Taxonomies of Engineering Competencies and Quality Assurance in Engineering Education

  • L. C. Woollacott


This chapter reviews both literature and theory related to the identification and articulation of graduate attributes and competencies that are relevant to engineering education. Such attributes and competencies form the basis for Quality Assurance in engineering education. This chapter includes but looks beyond the sources that are normally reviewed in creating statements on graduate attributes. The review was part of the work done in developing the taxonomy of engineering competencies. Given its somewhat unique genesis, context, and perspective, this particular taxonomy provides an interesting case study of how literature, theory, and research-based evidence can be combined to form statements of graduate attributes for a specific educational discipline.


Engineering Education Competency Model Behavioral Indicator Disciplinary Knowledge Engineering Competency 
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.


  1. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (2007). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs: Effective for evaluations during the 2008–2009 accreditation cycle. Baltimore MD: ABET, Inc. Accessed January 2009, from
  2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (1995). Mechanical engineering curriculum development initiative: Integrating the product realization process (PRP) into the undergraduate curriculum. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, practices and change. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory and practise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Augustine, N. R. (1994). Socioengineering (and Augustine’s second law thereof). The Bridge, Fall 1994, 3–14.Google Scholar
  6. Bankel, J. K., Berggren, F., et al. (2003). The CDIO syllabus: A comparative study of expected student proficiency. European Journal of Engineering Education, 28, 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51, 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benefield, L. D., Trentham, L. L., et al. (1997). Quality improvement in a college of engineering instructional program. Journal of Engineering Education, 86, 57–64.Google Scholar
  9. Boeing. (1966). Desired attributes of an engineer. Accessed December 2008, from
  10. Busse, R. (1992). The new basics: Today’s employers want the three R’s and so much more. Vocational Education Journal, 62(5), 29–31.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmit & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2008). Job outlook 2009 survey. Accessed December 2008, from
  13. Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Accessed February 2009, from
  14. Crawley, E. F. (2002). Creating the CDIO Syllabus, a universal template for engineering education. 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston.Google Scholar
  15. Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., & Brodeur, D. R. (2007). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. de Jager, H. G. & Nieuwenhuis, F. J. (2002). The relation between the critical cross-field outcomes and the professional skills required by South African Technikon engineering graduates. The 3rd South African Conference on Engineering Education, Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
  17. de Lange, G. (2000). The identification of the most important non-technical skills required by entry-level engineering students when they assume employment. The 2nd South African Conference on Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  18. Department of Education (2007). The Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF): A single qualifications framework for a diverse system. South African Department of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–324.Google Scholar
  20. Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA). (2004). Whole qualification standard for Bachelor of Science in Engineering (BSc(Eng))/Bachelors of Engineering (BENG): NQF Level 7. Authorized by Council, registered on the National Qualifications Framework: NLRD no 48694; Document: PE-61 Rev-2 26 July 2004. Accessed February 2009, from
  21. Evans, D. L., Beakley, G. C., et al. (1993). Attributes of engineering graduates and their impact on curriculum design. Journal of Engineering Education, 82, 203–211.Google Scholar
  22. Evers, F. T., Rush, J. C., et al. (1998). The bases of competence: Skills for lifelong learning and employability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Grayson, D. J. (1996). A holistic approach to preparing disadvantaged students to succeed in tertiary science studies. Part 1: Design of the Science Foundation Programme (SFP). International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 993–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grimson, J. (2002). Re-engineering the curriculum in the 21st century. European Journal of Education, 27(1), 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Hillman, J. C. (1992). The Wits Pre-University Bursary Scheme (PBS): A bridging year for disadvantaged engineering students. IEEE 3rd Conference in Africa (Africon), Swaziland.Google Scholar
  27. International Engineering Alliance. (2005). Graduate attributes and professional competencies, Ver 1.1, 13 June 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Kemp, N. D. (1999). The identification of the most important non-technical skills required by entry-level engineering students when they assume employment. South African Journal of Higher Education/SATHO, 13(1), 178–186.Google Scholar
  29. Knight, D. W., Carlson, L. E. et al. (2003). Staying in engineering: Impact of a hands-on, team-based, first-year projects course on student retention. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  30. Koen, P. A. & Kohli, P. (1998). ABET2000: What are the most important criteria to the supervisors of new engineering graduates. 1998 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  31. Landis, R. B. (2007). Studying engineering: A road map to a rewarding career. Los Angeles: Legal Books Distributing.Google Scholar
  32. Lang, J. D., Cruse, S., et al. (1999). Industry expectations of new engineers: A survey to assist curriculum designers. Journal of Engineering Education, 88, 43–51.Google Scholar
  33. Lattuca, I. R., Strauss, L. C., et al. (2006). Getting in sync: Faculty and employer perceptions from the national study of EC2000. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22, 460–469.Google Scholar
  34. Letseka, M. & Maile, S. (2008). High drop-out rates: A threat to South Africa’s Future. HSRC Policy Brief. Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa.Google Scholar
  35. Lomas, L. (2004). Embedding quality: The challenges for higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(4), 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Maillardet, F. (2004). What outcome is engineering education trying to achieve? In C. Baillie & I. Moore (Eds.), Effective learning and teaching in engineering. London: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  38. Malcolm, J., & Zukas, M. (2001). Bridging pedagogical gaps: Conceptual discontinuities in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 34–42. doi: 10.1080/13562510020029581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Masenya, D. I. (1995). Reconceptualizing the academic discourse: Underprepared students or institutions or both? Academic Development, 1(2), 99–105.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, R., Bradbury, J., et al. (1997). Academic performance of first and second language students: Kinds of assessments. South African Journal of Higher Education/SATHO, 11(2), 70–79.Google Scholar
  41. Moll, I. (2004). Curriculum responsiveness: The anatomy of a concept. In H. Griesel (Ed.), Curriculum responsiveness: Case studies in higher education (pp. 1–19). Pretoria: SAUVCA, South African Vice-Chancellors Association.Google Scholar
  42. Mumba, F. K., Rollnick, M., et al. (2002). How wide is the gap between high school and first year chemistry at the University of the Witwatersrand. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(3), 148–157.Google Scholar
  43. National Society of Professional Engineers. (1992). Engineering education issues: Report on surveys of opinions by engineering deans and employers of engineering graduates on the first professional degree. National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Publication No. 3059. Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  44. Natriello, G. (1989). What do employers want in entry-level workers: An assessment of the evidence. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Passow, H. J. (2007). What competencies should engineering programmes emphasize? A meta-analysis of practitioners’ opinions informs curricula design. 3rd International CDIO Conference. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  46. Phurutse, M. C. (2005). Factors affecting teaching and learning in South African public schools. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
  47. Pinto, D. (2001). (Ed.). Directory of science, engineering and technology foundation programs. Wits, South Africa: College of Science, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, Central Printing Unit.Google Scholar
  48. Rollnick, M., Manyatsi, S., et al. (1998). A model for studying gaps in education: A Swaziland case study in the learning of chemistry. International Journal of Educational Development, 18(6), 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saunders-Smith, G. N. (2005). The secret of their success: What factors determine the career success of an aerospace engineer trained in the Netherlands. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Portland: ASEE.Google Scholar
  50. Shea, J. E. (1997). An integrated approach to engineering curricula improvement with multi-objective decision modelling and linear programming (Doctoral thesis). Dissertation Abstracts International A58:1649.Google Scholar
  51. Simelane, Z. F. (2006). Identification and classification of incoming learning behaviours amongst a sample of first year, English second language, engineering students: A case study. Wits, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  52. Simpkins, C. E. W. (2005). Learner performance in South Africa: Social and economic determinants of success in language and mathematics. Cape Town South Africa: HSRC Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sinha, M. N., & Willborn, W. O. (1985). The management of quality assurance. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  54. Skakoon, J. G., & King, W. J. (2001). The unwritten laws of engineering: Revised and updated. New York: ASME Press.Google Scholar
  55. South African Qualifications Authority. (1997). SAQA Bulletin. Department of Education, South African Qualifications Authority.Google Scholar
  56. South African Qualifications Authority. (2000). National qualification framework and curriculum development. Accessed December 2008, from
  57. Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models of superior performance. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  58. Taylor, D. W. & T. F. Chou (1999). Evidence of the gap between student’s learning approaches and instructors’ teaching approaches in accounting education. 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum: Teaching in the disciplines/learning in context. The University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
  59. Tinto, V. (1975). Drop-out from higher education. A theoretical synthesis of recent data. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.Google Scholar
  60. Turley, R. T. (1992). Essential competencies of exceptional professional software engineers (Doctoral thesis). Dissertation Abstracts International B53:400.Google Scholar
  61. von Gruenewaldt, J. T. (1999). Achieving academic literacy in a second language: South Africa’s educational predicament. South African Journal of Higher Education/SATHO, 13(1), 205–212.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, R. S. (2002). Managing employee performance: Design and implementation in organisations. Cengage Learning EMEA.Google Scholar
  63. Woollacott, L. (2003). Dealing with under-preparedness in engineering education. Part 1: Defining the goal: A taxonomy of engineering competency. Originally in WFEO/ASEE e-Conference, from
  64. Woollacott, L. (2006). From academic development to student development: A scenario for a transformed curriculum in South African engineering educationation. 3rd African Regional Conference on Engineering Education, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  65. Woollacott, L. (2007). The goals of engineering education: A rationale for a universal document based on the CDIO syllabus and the taxonomy of engineering competencies. 3rd International CDIO Conference, Boston.Google Scholar
  66. Woollacott, L., Henning, L. et al. (2003). Addressing under-preparedness in entrants to the chemical engineering program at Wits. South African Chemical Engineering Congress, Sun City, South Africa.Google Scholar
  67. World Chemical Engineering Council. (2004). How does chemical engineering education meet the requirements of employment? Short Report. World Chemical Engineering Council Secretariat. Accessed December 2008, from
  68. Young, J. L. (1986). What competencies do employers really need: A review of three studies. Journal of Career Development, 12(3), 240–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Professional Engineering Bodies: Web Sites for Statements on Accreditation Standards

  1. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, United States,
  2. Canadian Council of Professional Engineers,
  3. Engineering Council of South Africa,
  4. Engineering Council UK, United Kingdom,
  5. Institution of Professional Engineers, New Zealand,
  6. International Engineering Agreements:

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built EnvironmentUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations