Double Degrees: Concerns Regarding Overall Standards and Graduate Attributes such as Probabilistic Reasoning

Conference paper

Abstract

Double degrees (also known as combined degrees) typically allow engineering students to complete, in just 5 years, two degrees that would ordinarily take 7 years to complete. This paper provides and discusses the results of a pilot study relating to engineering double degrees. The study participants offered opinions relating to non-engineering fields of interest, and why they enrolled in their current double degree course. The study found that double degree students appear to be interested in breadth, but not depth. This finding seems to contradict a prevailing view that double degrees offer students the potential to gain depth in a particular niche or “overlap area” between the two degrees. The paper also discusses double degree curricula, in particular, the subjects that are from a typical double degree. It is noted that some elements that would ordinarily be strongly associated with depth and critical thinking seem to be missing from double degrees. The issue is exemplified in this paper by focusing on one aspect of critical thinking: probabilistic reasoning.

Index Terms

engineering education critical thinking judgment and decision making probabilistic reasoning double degree combined degree 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Nisbett, R.E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C. and Kunda, Z.. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Welsman, S.J. (2007). Double or nothing! Clever thinking, double-degree frustration, and returns to Science, URL: www.science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/procs/2007 (Accessed 1.3.2008)
  3. [3]
    King, R. (2008). Addressing the supply and quality of engineering graduates for the new century Australia: Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher EducationGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Russell, A., Dolnicar, S. and Ayoub M. (2008). Double degrees: double the trouble or twice the return? Higher Education, 55:575-591.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Fong, G.T. Krantz, D.H. and Nisbett, R.E. (1986). The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 253-292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology University of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations