Innovation and Research on Engineering Education

Chapter

Abstract

Our Western society depends strongly on continuous technological innovation. Engineers, the designers of the future technology need extensive competencies to face the challenge of dealing with ever increasing complexity. In some areas more than half the knowledge they learn in University is obsolete by the time the enter practice. Recognition of these issues has recently resulted in worldwide increase of attention for innovation of engineering education. This chapter presents a brief outline of the traditions in higher engineering education culminating in the stage of research and development in the last century. Next, the recent revival of engineering education research is described, contrasting the developments in the USA with Europe and the rest of the world. The efforts in the USA appear to follow Boyer’s concept scholarship of teaching, and aim for the establishment of engineering education research as a discipline in its own right. The trend in Europe is to build on the experiences with social sciences research in higher education, aiming to involve practitioners in research in their own fields. At the end of the chapter, a taxonomy of engineering education research questions is proposed, based on efforts by the SEFI (European Society for Engineering Education) working group Engineering Education Research (EER) and the European project EUGENE.

Keywords

Engineering education Educational innovation Applied research 

References

  1. Borrego, M. (2007). Development of engineering education as a rigorous discipline: A study of the publication patterns of four coalitions. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. *Borrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011). The emergence of engineering education research as an internationally connected field of inquiry. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 14–47.Google Scholar
  3. Borri, C., & Maffioli, F. (Eds.). (2008). TREE: Teaching and research in engineering in Europe: Re-engineering engineering education in Europe. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
  4. *Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  5. *Case, J. M., & Light, G. (2011). Emerging methodologies in engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 186–210.Google Scholar
  6. *Christensen, J., Henriksen, L. B., & Kolmos A. (2006). Engineering science, skills, and bildung. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dang, V. (in press). A prediction model for forecasting training when technology changes. Thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  8. de Graaff, E., Kolmos A., Adriana G., & Kirsti K. (2010). Development of a taxonomy for engineering education research. EUGENE. Contribution to the themes of the EUGENE 1st Scientific Committee Meeting, Göteborg, December 16–17, 2010.Google Scholar
  9. de Graaff, E. (unpublished). The scientific standard of engineering ­education research. Keynote contribution at the 1st International Conference on Research on engineering Education (ICREE), Hawaii, July 23, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. de Graaff, E., Markkula, M., Demlová, M., Kuru, S., & Peltola, H. (2007). Innovative learning and teaching methods. In C. Borri & F. Maffioli (Eds.), TREE: Teaching and research in engineering in Europe: Re-engineering engineering education in Europe (pp. 51–64). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Graaff, E., & Sjoer E. (2006). Positioning educational consultancy and research in engineering education. Paper presented at the 34th Annual SEFI Conference “Engineering Education and Active Students”, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  12. Department of Defense. (2009). Technology readiness assessment (TRA) Deskbook. Washington, DC: Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), Department of Defense, United States Government.Google Scholar
  13. Desha C., & Hargroves, K. (2011). Informing engineering education for sustainable development using a deliberative dynamic model for curriculum renewal. In W. Hernandez (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 Research in Engineering Education Symposium (pp. 441–449). Madrid: Spain.Google Scholar
  14. Galison, P. (2003). Einstein’s Clocks, Poincarė’s Maps. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  15. Hargroves, K., & Smith, M. (2005). The natural advantage of nations: Business opportunities, innovation and governance in the 21st century. The Natural Edge Project.. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  16. Jesiek, B. K., Borrego, M., & Beddoes, K. (2010a). Advancing global capacity for engineering education research (AGCEER): Relating research to practice, policy and industry. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jesiek, B. K., Borrego, M., & Beddoes, K. (2010b). Advancing global capacity for engineering education research: Relating research to practice, policy and industry. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(2), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jesiek, B. K., Newswander, L. K., & Borrego, M. (2009). Engineering education research: Field, community, or discipline? Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolmos, A., Rump, C., Ingemarsson, I., LaLoux, A., & Vinther, O. (2001). Organisation of staff development—Strategies and experiences. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolmos, A., Vinther, O., Anderson, P., & Malmi, L. (Eds.). (2004). Faculty development in Nordic engineering education (p. 177). Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Linden, A., & Fenn, J. (2003). Understanding Gartners hype cycles. Gartner research. Stamford, CT: Gartner, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Lohmann, J. R., & de Graaff E. (2008). Advancing the global capacity for engineering education research (AGCEER): A year of international dialogue. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 22–25, 2008. Washington, DC: ASEE.Google Scholar
  23. van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1997). De intuïtie voorbij [Beyond intuition]. Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs, 15.1, 34–46.Google Scholar
  24. Vroeijensteijn, A. (red.). (1981). Kwaliteitsverbetering Hoger Onderwijs [Improvement of quality in higher education]. Proceedings of the fourth national convention Research in Higher Education, December 1-180-1981. Eindhoven: Stichting Nationaal Congres.Google Scholar
  25. Wankat, P. C., Felder, R. M., Smith, K. A., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning in engineering. In M. T. Huber & S. P. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington: AAHE/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Google Scholar
  26. Wiegersma, S. (1989). Innovatie van het hoger onderwijs [Innovation in Higehr education]. Hoger onderwijsreeks. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations