Engineering Education Annotated Bibliography Sources

Running head: Engineering Education Annotated Bibliography 1

Engineering Education
Annotated Bibliography

Blake Steiner

University of Central Florida

ENC 1102

Engineering Education Annotated Bibliography 2

Abstract

After exploring genres common to the field of engineering through a preliminary

genre analysis, I continued analyzing the language and genres of my field by researching

one of the building blocks of becoming an engineer. I gathered articles relating to the

education of engineering that makes one become a successful engineer. Through my

research I found sources discussing the application of new technologies in engineering

education (Delale, F et al. (2011);Orange, A et al. (2012);Borrego, M, Lindsay, E, &

Madhavan, K. (2011)), the different learning styles of engineers (Felder, R, & Silverman,

L. (1988);Kolmos, A, & Holgaard, J. (2003); Holvikivi, J. (2007)), as wells as the various

teaching methods involved in engineering education (Bernhard, J.(1997);Goh, S. (2012);

Felder, R et al. (2000);Courter, S et al. (1996)). These sources have helped me to identify

the various aspects of what is involved in the education of engineers in relation to the

field of engineering. In addition, these articles have helped me continue exploring the

genre conventions that I will need to learn as I enter a new community through my major.

These articles offer information on how engineers think, learn, speak, and how they work

with arising technology, which is crucial for anyone to know that is entering that

profession. While some of these sources were published years ago, they still hold

beneficial information to those who are studying engineering, but on the other hand some

methods are outdated due to advances in technology.


Bernhard, J.(1997). ”Challenges and Strategies for Electrical Engineering Education”.

Presented at Frontiers in Education Conference. Available at

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=632708

Jennifer Bernhard, an Electrical and Computer Engineering professor at the

University of New Hampshire, asserts her teaching methods and strategies, and

the uses of them in “fostering new perspectives and insights” in engineering

education, in her 1997 article “Challenges and Strategies for Electrical

Engineering Education”. She supports this assertion through her personal

experience as an engineering professor and defining her specific strategies for

teaching different levels of engineering. She divides these levels among freshman,

sophomores, juniors, seniors, and graduate students, using separate strategies that

each correlate to the students particular level of experience. Her purpose was to

show other professors and students, in that profession,methods of teaching

engineering students in order to further their education. The intended audience for

this source is the students or professors involved in the education of engineering,

and this audience is targeted by stressing the importance of strategies needed for

successful education of engineering students.

This source is relevant to my topic because the author focuses on how engineers

learn and the teaching methods that allow them to do so. Bernhard states that the

main challenge of engineering is “to teach students how to think independently,

solve problems, and innovate”. She states what the purpose of engineering


education is and argues on what needs to be done in order for that education top

come into fruition. This article also relates to the article written by Engineering

TA Fellows, as they discuss the fact that they need to recognize this challenge for

effective teaching.

Borrego, M, Lindsay, E, & Madhavan, K. (2011). “eLearning Research Opportunities

in Engineering Education”. Advances in Engineering Education, 2.3, 5-10.

Maura Borrego, Euan Lindsay, and Krishna Madhavan, professors from various

universities, claim the potential benefit of elearning through technology in

engineering education in their article “eLearning Research Opportunities in

Engineering Education”. They support this claim by describing how technology

has advanced communication, computational, and information technologies,

causing an innovation in engineering education making elearning a strong source

of learning. Some of these technologies include forms of games, clickers, and

technical/team solutions. Through the application of eLearning, professors can

make use of communicative and informative technology through a form of

computer infrastructure to advance education. The purpose in writing this article

was to evaluate the potential that elearning will have on engineering education

due to the development of new technology. The audience intended for this article

is professors in engineering education that would want to implement the use of

eLearning for their students, and the audience was targeted by the authors use of

data collected from engineering courses using eLearning.


The source is relevant to my topic as in this article the authors describe elearning

is using forms of technology in order to innovate engineering education.

Elearning is a growing form of teaching and the authors describe that elearning

could play a great potential role in engineering education. Using elearning there

would be networking frameworks through the technologies and the authors state

that “the development of well-defined theoretical frameworks centered on the use

and adoption of elearning has great potential to forge new directions in the field of

engineering education.” This simply means that these “theoretical frameworks”

would be based on using advances in information and communication

technologies to further eLearning education in engineering. The article is relatable

to the one written by Amy Orange et al, who describes the application of new

technology within the engineering curriculum. Both are similar as they describe

the use of new technology in engineering education, but in this source it describes

a broader spectrum of the applications of eLearning in general.

Courter, S et al. (1996).Strategies for Effective Teaching.A Handbook for Teaching

Assistants. Retrieved from http://www.engr.wisc.edu/services/elc/strategies.pdf

Sandra Courter et al, members of the College of Engineering TA Fellows, assert

their concept of an effective teaching method for engineering education in their

1996 handbook “Strategies for Effective Teaching: A Handbook for Teaching

Assistants”. They support this assertion through outlining the specifics of a better


engineering education through practical examples and techniques. The article

addresses the use of practical examples, show and tell, case studies, guided design

projects, open-ended labs, flowchart technique, open-ended quizzes,

brainstorming, and using the question-and-answer method. The purpose in writing

this handbook was to layout specific examples for teaching assistants to use in the

engineering curriculum. The audience for this handbook was intended for

teaching assistants in the engineering curriculum, but it is beneficial to anyone

involved in engineering education as a layout of teaching methods. The audience

is targeted by describing specific teaching methods that would be useful to anyone

teaching in engineering education.

The source is relevant to my topic as it describes specific teaching methods used

in engineering education. As stated by the source, the mission of the College of

Engineering is to “create, integrate, transfer, and apply engineering knowledge”.

This simply means that this concept of engineering is to be achieved through

using this handbook for effective teaching methods in order to match the students’

learning styles. The source is also relatable to the article written by Felder et al,

who also outlines specific teaching methods in the curriculum. While the

handbook is also relatable to the article written by Bernhard, it is slightly different

as it is teaching methods for the overall engineering education experience, while

in Bernhard’s she divides the teaching methods by level of education gained so

far. It also has to be kept in mind that all of these articles were published in a

variety of years, which could be why the teaching methods are different.


Delale, F et al. (2011). "Infusion of Emerging Technologies and New Teaching Methods

into The Mechanical Engineering Curriculum at The City College of New York."

Advances in Engineering Education, 2.4, 14-50.

Feridun Delale et al, professors of the Department of Mechanical Engineering in

the City College of New York, asserts the role of using new technologies and

teaching methods into the engineering curriculumthrough their 2011 article

“Infusion of Emerging Technologies and New Teaching Methods into The

Mechanical Engineering Curriculum at The City College of New York”. They

support this assertion by explaining the use of these technologies in the mechanics

of solids, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, transfer and rate mechanisms, as well

as electrical theory.Although they describe the applications of emerging

technologies in those fields, the specific technology involved is not clearly

defined.While this is true, the authors acknowledge the fact that keeping emerging

technologies in mind is very important when reforming the engineering

curriculum. Their purpose in writing this article was to demonstrate the

application of new technology in engineering education and showing its

importance in reforming an engineering curriculum. The intended audience for

this article is anyone who is interested in the teaching of engineering, such as an

engineering professor. The audience is targeted by using the mechanical


engineering department curriculum at the City College of New York as an

example.

The source is relevant to my topic as the use of new technology has a great impact

in the teaching of engineering. Students will learn how to apply emerging

technologies for their field and will be prepared when they finish their education.

They state that so far,“it appears that students’ confidence and overall academic

performance has improved in some courses following the reform”, where the

reform is meaning the introduction of the new technology. Delale et al, is

providing evidence that the new technology has shown results when used in

teaching. This article is closely related to the one written by Amy Orange et al,

who discusses the use of technology in undergraduate mechanical engineering

courses.

Felder, R et al. (2000). “THE FUTURE OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION II.

TEACHING METHODS THAT WORK”.Chem. Engr. Education, 34.1, 26-39.

Richard M. Felder et al, professors from various Universities, assert their concept

on the most beneficial teaching methods in engineering education in their 2000

article “THE FUTURE OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION II. TEACHING

METHODS THAT WORK”. They support this assertion by clearly identifying

the key components of teaching the course. These key components include

formulating and publishing clear instructional objectives, establishing relevance


of course material and teach inductively, balancing concrete and abstract

information in every course, promoting active learning, using cooperative

learning, giving challenging but fair tests, and conveying a sense of concern about

the students learning. Their purpose in this article was to outline the key elements

towards developing an effective teaching method for engineering students. The

intended audience of this article would be those involved in the teaching of

engineering. They target this audience by using teaching methods from other

schools in engineering education as an example.

This source is relevant to my topic as it outlines the best teaching methods

involved in engineering education and clearly defines them. The authors state that

“performance of an individual student in a class depends on a staggering variety

of factors, many of whichare out of the instructor’s control”, and even though this

so, they created the article in order to provide a way to address many of these

factors. They are providing specific ways in which the professor using these

methods can further the education of their students. This source is relevant to the

articles written by Bernhard and Goh, who also discuss various teaching methods

for engineering education.

Felder, R, & Silverman L. (1988). “Learning And Teaching Styles In Engineering

Education”. Engr. Education, 78.7, 674-681.


Richard Felder and Linda Silverman, educators at the North Carolina State

University (1988), assert their belief that the diverse learning styles of engineering

students play a huge role in their education and the teaching styles given by their

instructors has a dramatic effect on the quality of their learning, in their article

“Learning and Teaching Styles In Engineering Education”. They support this

assertion through examples of psychology, charts, and specific definitions on the

different learning styles. The article shows that although most engineers are

active, sensing and visual learners, there are many that have different learning

styles.They try to explain this diversity by claiming that it is due to all of the

different fields in engineering. Their purpose in writing this article was to explain

the diverse learning and teaching styles involved in engineering education, to

show educators the specific forms of teaching that they should adhere to. The

intended audience of this source is anyone who is interested in engineering who

wants to know how engineers learn and the best ways for someone to learn in that

field. They target this audience by stating the specific learning styles used by

engineers.

The source is relevant to my topic since the methods on teaching engineers and

the subject of how they learn, is a huge part of engineering education. Although

Felder and Silverman are not engineers, but rather psychologists who analyze

engineers, their work still has meaning in the education of engineering. They state

that how much a student learns in a class is “governed in part by that student’s

native ability and prior preparation but also by the compatibility of his or her


learning style and the instructor’s teaching style”. In order for engineering

students to learn it is dependent on how the material is given and the teaching

methods that the instructor would use. This source is closely related to the article

written byHolvikivi, who also discusses the importance of understanding the

learning styles of engineers when trying to make efficient forms of educating

them.

Goh, S. (2012).“Star Power for teaching professional skills to engineering students”.

Advances in Engineering Education, 3.1, 3-16.

Suk Meng Goh, director of the Curtain Sarawak Research Institute, asserts the

uses of the concept of “star power” towards teaching engineers in his 2012 article

“Star Power for teaching professional skills to engineering students”. He supports

this assertion by defining the role that this new method of teaching plays in the

education of engineers. The game “Star Power” was seen to have potential in

learning professional engineering skills and is easily adjustable to emphasize

different elements of those skills. With such promise, this game could be used

widely in engineering education. His purpose in writing this article was evaluating

the potential that playing the game of “Star Power” has towards teaching

engineers. The intended audience of this source is anyone involved in new

methods of teaching engineers, such as professors in engineering or those

involved in engineering firms. The author targets this audience by using data


collected from an experiment using “star power” for the first time for engineering

students in the mechanical engineering department.

The source is relevant to my topic because the author introduces a new method of

teaching engineers in order to better their education. This method once had a

different use, but the author believes in its application towards engineering. He

states that “although Star Power is normally played from a sociology context, the

current survey suggests that the game can provide a simulation to practice

professional skills that are relevant to an engineer.” The game wasn’t designed for

engineering, but using it as a teaching method provides practical uses for the

education of engineering. This source is closely related to the article written by

Bernhard who discusses various teaching methods according to how far you are in

engineering education, while Goh describes more of a general teaching method.

Holvikivi, J. (2007). “Learning styles in engineering education: the quest to improve

didactic practices”. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32.4, 401-408.

Jaana Holvikivi, professor at the Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied

Sciences, in their 2007 article “Learning styles in engineering education: the quest

to improve didactic practices”, suggests that engineering education can greatly

improve through increasing the level of didactic understanding within engineering

colleges and through collaborating with educational scientists. She supports this

suggestion through analyzing engineers by testing their learning styles,


thoroughly describing who they are and how they think, and using Kolb’s model

of experiential learning as an example of understanding how engineers learn.

Holvikivi uses data collected from learning style tests to show the typical learning

styles of engineers, which typically showed similar results, but in the data there

were many individuals who showed other learning styles. Although the students

express diverse learning styles, she believes there are still ways to create teaching

methods that encompass the needs of those different styles. Her purpose in

writing this article was to show her idea of effective ways of bettering the

education of engineers through the study of learning styles in order to figure out

the mind of an engineer and the best way to educate it. The intended audience is

for professors in engineering as well as psychologists that are interested in the

way engineers think and learn. Holvikivi targets this audience by using data

collected from testing the learning styles of engineering students.

The source is relevant to my topic since the article uses the concept of the analysis

of learning styles to create ways to benefit engineering education. She believes

that “choosing efﬁcient approaches to develop engineering education is a

demanding task” where “considerable effort, research and new insights are

needed.” Holvikivi is simply stating that creating effiecient ways to further

engineering education is very complex and requires much effort and research in

order to truly understand engineers, but it can be done. This article is relatable to

Felder and Silverman’s article as they both discuss how understanding the

learning styles of engineers, holds a great importance in their education. Although


Felder and Silverman addresses the learning styles of an engineer in a more direct

answer, Holvikivi addresses it as something that is very vague and hard to

understand, and to truly understand engineers it a difficult task.

Kolmos, A, & Holgaard, J. (2003).Learning Styles of Science and Engineering Students

in Problem and Project Based Education, Department of Planning and

Development, Aalborg University. Available at http://www.sefi.be/wp-

content/abstracts/1243.pdf

Anette Kolmos and Jette Holgaard, professors in the Department of Planning and

Development at Aalborg University, in their 2003 article “Learning styles of

science and engineering students in problem and project based education”, asserts

the idea that engineers although most are active, sensing and visual learners, there

are varied examples of diverse learning styles among the other categories within

their respective fields. They support this assertion through examples of gathered

data of engineering as well as other fields, testing their learning style types. The

results of this data conclude that it is because of the variety of fields that there

exists all different types of engineers; each type with their own unique learning

style. The purpose of writing this article was to identify the most common

learning styles used by engineers and differentiate them from other professions.In

doing so, effective courses can be made to fit those specific styles. The intended

audience for this article is not necessarily just for those involved in the education


of engineering, but rather anyone that wants to know who engineers are and how

they think, such as professors of engineering, students, and researchers. They

target this audience by specifically describing the diverse learning styles of

engineers and using data to test their learning styles.

This source is relevant to my topic as it determines the learning styles of an

engineer. Knowing the learning styles are important in engineering education as it

allows for the instructor to shape the course curriculum in order to satisfy that

type of learning. The authors stated that “engineering students are not just one

cohort with similar learning patterns” and this is important to acknowledge when

trying to understand engineers. Among their respective fields, engineers typically

think and learn in different ways. The article is relates to the article written by

Felder et al, who also discusses the learning styles of engineers and acknowledges

its importance and how it pertains to education.

Orange, A et al. (2012). “An Evaluation of HigherEd 2.0 Technologies in Undergraduate

Mechanical Engineering Courses”.Advances in Engineering Education, 3.1, 18-

47.

Amy Orange et al, professors from various colleges, express their idea on the use

of new technologies to further engineering education in their 2012 article “An

Evaluation of HigherEd 2.0 Technologies in Undergraduate Mechanical

Engineering Courses”. They support this expression by using the data the


collected from various colleges that were using higher education technologies

such as video solutions, course blogs, course wikis, lecture podcasts, and showing

the direct result that occurred in each of those schools.While collecting data,

infusing these technologies into certain schools provided positive results, showing

that students overall have higher success in engineering courses that use higher

education technologies. Their purpose in writing this article was to identify the

effect that new technology has on engineering education. The intended audience

for this paper is most likely professors involved in engineering education that

want to further their students’ education. They target this audience by using data

collected from engineering students using higher education technologies in their

curriculum.

The source is relevant to my topic as it discusses the application of new

technology in engineering education and how it is beneficial towards the teaching

of students in engineering. The authors state that “students who did well in the

course overall were more likely to have an enjoyable experience creating a final

project and feel that they gained a greater knowledge of course concepts via the

project”, where the final project involves using the higher education tech.

Through this they show that students overall have a better education when

applying new technology into the curriculum, shown through positive results.

This article is relatable to the source written by Delale et al, who agrees with the

positive aspects of infusing new technologies into the engineering curriculum.

Engineering Education Annotated Bibliography Sources

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Engineering Education Annotated Bibliography Sources

Semelhante a Engineering Education Annotated Bibliography Sources (20)

Engineering Education Annotated Bibliography Sources