted a two-academic year study in 2009-10 and 2010-11, during an engineering course. The results indicate that students self-reported an initial high level of weaknesses for both communication skills (writing and speaking), while a higher confidence for team-working skills. This effort highlighted that there is a large improvement potential for both communication skills and a lower potential for team-working skills. Based on the above results and in conjunction with other difficulties, such as: (a) the lack of awareness in the academic community for such skills in a traditionally-organised university (i.e. in Greece), (b) the inability to redesign all courses, currently relying on a content-based organised curriculum, on a competency base, and (c) the international literature which highlights specific generic skills of engineering students as essential during their studies and future career, Technical University of Crete organised short training workshops, based on experiential learning methods, during the academic year 2012-13. The aim of these workshops was the enhancement of the three aforementioned skills (writing, speaking, team-working) of the participating volunteers-students from all university departments. This paper justifies this innovative initiative and presents the analytical results from the contribution of the short training workshops organised in Technical University of Crete.TRANSCRIPT
Adopting a strategy for enhancing generic skills in engineering education
E. Krassadaki, K. Lakiotaki, N.F. Matsatsinis
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CRETESCHOOL OF PRODUCTION ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
8th International Conference on ‘New Horizons in Industry, Business & Education’, Chania 29-30 Aug. 2013
Skills at university level (disciplinary & generic)
DISCIPLINARY SKILLS (or practical)• Related with a course or field of study• Certified by university diplomasGENERIC SKILLS (or transferable, or soft, or key, or personal, …)• Taught or not-taught, certified or not-certified• Associated with social and mental status of students• Attitudes – behaviours of students• A cause of performance variance
A MODEL FOR A COURSE PROVISION:
a. Disciplinary Content
b. Disciplinary Skills
c. Generic Skills
Examples of generic skills:• Communication
• Team-working
• IT skills
• Time management
• Problem solving
• Critical thinking
• etc
Indicatively presentation of practices applied in universities for the improvement of generic skills of
students
A’ trend: as part of the curricular (prevailing practice)
• Through courses (without activities for skills assessment) of the curriculum. A certificate-transcript is awarded at the end of studies to students (the case of Luton University).
• Autonomous courses for generic skills improvement. The grade at the course certifies the level of the skills possessed by students. For example, the case of General Education program at college level-USA.
• Writing/speaking intensive courses (WAC and OCAC). The case of USA universities.
• E-Portfolios (University of Denver, Virginia Tech, Queensland University of Technology, etc).
B’ trend: as extracurricular activities
• Activities of Career Offices sometimes by awarding a certificate and sometimes without it. For example, the transcript ‘Nottingham Advantage Award’ from Nottingham University.
• Surveys for skills improvement for graduates or students. Characteristic case the yearly graduate survey in Australia ‘Graduate Course Experience’-GSA (118 thousand graduates participated the year 2009).
• Specially designed tests for the evaluation of generic skills, like the national level test in Australia ‘Graduate Skills Assessment’-GSA for assessing critical thinking, problem solving, interpersonal understanding and written communication.
Engineering Studies in Greece – Practice of generic skills
• Duration: 5 years or 10 semesters.• Teaching of courses: 9 semesters.• Theses preparation: 1 semester (10th).• Theoretical (lectures) and lab exercise (experiential learning): most courses.• Curriculum type: content-based vs. competency-based.• Prevailing learning approach: teacher-centred vs. student-centred.• Assessment or/and grading logic: grading logic prevails.• Written assignments: very often. Nevertheless, the main focus is on the content of the report (a grading logic).
On the contrary, more formal texts (theses, doctoral dissertations) have high quality standards. Inconsistency: how are students required to write a complete report at the end of their studies, when no action has been taken to help them practice academic writing skill during their studies?
• Oral assignments: not exist, with few exceptions. Nevertheless, an oral presentation of a theses is required from students at the end of their studies. The same inconsistency, as previous.
• Group assignments: very often. Usually students are allowed to propose their counterparts to the tutor, conflicts may arise, etc.
• Empirical evidence: inadequate communication and team-working skills of students.• Skills’ demands: increased demands for generic skills in the academic environment (and future work
environment).• Staff awareness: generic skills of students are almost unknown words. The development of personal
competencies of students is not within the interest/responsibility of the academic staff. • Initiatives: none in engineering field (Athens University of Economics & Business, Liaison Office, organised
short seminars for skills development and career guidance at 2011-12).
A strategy applied for enhancing generic skills
• A pilot course as the vehicle
• Two-year study (2009-10, 2010-11)
• Weaknesses of students
• Justification of the improvement potential
Diagnostic phase (two-year pilot study)
• First option: initiatives through curriculum
• Second option: initiatives outside the curriculum
Debate phase• Implementation at 2012-13
• Significant contribution for the enhancement of students’ generic skills
Action phase (short workshops)
Diagnostic phase
DSS course was the vehicle, for both the disciplinary content and skills as well as the generic skills.
Students who participated in the course were surveyed at the beginning and at the end of the course.
Students self-reported their confidence (before the course) and their experience (after the course).
A specially-designed questionnaire was used, which follows Multi-Criteria Analysis principles.
Questionnaire includes statements like ‘How satisfied are you with your performance in …’. A 5-degree qualitative scale was used from excellent performance to bad performance.
Multi-Criteria method MUSA was used for the analysis of data.
41 and 40 students participated the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively.
SI (index), as it is proposed from MUSA method, was used as a measure to the average self-reported confidence (a satisfactory SI is over 70%).
The results of the diagnostic phase [1]
WRITING SKILL(academic reports)
SI (before)2009-10
SI (before) 2010-11
1. Organising a report 16.2% 11%
2. Use of literature 19% 21.3%
3. Synthesis - presentation 25.2% 73.8%
4. Info. retrieval 55.2% 80%
5. Word processing 43.1% 64.7%
Globally 26.9% 36.5%
SPEAKING SKILL(in class)
SI (before) 2009-10
SI (before)2010-11
1. Oral argumentation 51.6% 13.4%
2. Questions-answers 17.3% 37%
3. Discussion 33.9% 39.6%
4. Make a speech 18.8% 33%
5. Make a presentation 27.2% 31%
Globally 28.4% 23%
Significant high weakness both years in: organising a report, use of literature, formulation of quest./answers in class, participation in a discussion in class, make a speech and a presentation in class
If SI > 70% then high confidence for the skill
The results of the diagnostic phase [2]
TEAM-WORKING SKILLS SI (before)2009-10
SI (before) 2010-11
1. Organising-planning activities 58.1% 57.4%
2. Collaboration 66.8% 60%
3. Respect of diff. opinions 72.5% 66.9%
4. Consensus politics 59.3% 47.4%
5. Creative criticism 61.1% 45.7%
6. Leading a group 51.1% 67.8%
7. Mediating for conflicts 69.6% 51.8%
Globally 64.7% 58.9%
Lower improvement potential for both years. Higher self-reported confidence.
Debate phase
• Extensive discussion of the researchers with the Vice-Chancellor of the university (June – August 2012).
• Two focal points: as part of the curricular or not.• Difficulties of the 1st idea:
– lack of awareness of the academic community– academic goals are different– research (not teaching) excellence is the main criterion for
academic staff assessment– substantive investment in time, which compete other roles of
the staff, like: research, administration tasks, etc.– low number of students per group when there is staff shortage – etc
Action phase (2012-13)
58.70%17.50%
13.50%
4.80% 0.80%
Participation per School
Production Engineering & Management
Electronic & Computer Engineering
Environmental Engineering
Architectural Engineering
Mineral Resources Engineering
Writing skills: 16 hoursSpeaking skills: 16 hoursTeam-working skills: 8 hours
4 workshops / each topic: 12 workshops in total
126 certificates (students with full participation)
Results for contribution of workshops Significa
nt (%)
Moder
ate (%)
Minimal
(%)
Pls
rate
th
e
Wo
rksh
op
con
trib
uti
on
to
the
imp
rove
me
nt
of
the
fo
llow
ing
skill
s:
Organisation/Structuring of an academic document 81 14.3 4.8
Finding/Searching bibliographic sources 76.2 19 4.8
Using of references in an academic document 76.2 19 4.8
Language/style presentation in academic writing 61.9 28.6 9.5
Avoiding common mistakes such as typing and spelling 52.4 33.3 14.3
Creating tables, using math. symb. & shapes in written rep. 52.4 33.3 14.3
Pls rate the overall contribution at the improvement of the above w.s. 76.2 14.3 9.5
Pls
rate
th
e W
ork
sho
p
con
trib
uti
on
to
th
e
imp
rove
me
nt
of
the
follo
win
g sk
ills:
Organisation/structuring of an academic oral presentation 72.2 22.2 5.6
Avoiding the usual shortcomings of a presentation, (i.e.
number of slides, colors, fonts, spelling, etc)88.9 5.6 5.6
Using bibliographic ref. in an academic oral presentation 66.7 27.8 5.6
Enhancing linguistic formulation and use of 'body language'
during an academic oral presentation70.6 17.6 11.8
Creating tables, using math. symb. & shapes in oral pres. 68.8 25 6.3
Using academic spoken dialogue and monologue 72.2 22.2 5.6
Pls rate the overall contribution at the improvement of the above sp.s. 77.8 11.1 11.1
Pls
rate
th
e
Wo
rksh
op
con
trib
. to
the
imp
r. o
f
the
follo
win
g
skill
s:
Enhancing the factors that influence positively the design,
organisation and implementation of activities in a group60 30 10
Eliminating the factors that negatively impact on planning,
organising and implementing activities in a group55 30 15
Pls rate the overall contribution at the improvement of the above t.s. 50 35 15
Conclusions
The first Greek engineering university, which considers generic skills of students as a subject of its interest.
The first implementation in a Greek engineering university.
Implementation of a step-wise process towards enhancing generic skills of students.
The initial diagnostic process indicated specific weaknesses of students & justified the improvement potential.
The short workshops organized, seems that contributed significantly for the enhancement of students’ generic skills in addition to laudatory comments and satisfaction expressed.
The effort to improve generic skills of students was successful, although there is a long way to go before we can claim that the existing weaknesses were eliminated with the specific intervention.
A supportive policy is needed.
Thank you for your attention
Contact details:– Dr Evangelia Krassadaki, Technical University of Crete, School of Production
Engineering & Management, DSS Laboratory, Univ. campus, Chania, 73100, Greece. Tel. +28210-37350, E-mail: [email protected]
– Dr Kleanthi Lakiotaki, Technical University of Crete, Employment & Career Unit, Univ. campus, Chania, 73100, Greece. Tel. +28210-37451, E-mail: [email protected]
– Prof. Nikolaos F. Matsatsinis, Technical University of Crete, School of Production Engineering & Management, Director of DSS Lab., Univ. campus, Chania, 73100, Greece. Tel. +28210-37348, E-mail: [email protected]