Assessment criteria or methods and tools Archives - Page 3 of 5

Home
Toolkits
Assessment criteria or methods and tools

Theme: Graduate employability and recruitment

Authors: Dr Lisa Simmons (Manchester Metropolitan University), Dr Carl Diver (Manchester Metropolitan University), Dr Gary Dougill (Manchester Metropolitan University), Scott Pepper (GAMBICA), Paul Foden (NMCN) and Robin Phillips (Siemens Advanta Consulting).

Keywords: Graduate Outcomes, Employability, Engineering Education

Abstract: FutureMe is an event designed to enhance the aspirations, confidence and the graduate destinations of students. The series begins with an ‘industry week’- a unique collaboration between University and Industry – during which industry delivers keynote talks on: professional engineering, graduate skills, internationalisation, graduate destinations, and the flagship one day industry challenge. This event has been recognised by IET, and IMechE as good practice, in working collaboratively to show students what it is like to work as a professional engineer.

What is the case study about?

Assessment centre recruitment activities form an employment barrier to entry for students and can be challenging to prepare for. A large body of research suggests that motivation to begin and complete a degree in engineering; knowledge of the engineering field and its practitioners; along with students being able to identify themselves as “being an engineer” are all key drivers in student progression and graduate success. Through collaboration with industry partners, we have developed a range of events that not only give students much-needed preparation for the recruitment process but simultaneously allow them to explore their core identity and motivation.

This case study presents the development of the “FutureMe” event, which grew from a pragmatic approach to assessment centre preparation and into a self-sustaining, collaborative community between academia and industry.

What were its aims?

The core aims of the “FutureMe” activity are to:

Provide students with an immersive learning experience with industrial partners to enhance aspirations, confidence and understanding of graduate destinations
Provide industrial partners with the opportunity to work with students throughout their studies
Provide students with the opportunity to learn about how engineers work within a business

How did it come about?

Preparing students for the assessment centre recruitment process alongside studies can be challenging. These recruitment activities are difficult, adversarial, and often intimidating for students who have limited – if any – opportunities to gain experience before they face a real recruitment panel.

“FutureMe” was established in the first instance to provide an opportunity for students to work with industrial partners on a challenge that replicated activities that are often given to applicants in an assessment centre. A key element of the challenge was that it should allow for multi-disciplinary and cross academic level working, and should not be overly technical to a particular discipline, rather it should give students an experience of how engineers work within business and the many functions within an organisation.

As the event was set up it grew to include keynote talks on; professional engineering, graduate skills, internationalisation, graduate destinations, and the flagship one-day industry challenge. Figure 1 illustrates the January 2022 schedule of events. Figure 2 provides further detail on the running order for the industry challenge session(s).

Figure 1 Example schedule of events

Figure 2 Industry Challenge Running Order

How was it set up?

Industrial partners were approached to take part in the event – the industry challenge – via the Department of Engineering’s Industrial Advisory Board (IAB), GAMBICA, GM Chamber of Commerce and IET Enterprise partners.

Industrial partners were presented with

the rationale for the event
the running order of the challenge and requirements/commitments
learning requirements of the challenge

Interested parties then contacted the lead academic for a further meeting to discuss their challenge ideas and the event.

Figure 3 shows the process from initial email invites to industrial partners to the final challenge session

Figure 3 Step process showing how industrial partners develop a challenge to take part in the event

Who did it involve? (e.g., collaborating parties)

The rationale for the event was discussed for feedback with representatives from the Department of Engineering Industrial Advisory Board, GAMBICA and GM Chamber of Commerce.

All authors of this case study, worked collaboratively to develop the event, engage additional industrial partners, and feedback to the academic teams.

What were the outcomes?

FutureMe event has run in January 2021 and 2022.

In each event, there were 900 students invited, 50 supporting academics and 20+ industry representatives.

The event has led to additional opportunities for collaboration, for example, other employability events, and curriculum support in larger projects and guest lectures.

Are there any evidential outcomes?

Students were surveyed pre and post-event, on their understanding of their career readiness, their work experience, why they chose to take part in the event and what they gained from the event.

Reasons for taking part in the event were largely (75% of respondents) related to understanding how engineers work in industry and to learning more about graduate destinations for engineers.

Post-event students enjoyed the short period of time to complete the challenge, the breadth of access to industry representatives and learning about how engineers approach challenges in industry.

What lessons were learned, or what reflections can you provide? What might you do differently?

Challenge development is a collaborative exercise between academia and industry to develop content that meets the learning criteria
The event for 2023 will move to fully onsite
Students need to have the benefits of attending the event clearly stated to improve student engagement
There is an over-whelming amount of support from industry to support this event, such that there has been a need to develop new initiatives to provide further opportunities for collaboration

Feedback from Industry

The students who I spoke to excelled and performed better than several experienced engineers that I have been interviewing over the last few months.

I found the sessions very interesting, the discussions through the Q&A after the presentations were very good. It was great to be able to delve into more of the technology stack and see how they approach it. I also found it very interesting that the two groups chose different use cases/verticals for their research, and it tilted the result to slightly different outcomes. Really interesting to see that!

A brilliant process and a great opportunity for productive collaboration between MMU and industrialists in the interest of enhancing student employability. Without a doubt, the students were the stars of the show. Super job!

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.

Theme: Collaborating with industry for teaching and learning, Knowledge exchange

Authors: Prof Robert Hairstans (New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering), Dr Mila Duncheva (Stora Enso), Dr Kenneth Leitch (Edinburgh Napier University), Dr Andrew Livingston (Edinburgh Napier University), Kirsty Connell-Skinner (Edinburgh Napier University) and Tabitha Binding (Timber Development UK)

Keywords: Timber, Built Environment, Collaboration, New Educational Model

Abstract: The New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering, Edinburgh Napier University and Timber Development UK are working with external stakeholders to enable an educational system that will provide comprehensive training in modern methods of timber construction. A Timber Technology Engineering and Design (TED) competency framework has been derived and a UK wide student design competition will run in the 1st quarter of 2022 as part of the process to curate the learner content and enable this alternative approach to upskilling. The EPC will gain an understanding of this alternative approach to creating an educational model by means of industry engagement. This new approach has been made possible via establishing a collaborative framework and leveraging available funding streams via the partners. This will be showcased as a methodology for others to apply to their own contexts as well as offer opportunity for knowledge and value exchange.

Introduction

Edinburgh Napier University (ENU), The New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering (NMITE) and Timber Development UK (TDUK) are working with external stakeholders to enable an educational system (Figure 1) that will provide comprehensive training in modern methods of timber construction. This case study presents an alternative approach to creating this Timber Technology Engineering and Design (TED) educational model by means of industry engagement and pilot learning experiences. This new approach has been made possible by establishing a collaborative framework and leveraging available funding streams via the partners.

Figure 1 – Approach to enabling Timber TED Educational System.

Project Aims

The aim of establishing Timber TED is to provide built environment students and professionals with a comprehensive suite of online credit bearing flexible training modules to upskill in modern timber construction techniques. To align the modules with industry need the learning content is to be underpinned by a competency framework identifying the evidence-based technical knowledge and meta skills needed to deliver construction better, faster and greener. The training modules are to be delivered in a blended manner with educational content hosted online and learners assessed by ‘learning by doing’ activities that stimulate critical thinking and prepare the students for work in practice (Jones, 2007).

Uniting industry education and training resources through one course, Timber TED will support learners and employers to harness the new knowledge and skills required to meet the increasing demand for modern timber construction approaches that meet increasingly stringent quality and environmental performance requirements.

The final product will be a recognised, accredited qualification with a bespoke digital assessment tool, suitable for further and higher education as well as employers delivering in-house training, by complementing and enhancing existing CPD, built environment degrees and apprenticeships.

The Need of a Collaborative Approach

ENU is the project lead for the Housing Construction & Infrastructure (HCI) Skills Gateway part of the Edinburgh & Southeast Scotland City Region Deal and is funded by the UK and Scottish Governments. Funding from this was secured to develop a competency framework for Timber TED given the regional need for upskilling towards net zero carbon housing delivery utilising low carbon construction approaches and augmented with addition funding via the VocTech Seed Fund 2021. With the built environment responsible for 39% of all global carbon emissions, meeting Scotland’s ambitious target of net zero by 2045 requires the adoption of new building approaches and technologies led by a modern, highly skilled construction workforce. Further to this ENU is partnering with NMITE to establish the Centre for Advanced Timber Technology (CATT) given the broader UK wide need. Notably England alone needs up to 345,000 new low carbon affordable homes annually to meet demand but is building less than a third of this (Miles and Whitehouse, 2013). The educational approach of NMITE is to apply a student-centric learning methodology with a curriculum fuelled by real-world challenges, meaning that the approach will be distinctive in the marketplace and will attract a different sort of engineering learner. This academic partnership was further triangulated with TDUK (merged organisation of TRADA and Timber Trades Federation) for UK wide industry engagement. The partnership approach resulted in the findings of the Timber TED competency framework and alternative pedagogical approach of NMITE informing the TDUK University Design Challenge 2022 project whereby inter-disciplinary design teams of 4–8 members, are invited to design an exemplary community building that produces more energy than it consumes – for Southside in Hereford. The TDUK University Design challenge would therefore pilot the approach prior to developing the full Timber TED educational programme facilitating the development of educational content via a webinar series of industry experts.

The Role of the Collaborators

The project delivery team of ENU, NMITE and TDUK are working collaboratively with a stakeholder group that represents the sector and includes Structural Timber Association, Swedish Wood, Construction Scotland Innovation Centre, Truss Rafter Association and TRADA. These stakeholders provide project guidance and are contributing in-kind support in the form of knowledge content, access to facilities and utilisation of software as appropriate.

Harlow Consultants were commission to develop the competency framework (Figure 1) via an industry working group selected to be representative of the timber supply chain from seed to building. This included for example engineered timber manufacturers, engineers, architects, offsite manufacturers and main contractors.

Figure 2 – Core and Cross-disciplinary high level competency requirements

The Southside Hereford: University Design Challenge (Figure 3) has a client group of two highly energised established community organisations Growing Local CIC and Belmont Wanderers CIC, and NMITE, all of whom share a common goal to improve the future health, well-being, life-chances and employment skillset of the people of South Wye and Hereford. Passivhaus Trust are also a project partner providing support towards the curation of the webinar series and use of their Passivhaus Planning software.

Figure 3 – TDUK, ENU, NMITE and Passivhaus Trust University Design Challenge

Outcomes, Lessons Learned and Available Outputs

The competency framework has been finalised and is currently being put forward for review by the professional institutions including but not limited to the ICE, IStructE, CIAT and CIOB. A series of pilot learning experiences have been trialled in advance of the UK wide design challenge to demonstrate the educational approach including a Passivhaus Ice Box challenge. The ice box challenge culminated in a public installation in Glasgow (Figure 4) presented by student teams acting as a visual demonstration highlighting the benefits of adopting a simple efficiency-first approach to buildings to reduce energy demands. The Timber TED competency framework has been used to inform the educational webinar series of the UK wide student design competition running in the 1st quarter of 2022. The webinar content collated will ultimately be used within the full Timber TED credit bearing educational programme for the upskilling of future built environment professionals.

Figure 4 – ICE box challenge situated in central Glasgow

The following are the key lessons learned:

Collaboration is key to maximising available resources enabling ambitious programmes of work for upskilling utilising alternative educational approaches to be realised.
Challenge based learning engages students and modern digital tools foster collaboration allowing multi-disciplinary teams to form consisting of students from different Universities.
Going forward the approach requires to be captured and aligned with learning outcomes for assessment and accreditation purposes such that it can become University credit bearing.

Currently available outputs to date:

Icebox Challenge Glasgow – Passivhaus News (passivhaustrust.org.uk)
Southside Hereford: University Design Challenge 2022 – TRDCA (formerly TRADA – Timber Research and Development Association)
Southside Hereford: University Design Challenge 2022 Webinar Content: Timber Development UK University Design Challenge – YouTube

References

Jones, J. (2007) ‘Connected Learning in Co-operative Education’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), pp. 263–273.
Miles, J. and Whitehouse, N. (2013) Offsite Housing Review, Department of Business, Innovation & Skills. London

Authors: Dr Sarah Junaid (Aston University); Professor Mike Sutcliffe (TEDI-London); Jonathan Truslove (Engineers Without Borders UK); Professor Mike Bramhall (TEDI-London).

Keywords: Active verbs; Bloom’s Taxonomy; learning outcomes; learning objectives; embedding ethics; project based learning; case studies; self-reflection; UK-SPEC; AHEP; design portfolio; ethical approval checklist and forms; ethical design.

Who this article is for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design. It will also help prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for.

Premise:

Engineering can have a significant impact on society and the environment, in both positive and negative ways. To fully understand the implications of engineering requires navigating complex, uncertain and challenging ethical issues. It is therefore essential to embed ethics into any project or learning outcome and for engineering professionals and educators to operate in a responsible and ethical manner.

The fourth iteration of the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP) reflects this importance to society by strengthening the focus on inclusive design and innovation, equality, diversity, sustainability and ethics, within its learning outcomes. By integrating ethics into engineering and design curricula, graduates develop a deeper comprehension of the ethical issues inherent in engineering and the skill sets necessary to navigate complex ethical decision-making needed across all sectors.

Policy:

There is growing advocacy for bringing engineering ethics to the fore in engineering programmes. At the policy level, this is evident in three general areas:

UK-SPEC and accreditation bodies are identifying ethics as one of the core learning outcomes and competencies in accreditation documents.
The inclusion of more descriptive competencies that expand on engineering ethics.
The fourth iteration of AHEP standards reflecting the importance of societal impact in engineering.

However, to translate the accreditation learning outcomes and their intentions to an engineering programme requires a duty of care by those responsible for programme design and development. The following are points for consideration:

Embedding ethics more readily into technical subjects. A demarcation of engineering ethics in accreditation documents has the purpose of emphasising the importance of ethics and societal impact in engineering programmes. However, this demarcation can implicitly lead to the exclusion of ethics within the other core competencies. It is important that engineering ethics competencies operate across the other core competencies. An example of how this could be done is suggested in Gwynne-Evans et al. (2021) and Davis (2006).

Using active verbs and higher-level learning outcomes. Competencies relating to ethics are often limited to lower cognitive learning levels, such as ‘know’ and ‘awareness of’. When considering the accreditation competencies in programme design, it is important to engage verbs at higher learning levels (Junaid et al., 2021). Verbs such as ‘design’ and ‘exercise’ in Bloom’s Taxonomy would help in designing assessments that reflect this.

Use of other policy documents and resources beyond accreditation. It is useful to review other resources at the policy level that can be used to refine or reinforce the programme design such as the International Engineering Alliance, the Washington Accord and the Ethics Explorer (see additional resources below).

Curriculum structure:

In the UK-SPEC (4th edition) guidance the Engineering Council states: “Engineering professionals work to enhance the wellbeing of society. In doing so they are required to maintain and promote high ethical standards and challenge unethical behaviour.”

In AHEP 4, students must meet the following learning outcome: “Identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct”

So, when designing a new programme, ethics should ideally be built into the learning outcomes of the programme and modules at the early design stage and consistently be emphasised throughout. To ensure ethics are embedded, students should be required to consider the outputs of their project work through a societal or community lens, especially if they are undertaking projects with a practical delivery of ethics such as, say, designing for older people in care homes.

For existing programmes, ethics could be most readily introduced through a stand-alone ethics module. It is better, however, for ethics to be embedded across the whole programme, encouraging a holistic ‘ethical considerations mindset’ as a ‘golden thread’ across, and within, all student project work (Hitt, 2022). Minor or major modifications could be made to programmes to ensure that ethics is considered and emphasised, such as through the use of active verbs that embed critical reflections of design. For programmes with a large project-based learning component, ethical considerations should be required at the initial stage of all projects.

Learning and teaching activities:

In all efforts to embed ethics in engineering education, there should be a focus on constructively aligning teaching activity to learning outcomes. Examples include: employing user-centred design and/or value-sensitive design approaches and case studies for technical and non-technical considerations, using empathy workshops for ethical design, and ensuring ethical considerations are included in problem statements and product design specifications for decision-making. The use of self-reflection logs and peer reflections for team working can also be useful in capturing ethical considerations in a team setting and for addressing conflict resolutions.

A pragmatic step for programmes that use project-based learning is to encourage these ethical discussions at the beginning of all project work and to return to these questions and considerations during the course of the project. Reflecting on ethics throughout will lead to an ethical mindset, a foundation that students will build on throughout their subsequent careers.

One way of ensuring this for students is to complete an ethical scrutiny checklist, which, when completed, is then considered by a departmental ethics committee. The filter questions at the start of an ethics scrutiny submission would help determine the level of review required. Projects with no human participants could be approved following some basic checks. In some universities it has become policy for ethical scrutiny to be required for all group and individual project work such as problem-based learning projects, final year degree projects, and MSc and PhD research projects. For projects that collaborate with the Health Research Authority (HRA), it is a requirement that scrutiny is through their own HRA committee and it is good practice to put these types of projects initially through a departmental and/or university ethics committee as well. Having students go through this process is a good way of revealing the ethical implications of their engineering work.

Assessments:

Closing the constructive alignment triangle requires assessments that are designed to utilise learning and teaching activities and to demonstrate the learning outcomes. The challenging question is: How can ethics be evaluated and assessed effectively? One solution is through using more active verbs that demonstrate ethical awareness with outputs and deliverables. Examples where this could be applied include:

demonstrating ethical considerations in a design portfolio
in a project thesis or viva
incorporating ethical practice into the marking matrix
developing a conducive team environment through conflict resolution tools
reflection logs and mid-project peer reviews
incorporating ethical enquiry into engineering processes.

For more information on methods for assessing and evaluating ethics learning, see this related article in the engineering ethics toolkit: Methods for assessing and evaluating ethics learning in engineering education.

Conclusion:

Using accreditation documentation to develop effective engineering programmes requires engaging beyond the checklists, thereby becoming more accustomed to viewing all competencies through an ethical lens. At programme design and module level, it is important to focus on constructively aligning the three key elements: learning outcomes written through an ethical lens, learning and teaching activities that engage with active verbs, and assessments demonstrating ethical awareness through a product, process, reflection and decisions.

References:

Davis, M. (2006) ‘Integrating ethics into technical courses: Mirco-insertion’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), pp.717-730.

Gwynne-Evans, A.J, Chetty, M. and Junaid, S. (2021) ‘Repositioning ethics at the heart of engineering graduate attributes’, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), pp. 7-24.

Hitt, S.J. (2022) ‘Embedding ethics throughout a Master’s in integrated engineering curriculum’, International Journal of Engineering Education, 38(3).

Junaid, S., Kovacs, H., Martin, D. A., and Serreau, Y. (2021) ‘What is the role of ethics in accreditation guidelines for engineering programmes in Europe?’, Proceedings SEFI 49th Annual Conference: Blended Learning in Engineering Education: challenging, enlightening – and lasting?, European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), pp. 274-282.

Additional resources:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors: Professor Sarah Hitt SFHEA (NMITE) and Professor Raffaella Ocone OBE FREng FRSE (Heriot-Watt University).

Keywords: Engineering education; assessment methods and tools; ethics assessment and evaluation; AHEP; ABET; ethics learning assessment aims and outcomes.

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design. It will also help prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for.

Premise:

Educators who integrate ethics into their activities and modules may be unsure how to assess student learning in this area. Yet assessment of ethics learning is not only crucial for evaluating learning, but also for identifying ways to improve the teaching of ethics within engineering education. This is becoming increasingly important as accreditation bodies such as the AHEP (UK) and ABET (US) have revised standards to emphasise the context of engineering practice – of which ethics is a key component. Professional and industrial organisations like the Royal Academy of Engineering and the IET are prioritising ethical principles within their activities too.

The challenge of assessment:

The challenges of assessing ethics learning can seem difficult to overcome. Many of these challenges are summarised by Davis and Feinerman (2012) as “practical limits on assessment”. These include demands on time, pressure from other instructors or administrators, difficulty in connecting assessment of ethics with assessment of technical content, and instructors’ unfamiliarity or lack of confidence in ethics teaching.

Furthermore, as Keefer et al. (2014, p.250-251) point out, “realistic ethical problems are what cognitive scientists refer to as ‘ill-structured problems’, because there is no clearly specified goal, usually incomplete information, and multiple possible solution paths . . . good student responses can lead in quite different directions, providing emphases on a diversity of values and issues that are difficult to predict”.

However, scholars of engineering ethics have been studying assessment methods and practices for decades, and have shown ways of overcoming these challenges. Informed by other areas of practical and professional ethics, including business or medical ethics, their work has tried to formalise evaluation and measure students’ learning after ethical interventions in the curriculum. Whether these interventions occur in the context of a single course or module on engineering ethics, as part of a defined design project, or integrated within technical lessons, scholars agree that ethics learning can, and should, be assessed as a best practice in engineering education (Benya, 2012).

Assessment aims and methods:

Most educational institutions promote a variety of assessment methods as good educational practice. As such, both quantitative and qualitative assessment methods can be used in ethics education; many of these are described in Watts et al.’s (2017) systematic review and analysis of best practices. These include: pre- and post-tests, experimental and control groups, interviews to elicit descriptive data, or written essays from which themes can be identified and extracted.

No matter which method is chosen, the key to assessing student progress in ethics learning is for the educator to align the content that is taught, with the outcomes that are desired (Bairaktarova and Woodcock, 2015). These outcomes can be informed by other module or programme learning outcomes and accreditation standards.

A good practice is to use outcomes informed by scholars in moral development and teaching ethics, who have described ways to identify and then measure defined elements of ethics learning. For example, the Engineering Ethics Explorer identifies pedagogical focus at different learning levels with corresponding outcomes and content.

In ethics education more generally, Davis and Feinerman (2012) describe these learning aims which can be applied to engineering ethics:

Improve students’ sensitivity (the awareness and recognition of ethical dilemmas).
Increase students’ knowledge (ethics resources such as codes, standards, theories, and/or decision-making tools).
Enhance students’ judgement (the analysis and reasoning required to make and justify ethical choices).
Reinforce students’ commitment (the motivation to act based on ethics learning).

These aims correspond to a taxonomy of moral development such as that described by James Rest (1994) which increases in complexity at different learning levels. For this reason, the Royal Academy of Engineering/Engineering Professors’ Council’s Engineering ethics case studies are designated as Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced, where:

Beginner cases focus on ethical Awareness, Sensitivity, and Imagination
Intermediate cases focus on ethical Analysis, Reasoning, and Judgement
Advanced cases focus on ethical Motivation, Action, and Commitment.

Developing assessment tools in engineering ethics:

Educators may use these ethics learning aims / outcomes as guidance for developing assessments. For example, in an intermediate case that focuses on making a decision about an ethical dilemma, students might be assessed on their ability to:

identify stakeholders affected by the dilemma and describe their perspectives
define the problem and explain why it is an ethical dilemma
identify possible courses of action in response to the dilemma
propose a course of action that is justified by drawing on codes or standards.

After outcomes are identified, educators can design assessment tools. In the case described above, multiple choice questions would ask students to identify stakeholders, choose among options that correctly define the problem, or identify potential courses of action.

A matching question could link stakeholders and their perspectives. Students would be asked to explain the dilemma and propose a course of action and a narrative could be evaluated against a rubric that scores students’ proficiency on a scale of Less Proficient to Expert in categories such as:

the ability to anticipate ethical concerns of stakeholders
the ability to recognise competing ethical demands
the ability to refer to resources that support ethical action.

These tools could be used in formative assessments, where students are given checklists, rubrics, or scoring guides to evaluate their learning as it is happening and prior to the completion of final exams or projects. Keefer et al. (2014) show formative assessment to be effective in engineering ethics learning situations not only because of its benefit to students, but also in its ability to reveal gaps in instruction that can be used to improve teaching.

Sindelar et al. (2003) describe the use of a summative assessment tool where students provided written responses to questions about two engineering ethics scenarios and were scored using a rubric designed to evaluate their response to an ethical dilemma. Both of these examples were also used in both pre- and post-test scenarios. These could also be useful in measuring the effectiveness of ethics instruction.

Finally, Davis and Feinerman (2012) demonstrate how slight adjustments to technical questions can elicit responses that also reveal students’ ethics learning. This can be done by using the example of a question about the technical capabilities of a micro-fluidic device and its advantages or disadvantages to society.

Conclusion:

We should be encouraged that, as Watts et al. (2017, p.225-226) also demonstrate, “multiple meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of ethics courses in the sciences and business” show that ethics instruction does improve students’ ability to make ethical decisions, and that ethics education has “improved significantly in the last decade”. With that in mind, educators should feel confident that they can identify what aspect of ethics learning needs to be assessed, and then measure it with an appropriately designed assessment tool.

References:

Bairaktarova, D. and Woodcock, A. (2015). ‘Engineering ethics education: Aligning practice and outcomes’, IEEE Communications Magazine, 53(11), pp.18-22.

Benya, F.F., Fletcher, C.H. and Hollander, R.D., (2013) ‘Practical Guidance on Science and Engineering Ethics Education for Instructors and Administrators: Papers and Summary from a Workshop December 12, 2012’, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Davis, M. and A. Feinerman. (2012). ‘Assessing graduate student progress in engineering ethics’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), pp. 351-367.

Keefer, M.W., Wilson, S.E., Dankowicz, H. and Loui, M.C., (2014) ‘The importance of formative assessment in science and engineering ethics education: Some evidence and practical advice’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), pp. 249-260.

Rest, J. R., (1994) ‘Background: Theory and research’, in Rest, J. and Narvaez, D. (eds.), Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1-26.

Sindelar, M., Shuman, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Miller, R., Mitcham, C., Olds, B., Pinkus, R. and Wolfe, H., (2003) ‘Assessing engineering students’ abilities to resolve ethical dilemmas’, Paper presented at the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boulder, CO, 5-8 November 2003.

Watts, L.L., Todd, E.M., Mulhearn, T.J., Medeiros, K.E., Mumford, M.D. and Connelly, S., (2017) ‘Qualitative evaluation methods in ethics education: A systematic review and analysis of best practices’, Accountability in Research, 24(4), pp. 225-242.

Additional resources:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Degree Apprenticeships Toolkit

We’ve pulled together a checklist of things for university departments to consider when proposing to get involved in degree apprenticeships. It’s still evolving so please do contact us if you have experience or advice you would like to add.

Schedules of teaching and learning need to be agreed. These can take various forms:

Day release;
Block release;
Integration with some modules on some mainstream regular taught programmes.

There may also be periods of study on employers’ premises and at other institutions. These again have to be agreed and contracted.

Methods of grading, assessment and feedback need to be agreed and these will then be adhered to, in order to satisfy the exam board and other university regulations. The structures of assessment (presentations, experiments, lab work, practicals, as well as essays and exams) have also to be integrated throughout the programmes.

Agreeing employer-led content is vital from the above points of view. In employer led content, the university is required to have a position of ‘internal external examiner’ and in some universities this may mean that designated employer staff are given the status of adjunct employee at the university in question.

Examining employer-led content and the means by which this is done has to be agreed and contracted. It is essential to recognise that this can lead to conflicts, where for example:

The work is of a satisfactory university standard but has no practical relevance to the employer;
The work is of a satisfactory standard for the employer but does not meet the standards required by the university.

University staff will therefore need to remain in close contact and regularly visiting employers’ premises in order that neither of these positions occurs. Where there are disputes over standards, there needs to be an agreed means of arbitration and reconciliation of grades and work.

Student registration is an issue because of the UK UCAS regulations that govern undergraduate admissions to programmes at this level. This may have to be agreed as a formality; if students are not to apply via UCAS then an alternative is required, that is agreed and contracted. There may be disputes also over:

A candidate that is deemed suitable by the employer but not the university;
A candidate that is deemed suitable by the university but not the employer;
Levels of school achievements prior to admissions;
Variations in the principle of equality and fairness of treatment which govern all admissions at this level.

Degree Apprenticeships Toolkit

The constitution of the programme is formed around the 80/20 principle and what is done and how then becomes a matter for agreement in the contract. There are two main approaches:

The university agrees with each employer a programme of education to be delivered at the university;
The university agrees a more generic programme which is suitable for a range of degree apprenticeships and then offers/agrees with a range of employers which have their own specific on the job demands and needs, but within which the university generic programme fits.

The “on the job” work then has to be fitted in with the requirements of the employers, and needs to be agreed and structured in ways that fit in with HEI schemes of award. This means particular attention to, and agreement on:

Programme award, the name and description of the degree, length and structure of study, and the different classifications of award;
Scheme of award, which will be through the universities’ own constitution;
Examination board and constitution: the names and roles and functions of those who participate and the nature of employer assessment and involvement and influence;
Examiners and external examiners, and especially whether the university constitution allows for non-academics on exam boards (and if not, then how to integrate the employer interests in the examination processes);
Classification of degree award, and the extent to which this fits in with existing practices, or whether the university and employers wish to design new classifications and structures;
Chair and constitution of exam board, which again needs to be formalised to the agreement of all;
Delivery of results, in accordance with programme specifications, degree awarding processes, and the constitution of the university;
Graduation, which needs also to be stated and formalised.

Interim awards may also be either offered by the university or demanded by the employers, and the issuing of certificates and diplomas at different stages of progress may be required or appropriate in some cases.

Our two Placements Toolkits (previously Contextual Learning Toolkits) are the result of the research conducted to address the recommendations of the Perkins Review of Engineering Skills and the Royal Academy of Engineering’s Universe of Engineering Report about engineering student’s placements in companies.

The report is part of the close work that the EPC has being doing with the NCUB on its “engineering workwith” hub of information for employers on how to work with university engineering departments to provide work experience opportunities and other forms of collaboration to enhance the work-readiness of students, and follows the outcomes of a survey conducted by the EPC during September/October 2015 on Contextual Learning in UK HE Engineering.

The report includes the main findings of the research aimed to explore engineering students’ placement experiences and case studies. Two separate, but interlinked, toolkits, were developed:

The toolkit for Students was designed to support students to get the best from their placement experience.

The toolkit for Universities and Employers was designed to support higher education institutions and employers to enhance the experience and the value of students’ placements.

Structure

The toolkits were structured to support the placement experience in three key stages: before, during and after placement.

For the purpose of the toolkits:

a placement is where learning opportunities are available for the student to undertake engineering practice under guidance and supervision;
an academic supervisor is the key link at the university, during the placement (if applicable);
a placement supervisor is the direct manager at the company, during the placement.

This toolkit is designed to support you to get the best from your placement experience. It will help you to think about your placement, looking at your expectations, recognising your own responsibilities alongside those of your university and placement provider.

For the purpose of this toolkit:

a placement is where learning opportunities are available for you to undertake engineering practice under guidance and supervision
an academic supervisor is your key link at your university, during your placement (if applicable)
a placement supervisor is your direct manager at the company

The Toolkit is structured to follow your placement journey and will provide you useful information to consider before, during and after your placement experience.

Aligned with the Engineering Placements Toolkit, designed for education institutions and employers, this toolkit aims to support your placement experience in three key stages: before, during and after placement. Please select and click the appropriate page below to gain access to tools to help you through each stage of the placement.

Contents

The Engineering Placements Toolkit is designed to support higher education institutions and employers to enhance the experience and the value of students’ placements. Aligned with the Your Placement Journey Toolkit, designed for students, this toolkit aims to support the placement experience in three key stages: before, during and after placement. Please select and click the appropriate page below to gain access to tools to help you through each stage of the placement.

Contents

Your Placement Journey Toolkit is designed to support you to get the best from your placement experience. It will help you to think about your placement, looking at your expectations, recognising your own responsibilities alongside those of your university and placement provider.

Placement experiences

“I am getting industrial experience in the area I am really passionate about, so when I’ll graduate and will look for jobs I’ll be so much better prepared and it’s definitely a plus to my CV.” – from University of Leicester

Oishi Deb is a software and electronics engineering undergraduate at University of Leicester. She has finished her second year and is currently doing a yearlong placement at Rolls Royce where she is enjoying the opportunity to apply her knowledge in real world projects and also learn new skills that will benefit her future professional career.

“I think the best part was that I was seen as a team member in the department (…) I was very welcomed there, they appreciated the work I was doing and the feedback was very constructive all the time.” – from University of Salford

Cristian Balan is an aeronautical engineering undergraduate at University of Salford. He had an exciting one-year placement in Airbus, working both in Germany (Bremen) and France (Toulouse). In his placement Cristian felt he was part of the team and worked in fast-paced projects where he had the opportunity to work not only in research and development departments, but also in production and quality management.

“I couldn’t recommend doing a placement enough to anyone. I think this was one of the best decisions I have made. I wasn’t originally signed up to do it but I changed my mind and I am so delighted, because I think it’s really invaluable to have real world experience throughout a year. It puts what you learned in university in such a good perspective, and I found that really helpful.” – from University of Bath

Emily Jones is a civil engineering undergraduate at University of Bath. She did a one-year placement in industry where she had the opportunity to work in different projects and have a real world experience of what a civil engineer does. Emily describes her placement as being an invaluable experience, and recommends every student to be proactive and embrace all the opportunities been offered during their placement.

“I enjoyed the freedom of being able to help in any way that I could, and just being useful. I really did enjoy it, and it was a really good break from university, which was exactly what I wanted.” – from Imperial College London

Tobi Danmole is a mechanical engineering undergraduate at Imperial College London. Last year he did a one-year placement, not only to gain experience and increase his chances of getting a good job, but also to have a break from university and explore the world of work. He has been offered a job in Rolls-Royce, after doing his placement in the company.

“I think it’s really important if you are given the opportunity to enter a company for a short period of time to see as much as the company as possible, and not just the little sector where you are working, so that you can have a better feel of how companies, in general, work.” – from University of Cambridge

Madeleine Steer is an engineering undergraduate at University of Cambridge. In Cambridge, all engineering undergraduate students are required to complete a total of 8 weeks of internship experience during summer. However, although being compulsory for her degree, Madeleine also wanted to do internships in order to explore which field of engineering she wanted to specialise in the future. These internships allowed Madeleine to actually experience the work of different companies, and gain a wider perspective of what to expect in different engineering sectors.

“I think I’ve become more interested in my own course. And then, as a person, it has made me more mature and given me a better idea of what I want to do next. I still have some doubts from time to time, but now, at least, I know what I enjoy doing, and what I am looking for in a job.” – University of Bath

Ana Miarnau is a mechanical engineering undergraduate at University of Bath. She had an international one-year placement at a research organisation in Switzerland. Initially, she was not meant to do a placement, but after speaking to students at the university who had been on a placement before, Ana thought it was a good idea to get work experience before graduating and increase their chances of finding a good job once graduated.

“You got to learn the lesson to rely on other people and look for help when you need it. I think it helped me to come to university because if I hadn’t done it, I would be struggling with problems and trying to solve things on my own, when there are better options out there, such as going to look for help and working together in group. I think that is, at the moment, perhaps the best thing I have learnt.” – from University of Cambridge

Charlie Constable is a first year engineering undergraduate student at University of Cambridge. He took a gap year before coming to university, through the Engineering Development Trust ‘Year in Industry Scheme’, in order to try and feel how actually engineering works.

Let us know what you think of our website