Modern Pedagogies in Engineering Education

My husband Dr Rizwan Saeed Choudhry is an engineering academic with a PhD in mechanical engineering. He has over a decade of teaching experience. He is on a constant lookout for ways to improve student satisfaction and learning enhancements.

He carried out the following review of various learning theories as applied to engineering education and came up with some interesting recommendations which I would like to share with my readers.

Introduction

In recent years there has been a global drive to move away from ‘teacher centred’ to ‘student centred’ learning and teaching approaches in engineering education. This is a result of fundamental changes in our understanding of the learning process as explained by various theories. The following report presents a critical evaluation of some of the influential learning theories as applicable to different teaching methods being practiced in engineering education.

Learning and teaching styles that used to dominate engineering education

Most of the engineers who graduated around the turn of the century have a view of engineering class-room being characterized by two main methods, large sized lectures and small group experiments.

The first of these, i.e. the large sized lecture was made particularly ‘interesting’ with on-the-board solution of long winding equations. The students, except the most enterprising, wading through this ‘hours of fun’, half awake, half asleep.

The second teaching method, i.e. the group experiment session is also very much prevalent. This method can be further classified into two types, i.e., either a hands-on practical session or observed demonstration. Although the experiments are a participatory activity, in the traditional format these were also not student centred rather teacher centred.

The emphasis here was again to learn by being taught, rather than discovering or constructing the knowledge during these activities (Smith et al., 2005).

The above paragraph characterises the traditional class-room based pedagogies in engineering. Besides the above, Engineering education has always featured two out-of-classroom elements which are characterized strongly by the Learning through individual sense making and learning by knowledgeable other models.

These elements are the project-based coursework and the capstone design or manufacturing project (or independent study). These may be individual or group projects depending on the program specifications. These elements were historically seen as the link between the class-room based teaching and the preparation for professional practice.

Critique of key learning theories as applied to engineering education

If teaching means to help someone learn — then arguably, an understanding of how people learn should be the most important concern of a teacher.

It is this understanding that would enable one to carry out a deep reflection. But understanding the complex dynamics of a machine like the human mind is a challenging feat. Especially so, because the ones proposing these theories are inevitably basing them on an observation of the exterior (the observation of a reaction) and have little actual access, to what is really going inside that beautiful mind.

Although there are various learning theories, I will primarily confine my discussion here to the five main that can be differentiated by their view of what constitutes knowledge, how understanding takes place and how both components interact to define the overall process of learning.

The theories discussed here are also often classed under two broader categories. The first three falling under the heading of ‘Teacher centred’, while the second three classed as being ‘student centred’. Most of the discussion follows from (Kay and Kibble, 2016) but other authors have also been consulted and cited as appropriate.

The Behaviourist View

a. Behaviourism

The behaviourist view of learning revolves around measurable and observable changes in an identified behaviour in response to an external-stimuli, or ‘operant conditioning’ in the words of Skinner (Mcleod, 2018). This post-industrial revolution theory which stresses a mandatory reward (incentive) and punishment (hope) mechanism was popularized in the western scientific community between the periods of World War I (WWI) and World War 2 (WWII), by educational psychologist such as Watson and Skinner (Mcleod, 2018) and should be understood in the overarching capitalist and colonial cultural nuances of the time, where education was primarily about producing trained individuals at various levels.

From the view point of this theory the environmental stimulus (reward or punishment), rather than the learner was the only factor influencing learning.

b. Social cognitive theory

The social cognitive theory is also centred around the behaviourist beliefs that learning is about adopting a new behaviour based on the environmental stimulus. However, in this case the role of cognitive aspect of mind is given some consideration.

It is acknowledged that human mind has the capacity to learn from observing the behaviours and experiences of others (positive or negative) rather than just following instructions or learning from their own trials and errors.

Furthermore, it is also recognized that for humans, motivation may not only be provided by operant conditioning, rather self-efficacy and self-regulation also have a greater role in learning. In the west, understanding of this theory is generally credited to Bandura’s work (Kay and Kibble, 2016).

Thus, according to this theory besides the reward and punishment mechanisms and structured instructions, the teacher carefully includes examples of specific experiences form which the learner can be influenced.

Overall in teaching pedagogy, most of the tools related to the assessment and feedback mechanisms and grading of outputs are directly influenced by behaviourism.

engineering, the teaching methodology of step by step instructions, for example that of performing an experiment, or step by step analysis procedures, for derivation of fundamental equations and teaching methods for calculation of key design variables etc, often follow a strict behaviourist approach, such as deducting marks for each wrong solution step.

Examples of the application of Social Cognitive theory in engineering pedagogy include the discussion of Case-Studies of material failure or giving examples of how a theory developed over the history.

The traditional approach to engineering education is fundamentally rooted in the belief that engineering education does not produce professional engineers at the time of graduation. Therefore, the purpose was to produce graduates who have firm grasp of engineering principles and fundamentals, which will enable them after years of practice in the profession, to become chartered engineers.

It is this belief which always lead to strong emphasis on theory in the content-heavy engineering lecture classrooms. In addition, Engineering is also considered a meritocratic as well as hegemonic field (Kabo and Baillie, 2009; Mejia et al., 2018). So, the students were expected to be self-motivated and historically the onus of performance was on the student and not the academic.

Thus, behaviourist pedagogies with the traditional lecture at the heart of it were the natural choice. The traditional practical sessions in engineering can also be classified under the overall ambit of behavioural theories such as social cognitive theory.

One point that I would emphasise is that although the traditional lecture is often viewed as an example of behaviourism; one could argue that this is not necessary.

Lecture is a means of disseminating knowledge just like a book or a movie. It is the content and how the lecturer approaches the learner that determines if the approach is behaviourist or not rather than the method itself.

The behaviourist view has a strong currency as it links observable inputs and observable outputs, relegating mind to be just a biological machine, of which you press the right buttons and get the right response. Cautiously or incautiously this approach has been practised by human beings, east and west, to both teach as well as to enslave other human beings, since times immemorial.

The biggest downside of the behaviourist theory is that it cannot explain higher ordered learning, the creative process and the value of intuition. While it can rationally explain how you teach a mouse to press a lever to fetch the foods or get a crane operator to safely and effectively operate a crane, it can never explain how you teach someone to be the next ‘Albert Einstein’ or the next ‘T. S. Elliot’; or citing an example of the eastern legends of 20th century, to be the next ‘Muhammad Iqbal’.

The Cognitive View

Cognitive learning theory

The cognitive theory compares the human mind to a computers central processing unit (CPU). And draws on this analogy to explain the learning behaviour. This theory is highly effective in explaining how the knowledge or information is stored and retrieved from the brain and how we can use this insight to breakdown, structure, present and reinforce our content, to aid learning.

It allows us to recognize that learner and the way his mind works matters. Thus, the theory allows for recognition of level of learning which is based on prior learning. For example, according to this theory the mental representation (or schema) of information or concepts created by someone at level 4 will be fundamentally different from someone presented with the same information but at level 7.

Therefore, the teacher must present the information in the right context to make it accessible as well as engaging. The theory explains that how a teaching strategy which use a higher ordered learning experience; an experience that allows the learner to connect new knowledge with prior knowledge and carry out deductive reasoning or analysis for developing new strategies; foster a deeper understanding and learning.

Some examples of engineering pedagogy influenced by cognitive learning theory include the following.

i. The use of clearly defined learning outcomes for each session which are then linked back to the modules learning outcomes and eventually to program’s learning objectives.

ii. Providing student with model solutions or assignment of previously marked best and worst cases.

iii. Using skeletal notes (instead of complete) to retain attention in lectures.

iv. Giving regular short quiz like assessments (can be formative or summative) at regular intervals to aid memory and reinforcing core concepts before moving on to the next.

v. Use of flow charts (concept maps) to represent the progression and interlinking of knowledge and development of higher-level concepts.

vi. Building on a design topic in clearly defined stages with increasing level of difficulty one following on from other. In some cases, the overall topic may span more than one module and be covered at different stages (levels) in an academic program.

This theory, however, does not explain the human element of learning. That is how our emotions, feelings, self-perception, social and cultural context effect our learning.

It also does not fully explain the process of knowledge creation and idea generation something very important for and central to human creativity. The question about motivation is also not addressed specifically and not considered very important in this approach.

Engagement rather than deep association (internalization) is the focus and thus this methodology is still classified as teacher centred, although more strictly speaking this theory is really neither teacher centred nor learner, in-fact in my humble view it is what can be termed as ‘Content-focused’.

Constructivist View

Constructivism

Constructivism represents a radical departure from the previously presented theories in the way that it treats knowledge as a dynamic quantity which is inevitably created in the mind of a learner based on his / her interaction and engagement with the environment (experience).

The level of knowledge created (in other words learning) is dependent on learners’ prior level of knowledge and the strength of experience (level of engagement, for example, superficial or deeply absorbed). Thus, the theory puts the learner at the heart of learning process. Having said that this does not mean that the teacher does not have a role, or how the content is delivered or presented does not matter, or that the ‘operant conditioning’ does not influence the learner. It acknowledges all these effects because all these factors constitute the environment.

What it does, however, is to let us see the learners’ context. It explains that why people behave differently to the same environmental stimuli, it even allows for the possibility of developing intuition with the right level of engagement and association with the environment. The behaviourist tools of reward and punishment are relegated to the level of being just one of the possible tools (and often only implicit) to provide external reinforcement for motivation.

In traditional engineering pedagogy (which is still very much relevant), the individual project-based coursework represented a constructivist approach. Student was assigned an individual project. The level of difficulty was set so that the problem requirements or deliverables were understood however the steps required to reach a solution were not clear to the student at the outset. The students were provided access to several sources of knowledge through which they acquire the required skills and tools for achieving the project deliverables.

The sources provided depended on the type of problem and instructor’s preference and could include lectures, tutorials, books, journal articles, videos, library searches, workshop visits and site visits to name a few.

In the traditional engineering pedagogy, such projects were one of the elements of the module assessment and in many cases an exam which was based on a set of lectures was also used. The weightage of individual components varied from university to university. Traditionally projects would seldom have more than 20% weightage, however lately this has changed significantly with many places giving a 60% weightage to such projects.

Another major component of all engineering programs is the final year project (or independent study) module. This again represents a Constructivist approach. For these, the learners themselves specify the end goals. These are first approved by a supervisor who makes sure that the learning outcomes are being satisfied. More and more universities are now moving towards having more than one completely project driven modules within their curriculum. Research has shown (Smith et al., 2005; Tingerthal, 2017b) that in recent times there has now been a significant departure in class-room based pedagogy in engineering with approaches like problem-based learning and inquiry- based learning becoming more common and these reflect a constructivist view of education.

Social Constructivism

The social constructivist view accepts the fundamental premise of constructivism that knowledge is dynamic and constructed by individual. It further emphasises the social nature of that process. What this means is that how an individual construct its knowledge based on the interaction with its environment is highly dependent on the learners’ social context, which in many ways also defines the prior knowledge aspect highlighted in constructivism.

According to this theory learning is a process of knowledge-growth. An individual upon his interaction with environment constructs knowledge which either keeps him at the same level or marginally advances him, i.e. moves up in the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The chances of advancing within the zone of proximal development are dependent on interaction of three factors, the first being the individual’s mental ability (intrinsic factor), at what level the information is being presented (i.e. is it too far off from his current level or marginally higher than his current level) and the cultural or social context in which the information is presented to him.

Vytgosky argues that if the information is presented within the right cultural context of the discipline then the individual has a much better chance of advancing within his ZPD (Kay and Kibble, 2016).

In context of engineering-educational pedagogy two challenges often make it difficult to apply this theory, firstly how to realistically measure the learners’ level, especially in larger diverse groups. The second is using authentic environments that allows the individual to relate with the correct cultural context of the discipline.

This is even a bigger challenge in many cases because unlike many other professions (e.g. Medicine) the engineers generally do not serve one type of industry and we need to produce engineers with a wide variety of skills so that they can serve in varying roles upon graduation. Though, the placement year and the work-experience requirements provide some authentic cultural context to the students, the lab-based courses are the next best thing that can be used to give a cultural context.

Thus, in recent years engineering education in many universities has departed from tradition of having separate lab and theory courses, rather the courses are increasingly being re-designed to revolve around a problem or inquiry-based approach that allows for linking theory and practical and thus giving the students a more authentic experience.

Personal example of application of problem based learning in context of social constructivist theory

Recently, I have designed the delivery plan of a module being offered to second year engineering students based on this concept and the flow chart below represents my understanding of how the theory can be applied. The module title is ‘Investigation Techniques, Modelling and Materials Categorisation’. In the traditional approach it would have consisted of around 6 weeks of lectures and possibly 6 weeks of experiments. The theory and lectures would have some relevance, but there was no requirement of direct correspondence or interrelation.

Fortunately, in this module all the students are company apprentices (on the same program) and thus it is easier to find a common cultural context. It is a small cohort having a diverse ethnic representation. A problem was posed, which is fairly-representative of the type expected in practice (possibly with more difficulty in practice).

The module had three learning outcomes which could be applied to two different roles as shown in the figure 1. Lesson plan was constructed to align the lab work (experiments), PC-labs (simulation), lectures and tutorials as well as the two coursework. Opportunities were also created within the design to allow for informal feedback and advice on the coursework through both scheduled and unscheduled tutorial sessions. The assessment will be based on individual reports produced by students for both coursework 1 and 2.

Example of a design of a module using Problem-based approach by Dr Rizwan

Conclusion

Engineering educational pedagogy (or andragogy) has moved a long way from being highly teacher centred, meritocratic and cognitive to being increasingly student centred (but still cognitive).

Different universities are at different phases in this transformation however, change is inevitable. The engineering and teaching councils as evident from recent publications and guidelines (e.g. TEF) are championing a more student-centred pedagogy based around constructivist and social constructivist views.

This comes with its own set of challenges in terms of required resources as well as preparedness of engineering departments, the availability of suitably trained teachers and novel content preparation.

References

Case, J. M. and Light, G. (2011) ‘Emerging methodologies in engineering education research’, Journal of Engineering Education. doi: 10.1002/j.2168–9830.2011.tb00008.x.

Dickens, J. and Arlett, C. (2009) ‘Key aspects of teaching and learning in engineering’, in Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., and Marshall, S. (eds) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice, Third edition. 3rd edn. Routledge, pp. 264–281.

Houghton, W. (2004) Learning and Teaching Theory Learning and Teaching Theory Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. The Higher Education Academy, Engineering Subject Centre. Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/learning-teaching-theory.pdf (Accessed: 20 January 2019).

Kabo, J. and Baillie, C. (2009) ‘Seeing through the lens of social justice: A threshold for engineering’, European Journal of Engineering Education. doi: 10.1080/03043790902987410.

Kay, D. and Kibble, J. (2016) ‘Learning theories 101: application to everyday teaching and scholarship: Table 1.’, Advances in Physiology Education. doi: 10.1152/advan.00132.2015.

Mcleod, S. (2018) BF Skinner: Operant Conditioning. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-Skinner.pdf (Accessed: 30 January 2019).

Mejia, J. et al. (2018) ‘Critical Theoretical Frameworks in Engineering Education: An Anti-Deficit and Liberative Approach’, Education Sciences. doi: 10.3390/educsci8040158.

Smith, K. A. et al. (2005) ‘Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices’, Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), pp. 87–101. doi: 10.1002/j.2168–9830.2005.tb00831.x.

Tingerthal, J. (2017a) ‘Work in Progress: Signature Pedagogies in Engineering — Surface Structure’, in 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Columbus, Ohio, p. 6. Available at: https://peer.asee.org/29178.

Tingerthal, J. (2017b) ‘Work in Progress: Signature Pedagogies in Engineering — Surface Structure’, in 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Columbus, Ohio, p. 6.