Basic evaluation of engineering education and expectations

Öz

Engineers have different responsibilities in different types of business. Engineers are organising works and workplaces according to those profession requires. In certain jobs they are hired for their design and new innovative powers to create new fields to their companies in competitive businesses. Therefore, engineers should be graduated to handle their actual responsibilities. After realising some deficits in engineering education, some engineering faculties have reshaped their education and covered more design and problem solving activities. Graduating engineers in changing world in technology and population requires “engineers” who can meet technological and social rule changes. They should have deep knowledge in their subjects and creative design abilities. Educational methods aimed to reach “good engineers” in engineering faculties are given here to present importance of eternal, analytical and creative knowledge gained by engineering students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Engineering education
• real-world engineers
• methods for engineering education

Kaynakça

1. [1] Engineering, www.wikipedia.com, Accessed Feb. 2019.
2. [2] About IAENG, Int. Assoc. of Engineers, www.iaeng.org/about_IAENG.html, iaeng.org, Accessed Nov. 2019.
3. [3] Engineering, Reference terms, www.sciencedaily.com/terms/ engineering.htm, Accessed Dec. 2019.
4. [4] S. Costa and M. Scoble, An Interdisciplinary approach to integrating sustainability into mining engineering education and research, The Journal of Clean Production, 14(3-4), pp.366-373, 2006.
5. [5] Natural Resources Canada, www.nrcan.gc.ca/home, Accessed Nov. 2019.
6. [6] S. Singer and K.A. Smith, Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), pp. 468–471, 2013, doi:10.1002/jee.20030.
7. [7] J.E. Froyd, P.C. Wankat and K.A. Smith, Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education, Proceedings of the IEEE 100 (Special Centennial issue), May 2012, pp. 1344-1360, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2012.2190167.
8. [8] J. Joshua Cruz and N. Kellam, Beginning an Engineer’s Journey: A narrative examination of How, When, and Why students choose the Engineering Major, Journal of Engineering Education, 107(4), pp.556–582, 2018, doi:10.1002/jee.20234.

9. [9] Engineering education strategic aims, Cambridge University, www.cu.edu.uk, Accessed Feb. 2019.
10. [10] Personalized learning, tutorials. Oxford university, www.ox.edu.uk, Accessed Feb. 2019.
11. [11] P. Ramsden, Learning to teach in higher education, Routledge, London, Published in Taylor&Francis e-library, p.305, 1992.
12. [12] Characteristics of good teaching, University of Technology Sydney, www.uts.edu.au, Accessed Feb. 2019.
13. [13] G. Gibbs and T. Habeshaw, An Introduction to Effective Teaching in Higher Education, Technical and Educational Services limited, p.259, 1989.
14. [14] J.E. Mills and D.F. Treagust, Engineering education: Is problem based or project based learning the answer. Australasian J. of Engng. Education, Online publication, 2003-04, http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/ mills_treagust03.pdf
15. [15] F.K. Fink, Problem-based learning in engineering education: a catalyst for regional industrial development, World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 1(1), pp.29-32, 2002.
16. [16] DMA-Research, Graduate Analysis and Customer Analysis. Annex I and Annex II to [B. Dalum, M. Holmen, S. Jacobsson, M. Praest, A. Rickne and G. Villumsen, Changing the Regional System of Innovation, (eds; J.Fagerberg, P. Guerrieri and B. Verspagen, 1999], 1997, (in Danish).
17. [17] R.M. Lima, D. Carvalho, M.A. Flores and N.V. Hattum-Janssen, A case study on project led education in engineering: Students' and teachers' perceptions, European Journal of Eng. Edu. 32(3), pp.337–347, 2007.
18. [18] The CDIO Initiative, Queen's University-Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, www.my.me.queensu.ca/Undergraduate/The-CDIO-Initiative. html, Accessed Apr. 2018.
19. [19] A. Krogsboll, C. Simonsen, J.E. Christensen, T.B. Larsen, P. Goltermann, H. Koss and J. Sand. CDIO Projects in civil engineering study program at Denmark Technical University (DTU), Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, June 20-23 th, 2011.
20. [20] Engineering for better world: The Princeton vision, www.princeton.edu, Accessed Dec. 2018.
21. [21] S.Singer and K.A. Smith, Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, , 12(4), pp.468-471, 2013, doi: 10.1002/jee.20030.
22. [22] DSMI, The engineering education model of the University of Southern Denmark (Den Syddanske Model for Ingeniøruddannelser, DSMI), Feb, 2015, www.sdu.edu.dm, Accessed Feb. 2019.
23. [23] G.M. Bubou, I.T. Offor and S. Gumus, An argument for the practice of evidence-based teaching in engineering education for developing countries with focus on Nigerian universities, QScience Proceedings (Engineering Leaders Conference 2014), 2015:26, doi.org/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.26.
24. [24] M.K. Gokay and M. Gokay, Art as a Custom to Improve Engineering Creativity, Idil journal, 58, pp.713-721, 2019, doi: 10.7816/idil-08-58-01.
25. [25] D. Jonassen, J. Strobel, and C.B. Lee, Everyday problem solving in engineering: lessons for engineering educators, Journal of Engineering Education, pp.139-151, April 2006.
26. [26] J. Sparso, P. Klit, M. May, G. Mohr and M.E. Vigild, Towards CDIO based B.Eng studies at the Tech. Univ. Denmark (DTU), Proceedings of the 3rd International CDIO Conference, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 11-14th, 2007
27. [27] Gonzalez, H.B. and Kuenzi, J.J. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer, Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, R42642, www.crs.gov, August, 1,2012, p34.