Abstract

Recently, a robust tool for assessment of different teaching methodologies in engineering education has been developed by the consortium of the iTeach project (www.iteach-chemeng.eu). The tool was initially tested for its applicability in teaching units of chemical engineering education, evaluating several educational approaches used to deliver core knowledge and employability competences in different geographical and educational contexts. After some modifications, the framework was subjected to a wider testing, including teaching units that are part of other engineering disciplines, but also, extended to other higher education disciplines. In the presented case-study, the framework, including six metrics, was used in the assessment of two pedagogical approaches, practical instructions via lab and self-instruction delivery, applied in the teaching units Microbiology and Engineering Economy, respectively. Necessary data were collected by online surveys, carried out among four target groups of stakeholders, i.e. academics, employers, graduates and students. The results of this testing will be presented and discussed.

References

[1] Rosen MA. Engineering Education: Future Trends and Advances. Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on ENGINEERING EDUCATION, Rodos Island, Greece 2009; p. 44-52.
[2] Prince MJ, Felder RM. Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J Eng Edu 2006; 95: 123-138.
[3] Felder, R. M. Woods DR, Stice JE, Rugarcia A. The future of engineering education II. Teaching methods that work. Chem Eng Edu 2000; 34: 26-39.
[4] Felder RM, Silverman LK. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng Edu 1988; 78: 674-681.
[5] Zarei A, Yusof KM, Daud MFB, Kolivand H, Saba T. A novel approach of multimedia instruction Applications in engineering education. J Theor Appl Inform Technol 2016; 93: 427-486.
[6] Sharples M, de Roock R, Rebecca F, Mark G., Christothea H, Elizabeth K, et al. Innovating Pedagogy, Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and assessment, to guide educators and policy makers, Open University Innovation Report 5, http://www.open.ac.uk/innovating, date of last asses: 15 June 2019.
[7] Bekhradnia, B. International university rankings: For good or ill? HEPI Report 89, http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Hepi_International-university-rankings-For-good-or-for-ill-REPORT-89-10_12_16_Screen.pdf, date of last asses: 15 June 2019.
[8] Strang L, Bélanger J, Manville C, Meads C. Review of the research literature on defining and demonstrating quality teaching and impact in higher education, Higher Education Academy, 2016, https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/defining_and_demonstrating_teaching_quality_and_impact.pdf, date of last asses: 15 June 2019.
[9] Rugarcia A, Felder RM, Woods D R, Stice J E. The future of engineering education. I. A vision for a new century. Chem Eng Edu 2000; 34: 16-25.
[10] iTeach project, Improving Teaching Effectiveness in Chemical Engineering Education, https://research.ncl.ac.uk/iteacheu/, date of last access: 10 June 2019.
[11] Miguela CV, Moreiraa C, Alvesa MA, Camposa JBLM, Glassey J, Schaer E, et al. Developing a framework for assessing teaching effectiveness in higher education. Educ Chem Eng 2019; 29: 21-8.
[12] Glassey J, Kockmann N, Meshko V, Porjazoska Kujundziski A, Polakovic M, Madeira LM, Schaer E. Teaching efficiency in chemical engineering. 22th Congress of Chemical and Process Engineering CHISA 2016, Keynote lecture, Prague, Czech Republic, G4.1.
[13] Hodson D. A critical look at practical work in school science, Sch Sci Rev 1990; 70: 33-40.
[14] Mingxing B, Jianpeng S, Kaoping S, Wanli Z. Reform of Training Ways of Engineering Practice and Innovation Ability for Petroleum Engineering Students. Higher Education of Social Science 2015; 9: 5-9.
[15] Petrina S. Advanced Teaching Methods for the Technology Classroom. Hershey PA: Idea Group Inc; 2007.
[16] Fink LD, Ambrose S, Wheeler DW. Becoming a professional engineering educator: A new role for a new era. J Eng Edu 2005; 94: 185-194.
[17] The Future of Education, Trend Report 2015. Center for Digital Technology and Management, https://issuu.com/cdtm/docs/the_future_of_education_-_cdtm_tren, date of last access: 10 August 2019.
[18] Teaching in the 21st century - A Review of the Issues and Changing Models in the Teaching Profession, 2008, https://www.blackboard.com/resources/k12/k12_teaching21st_final.pdf, date of last access: 10 August 2019.
[19] Hu W, Zhou H, Liu Z-W, Zhong L. Web-based 3D Interactive Virtual Control Laboratory Based on NCSLab Framework. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering 2014; 10: 10-8, http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v10i6.3845.
[20] Su J-P, Hu J-J, Ciou Y-J. Low-cost simulated control experimentation conducted in electrical engineering department of national Yunlin University of Science and Technology. In Aung W, Crosthwaite C, Vasquez Espinosa R, Moscinski J, Ou S-H, Sanchez Ruiz LM, editors. Innovations 2006: World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, Arlington: Begell House Publishing; 2006, p. 397-408.
[21] Richards J, Walters J.. Digital Teaching Platforms in the Spectrum of Educational Technologies. In: Dede Ch, Richards J, editors. Digital Teaching Platforms: Customizing Classroom Learning for Each Student, New York: Teachers College Press; 2012, p. 9-36.
[22] Peasgood S. Latest Trend In Edtech - Bringing Control, Analytics, and Feedback to the Classroom, 2014, http://sophiccapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Download-Full-Latest-Trends-in-EdTech-BYOD-Report-Here.pdf.
[23] Hargadon S. Web 2.0 for content learning and teaching and teaching higher education. New York: Elluminate; 2009.