This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]
On: 10 October 2014, At: 23:03
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Engineering
Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20
Promoting cross-departmental
initiatives for a global dimension in
engineering education: the Imperial
College experience
a
a
E. Alpay , A. L. Ahearn & A. M.J. Bull
a
a
Faculty of Engineering (EnVision) , Imperial College London ,
Rm. 2.08 Faculty Building, South Kensington Campus, London,
SW7 2AZ, UK
Published online: 21 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: E. Alpay , A. L. Ahearn & A. M.J. Bull (2011) Promoting cross-departmental
initiatives for a global dimension in engineering education: the Imperial College experience,
European Journal of Engineering Education, 36:3, 225-242, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2011.579086
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.579086
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
European Journal of Engineering Education
Vol. 36, No. 3, June 2011, 225–242
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
Promoting cross-departmental initiatives for a global dimension
in engineering education: the Imperial College
experience
E. Alpay*, A.L. Ahearn and A.M.J. Bull
Faculty of Engineering (EnVision), Imperial College London, Rm. 2.08 Faculty Building,
South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
(Received 11 October 2010; final version received 5 April 2011)
Cross-departmental schemes to broaden the inter-professional and skills-focused development of engineering students, and to emphasise engineering in its context of societal priorities, are presented. The
central coordination of the schemes has streamlined implementation of the developments and promoted
a culture of shared responsibility for engineering education. A description of the coordination effort, and
subsequent mechanisms for promoting strategic educational development, is given. This will be of value
to institutions that are attempting to organise educational initiatives across multiple engineering departments. Examples are given to demonstrate the range of learning outcomes that can be achieved through
such cross-departmental approaches. Evaluation data are also presented on the value and impact of these
approaches. Specific schemes that are described include: the Engineering Impact series of lectures; flexible
timetabling for shared option-courses across departments; a common framework for engineering ethics
engagement; the establishment of a new academic role for the support of student-led projects.
Keywords: global engineer; cross-departmental engineering education; professional and transferable
skills; student-led projects
1.
Introduction
Issues of sustainable development, globalisation and poverty reduction have led to much discussion on the changing role of the engineer and, subsequently, engineering education. There
is increasing international acknowledgement of the need for a global dimension in engineering
education to address current and future economic, social and environmental challenges; see, for
example, the survey of Bourn and Neal (2008). Likewise, many engineering graduates choose
to transfer their skills and knowledge to other work disciplines and engineering degrees are
being recognised for their relatively strong vocational standing (see e.g. Fearn 2010). A global
dimension of engineering may represent a cultural shift from the tradition of discipline-specific
engineering education. Many employers themselves are driving such a change through their efforts
to create corporate social responsibility programmes and to attract and develop graduates who
*Corresponding author. Email: e.alpay@imperial.ac.uk
ISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online
© 2011 SEFI
DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2011.579086
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
226
E. Alpay et al.
have an astute global awareness. The competitiveness of multinational companies to ‘exploit
location-specific innovation advantages’ (von Zedwitz and Gassmann 2002) may also of course
be an implicit motivator. However, as industries respond to sustainable production and development, the premise of international collaboration has strengthened. In a related way, the economic
growth of countries such as China, India, Russia and Brazil has created an era of greater student and workforce mobility, with a need for graduate preparation for such international work
contexts.
In educational contexts, global awareness may include: a systems (holistic) understanding and
approach to dealing with the complexities of sustainable production, process and infrastructure
design and utility provision (Fenner et al. 2006, Pritchard and Baillie 2006); training on the skills
necessary to actively engage in and contribute to multidisciplinary and international communities
(see e.g. Fallows and Steven 2000, Leitch 2006); an understanding of the social and ethical
responsibilities of the engineer to meet, for example, human needs whilst minimising resource
use (de Graaf and Ravesteijn 2001, Fenner et al. 2006); a focus on engineering development
and design for basal (rather than luxury) human needs; an understanding and valuing of natural
environments and the interconnectedness of local and global ecosystems. It has also been observed
that students themselves are drivers of this global dimension. For example, at Imperial College
London, there is a growing number of projects created by students to tackle specific techno-socio
problems in communities in developing countries. Indeed, many students are entering engineering
degree programmes with aspirations of making a difference and primed with the concerns of, for
example, climate change, poverty and human inequalities (Alpay et al. 2008).
Many university educators have responded to global awareness and skills needs by re-evaluating
engineering content and pedagogy. Typical initiatives include: creating core courses on sustainable development (see the discussions of Perdan et al. 2000); project-centred learning around
complex, real-life and socially pertinent topics (see e.g. Carlson and Sullivan 1999, Lipson et al.
2007); the provision of service learning and placement opportunities in which students participate
in community-relevant work (see e.g. Coyle et al. 1997, Oakes et al. 2002); the use of multidisciplinary team projects fostering transferable skills and widening the students’ perspectives on
cultural and stakeholder issues. Nurturing the global engineer requires a broader professional skills
base and a wider awareness of, e.g., international, social, cultural, environmental, political and
economic issues. In the past, student development in such areas has been supported through soft
courses in humanities, stand-alone courses in management and business or through ad-hoc work
and study experiences. Currently, much motivation exists in enhancing student skills and knowledge, in which there is some explicit or structured developmental plan towards global competency.
However, the complexity of such training often necessitates a range of learning experiences with
adequate opportunities for reflection and feedback. Often, engineering teachers themselves are
unclear as to the facilitation and evaluation of such global skills education.
At Imperial College London, the Faculty of Engineering considers the deep-specialist,
department-based degrees one of its great strengths, yet has initiated a number of crossdepartmental schemes to help support the broader, inter-professional and skills-focused development of engineering students. This paper reports on some of the cross-departmental schemes
together with some initial evaluation data on their impact on the student learning experience.
Central coordination of the schemes, in close correspondence with departmental directors of
teaching and learning, has helped instigate the developments and promote a culture of shared
responsibility for engineering education, which goes beyond the usual departmental boundaries.
An overview of the coordination process is also presented and will be of relevance to institutions
that are attempting to organise educational initiatives across multiple engineering departments.
The work presented addresses the general question: What are some of the enabling mechanisms
and approaches that can be employed at a central (e.g. Faculty of Engineering) level to instigate
greater student and staff stimulus for global skills development?
European Journal of Engineering Education
227
Table 1. Distribution of responses (%) from departments for
both the general (n = 492) and Flexible Friday (n = 50) surveys.
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
Aeronautics
Bioengineering
Chemical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Computing
Earth Science Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Materials
Mechanical Engineering
General
Flexible Friday
10.0
3.9
17.5
8.5
11.6
6.5
19.9
7.5
14.6
6.0
2.0
24.0
–
4.0
–
20.0
12.0
32.0
Note: The department of Civil Engineering did not participate in the Flexible
Friday scheme.
Table 2.
Student awareness and evaluation of the various cross-departmental activities for each year group.
year
awareness (%)
negative (%)
positive (%)
f (%)
Engineering Impact
1
2
3
4
98.0
95.2
88.5
68.0
16.8
25.3
15.3
15.7
56.9
47.6
51.8
33.3
77.2
65.3
77.2
68.0
Flexible Friday
1
2
3
4
70.5
77.4
70.1
84.0
5.1
15.3
11.8
11.3
23.2
17.7
38.2
58.7
82.0
53.6
76.4
83.9
VLE
1
2
3
4
94.9
99.2
95.8
97.3
6.9
17.8
17.4
13.7
84.5
69.1
72.8
75.3
92.5
79.5
80.7
84.6
METRIC
1
2
3
4
81.2
86.3
74.0
60.0
10
22.5
28.2
33.9
46.9
30.8
19.7
8.3
82.4
57.8
41.1
19.7
Student-led projects
1
2
3
4
81.7
85.5
74.0
69.3
3.7
11.3
8.5
15.4
64.0
55.7
56.3
57.7
94.5
83.1
86.9
78.9
Clickers
1
2
3
4
86.8
88.7
70.8
58.7
18.8
22.7
28.0
27.3
43.2
45.5
44.1
27.2
69.7
66.7
61.2
49.9
J. Lever award
1
2
3
4
71.5
82.3
71.9
58.9
11.4
14.7
17.4
22.7
21.2
20.6
39.1
27.3
65.0
58.4
69.2
54.6
VLE = virtual learning environment.
Note: A ‘negative’ response corresponds to scores of 1 or 2 on the Likert scale and a ‘positive’ response to scores of 4 or 5.
The factor f represents the percentage of positive responses for those individuals who expressed either a positive or negative
(rather than ‘not sure’) response.
Some of the measures and results for the successful use of such methods are also highlighted,
through the presentation of ‘measures and procedures’ of evaluation in section 4, together with
results of the measurement of impact, presented in Tables 1–5. Amongst these measures of impact
is an approach developed for qualitative measurement of student-led projects, which are, by
definition, projects within the control of students rather than staff.
228
E. Alpay et al.
Table 3. Student motivation towards their studies (10-point scale) and career intentions: (a) year and gender analysis;
(b) departmental analysis.
(a)
Motivation:
overall (SD)
female
male
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
Plan to work as an engineer–yes/unsure (%):
overall
female
male
year 1
year 2
year 3
year 4
7.5 (1.9)
7.4
7.5
7.3 (1.9)
7.6
7.2
7.3 (2.1)
7.7
7.1
7.0 (2.1)
7.1
7.0
60/33
55/38
67/27
50/36
43/54
52/31
58/25
56/33
59/22
65/16
73/9
62/19
(b)
Aeronautics
Bioengineering
Chemical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Computing
Earth Science Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Materials
Mechanical Engineering
motivation
plan to work as
an engineer
yes/unsure (%)
7.3
8.1
7.3
7.2
7.4
8.0
7.1
7.2
7.2
51/31
58/37
59/34
60/31
65/19
59/28
62/26
46/45
54/35
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the student experience with Flexible Fridays courses (n = 50); (a) quantitative
assessment of scheme; (b) assessment relative to other courses.
(a)
Overall, I am satisfied with the Flexible Friday programme.
More 4th year options like this should be offered to students.
Attending such a course has given be a broader understanding of issues relevant to the different
engineering disciplines.
Attending such a course has improved my identity as a member of the Faculty of Engineering
as a whole.
Attending such a course has improved my motivation towards an engineering-related career.
Attending such a course has improved my communication skills with people outside my
discipline.
mean (max 10)
SD
7.9
8.6
8.5
1.4
1.9
1.9
6.5
2.5
6.5
5.6
2.5
3.2
mean (max 10)
SD
6.0
8.3
7.3
6.4
5.9
5.8
8.2
3.1
1.9
2.6
3.0
3.1
2.9
2.2
(b)
Overall, compared to the options offered in my Department, I found the Flexible Friday
course(s) to be:
Easier to follow.
More interesting.
Relevant to my future career/study aspirations.
More stressful to start with.
Harder to prepare for.
More challenging in interacting with other students.
A valuable experience.
Evaluative summary of tutor support for student-led projects.
Impact measured
Has…
Impact measure 1: Status of
Improved
student-led projects (or recognition
of student-led projects as an issue
which deserves serious attention from
academics, administrators, funders
and others)
Impact measure 2: Longitudinal
sustainability of the student-led
projects (management viability of
the projects and ability for them to
continue beyond the tenure of the
founders of the project)
Improved
As demonstrated by…
Which has been achieved due to…
1.1 Allocation of a bequest to serve as the prize fund
for student-led projects.
1.2 Formal reporting mechanism created for Faculty
management to have updates on a topic previously
handled ‘ad hoc’.
1.3 Increase in correspondence between funders and
tutor, particularly for confirmation of the viability of
student activity.
1.4 Creation of a working party of staff interested in
any type of student extra-curricular activity, to explore
mutual interests.
1.5 Loughborough University’s review of student-led
projects for a HE-STEM project and their conclusion
that Imperial is the national leader on the use of
extracurricular activities to foster employability skills.
1.1 Raising awareness of student-led projects and their potential.
2.1 Transfers of leadership on highest profile projects
2.1 Use of tutor know-how and longitudinal memory
2.2 Creation of an alumni-run charity to mentor
international development projects.
2.3 Three successive wins in a bank’s competition for
the allocation of Corporate Social Responsibility funds
2.4 Establishment of formal working partnership with
student union
2.2 Tutor participation in discussion, accessing legal advice and
patronage of the charity.
2.3 Tutor’s critical feedback at rehearsals of ‘pitch’ to the bank.
1.2 Formal adoption of the title of ‘Tutor for Student-led Projects’,
which defines the projects as falling within the education remit
(rather than administrative remit) of the Faculty.
1.3 The reassurance that funders take from having a ‘formal’
mechanism for the provision of references for student projects.
1.4 The title ‘Tutor’ enables others in College to identify a
fellow champion for extracurricular activities. (Most ‘others’ are
non-academic administrators of College activities).
1.5 Having an academic staff member to monitor, facilitate and
disseminate.
European Journal of Engineering Education
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
Table 5.
2.4 Tutor and Student Union working together (on risk/insurance)
from which develops ongoing relationship.
(Continued)
229
Continued.
Impact measured
Has…
As demonstrated by…
Impact measure 3: Sophistication of
support for student-led projects
Increased
3.1 Red-tape cut for risk assessment and insurance
Impact measure 4: Aims and
outcomes of student-led projects
Become more
ambitious and more
sophisticated
4.1 Students are dealing with bigger ‘names’ in
industry/government (e.g. Greater London Assembly;
UN Development Programme)
4.2 Students are creating longer-term infrastructures
(alumni charities; working with College archivist to
preserve outputs; establishing long term relationships
with local schools)
4.3 Students are more reflective and development
oriented (e.g. El Salvador project switch from
earthquake defences to flood defences; e.quinox
project broadening of aims; Women in SET expansion
into Robotics projects)
Which has been achieved due to…
3.1 Protocol agreed between College lawyers, insurers, student
union, student-led project leaders and tutor
3.2 Registration of student participants in student-led 3.2 System invented to meet union rules whilst serving student
schemes
needs.
3.3 Improved communication between staff with input 3.3 Coordinated effort to identify overlaps and gaps
on student-led projects
3.4 Improved cross-referrals of students to access
3.4 Use of new improved network of scheme administrators
appropriate help
Removal of red-tape and barriers has freed up student
projects/alumni groups to focus on moving to the ‘next stage’.
Access to a ‘tutor’, authorised to assist with cutting red-tape and
finding solutions has reassured students that the effort is worth
pursuing.
Reassurance from tutor and other staff appears to give student
leaders the confidence to persevere.
E. Alpay et al.
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
230
Table 5.
European Journal of Engineering Education
2.
231
Enabling mechanisms: the coordination of engineering education development
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
The Faculty of Engineering at Imperial College has committed significant resource to support and
develop its strategy for teaching and learning across all nine engineering departments, each of
which has long held its own discipline-specific learning and teaching strategy, given that Imperial’s
engineering degrees are discipline/department specific (i.e. not modular). Specifically, in 2007,
the Faculty formed a dedicated group, referred to as EnVision, to support engineering teaching
in several ways, including:
•
•
•
•
support for nine engineering departments in course strategy and development;
the attraction of external funds in engineering education;
support for flag-ship projects;
the design and organisation of teaching celebrations for recognising and rewarding outstanding
teaching contributions or support;
• the collection, dissemination and implementation of good practice in engineering education.
The EnVision group has evolved from three engineering academics (two seconded part-time
from engineering departments), two learning technologists, a timetabling officer and two administrative staff. Subsequent role and task integration into wider Faculty or College activities has
led to a core team of two academic staff and operations support. For such staff, a further advantage of the group was to establish a mandate for a teaching-focused role, but one that is in line
with Faculty-wide priorities. The group works closely with the Faculty Teaching Committee
(FTC). This constitutes the Directors of Undergraduate Studies from each engineering department and is chaired by the Deputy Principal (Teaching) for the Faculty of Engineering. The
EnVision group thus provides consultancy on educational matters to the FTC, as well as administrative, technical and project support for subsequent teaching and learning developments endorsed
by the FTC.
Unlike many educational support units, EnVision is engineering-specific, led by engineering
academics who teach in departments, directly involved in curriculum development, offers core
courses to students and does not run staff training on educational development (Imperial’s Educational Development Unit provides such training for staff in all faculties). EnVision is embedded
in the normal structure of educational strategy and delivery within the specialist Faculty of Engineering, funded jointly by the nine departments. This aspect of the group was instrumental in
overcoming some of the academic staff resistance to ‘other’ involvement in the teaching practices
and policies of departments. For example, the identification of common support and development
issues by the FTC set a tone of academic empowerment and ownership within a shared engineering
identity. This has helped to break down the ‘silo’ mentality of departments, thus opening the way
to shared good practice, the rationalisation of resources and a stronger College-wide influence
(‘voice’) on teaching policy. In some cases, departmental access to common (but engineeringspecific) expertise and teaching resources has enabled the offsetting of previously outsourced or
department-run activities.
In pursuing a global dimension in educating student engineers, inter-professional skills make
a good starting point and can be developed through interdisciplinary, extra-curricular or realworld activities. An advantage of the coordination effort described above is the ability to set
common guidelines, procedures and formats for such activities so as to maximise the student
learning experience. Likewise, the coordination facilitated new teaching initiatives in which mixed
cohorts of engineering students experience the challenges and rewards of interdisciplinary work.
Central to many of the initiatives is dedicated learning technology support to help with activity
administration, materials organisation and web-resource development plus enhance knowledge
transfer (know-how and know-why).
232
E. Alpay et al.
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
To demonstrate the achievements of this new coordination approach by the Faculty, section 3
below describes cross-department initiatives. These include cross-department teaching for senior
students (flexible Friday interdisciplinary studies) and joint-department teaching to inspire firstyear students (Engineering Impact (EI) lecture series). They also include Faculty funding for
education projects (for which staff may submit proposals) and the Faculty’s appointment of a
Tutor for Student-led Projects (providing assistance to student leaders on activities inside and
outside the curriculum, and supporting other staff who facilitate such activities). The initiatives
are organised under three key themes: EnVision/FTC inspired initiatives; Faculty of Engineering
enabled projects; student-led projects.
3.
Enabling mechanisms: cross-departmental initiatives
3.1. EnVision/FTC-inspired initiatives
The engineering courses at Imperial College are all four years in duration and lead to a Master
of Engineering (MEng) degree. The courses involve teaching over three terms of study per academic year. The study programmes are not modular, but optional courses are offered in senior
years of study. Historically, timetable and course provisions have been under the sole provision of individual departments, with few opportunities for interdisciplinary and shared learning
activities.
Two key examples of EnVision/FTC inspired activities are presented to demonstrate the
value of coordinated and strategic teaching planning across the Faculty of Engineering. The
first involves a change in teaching culture to enable senior-year students to experience a broader
range of technical courses and to engage in group and project work with peers from other engineering disciplines. The scheme was made possible through the set-up of a common timetable
for one day of the week. This required the reorganisation of existing optional courses in the
senior years of study, such that student accessibility was possible. The courses, referred to as
Flexible Friday Option Courses, are deemed to be of relevance to broader engineering understanding and are offered to students from across the Faculty of Engineering. Examples of
courses include Computational Finance, Environmental Impact Assessment, Optimization, Sustainable Electrical Systems, Nuclear Reactor Physics and Design-Led Innovation and Venture
Creation. In some cases, the interdisciplinary nature of the learning group has motivated staff to
develop innovative courses to capitalise on the potential for creative and non-discipline bounded
project work. Current examples of courses being developed include Design of Rehabilitation
Systems and Assistive Devices, in which mechatronics, human factors and computer theory
are integrated to develop life-quality enhancing devices for an ageing population, and Natural Engineering, in which novel approaches to engineering design and problem solving are
considered through analogy with natural physical and biological processes, structures and materials. To date, more than 200 students from across the Faculty of Engineering have undertaken
Flexible Friday Option Courses and a high level of student satisfaction has been reported; see
section 4.
The second activity also involves the common timetabling of teaching sessions, but in this
case all first-year engineering students are encouraged to attend. The sessions are referred to
as the EI Series of Lectures and are aimed to further inspire first-year students towards the
role of engineering in society and human development. The sessions cover a broad range of
topical themes and have included presentations on climate change and sustainable development (Jonathon Porritt – broadcaster and environmentalist), technology and health (Lord Ara
Darzi – surgeon and former Junior Health Minister) and the profession of engineering (Sir
Robert Malpas – former ICI and Eurotunnel Chairman). An underlying theme of the EI lecture
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
European Journal of Engineering Education
233
is engineering ethics and culminates in a final debate session on controversial issues of relevance
to student engineers, e.g. military-related work. Where possible and appropriate, EI is integrated with other departmental ethics or professional awareness activities, e.g. as part of the
professional issues lectures in one department. To enhance student access, and a resource for
future teaching, many sessions have been recorded on video and made available to the staff and
students.
Efforts have also been placed on the development of online learning resources to complement
classroom teaching. To help facilitate this, over the last three years engineering departments
have widely adopted a virtual learning environment (VLE, such as Blackboard or Moodle) and
staff give support to integrate this within their teaching. Specific attention has also been given
to the further development of in-house mathematics support software, referred to as METRIC.
Here, concerted efforts have been given to improve the relevance and user-interface for specific
departmental needs. Measures of penetration and success of learning technology efforts have also
been agreed and include annual reports on VLE usage data, formal project evaluations based on
the original objectives and stated outcomes of the projects and an annual review from the Faculty
of Engineering e-learning committee on the status, developments and potential barriers in the
growth and effectiveness of e-learning in each department.
3.2. Faculty of Engineering Enabled Projects
As mentioned earlier, the Faculty of Engineering Enabled Projects scheme is a way of encouraging academic staff to further engage in teaching developments, especially when this has potential
value to students across the Faculty. Some of the funding has been used for the development of
new courses for mixed cohorts of engineering students. One such course, the Design of Rehabilitation Systems and Assistive Devices, has been described above. Another major course is
Engineering Ethics. Here, effort was given to the development of core teaching material relevant
to all engineering disciplines, but with the additional development or identification of materials
for discipline-specific contextualisation. Historically, the teaching of ethics has been regarded
as falling within the realm of Humanities, but this creates difficulties in establishing teaching content that engages the interests and motivation of engineering students. However, clear
Faculty-level commitment to such a course led to much greater engineering staff motivation for
its context-specific development.
In a similar way to Engineering Ethics, some projects have helped to give greater clarity on
Faculty-wide aspirations on animating and enhancing the lecture experience of the students.
For example, one project has involved the set-up and evaluation of in-class electronic voting
devices (i.e. clickers). Another project has involved the set-up of mobile and large-scale mechanics
demonstration equipment enabling students to translate 2-D descriptions of problems into 3-D
understanding in Bioengineering, Aeronautics, Mechanical Engineering and Civil Engineering
contexts.
Other initiatives have focused on the development of interdisciplinary design projects, such as
designing paediatric orthopaedic devices and designing zero-emission vehicles (the Racing Green
Project). Currently, generic student resources are being prepared to further support a positive and
informed (skills-based) approach to creative design through a project titled ‘Creativity Engine’. In
one project, the emphasis has been to further raise student awareness of Engineers Without Borders
(an international student organisation) and, where possible, identify models for incorporating
multidisciplinary development projects into the engineering curriculum.
As a means of further promoting high quality and uniform teaching across the Faculty, several projects have focused on either teaching and assessment approaches or the recognition and
dissemination of good teaching practice. Examples of projects include the use and evaluation
234
E. Alpay et al.
of undergraduate teaching assistants, the Faculty-level training and support of graduate teaching
assistants (GTAs; see Alpay et al. 2009) and an award scheme for outstanding GTAs as well as
other outstanding student contributions to teaching and learning.
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
3.3. Student-led projects
Student-led projects have a long history at Imperial College and take many forms. They are usually extracurricular, although some students develop them into final year projects (Research &
Development projects for academic credit). There are two main types of student-led projects.
The first are ‘College-administered but student-led’ whilst others are ‘Student-conceived and
student-led’. Imperial has a number of College-administered schemes for extracurricular activity,
with administrative staff assigned. Examples include an award-winning volunteer centre brokering volunteer labour for charitable projects. Recent surveys show that engineering students
predominate in the ranks of Imperial volunteers (further, women engineering students volunteer disproportionately more often than other students). Other examples are the International
Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Expense (IAESTE) engineering summer
exchange scheme; the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Programme; the Pimlico Connection (working as teaching assistants in local schools); support for the Constituent College
Unions (Royal College of Science, Royal School of Mines and the City and Guilds Association), Outreach Ambassadors Scheme and some hybrid projects where students can arrange
to carry out an academic project based on their extracurricular engineering scheme, such as
Imperial Racing Green. These projects tend to be long-established, usually run by administrative staff employed on central College funding, and answering to different line managers.
They are considered student-led because the proactive students lead themselves to the projects
and, once within the scheme, often have considerable control over the nature of the work they
choose to do.
In addition to these formal College-led structures, there are small groups of students who
recognise a need that their engineering skills, knowledge and goodwill can help address. The
need may be local, national or international and the students organise themselves to do the work,
as ‘Imperial students’ but without seeking formal assistance from the College. Over some years,
it has become apparent that these student-led initiatives are inspirational to other students, to the
staff and bring great credit to the College, but, by their very nature, are outside of the College’s
infrastructure. Traditionally, students have obtained ad hoc support and advice from staff, but
without suitable infrastructure, there is a tendency to reinvent and reorganise each year. The
students, as well as the Faculty of Engineering, came to realise that some infrastructure support
would make the student-led efforts more efficient, thus more effective and enable even greater
aspiration. Recognising that these informal activities of students are important, the Faculty of
Engineering designated an EnVision lecturer as the ‘tutor for student-led projects’, giving her a
remit of fostering extracurricular activities of any type that develops students as engineers, leaders
or raises the profile of engineering. Her work thus encompasses both the College-administered
and student-led schemes. Some current examples of student-led projects include:
• e.quinox: for the provision of solar energy in villages in Rwanda, where the main form of
energy is paraffin for lamps and stoves. This originated with electrical engineering students.
Their project immediately attracted official support from the Minister for Energy in Rwanda
and the UN Development Programme. They have been invited to expand the project and are
investigating how to create a Rwandan non-governmental organisation (NGO) specific to their
project.
• El Salvador project: where civil engineering students work with an El Salvadorean NGO to
provide earthquake-resistant homes and infrastructure in villages, or remediate flood damage.
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
European Journal of Engineering Education
235
This project has run since 2003 and participants who have graduated are now setting up a UK
charity to bolster fund-raising, provide mentoring advice to current participants and access to
chartered engineers who can sign off designs.
• Women in SET: i.e. a student society within Imperial that aims to shift the culture so that
Imperial’s women (staff and students) become more visible and foster the next generation of
scientists and engineers. Successes include commissioning 100 portraits of Imperial women
staff and students, which was invited to exhibit at the Greater London Assembly, an annual
Open Day for schoolgirls, which is persistently oversubscribed, wholly run by the students for
future students and specific to engineering, plus a variety of events, lectures and photography
competitions aimed at celebrating the successes of women in engineering.
• The Robogals project: Imperial students get schoolgirls building robots, to challenge the idea
that computers/robotics are for boys; Imperial students run workshops for students from other
universities on how to transfer the scheme to their own universities. Five universities, including
Oxford and Trinity College Dublin, are establishing chapters of Robogals in 2010–11.
These are just four examples of the type of student-led activity seen at Imperial in 2009–
10. Other groups include Students in Free Enterprise (who have set up schools and computing
laboratories in Tanzania), the Malawi Bridge Project (where students built a bridge to enable
children to reach their school when the river is in spate), the Bolivia Altiplano project (civil
engineering), Engineers Without Borders (in particular, rainwater harvesting in Tanzania and an
outreach programme to schools in London), the Rail and Transport Societies work (helping to
rebuild the Welsh Highland Railway and making railway engineering more female-friendly), plus
various educational, entrepreneurial and other volunteering activities.
The tutor’s function is to give advice, foster good management practices, play devil’s advocate
on feasibility, foster knowledge transfer, suggest apprenticeships for future leaders, assist with
writing grant applications, liaise with other staff, encourage and coach on dissemination and to
encourage students to appreciate the level of sophistication they have achieved in their personal
development and employability skills. Building relations with alumni, negotiating on insurance,
coaching on risk assessments and promoting the activities as inspirational and motivational are
all part of the tutor’s activities. Networking with key players in the College administration and
academic staff is a fundamental function and work is progressing on creating appropriate administrative support in the College for this somewhat amorphous student activity. Evaluation of the
activities tends to come from the end-users of the student efforts. Continued funding of activities,
from outside bodies, is a good measure of the esteem in which the projects are held. Students are
encouraged to run their own evaluation processes, in keeping with the ‘by the students, for the
students’ ethos of these activities and students are now planning to run a symposium to further
their knowledge-sharing and evaluation efforts.
A different approach to student-led projects is where students are recruited by EnVision to
help create materials that will be made available to all students online. An example is the EPOD
project. The use of podcasts challenges traditional communication methods in higher education,
with the potential for creating engaging and flexible resources for learning and development.
Likewise, podcasts are helping to facilitate a stronger student identity and community within
learning environments, replacing traditional student newsletter and website approaches. In this
work, an innovative podcasting approach is presented in which there is a strong student-centred
and student-led premise to foster and advance engineering education-related uses. Podcasts are
intended to cover a range of relevant engineering topics such as sharing student views on global,
institutional and scientific developments and disseminating information on unique educational
opportunities. Details on the design, set-up and implementation of the initiative (e.g. resource
requirements, management and organisation structures, maintenance of balanced educational
outcomes) are given by Alpay and Gulati (2010). An evaluation of the experiences of the team
236
E. Alpay et al.
members is also presented in the above mentioned paper, showing favourable outcomes in skills
development, community identity and broader educational awareness.
4.
Evaluation
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
4.1. Measures and procedures
Given the multifaceted approach of cross-departmental initiatives, a multifaceted approach on the
evaluation of the initiative as a whole is also needed. Ultimately, the question is: are universities
producing engineering graduates who have the skills and knowledge to better succeed and lead
in global work contexts? This is complex as it requires trying to measure the implicit student
motivation for ongoing professional development in engineering, as well as the professionalism
they exhibit in working with peers within their department and faculty. A simpler starting point for
measurement is to survey students on their motivation for their engineering studies and interest
in a career in engineering. Some data on motivational changes and career intentions have been
reported for Imperial College students in the past (see Alpay et al. 2008) and can act as a datum
for the impact that the EnVision activities have had on student motivation.
To begin the evaluation of the cross-departmental initiatives, a general questionnaire was sent
to all engineering students to gauge motivation and career aspirations and, more directly, views
on some of the activities mentioned above; see Appendix 1. The questionnaire was confined
to activities of which students from all departments were likely to be aware. As indicated in
Appendix 1, representative questions were chosen for each of the three themes of support described
in section 3. Some of the activities are especially relevant to senior students (e.g. the Flexible Friday
option courses), whereas others are aimed at early-year students (e.g. the EI lectures) and so some
of the questions acted as an internal control on impact. For example, one would not expect to see
the first-year EI lectures to have a high impact on fourth year students, as these were introduced
only two years ago.
Given its important premise to cross-departmental teaching (and interdisciplinary learning),
a separate questionnaire was sent out for the Flexible Friday scheme; see Appendix 2. Specific
course/activity evaluations were also undertaken on, for example, the undergraduate teaching
assistant scheme and the Engineering Ethics courses. Student feedback on these were highly
favourable but will not be reported here (a detailed evaluation of the undergraduate teaching
assistant scheme has been reported by Alpay et al. 2009).
As a third approach to evaluation, data were collated on achievements and accolades associated
with the student-led projects. Information on the student uptake (popularity) of the projects was
also collected. In order to capture data in a systematic manner, an evaluative matrix was developed, in which four impact measures were evaluated against demonstrative evidence (see further
discussion in section 4.2).
The first evaluation, the general questionnaire, was administered online and data collected
anonymously. A response from 492 students was received, i.e. approximately 15% of the total
engineering undergraduate population. The distribution of responses from specific engineering
departments is shown in Table 1. In total, 357 (72.6%) of the respondents were male; the distribution according to the year of study was as follows: 40.0% year 1 (197 students – 56 female);
25.2% year 2 (124 students – 30 female); 19.5% year 3 (96 students – 27 female); 15.3% year 4
(75 students – 22 female).
For the Flexible Friday survey, a response from 50 students was received, i.e. approximately
25% of all students who attended a Flexible Friday course. The distribution of responses from
specific departments is also shown in Table 1 for this questionnaire. In total, 41 of the respondents
were male; all students in the case were in their fourth (final) year of study.
European Journal of Engineering Education
237
4.2. Results
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
Student evaluations of the various cross-departmental activities for each year group are summarised in Table 2. Also shown is the percentage of students in each year group who indicated an
awareness of the activity. The following observations are noted:
• Student-led projects and the EI lectures are highly rated by all year groups.
• As expected: (i) more students in the early years of study are aware of the EI lectures, but
the average ratings from all year groups is high; (ii) final year students are most aware of the
Flexible Friday scheme; ratings for this scheme are also highest from this year group.
• There is a clear indication of the positive impact of learning technology-related activities,
specifically the changes to METRIC on early year groups (especially the first year), the use of
the VLE, and the use of clickers within lectures.
• In many cases, considerable ‘not sure’ responses were recorded. This is likely to reflect the
student awareness of the activity, but namely little experience with the activity to date. The
factor f introduced in Table 2 gives an indication of student evaluation, where a clear positive
or negative preference is expressed.
Student motivation towards their studies and intentions for a career in engineering are summarised in Table 3. High and consistent motivations are indicated for all year groups. A weak
positive correlation was also found to exist between course motivation and engineering career
intention, i.e. a correlation coefficient of 0.4 (p < 0.01, one-tailed). Encouragingly, the motivations and engineering career plans of female students are as high (and often better) than male
students. The data indicate that a significant portion of students remain unsure about their career
choice, especially in the early years of study; however, much departmental variation exists on
this matter (see Table 4b). Nevertheless, there is an increasing trend towards an interest in an
engineering career with degree progress. Interestingly, this trend is opposite to that which was
observed in a similar survey undertaken in 2007; see Alpay et al. 2008. Here, interest in an engineering career declined steadily, with an overall year 4 engineering career intent of 44% (see also
section 5).
Descriptive statistics for the student experience with Flexible Friday courses are summarised
in Table 4. Good satisfaction with the scheme is reported. Particular benefits with regard to ‘a
broader understanding of issues relevant to the different engineering disciplines’ are reported.
Positive responses on matters concerning motivation towards an engineering career and a
Faculty identity are also reported. However, scope exists for improved facilitation of interdisciplinary communication within such courses. Nevertheless, where courses involved creative
design and group work, students indicated positive communication skills experiences (data not
shown).
When the Flexible Friday courses are assessed relative to other options courses within departments (Table 4b), highly favourable responses are reported for the interesting nature of the courses,
their relevance to the career and study aspirations of the students and the experience gained in
attending such a course. However, there is also indication that such courses are not necessarily
the easy option when compared to departmental options.
Evidence for the impact and successes of the student-led projects scheme is summarised in
Table 5, whereby a list of some outstanding student achievements are given. Table 5 sets out four
measures of the impact of the creation of tutor support for student-led projects. Although it stands
to reason that the provision of an academic tutor, experienced in fostering student initiatives, ought
to lead to improvements, it has been useful to measure the impacts and consider the cause of the
improvement. The last column of the table gives specific statements of the causal connection
between action and impact.
238
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
5.
E. Alpay et al.
Discussion
The examples of cross-departmental initiatives given above illustrate a range of methods and
approaches to engage students in skills development and knowledge awareness that go beyond
the discipline boundaries. Central Faculty of Engineering coordination, with distinct support
structures and mechanisms, has allowed for a unified strategy in engineering education. For
example, the value of extra-curricular activities, which have a strong real-world engineering
or skills development premise, is better recognised and students and staff given support in the
set-up and development of such activities. Currently, efforts are also in place to help students
better reflect on their learning experience and capture distinct learning outcomes. Programmes
that foster creative design and ethical consideration naturally cross discipline boundaries and
are positively enhanced by student experiences of interdisciplinary projects and sessions. Such
programmes also help to create a common identity for engineering and potentially further student motivation for an engineering career given the range of professional roles and interactions
that exist.
The Faculty-enabled projects provided an interesting shift in staff attitudes towards internal
funding and it is this attitudinal shift that is the indictor that should be monitored in the future.
Having observed that past attitudes were very much based on a competitive bid, with a ‘getting
something for one’s department’ approach, it is believed that one now observes that the condition
for multiple department involvement and value, as well the necessity for a careful appraisal of
possible shared resources, has helped foster a more collegiate approach to teaching development.
Furthermore, several instances have occurred where academic staff have recognised the possibility
of enhancing their course through the involvement of other engineering disciplines and thus exhibit
much motivation for such development work. This, of course, is to the benefit to both the teacher
and the students alike.
As mentioned above, given the broad scope and nature of the above initiatives, a range of
evaluation methods are appropriate. Ultimately, the cumulative effect of the various student experiences is expected to improve graduate motivation and effectiveness in global work contexts.
The student evaluations mentioned above (in section 4 and with results set out in Tables 1–5)
show recognition and value of the various schemes. Encouragingly, the EI lectures, student-led
projects and the Flexible Friday courses stand out as especially valued activities, all of which
have an interdisciplinary basis and often a real-world and global-skills premise. In the case of
the student-led projects and the Flexible Friday courses, student responsibility for development is
clearly encouraged. The promotion and support of these schemes has helped foster such a learning
culture.
The preliminary data on student motivations and career plans are also encouraging. A previous
study clearly indicated a substantial drop in student motivation for their engineering studies, as
well as their intentions to work in engineering. Such trends were not observed for this sample of
students (three years after the first survey), and, in fact, a reversal in trend regarding career plans
is indicated. However, many factors may influence such trends, including the economic climate,
year-to-year changes in teaching curricula, as well as discipline-specific employment issues. Also,
departmental variations exist such that the data may be particularly sensitive to the relative sample
size from different departments. Nevertheless, the consistency of student motivation in all years
of study, and for all departments, is promising.
Given the positive indications on the impact of the above mentioned schemes, follow-up evaluations are planned. Longitudinal data on actual student work placements, focus groups on
transformational student experiences and feedback from alumni are possible options. Furthermore,
student motivation scores will be monitored annually, but subsequent surveys will be designed
to probe key motivational factors and experiences. A final approach will consider self-efficacy
measures (self-reported and observational) in situations involving, e.g., ethical, complex or
European Journal of Engineering Education
239
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
person-centred issues, as a means of objectively evaluating the professional competence of
students as they progress the engineering degree programme.
Finally, it is important to balance the above discussions with some comment on the difficulties
associated with the coordination of engineering education across departments. The points below
illustrate some of the areas of challenge faced by the Envision group:
• The coordination effort inevitably requires investment in academic and administrative staff time.
In research-intensive environments, and where strong departmental identities exist (as in the
case of Imperial College), the value of such investment is likely to be scrutinised. The experience
has been to deliver support and activities that address real and immediate departmental needs,
whether this is ethics education as driven by accreditation requirements, or team-development
courses as driven by employer demands.
• Budgetary control and its link with authorityis an important issue. In the case of Imperial
College, a new position of Deputy Principal for Teaching was established in the Faculty of
Engineering, thus giving budgetary control for teaching development. As mentioned earlier,
the Deputy Principal chairs the FTC.
• Educational research helps in the design, implementation and evaluation of education schemes.
However, staff perceptions of such research can be varied (and often severely underrated) so
such research needs to support evidence-based teaching practice. Educational practices in some
departments have a long history of experiential development. Often, educational labels (such
as constructive alignment, problem-based learning or formative assessment) are not used even
though some of the evolved practices adhere to such educational concepts. Sensitivity is needed
when providing educational advice and proposing educational research, given these cultural
and perception issues. One recent area of work has been to support the teaching researcher,
thus recognising the niche needs of this specific community within engineering education.
• For some situations, departmental versus Faculty loyalty can be a problem for the teaching
managers. Here, a key change was instigated in the appointment of the managers to help
address potential conflicts of interest, namely, that their appointment, and line of responsibility,
is to the Faculty of Engineering as a whole and not solely to their departments. Such a change
has helped create a wider role identity for managers, where the interests of all students (from
across the Faculty) are considered.
• Joint teaching initiatives inevitably cause timetabling issues, even with the help of a dedicated
timetabling officer. These issues are often not fully resolved and can be quite restrictive in
opening new projects and courses to departments. However, one step in the right direction is a
good start, whether this is a common day, half-day or hour in the week. The student take-up and
feedback of such cross-departmental teaching can often act as a seed for further timetabling
flexibility.
• Even with the positive attributes of general events such as the EI lectures, constant promotion
is required to ensure adequate student attendance. Currently, no mechanism exists to reward or
recognise students who take part in such events. Possible incentives may include the collation
of an alternative certificate or indeed a nominal credit/mark for attendance.
• A problem common to any scheme, which needs constant cross-faculty promotion and communication with the aim of culture shift, is that the mechanisms for communication are stronger
within departments than across, both physically (departments tend to occupy a single, entire
building) and digitally (each department has its own intranet and web presence). Therefore,
relationships with key individuals and networks amongst them are highly important to the
faculty-level education initiatives.
Nevertheless, such challenges are not insurmountable and are perhaps an inevitable part of a
slow culture change towards a more holistic engineering education programme.
240
6.
E. Alpay et al.
Conclusions
Three key mechanisms for fostering global skills development through cross-departmental, interdisciplinary initiatives have been presented. In conjunction, the mechanisms help to promote both
staff and student empowerment in teaching and learning and provide shared resources for supporting generic engineering skills and know-how. Evaluation methods based on student surveys and
the collation of, e.g., student accomplishments and achievements and staff attitudinal changes,
indicate the success of the coordination effort.
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the EnVision project team (E. Hamzic-Maguire, I. Delakis, S. Lock and H. White-Overton)
for their contributions to this study.
References
Alpay, E. and Gulati, S., 2010. Student-led podcasting for engineering education. European Journal of Engineering
Education, 35, 415–427.
Alpay, E., et al., 2008. Student enthusiasm for engineering: charting changes in student aspirations and motivation.
European Journal of Engineering Education, 33, 573–585.
Alpay, E., et al., 2009. Changing the marks based culture of learning through peer assisted tutorials. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 35, 17–32.
Bourn, D. and Neal, I., 2008. The global engineer: incorporating global skills within UK higher education of engineers
[online]. Report for the DFID Development Awareness Fund project on Promoting Development Awareness through
dialogue and partnership exploration: UK Engineering Higher Education.
Carlson, L.E. and Sullivan, J.F., 1999. Hands-on engineering: learning by doing in the Integrated Teaching and Learning
Program. International Journal of Engineering Education, 15 (1), 20–31.
Coyle, E.J., Jamieson, L.H. and Sommers, L.S., 1997. EPICS: A model for integrating service-learning into the engineering
curriculum. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 81–89.
de Graaf, E. and Ravesteijn, W., 2001. Training complete engineers: global enterprise and engineering education. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (4), 419–427.
Fallows, S. and Steven, C., eds., 2000. Integrating key skills in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
Fearn, H., 2010. Degrees and despair: graduates gloomy about jobs. Times Higher Education, 28 May.
Fenner R.A., et al., 2006. Widening horizons for engineers: addressing the complexity of Sustainable Development.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability Journal, 159 (ES4), 145–154.
Leitch, S., 2006. Leitch review of skills: Prosperity for all in the global economy–world class skills [online]. London:
HMSO. Available from: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/6/4/leitch_finalreport051206.pdf [Accessed January
2011].
Lipson, A., et al., 2007. Students’ perceptions of terrascope: a project-based freshman learning community. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 16(4), 349–364.
Oakes, W., et al., 2002. Service-learning in engineering. Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual, 2 (F3A),
1–6.
Perdan, S., Azapagic, A. and Clift, R., 2000. Teaching sustainable development to engineering students. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1, 267–279.
Pritchard, J. and Baillie, C., 2006. How can engineering education contribute to a sustainable future? European Journal
of Engineering Education, 31, 555–565.
von Zedwitz, M. and Gassmann, O., 2002. Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: four different
patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy, 31, 569–588.
About the authors
Esat Alpay is a Senior Lecturer in Engineering Education and former academic worker on the EnVision project. He has a
background in both Chemical Engineering and the Psychology of Education. He has wide interests in the educational support and skills development of undergraduate and postgraduate students, and is currently responsible for engineering ethics
education, the training of Graduate Teaching Assistants and overseeing the teacher training procedures of Probationary
Lecturers in the Faculty of Engineering.
European Journal of Engineering Education
241
Alison Ahearn is a Principal Teaching Fellow at Imperial, teaching construction and management in civil engineering and,
as the Tutor for Student-led Engineering Projects, fosters extracurricular learning. Having won awards for developing the
‘Constructionarium’ education model, she is now transferring the concept to the nuclear engineering sector.
Anthony Bull is Director of Undergraduate Studies and Deputy Head in the Department of Bioengineering at Imperial
College London. He was the former director of the EnVision project. He is an active teacher and researcher in bioengineering and is a strong advocate of peer assessment and the use of mastery concepts to enhance student learning. His
teaching subjects include mechanics and professional skills. His students have received many prizes and awards for their
projects.
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
Appendix 1: Summary of the general questionnaire
Notes:
(i) Items (a)–(d) of Q1 represent examples from EnVision/FTC inspired activities; (f) and (g) represent examples from
Faculty of Engineering enabled projects.
(ii) For each item in Q1, the expected year relevance is shown in parentheses (this information was not indicated on the
actual questionnaire).
1. In recent years, some new initiatives have come in or have been better promoted. For the ones you’ve heard of, please
rate how useful you feel these are to engineering students as a whole.
(Items ranked on a 5-point scale: 5 = yes definitely, 4 = yes to some extent, 3 = not sure, 2 = probably not, 1 =
definitely not.)
a
b
c
d
e
Engineering Impact lectures
Flexible Friday option courses
Blackboard/Moodle
(i.e. Virtual Learning Environment)
METRIC
f
Student-led projects support
(e.g. tutor, funding, admin support)
Clickers (electronic voting devices)
g
John Lever Memorial Award
(Y1, Y2)
(Y4)
(All)
(Main changes likely to
be encountered by Y1)
(All)
(Likely to be encountered
by early year groups)
(All)
2. How motivated do you feel towards your engineering studies?
(Items ranked on a 10 point scale: 10 = very high motivation, 1 = very low motivation).
3. Are you planning to pursue a career in engineering?
(Options: yes, no, unsure).
Appendix 2: Summary of the Flexible Friday questionnaire
Qualitative questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Why did you choose to attend an inter-departmental course?
What were some of the positive/beneficial outcomes of attending the course(s)?
What were some of the negative/difficult aspects of attending the course(s)?
Was there anything surprising or unexpected in attending the course(s)? If so, please explain.
If your experience differed greatly between courses please explain.
How did you find the enrolment process for the course? Were there any aspects that were particularly positive or
negative?
7. How could the Flexible Friday courses programme be improved?
8. Any other comments?
Quantitative Statements
(11-point scale: 0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Overall, I am satisfied with the Flexible Friday programme.
I am satisfied with the enrolment process.
More 4th year options like this should be offered to students.
Options like this should also be offered in the 3rd year.
Attending such a course has given be a broader understanding of issues relevant to the different engineering disciplines.
Attending such a course has improved my identity as a member of the Faculty of Engineering as a whole.
242
E. Alpay et al.
7. Attending such a course has improved my motivation towards an engineering-related career.
8. Attending such a course has improved my communication skills with people outside my discipline.
Quantitative Statements - Comparative
(11-point scale: 0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)
Overall, compared to the options offered in my Department, I found the Flexible Friday course(s) to be:
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:04 10 October 2014
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Easier to follow.
More interesting.
Relevant to my future career/study aspirations.
More stressful to start with.
Harder to prepare for.
More challenging in interacting with other students.
A valuable experience.