EE skills, standards mobility

Engineering Education
Future skills, standards and mobility
Engineers Ireland, 30th October 2019

Tertiary Education System: Policy Priorities 2019/20 Slide 5
William Beausang, Department of Education & Skills
International Observations: UN SDGs and Digitalisation Slide 23
Prof. Mike Murphy, European Society for Engineering Education
Future trends in the consulting engineering sector Slide 56
Kevin Rudden, European Federation of Consulting Engineering Associations
Study Friday: A new approach to life-long learning Slide 83
Ulrika Lindstrand, Sveriges Ingenjörer (Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers)
Creative Engine Slide 87
Kelvin Martins, Dublin City University
Professional Roles and Future Employability of EngineeRs (PREFER) Slide 98
Darren Carthy, Technological University Dublin
Engineering Education: Future skills, standards and mobility, 30th October 2019 3
Presentations

Critical thinking in university curricula (CRITHINKEDU) Slide 114
Prof. Aoife Ahern, University College Dublin
Attracting diverse talent to the engineering professions of 2030 (A-STEP) Slide 132
Una Beagon, Technological University Dublin
International trends in engineering education Slide 146
Damien Owens, Engineers Ireland, International Engineering Alliance & ENAEE
The alignment of the accreditation and programmatic review processes Slide 164
Maria Kyne, Limerick Institute of Technology
Accreditation of third level engineering programmes Slide 192
Dr Richard Manton, Engineers Ireland
Presentations (continued)

International Observations
UN SDGs and Digitalisation
Mike Murphy
Former Chair of the European Engineering Deans Council (SEFI)
Immediate Past President – European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI)
Director of Academic Affairs, Digital & Learning Transformation (TU Dublin)
Engineering Education: Future skills, standards and mobility

Key points / Agenda
• Superficial thoughts on SDGs and Digitalisation
• International Observations:
– Skills and competences
– Networking
• Including a word about the EU
– Broadening the Curriculum

Superficial thoughts on UN SDGs and Digitalisation
My immediate superficial thoughts:
Engineering education is normative
Generalisations are undermined by exemplars that “prove” otherwise
But Engineering Education is not:
- Homogenous
- Static
European Deans of Engineering are:
- Comfortable addressing UN SDGs
- Nervous about the (as yet unknown) impact of digitalisation

Superficial thoughts on UN SDGs and Digitalisation
• Universities beginning to
align towards relevant
goals
• Provides a compelling
‘burning platform’

Key points / Agenda
– Networking

Attracting Diverse Talent to the Engineering Professions of 2030
Professional Roles and Employability of Future EngineeRs
Observations – Skills & Competences

We tend to focus on the Skills of Students. Why is that?
“The quickening pace of technological
advancement and its effect on our
society, heighten the need to ensure that
all young people develop the broad
range of technical, communication and
problem solving skills that will serve
them and our society over the coming
decades, both as wealth creators and as
citizens. This includes nurturing practical
skills and creativity, alongside the
development of enabling skills such as
complex problem solving and critical
thinking and professional behaviours
such as ethical consideration and
environmental awareness, increasingly
identified as critical by employers.”
https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/engineering-skills-for-the-future

Observations – Skills & Competences
• Skills:
– We tend to focus on student/graduate skills
– But what about the skills of our engineering
educators?
– Why do we assume that they can teach
effectively?

The Skills of our Engineering Educators
• What responsibility do we (senior university leaders) have for the
skills and competences of our engineering educators?
– What skills do we seek at recruitment?
– What on-the-job professional development do
we require?
– What supports do we provide them?
– How do we measure their teaching
competence?
– Are our Promotion & Tenure criteria aligned?

“The Career Framework for
University Teaching is an open-
access resource to help
universities evaluate and reward
the teaching achievements of their
academic staff. It represents the
culmination of a four-year project
funded by the Royal Academy of
Engineering as part of its
commitment to advancing
excellence in undergraduate
education.”
https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/career-framework-for-university-teaching-backgroun

The Career Framework for University Teaching

American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)
… is also beginning to explore competences and
recognition of expertise for engineering educators …
Should we here in Ireland be looking at this more closely?

Key points / Agenda
– Networking

Individual Academic
• How can I stay current?
• How can I be a better
teacher?
• What pedagogy should I
adopt, e.g., blended
learning?
Institution/Faculty/School
• How do we improve our
rankings?
• Can we recruit more
(and better) students?
• What Partners do we
want?
• Should we change our
Curriculum, e.g., CDIO?
Observation: The need to Network

• Individual Academic:
– Become part of a university research group
• e.g., CREATE
– Collaborate with peers annually
• e.g., UK & Ireland Engineering Education Research
Network (EERN)
– Connect to a worldwide community of Scholars
• e.g., Research in Engineering Education Network (REEN)
(www.reen.co) - an independent, international and inclusive
forum for quality research in engineering education.
What could be argued is missing from the above?

• Institution/Faculty/School
– Network through an organisation like SEFI:
• find university partners with similar philosophies
– Erasmus +
– European Universities Initiative
• European Engineers Advisory Group (with FEANI)
https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/european-education-area/european-universities-initiative_en

“Themis Christophidou, European Commission DG for Education, Youth,
Sport and Culture, explained that the ever-increasing use of technology
demands ever-stronger digital skills. These, she believed, were the new
literacy and were essential in maintaining European competitiveness.”

• European
voice

Key points / Agenda
– Networking

The 2018 MIT Report
• “The study considers the global
state of the art in engineering
undergraduate education. It was
undertaken to inform
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology’s (MIT) New
Transformation (NEET), an
initiative charged with developing
and delivering a world-leading
program of undergraduate
engineering education at the
university.”
http://neet.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/MIT_NEET_GlobalStateEngineeringEducation2018.pdf

The 2018 MIT Report (Continued)
The Report examined the following questions:
1. Which institutions are considered to be the ‘current
leaders’ in engineering education?
2. Which institutions are considered to be ‘emerging
leaders’ in engineering education?
3. What features distinguish the current and emerging
leaders in engineering education?
4. What key challenges are likely to constrain the progress
of engineering education?
5. What is the future direction for the engineering
education sector?

Trend 1:
“a tilting of the global axis of engineering education
leadership … from high-income countries to the
emerging economic ‘powerhouses’ in Asia and
South America. Many among this new generation
of world leaders will be propelled by strategic
government investment in engineering education
as an incubator for the technology-based
entrepreneurial talent that will drive national
economic growth.”

Trend 2:
“is a move towards socially-relevant and outward-
facing engineering curricula. Such curricula
emphasize student choice, multidisciplinary
learning and societal impact, coupled with a
breadth of student experience outside the
classroom, outside traditional engineering
disciplines and across the world. While many of
these educational features appear within
engineering programs at the ‘current leader’
institutions, they are often “bolt-on activities” and
are isolated within the curriculum.”

Trend 3:
“The emergence of a new generation of leaders in
engineering education that delivers integrated
student-centered curricula at scale.”
“This is the future of the field, where you put the
student at the center and use the resources to
facilitate team projects and authentic
experiences, and then put the taught curriculum
online.”

• “The material welfare of the community is unreservedly bound up
with the due working of this industrial system, and therefore with its
unreserved control by the engineers, who alone are competent to
manage it,” (Thorstein Veblen 1921)
• Veblen argued that it was solely the engineers who could optimize
and maximize the output of the industrial system (and therefore for
the benefit of society)
Broadening the Curriculum

• “Technology is a queer thing. It brings you gifts with one hand, and
stabs you in the back with the other.” – CP Snow (1959)
• The intellectual life of the whole of western society is split into two
cultures – the sciences and the humanities – which is a major
hindrance to solving the world's problems

• Broadening the Curriculum: a question
Engineering Education Societal Impacts
Engineering Education Societal Impacts
OR

• The philosopher Carl Mitcham argues that “neither engineers nor
politicians deliberate seriously on the role of engineering in
transforming our world. Instead, they limit themselves to celebratory
clichés about economic benefit, national defense, and innovation”
(Mitcham 2014).
• Mitcham’s argument in a nutshell is that there is too much use and
not enough learning in the typical undergraduate engineering
program.
• His solution: the engineer should seek self-knowledge through
reflection and self-examination

Justification Description Effect
1 No justification Engineers transform the world
because they can
Engineering education is
through the core disciplines of
engineering
2 Instrumental
justification
Engineers transform the world
and they can communicate it
clearly
Social Sciences courses can
improve the communications
skills of engineers
3 Enhanced
Instrumental
justification
and they can justify it rationally
and contextually
Social Sciences courses can
locate engineering projects
within their broader social
context
4 Intrinsic Value
justification
and they can reflect on what it
means for all of us
Social Sciences courses enable
critical self-reflection on the
meaning of life in a
progressively engineered world
Method to classify Engineering Programmes

The Royal Academy of Engineering
“[T]he engineering community should hold itself … to
account where progress has not been good enough. [T]he
available data strongly suggests a … worrying stagnation
of young people opting to study … the subjects that lead
to engineering careers. The historic focus on STEM as a
concept may be part of the issue here …. Linked to this
and despite some progress indicators, engineering,
physics and computing all struggle in recruiting outside the
traditional archetypes of white males. Women and people
from a variety of minority backgrounds remain vastly and
unacceptably under-represented across the broad
spectrum of engineering and technician roles. There is a
clear business case for a more inclusive engineering
profession to attract and retain a more diverse
engineering workforce. Professional bodies and
engineering employers must take a long-term, data-driven
and evidence-based approach to addressing this issue.”
https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/engineering-skills-for-the-future

Key insights?
Engineering Education: Future skills, standards and mobility, 30th October 2019
Engineering education is normative
- And that is not a good thing!
55

Future Trends
Consulting Engineering Sector
Kevin Rudden
President
EFCA

Free Download efcanet.org

Eleonora Smargiassi
FUTURE TRENDS 2019 TASK FORCE

“If a picture is worth a
thousand words, then a video has
to be worth at least 1.8 million
words.”

AGILE MANAGEMENT,
WIKINOMIKS & IPD
“Agile management is about working
smarter rather than harder. It not about
doing more work in less time: Its about
generating more value from less work”
Stephen Denning

“Trying to exploit Technology and data with the management
practices that are still pervasive in many big corporations today
is like driving a horse and buggy on the freeway. To prosper in
the very different world that is emerging, firms need a radically
different kind of management.”
“The new management paradigm is a journey, not a
destination. It involves never - ending innovation, both in terms
of specific innovations that the organization generates for the
customer and the steady improvements to the practice of
management itself. A firm never “arrives” at a steady state
where it can relax because “we are now Agile”. Embracing the
new paradigm requires continuous commitment and leadership
from management.”...

Core Characteristics in the Organizations that
have embraced Agile:
1. The law of the small team
2. The law of the customer
3. The law of the network

Why is the engineering industry perfectly
suited to agile management?
Because the industry operates in an uncertain ecosystem;
• The purpose of the engineering company is to design single
projects perfectly suited to the law of the small team;
• Every single project needs to satisfy the client, in other words to
apply the law of the customer;
• The success of the project depends on the ability to manage
integrated information, in essence to apply the law of the
network;
• The management in an engineering company needs to be
primarily a hierarchy of competence, not a hierarchy of authority;
• In today’s digital age, engineering companies need to achieve
both execution and innovation disciplines.

Wikinomics
I. Openness- Encourages
Transparency – Foster Trust –
Facilitate innovation
II. Collaboration – Social
Networking – Social
Production
III. Sharing – Common Assets –
Accelerated Growth –
Innovation
IV. Integrity
V. Interdependence

Wikinomics

BIG DATA AND ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE
COMPANIES
THAT ARE
DATA
COMPANIES
COMPANIES
THAT WILL
BECOME
DATA
COMPANIES
COMPANIES
THAT WILL
BECOME
EXTINCT
OPTION1
OPTION2
OPTION3
3 Choices in the New Economy

BIG DATA
▪ Unlike physical assets Data does not get
“used up”.
▪ It can be replicated and used in multiple
applications without diminishing its
value.
▪ In fact, the value of data increases as
more data is collected - a sort of “data
network effect”.

▪ More data created in the past 3 years than the previous 40,000
years
▪ Data in the world doubles every 2 years
▪ Storage must therefore increase to keep pace
▪ Cloud becomes an attractive economic solution
▪ Where is your cloud storage data held?
▪ What jurisdiction ?
▪ is it safe ?
▪ Who can see it ?
▪ Who can use it ?

“ESTONIA OPEN WORLDS FIRST DATA
EMBASSY IN LUXEMBOURG”

“DATA IS THE OIL THAT
FUELS ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE”

DIGITAL DASHBOARD
▪ Visual presentation of performance
measures
▪ Ability to make more informed
decisions
▪ Gain visibility of all systems in real
time
▪ Fast identification of data outliers and
correlations

DIGITAL DASHBOARD
“Integrated information coordinates information from all disciplines to
provide an accurate representation of project reality”

VISUALIZATION AND DEMATERALIZATION
“14% of Ikea’s returns are due to
customers wrongly assessing the
size of furniture items”
Ikea’s augmented reality catalogue can show
how the Ektorp sofa will look in the
customer’s own living room, allowing the
item’s dimensions to be judged in the
context of the space available

3D PRINTING AND ROBOTICS

▪ 10 No 200m2 houses per day
▪ €5,000 per house

Enrico Dini

WHAT WE SHOULD DO NEXT?
▪ Stay calm, and try to understand how to use and control available
technology
▪ Communicate and do not hesitate to share your ideas to discover more
▪ Implement new management methods that ensure innovation and
experimentation through fast feedback cycles with end users
▪ Take decisions using simulations, data analysis and information
▪ Learn how to organize information on a dashboard designed for each
specific project
▪ Learn how to implement cognitive collaboration
▪ Understand and analyze future trends…………

Study Friday
A new approach to life-long learning
Ulrika Lindstrand
President
Sveriges Ingenjörer
Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers

Study Friday - Partners
The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers,
The Association of Swedish Engineering Industries,
The Swedish Association of Industrial Employers,
Swedish IT and Telecom Industries,
The Federation of Swedish Innovation Companies,
Innovation and Chemical Industries in Sweden (IKEM),
Swedish Royal Institute of Technology,
Chalmers University of Technology,
University of Uppsala,
University of Lund,
University of Linköping,
Luleå University of Technology and
University of Umeå.

Study Friday

Study Friday
1. A new approach to education throughout working life - Study Friday
2. More flexible admission to continuing education courses
3. Increased collaboration on education for professionals
4. Division of courses into constituent elements
5. Special operational area for continuing education and equivalent
resources for higher education institutions
6. Skills development deductions for employers
7. Opportunities for financial compensation for loss of income for
participants
Proposals for more rapid, improved competence shift and
development of competence

Creative Engine
Kelvin Martins
Dublin City University

The Project
ONE GOAL
Integrate Creativity and Innovation skills
into engineering education
FIVE PARTNERS FOUR COUNTRIES

Definitions
Creativity
is the ability to imagine or
invent something new.
It is an active process and a
state of mind.
Innovation
is where an idea becomes a
product, a service or a
business model.
It is the discipline of value
creation.

Goals and Objectives
• The project aims to develop new pedagogical and teacher
training materials focused these vital skills;
• It aims to ensure that engineering learners have the necessary
knowledge required to boost:
✓ Employability opportunities;
✓ Entrepreneurial capabilities;
✓ The ability to become leading engineers.
So, to understand the skills needs of today’s
modern engineering industry, a survey was
conducted

The Survey
Conducted
during
February and
March 2019

Results
EU Result

Results
EU Result:
4 in 5

Next Steps
The
Creative Engine
team will use these
results to help
achieve intellectual
outputs such as:

For more information
anne.morrissey@dcu.ie
james.carton@dcu.ie
kelvin.cardozomartins@dcu.ie
Dr Anne Morrissey
Dr James Carton
Mr Kelvin Martins

Professional Roles and Future
Employability of EngineeRs
PREFER
Darren Carthy
PhD researcher
TU Dublin, City Campus

Key facts and figures
EU grant:
€ 988,462
Project
duration:
2017 - 2020
Countries:
3
Partners:
13
“Reduce the skills
mismatch in the field
of engineering “

Background
• The European Skills index provides
a number of key indicators of
economic success for the EU 28
member states.
• Ireland rank 28th for skills
mismatch and 19th for skills
development
• No major changes occurring in
either metric from 2014-2016
(Brugia and Babrauskiene, 2018).

Professional roles model

Recognisable to industry?

What skills are needed in each?

How will we measure these skills?
Developed a test
in consultancy
with Industry
experts BDO

PREFER-Match
PREFER-Match
• Evaluated at 11 expert panels
• Piloted with 334 engineering
masters students
• What role suits your judgements
best?
A situational
judgement test
tailor made for
engineers

Evaluated with
53 Industry
experts across 3
countries

Situations in Product Leadership
Client focus and
a clear vision of
a product

Situations in Operational Excellence
Positive critical
attitude and
organising work
effectively

Situations in Customer Intimacy
Networking and
a clear
communication

Conclusions
• Students show a clear preference for Product Leadership roles, but
with 33% engineers and researchers in Ireland employed in
professional services, there are certainly many opportunities in
Client Focused roles.
• There are a number of key skill deficiencies in the masters students
that can be addressed moving forward to optimise graduates for the
labour market.

Critical thinking in university
curricula
CRITHINKEDU Project- Erasmus project
Aoife Ahern, (co-authors: John O’Sullivan, Ciaran McNally)
Professor, Dean of Engineering,
School of Civil Engineering, University College Dublin

Introduction
• Introduction to the CRITHINKEDU project
• Project objectives
• Focus group findings
• Engineering and Critical Thinking

What is the CRITHINKEDU project?
• Erasmus-funded project running from 2016-2019, looking at the role
of critical thinking in university curricula
• Considered how critical thinking differs across disciplines
• Partners: UTAD (Portugal), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
(Spain), Universita Roma Tre (Italy), University of Western
Macedonia (Greece), KUL (Belgium) UC Leuven (Belgium),
Technological Educational Institute of Thessaly (Greece),
Sioulaikiniu Didaktiku Centras (Lithuania), University of
EconomicsPrague (Czech Republic), Academia de Studili
Economice din Bucharest (Romania), University College Dublin
(Ireland)

CRITHINKEDU
• What disciplines were included?
– Engineering
– Science
– Economics
– Medicine
– Vetenary Medicine
– Nursing
– Teaching (secondary and primary)
– Philosophy
– Psychology

CRITHINKEDU objectives
• Find out how Critical Thinking is being addressed across European
Higher Education Institutions and in different disciplines
• Explore how different stakeholders (employers, academics) define,
view and value Critical Thinking
• Create a network of CT experts
• Create recommendations and strategies to help CT training and
teaching (including workshops and training tools)

What is Critical Thinking?
• A number of definitions exist for what CT is
• Definition used in CRITHINKEDU comes from Facione
• Critical Thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of
educational assessment and instruction. Facione, 1990, Californian
Academic Press
• Critical Thinking: What it is and why it counts? Peter Facione,
Insight Assessment. (2015)

Facione’s model
• Core Critical Thinking Skills:
– Interpretation
– Analysis
– Evaluation
– Inference
– Explanation
– Self-regulation

Facione’s model
• Critical Thinking Dispositions: Approaches to life that make you a
critical thinker
– Inquisitive
– Open Minded
– Judicious
– Truth Seeking
– Analytical
– Systematic
– Confident in reasoning

CRITHINKEDU project
• Focus Groups
– 32 focus groups with professionals in 9 countries covering 189 professionals
– Engineering focus groups – conducted in Ireland and Portugal
– Ireland: 3 focus groups
– What did we find in our engineering focus groups?
• In CRITHINKEDU, focus groups with employers and industry found that while they
value CT they are often vague about what it really is but they can say what they think a
critical thinker should be able to do.
• However – the they seem to equate it with problem solving, and self-regulation. They
also value the skill of being able to question results and understand the fundamentals of
problems, rather than trust “black box”.
• Focus groups with employers and industry found that while they value CT they are often
vague about what it really is but they can say what they think a critical thinker should be
able to do.

Some quotes from our focus groups
• “Clear unbiased analyses and synthesis of available information to
come to a well reasoned outcome, be it a decision or deeper
understanding.”
• “It’s not that you need to think of everything all the time, you need to
get on with the thing [your job]… but holding enough context “
• “Apply ones understanding to advise, or explain, or report. Much
more than communications given that you must identify audience
that you are communicating with and this requires serious critical
thinking.”
• “The ability to analyse the issues that arise out of a problem, to
know what the problem is and what the components of the problem
are”

Problem solving and CT
• Employers said that CT was the same as problem solving.
• Problem solving is highly valued by engineering employers.
• For example, Jonassen et al. (2006) explain that the workplace
problems are ill-structured and complex because they possess
“conflicting goals, multiple solution methods, non-engineering success
standards, non-engineering constraints, unanticipated problems,
distributed knowledge, collaborative activity systems, the importance of
experience, and collaborative activity that rely on multiple forms of
problem representation”.
• REFERENCE: Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Beng Lee, C. 2006.
“Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering: Lessons for Engineering
Educators”. Journal of Engineering Education 92 (2): 139-151.

• The literature shows that the links between CT and problem solving
are also a recurring theme for engineering.
• Is this different to other disciplines? Yes – our focus groups with
other disciplines showed a much greater emphasis on dispositions
rather than skills.
• Facione states that other valuable forms of thinking are not CT –
they are closely related and valuable but not actually CT.

• For example, Facione states that problem-solving, decision making
and creative thinking are not forms of CT. These are also higher
order forms of thinking that are closely related to CT.
• Reference: Facione, P. A. 1990. The California Critical Thinking
Skills Test – College Leve. Technical Report #1: Experimental
Validation and Content Validity. Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Engineering education and CT
• What does the literature say?
• How is CT being developed in engineering education?
• Are there examples of best practice?

Findings
• Popular methods:
– Case studies
– Emphasis on problem solving and real-world situations
– Do not usually define CT or use a CT framework
– Both infusive and immersive techniques are used

Findings
• Common skills: Tended to be skills associated with problem solving.
– Self regulation
– Analysis
– Inference
– Explanation
– Evaluation
Dispositions rarely mentioned!

Types of teaching strategies
• Most reported interventions were short, typically 1 semester or less, and
involved a lecturer or module coordinator making changes in a single module
• It was rare to find evidence of more co-ordinated or cohesive approaches to
teaching CT skills across a programme or degree course.
• Assessment was not systematic
• Evaluation and assessment often carried out at the same time.
• Making any general conclusions regarding the relative impact of different
teaching strategies and interventions on the attainment of CT skills and
dispositions in engineering is difficult: there have been few studies in the
discipline that have clearly defined what is meant by CT or have clearly
assessed CT in students, or evaluated CT interventions in a very quantifiable
way.

Conclusions and recommendations
• Papers showed that approaches to teaching CT in engineering are still
somewhat limited.
• Studies typically focus on the impacts of interventions of students in
single modules, in single universities.
• There is a need for a more cohesive approach to CT in engineering
programmes, where skills are taught across the programme and where
there are links and relationships formed across modules and stages.

Attracting Diverse Talent to the Engineering
Professions of 2030
Una Beagon
Assistant Head of School of Civil & Structural Engineering
TU Dublin

Introduction to Project
Project Aims
Activity 1 work
Results to date
Q1. Sustainable Development
Q2. Awareness of SDGs
Q3. Skills and competencies required
Next Steps
Format of presentation

Project Details
Attracting diverSe Talent to the Engineering
Professions of 2030
Project Partners:

Project Aims
Attracting diverSe Talent to the Engineering
Professions of 2030
Creating a learning
environment which is
attractive to all
Looking to the
Future and the
SDGs
Aligning values of people
with the skills needed in the
engineering profession
Encouraging a
diverse student body
to study engineering

Specific Activities
Activity 1
Future Role of Engineers in society and the skills
and competencies required to achieve the SDGs
Activity 2
Investigate values and motivations of young
people from diverse backgrounds and identify
overlap with future role of Engineers
Activity 3
Develop a new
innovative
learning and
teaching activity
to attract diverse
students linked to
skills needs and
student values.

Activity 1 details
Activity 1
Task 1:
Literature Review
Task 2: Focus Groups
Academics Students Employers
Ireland 9 7 6
France 7 9 8
Denmark 8 7 6
Finland 8 4 7

Activity 1 – Focus Groups
Focus Groups

Focus Groups
Q1. Words associated with Sustainable Development

Outcomes per country
FinlandFrance
Ireland Denmark
Q1. Words associated with Sustainable Development

Focus Groups
Q2. No of mentions for each SDG by participant group
0
5
10
15
20
25
SDG1
SDG2
SDG3
SDG4
SDG5
SDG6
SDG7
SDG8
SDG9
SDG10
SDG11
SDG12
SDG13
SDG14
SDG15
SDG16
SDG17
Students Academics Employers

Focus Groups
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Students Academics
Q2b. To what extent are SDGs covered in engineering programmes

Focus Groups
Q3: What are the skills and competencies required to achieve SDGs

Next Steps
Activity 1
Activity 2
Investigate values and motivations of young
people from diverse backgrounds and identify
overlap with future role of Engineers
Activity 3
Develop a new
innovative
learning and
teaching activity
to attract diverse
students linked to
skills needs and
student values.

Acknowledgements:
This project is an EU Erasmus + project funded under call number 2018-1-FR01-KA203-
047854. Funding provided through the French Erasmus Agency.
We would like to acknowledge all partner organisations for their help in the Activity 1
tasks. The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not
constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors,
and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein.
Acknowledgements

International Trends in
Damien Owens
Registrar Engineers Ireland
President ENAEE
Chair International Engineering Alliance

Arthur Ashe
Stadium
New York

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/british-teen-places-second-in-fortnite-world-cup-finals-duos-event-a4199716.html
Arthur Ashe
Stadium
New York

US Tennis Open
2019
FORTNITE World
Cup 2019
Total Prizemoney
(US$)
$57m $30m
Top Prize (US$) $3.5m $3m
Number of
contestants
Est 300 100
Average age Est 20-25 <16
Gender Male/Female Male

• Generation Z
• Global Warming
• Artificial Intelligence
• Global trade flows
• Migration Flows
• Global surveillance
• Cybercrime
• Design for All
• Many careers
• Pollutants
• Autonomous
vehicles
• Autonomous army
A Changing Global Environment for Engineers

The need for different skills

The Challenge :
How do we educate engineers to be
adaptive and remain relevant for their
many careers?
A Challenge

Where do learning outcomes come from?

Engineers Ireland – Accreditation Criteria
• 2014 Edition
• 7 Outcome areas (a)-(g)
a) Knowledge of maths and sciences
b) Problem solving
c) Design
d) Investigation
e) Ethics
f) Teamwork & LLL
g) Communication, society
• 3 levels
• Area descriptors, entry criteria
• Outcomes – based i.e. Evidence
based
• 5 year review cycle

EURACE – Framework Standards and Guidance
• 8 programme areas
1. Knowledge and understanding;
2. Engineering Analysis;
3. Engineering Design;
4. Investigations;
5. Engineering Practice;
6. Making Judgements;
7. Communication and Team-working;
8. Lifelong Learning.
• 2 levels (Bachelor/Masters)
• Evidence based
• 5 year cycle
• 20 members – mostly EHEA

IEA – Graduate Attributes
• 12 outcome areas
• 3 levels (Professional
technologist technician) – each
set out in an Accord
(Washington/Sydney/Dublin)
• Evidence based
• 6 year review cycle
• 40 global members
• Supplemented with competence
profiles and agreements

QQI – Award Standards
• 4 levels NFQ 6,7,8,9
• Knowledge Breadth
• Knowledge Kind
• Know-How / Skill and
range
• Know-How /Skill and
selectivity

There are many other organisations
• ENQA - European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher
Education
• EQAR – European Quality Assurance for Higher Education
• INQAAHE - International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in
Higher Education

Multiple inputs are mutually reinforcing

Engineers Ireland’s Role
• Representation of input from all sectors
• Setting of Accreditation Standards
• Enforcement of Accreditation Standards
• Influence international standards

The Alignment of the accreditation and
programmatic review processes in
engineering education
Maria Kyne
Dean of Faculty
Limerick Institute of Technology

Engineering Education and Quality
• The fundamental purpose of engineering education is to build a
knowledge base and attributes to enable the graduate to continue
learning and to proceed to formative development that will develop
the competencies required for independent practice
• Quality of Engineering Education is measured by Professional
Bodies using two methods:
- Outcomes evidence based criteria for evaluating education
programmes
- Competency based standards for professional registration
(Source: IEA Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies document – available
from the IEA website http://www.ieagreements.org)

Context
• Quality Assurance in engineering education programmes
principally involves two major processes:
- Internal Programmatic Review - strategic review of Department
and programmes
- External Accreditation - rigorous review of programmes
• Both Methods differ in their focus and intent and the preparation
required by the programme teams and management
• Two processes emphasise different aspects of engineering
education
(Professional Body Accreditation in Higher Education Institutions in Ireland – July 2017 –
Available on the QQI website http://www.qqi.ie)

PhD Research
• Explore the possibility of the alignment or combination of the
Programmatic Review and Accreditation quality assurance
processes for engineering education programmes in Ireland
• This could then allow for the establishment of a single collaborative
quality assurance process for engineering education or facilitate
sequential occurrence of the processes within the same timeframe
PhD supervised by Prof. Merrilyn Goos, Professor of STEM Education,
University of Limerick

Policy Driven Processes
Some of the most significant documentation relating to my research are as follows:
• IEA, 2013. Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies (Online). Available at
http://www.ieagreements.org
• IEA, 2015. Best practice in Accreditation of Engineering Programmes: An Exemplar
(Online). Available at http://www.ieaagreements.org
• QQI, 2019. Accreditation/Approval of Higher Education Programmes by Professional
Bodies – QQI Insights. Available at: http://www.qqi.ie
• QQI, 2017. Professional Body Accreditation in Higher Education Institutions in Ireland
(Online). Available at http://www.qqi.ie
• Engineers Ireland, 2010. Procedure for the Accreditation of Engineering Education
Programmes. [Online]
Available at: http://www.engineersireland.ie
• Engineers Ireland, 2014. Accreditation Criteria for Professional Titles. [Online]
Available at: http://www.engineersireland.ie

Research Design
• Consultation phase with Gatekeepers
Development of a draft position paper on quality assurance in engineering
education. Within the IoT Sector, consulted with COHSE, COR, QQI and
Registrar EI
• Focus Group & Focus Group Pilot
From the consultation phase created and piloted questions for the interview
phase (Delphi Technique Round 1)
• Delphi Technique Round 1 – Semi-Structured Interviews
• Delphi Technique Round 2 – Structured Questionnaire
• Delphi Technique Round 3 – Semi-Structured Interviews

Research Design Phase 1 - Complete
Consultation Phase (with the Gatekeepers)
• The researcher prepared a Position Paper on quality assurance in
engineering education in consultation with the THEA Council of
Heads of School of Engineering
• The position paper concluded that there is considerable overlap
between the programmatic review and accreditation processes and
some realignment/amalgamation of the processes would achieve
the same outcomes
• This position paper was presented to the THEA Council of
Registrars and the Registrar of Engineers Ireland who have
agreed in principle with the conclusion and recommended further
consultation with QQI

• Researcher met with QQI and the Registrar of Engineers Ireland to
consider if it is possible/practical to align the objectives of the
programmatic review and Engineers Ireland accreditation processes
• The outcome of the meeting was that the Researcher prepared 24
triangulation documents comparing the QQI Engineering Award
Standards, the QQI Professional Award Type Descriptors and the Engineers
Ireland Accreditation Criteria. There is over 90% alignment between these
standards
• Researcher prepared a Comparative Analysis of the programmatic review
and accreditation processes. This analysis allows the researcher to develop
the first draft of a set of questions for the focus group. The comparative
analysis was presented to the THEA Council of Heads of School of
Engineering

Triangulation of Engineering Standards/Criteria –
Triangulation of Engineering
Standards/Criteria – Sample 1 - Strands
NFQ level 6/EI Prof Title Eng. Tech./Skills
Engineering Award
Standards
Professional Award Type
Descriptors
EI Accreditation Criteria
Programme Outcomes
Know-How & Skill Range Use cognitive & practical
skills to solve problems
Level 6 Programme
Outcomes
Know – how & Skill
Selectivity
Draw Insightful conclusions (b)(ii), (b)(iii), (c )(ii),
Communicate and
Influence
(c)(iii), (d)(i), (d)(ii),
(d)(iii), (e)(ii), (g)(i),
(g)(ii), (g)(iii), (g)(iv)

Triangulation of EngineeriCrite – Sample 1
Standards/Criteria – Sample 2 - Strands
NFQ level 7/EI Prof Title Associate Eng/Competence
Engineering Award
Standards
Professional Award Type
Descriptors
EI Accreditation Criteria
Programme Outcomes
Context Exercising Autonomy &
judgement
Level 7 Programme
Outcomes
Role Exercising Responsibility (b), (c )(ii), (c ) (iii), (d),
Learning to Learn Working with Others (d)(i), (d)(ii), (d) (iii), (d)
Insight Learning and Teaching (iv), (e), (f), (f) (i),(f)(ii),
Attitudes (f)(iii), (f)(iv), (g)

Triangulation of Engineering Standards/Criteria – Sample 4
Standards/Criteria- Sample 3 - Strands
NFQ levels 8-9/EI Prof Title Chartered Eng/Knowledge
Engineering Award
Standards
Prof. Award Type
Descriptors
EI Accred. Criteria
Programme O. L8
EI Accred. Criteria
Programme O. L9
Breadth Scope & Coherence (a), (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a), (a)(i), (a)(ii),
Kind Structure (a)(iii), (a)(iv), (b)(i), (a)(iii), (a)(iv), (b)(i),
Issues (c)(i), (c)(iv), (d)(i), (c)(i), (c)(iv), (d)(i),
(d)(iii)
(e)(i), (e)(ii), (e)(iii), (d)(iv), (e)(i),
(e)(ii),(e)(iii), (e)(iv)
(e)(iv), (e)(v), (f)(i) (e)(v), (f)(i), (f)(iv)

Triangulation of Engineering Standards/Criteria –
Standards/Criteria – Sample 4 – Substrands
5 –NFQ level 6/EI Prof Title Engineering Technician
Eng. Award Standard Eng. Award St. Substrand
Business Context
EI Prog. Area Descriptor
Social & Busin. Context
Knowledge Breadth Basic knowledge of
management & business
Aware of social and
commercial contexts of
engineering
Knowledge Kind Understands the role of
technician engineer
Learn how to work within a
team
Skill – know how and skill
range
Produces appropriate
presentations
Analyse and present
information
selectivity
Communicate well defined
technical matters
Communicate basic
technical information

Standards/Criteria – Sample 5 - Substrands2 –
NFQ level 7/EI Prof Title Associated Engineer
Design & Development
Design & Development
Knowledge Breadth Knowledge of essential
elements of design
Knowledge of design
methods
Knowledge Kind Characteristics of design
and materials used
Detail designs and the
performance of materials
range
Design a system,
component or process
Carry out designs of
systems or processes
selectivity
Design testing and
modifications to designs
Performance testing and
design refinement

Standards/Criteria – Sample 6 - Substrands
NFQ level 8-9/EI Prof Title Chartered Engineer
Engineering Practice
Engineering Practice
Knowledge Breadth Knowledge of current
engineering practice
Familiar with engineering
operational practice
Knowledge Kind Engineer’s role in society
and ethical standards
Awareness of codes of
practices and ethics
range
Perform a management
role in an engineering
context
Day-to-day management of
complex engineering
projects
selectivity
Apply principles to real
engineering problems
Control engineering
products or processes

Comparative Analysis -Sample
Process Stage Process Activity Programmatic EI Accreditation
Overview Cyclical Review
Period
5-7 years 5 years
Overview Guidance
Documents
QQI, Institute,
Faculty
Engineers Ireland
Overview Mandatory or
Voluntary
Mandatory Voluntary (Quasi
Mandatory)
Overview Evaluates progress Previous 5 years
and plans for next 5
years
Previous 5 years
Overview Self - Evaluation All programmes Engineering Progs.
Overview Site Visit Independent expert
panel
Independent expert
panel
Overall
Responsibility
Responsibility for
the Process
Institute Reg. for
Academic Council
EI Registrar for EI
Accred. Board

Focus Group and Focus Group Pilot of LIT staff.
• The Registrar, relevant Heads of Faculty/Department and lecturing staff
were invited to participate in the Focus Group. The focus group have fine
tuned the questions for the interview phase.
Delphi Technique Round 1 – Semi-Structured Interviews
• Semi – Structured Interviews were held with a pre-determined multi-level
expert group. Finalising the participant list, conducting the interviews,
transcribing the interviews and analysing the interview data followed
consecutively. The overarching themes of this stage directly influenced the
questions generated for round 2 of the Delphi Technique

Research Round 1::Overarching Themes 1
(Existing Processes)
• Purpose of the QA processes
• Mandatory versus Voluntary Engineers Ireland Accreditation process
• Prospective versus Retrospective focus
• Synchronising of the Review Cycles
• Similarities between the two process and the affect on workload
• Validation and Accreditation Objectives
• Programmes not accredited by Engineers Ireland
• Panel Membership

Research Round 1 :Overarching Themes 2
(Revised Processes)
• Align or Combine?
• Independence of the quality assurance Outcomes (Validation and
Accreditation)
• Advantages, Disadvantages and Barriers to Aligning/Combining the
two Quality Assurance processes
• Methods of Aligning/Combining the two processes
• Revised process site visit Agenda
• Responsibilities of Stakeholders in the Revised Process
• Communications Management between all the stakeholders and
across organisations

Research Design Phase 4 – In Progress
Delphi Technique Round 2 –Structured Questionnaire
• The questionnaire was sent to all interviewees to garner their
individual views and suggestions for improvement of the17 theme
areas. The outputs from the questionnaire are currently being
analysed and the next few slides gives a sample from three theme
areas
Delphi Technique Round 3 – Semi-Structured Interviews
• Semi Structured Interviews will be conducted to confirm and discuss
the outputs of the round 2 questionnaires.

Round 2: QA Process Overview Theme
Theme Sub-quest. Agree (%) Neutral(%) Disagree(%)
PR -Part of Prog.Cy. 87.50 8.33 4.17
Acc-Part of Prog Cy. 87.50 12.50 0.00
Check relevance 87.50 4.17 8.33
Hold up internat. 95.83 4.17 0.00
Different drivers 70.83 16.67 12.50
Reflect on content 91.66 4.17 4.17
PR - Strategic 70.83 16.67 12.50
Acc- Prof Standards 87.50 12.50 0.00
PR broader review 87.50 8.33 4.17
Acc – reviews evid. 62.50 29.17 8.33

Round 2: QA Process Overiew Theme
Sub-Q Registr Prof B. HF-ME HD-ME ST-ME HF-CIV HD-CIV ST-CIV
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
2g
2h
2i
2j

Round 2: Align or Combine? Theme
Sub-Question Agree(%) Neutral (%) Disagree(%)
Greater compatibili. 83.33 16.67 0.00
Agreed process 75.00 16.67 8.33
PR has Evidence rev 83.33 16.67 0.00
Parts change
between processes
91.67 8.33 0.00
Run simultaneously
But separate
50.00 20.83 29.17
Reduce work 66.67 25.00 8.33
Chair on PR and Acc
panels
87.50 8.33 4.17

Round 2: Align or Combine Theme
10a
10b
10c
10d
10e
10f
10g

Round 2: Method of Align/Combine Theme
Sub-Question Agree (%) Neutral(%) Disagree(%)
Acc embed in PR 41.67 12.50 45.83
PR embed in ACC 37.50 20.83 41.67
Single process 66.67 20.83 12.50
Unique parts in PR 70.83 20.83 8.33
Multiple PR 62.50 20.83 16.67

Round 2: Method of Align/Combine Theme
15a
15b
15c
15d
15e

Outcomes from Round 2 - A
• The round 1 findings have identified that the research participants
are very supportive of the possibility of aligning/combining the
processes. Seventeen themes and categories that are likely to
hinder the possibility of bringing the processes into closer alignment
were identified
• Further exploration of these themes and categories in round 2 has
highlighted that the method of alignment / combination is still
contentious.
• Other areas have been identified where clear protocols need to be
established

Outcomes from Round 2 - B
• Of the 83 sub-questions – 75% agreed, 11% disagreed and 14%
neither agreed or disagreed
• Unresolved Themes include
– Mandatory or voluntary accreditation process
- Method of alignment / combination
- Synchronising of the review cycles
- Alignment of process objectives
- Panel membership competency and guidance
- Independence of the process outcomes (VAL and ACC)
- Sharing of Responsibility
- Managing liaison, report generation and sign off

Conclusion
• Two major cumbersome quality assurance process for engineering
education programmes are in place currently which differ in focus and intent
but have considerable overlaps
• Significant consultation has taken place with the Gatekeepers
• Research designed to gain the insights from experts on how
improvements to the management /scheduling of the processes could
be achieved whilst retaining the benefits of the outcomes evidence based
approach for programme review
• Research is in the Data Collection and Analysis stage using an Adapted
Delphi Technique methodology to collect data and the Constructivist
Grounded Theory to support the analysis of the data

Accreditation of third level
engineering programmes
Richard Manton
Deputy Registrar & Policy Officer
Engineers Ireland

Accreditation overview
• Recognition of meeting international standards and improvement
• Membership of Engineers Ireland and education base for professional titles
• 7 programme outcomes for each title – later slides
• Engineering programmes at NFQ levels 6-9, universities and IoTs
• Periodic assessment, peer-review, structured visit, evidence
• Role of the Accreditation Board and Executive Board
• Accords (International Engineering Alliance), EUR-ACE (ENAEE)
• 195 current accredited programmes, 318 historic (accrediting since 1982)
• Currently reviewing accreditation criteria – workshops at this conference

Programme Outcome (a)
Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
Graduates should have, inter alia:
(i) advanced knowledge and understanding of the principles, concepts,
limitations and range of applicability of established mathematical tools and
methods;
(ii) advanced knowledge and understanding of the theoretical bases and the
related assumptions underpinning the engineering sciences relevant to their
engineering discipline;
(iii) knowledge and understanding of a wide range of engineering materials,
processes and components where relevant to their specialised branch of
engineering;
(iv) advanced knowledge and understanding of related developing technologies
and how they might impinge upon their branch of engineering.

Programme Outcome (b)
The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
Graduates should, inter alia, be able to:
(i) integrate knowledge, handle complexity and formulate judgements with
incomplete or limited information;
(ii) create models by deriving appropriate equations and by specifying boundary
conditions and underlying assumptions and limitations;
(iii) identify and use appropriate mathematical methods for application to new
and ill-defined engineering problems;
(iv) identify, classify and describe the performance of systems and components
through the use of analytical methods and modelling techniques;
(v) apply and where necessary adapt software tools and quantitative methods
to solve complex engineering problems.

Programme Outcome (c)
The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data.
(i) knowledge and understanding of design processes and techniques and the
ability to apply them in unfamiliar situations;
(ii) the ability to apply design methods to unfamiliar, ill-defined problems,
possibly involving other disciplines;
(iii) the ability to investigate and define a need and identify constraints including
environmental and sustainability limitations, health, safety and risk assessment
issues;
(iv) knowledge and understanding of codes of practice and industry standards
including: the need for their application, the limits of their applicability and how
to proceed in the absence of codes and standards;
(v) the ability to redesign existing products, processes or systems or develop
novel products, processes or systems in order to improve productivity, quality,
safety and other desired features.

Programme Outcome (d)
The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
(i) extract, through literature search or experiment, information pertinent to an
unfamiliar problem;
(ii) design and conduct experiments and to analyse and interpret data;
(iii) critically evaluate current problems and new insights at the forefront of the
particular branch of engineering;
(iv) incorporate aspects of engineering outside their own discipline and consult
and work with experts in other fields;
(v) contribute to the development of scientific/technological knowledge in one or
more areas of their engineering discipline.

Programme Outcome (e)
An understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
(i) the ability to reflect on social and ethical responsibilities linked to the application
of their knowledge and judgements;
(ii) knowledge and understanding of the social, environmental, ethical, economic,
financial, institutional, sustainability and commercial considerations affecting the
exercise of their engineering discipline;
(iii) knowledge and understanding of the health, safety, cultural and legal issues and
responsibilities of engineering practice, and the impact of engineering solutions in a
societal and environmental context;
(iv) knowledge and understanding of the importance of the engineer’s role in society
and the need for the commitment to highest ethical standards of practice;
(v) knowledge, understanding and commitment to the framework of relevant legal
requirements governing engineering activities, including personnel, environmental,
health, safety and risk issues.

Programme Outcome (f)
The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary
settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong learning.
(i) the ability to recognise and make use of the interactions between the engineering
technologies and the technologies associated with other disciplines and professions;
(ii) the ability to lead, to consult and to work with experts in various fields in the realisation
of a product or system;
(iii) knowledge and understanding of the respective functions of technicians,
technologists and engineers and how they together constitute the engineering team or
project team;
(iv) knowledge and understanding of group dynamics and ability to exercise leadership in
project teams;
(v) the ability to plan and carry through self-directed Continuing Professional
Development to improve their own knowledge and competence;
(vi) knowledge and understanding of concepts from a range of areas outside engineering;
(vii) knowledge of the impact of their work on the costs of a project.

Programme Outcome (g)
The ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities
with the engineering community and with society at large.
(i) select and apply appropriate communication tools in order to create deeper
understanding and maximum impact on a given audience;
(ii) succinctly describe the relevant advantages and disadvantages of the
various technologies to a lay audience;
(iii) communicate effectively in public, national, international and multicultural
contexts;
(iv) write technical papers and reports, and synthesise their own work and that
of others in abstracts and executive summaries;

Conference workshops
• Table 1: Programme Outcomes (a) and (b)
• Table 2: Programme Outcomes (c) and (d)
• Table 3: Programme Outcome (e)
• Table 4: Programme Outcomes (f) and (g)
• Table 5: Quality assurance and programmatic reviews
• Table 6: Reporting and communications
• Table 7: Accreditation visits and panels
• Table 8: Quality assurance and programmatic reviews
• Table 9: Reporting and communications
• Table 10: Accreditation visits and panels
Closing session: Each table to present key findings and submit
workshop notes to inform Engineers Ireland’s accreditation review

EE skills, standards mobility

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Similar to EE skills, standards mobility

Similar to EE skills, standards mobility (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

EE skills, standards mobility