Quality Assurance in Engineering Education: An All-round Perspective



This chapter discusses Quality Assurance in engineering education from an overall perspective. It advocates that engineering curricula should be revised to nurture all-round engineering designers, so that they can meet new social, industrial and educational needs. The chapter reviews the limitations of current engineering education practices, and argues that they are biased either toward the acquisition of engineering and technological knowledge and skills at the expense of critical thinking skills or toward the nurturing of creative thinking, while ignoring the ability to conduct in-depth investigations. This chapter uses Hong Kong as a case study to further identify new social, industrial and educational needs. To meet these needs, the chapter proposes Eight Cs as evaluative criteria for all-around engineering curricula. They are: competent, comprehensive, critical, creative, curious, continuous, collaborative, and compulsory.


Quality Assurance Female Student Engineering Education Curriculum Development Engineering Programme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I would like to thank the research funding support of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the faculty and researchers of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the National University of Singapore for their comments on the research direction of the projects which generated the findings for this article. The funding from the Asian Scholarship Foundation the K.C. Wong Education Foundation supported the core study in Hong Kong and supplementary studies in other Asian cities. Part of this article is revised from the article published in the 25th Anniversary Commemorative Album of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. I would also like to thank the comments of the examination officers of the Authority.


  1. Adair, J. (1990). The challenge of innovation. Surrey: Talbot Adair Press.Google Scholar
  2. Einstein, A. (1938). The evolution of physics. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  3. Gilbert, R. (1998). Living with art (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. (1997). The 1997 Policy Address. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government policy programmes.Google Scholar
  5. Mendelowitz, D. M. (1981). Children are artists. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Parnes, S. J., & Harding, H. F. (Eds.). (1962). A source book for creative thinking. New York, NY: Scribner.Google Scholar
  7. Siu, K. W. M. (1997). Criticism and theory studies in design and technology teacher education programmes. Curriculum Forum, 7(1), 49–58.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Siu, K. W. M. (2000a). A case study of the difficulties and possibilities for students to initiate their project titles. In K. Volk, W. So & G. Thomas (Eds.), Science and technology education conference 2000 proceedings (pp. 112–120). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  9. Siu, K. W. M. (2000b). A study of the relationship between the colour vision deficiency and creativity of design and technology students. The Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 10(1), 21–30.Google Scholar
  10. Siu, K. W. M. (2000c). The eight percent of design and technology students in our class. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 5(1), 20–25.Google Scholar
  11. Siu, K. W. M. (2001). What should be solved? The Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 11(2), 9–22.Google Scholar
  12. Siu, K. W. M. (2002). Meeting the new needs: Curriculum development and assessment of technology subjects. In 25th Anniversary Commemorative Album of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (pp. 48–54). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.Google Scholar
  13. Siu, K. W. M. (2007). Balance in research and practice: Critical reform of research studies in industrial and product design. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 11(1), 15–27.Google Scholar
  14. Starko, A. J. (2000). Finding the problem finders: Problem finding and the identification and development of talent. In R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development (pp. 233–249). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  16. Zhu, G., & Shen, S. (Eds.). (2001). Engineering education in the 21st century (1st ed.). Beijing: Gao Deng Joao Yu Chu Ban She.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHunghomHong Kong

Personalised recommendations