https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1023/thumbnail.jpg

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1024/thumbnail.jpg

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1026/thumbnail.jpg

The current workforce climate has naturally led the way for wanting more systemic thinking individuals. This increasing complexity demands that universities train engineering students to be able to handle such difficulties amidst the interconnectedness of the world. This study aims to aid in understanding what will help the future leaders of the world become more equipped to handle these global and complex systems. College engineering students were the target population of this study. It was found that neither gender, educational level, grade point average, nor having an internship or co-op helped aid students to have higher systems thinking skills. However, employment status was found to affect the systems thinking skills scores. Laying the foundation for understanding engineering students’ ability to be more or less holistic thinkers, this research aims to help evolve engineering education.

The analysis of the effectiveness of the implementation of new forms of training from the point of view of students, graduates and employers. The mechanism of an independent public assessment of the qualification of a graduate of a vocational school, the organization of the corporate championship of professional skill in Worldskills standards is proposed. / Проводится анализ эффективности реализации новых форм подготовки с точки зрения студентов, выпускников и работодателей. Предложен механизм независимой публичной оценки квалификации выпускника профессиональной школы, организация корпоративного чемпионата профессионального мастерства по стандартам Worldskills

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1001/thumbnail.jpg

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1005/thumbnail.jpg

Engineering education for sustainable development (EESD) has emerged as a significant focus since the early 1990s, driven by the broader integration of sustainable development (SD) across education. SD has gained global attention and support from governments, businesses, and organizations. Still, education for sustainable development is emergent in engineering, and varies globally. Scandinavian countries, for example, have made significant progress in EESD with research and growth in courses and curricula, while the United States has seen more localized efforts. Prior research on EESD has focused heavily on course content and student learning, with far less attention to faculty attitudes and experiences. To advance global integration efforts, this study provides a deeper understanding of faculty engagement with EESD. Drawing on Lattuca and Pollard's (2016) model of faculty decision-making to engage in curricular change, this study compares the perspectives of faculty at two universities, one in the U.S. and one in Denmark, to explore the influences that shape engineering faculty choices to engage in EESD. To operationalize EESD, the study focuses on faculty who incorporate the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in their courses. Denmark and the U.S. were selected because of the wide divergence in national policies and practices relative to SD. The two institutions, however, are similar in engineering program size, research orientation (both very high research), and scope of engineering programs. The research used a case study approach and included interviews with five to seven engineering faculty and two to three key informants at each site, along with available texts such as university mission statements, program descriptions, course syllabi provided by interviewees, and national policies or declarations. Lattuca and Pollard's model posits three levels of influence: external (outside the institution), internal (within the institution and the department), and individual (within the person) Findings suggest that all three categories of influence are present in each case, but the salience of each category, the specific factors within each category, and the interactions across categories differ markedly. Where the Denmark case had a more consistent alignment across the three levels of influence, with a largely top-down direction of influence, engagement in EESD in the US case was largely an individual, bottom-up phenomenon with some alignment to, but limited drivers from the external and internal levels. This study captures the importance of strong external and internal influences in shaping faculty engagement in EESD and underscores the limitations of relying solely on individual influences. The findings highlight the role of national policies and cultural norms in creating a supportive environment for faculty to integrate sustainability into their teaching. Where external influences are limited, institutions need to actively align their vision, culture, and resources with the principles of sustainable development to foster a widespread and consistent practice of EESD. While individual faculty have been shown to act as change agents in the absence of strong external and internal influences, their efforts alone are limited in their impact on the practice of EESD. / Doctor of Philosophy / Engineering education for sustainable development (EESD) has become an important focus in recent years as the concept of sustainable development (SD) has been increasingly integrated into education. Broadly, SD works to meet our current needs without harming future generations, and it has widespread global support from governments, businesses, and organizations. While the idea of teaching sustainable development is becoming more common in engineering programs, its implementation varies around the world. Scandinavian countries like Denmark have made significant progress in this area with research and the development of courses and curricula. In contrast, the United States has seen more localized efforts. Most research on EESD has focused on what students learn in their courses, but with less work exploring why faculty members choose to include SD in engineering courses. To better understand why faculty members engage with EESD, this study looks at the perspectives of engineering professors at two universities: one in the U.S. and one in Denmark. In particular, it explores what influences faculty decisions to include the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in their courses. Denmark and the U.S. were chosen for this study because they have very different national policies and practices related to sustainable development. However, the universities in both countries are similar in size, focus on research, and the variety of engineering programs they offer. Data for this study includes interviews with five to seven engineering faculty members and two to three key informants at each university. Documents like university mission statements, program descriptions, course outlines provided by interviewees, and national policies related to education were also collected. Though faculty at both universities talked about influences outside the university, influences within their institutions departments, and their individual beliefs and values, both the specific factors at each level and the interactions between factors varied. In Denmark, strong national and institutional policies, values, and norms in support of sustainable development broadly and EESD in particular were key sources of influence, while in the U.S., where sustainable development is more contested, individual faculty beliefs and commitments were more prominent, though these commitments often aligned with broader institutional values and some external drivers. The study underscores the importance of both external factors, like national policies, and individual factors, such as personal beliefs, in shaping how faculty members integrate sustainable development in engineering. It highlights the role of government policies and cultural norms in creating an environment where faculty feel supported in integrating sustainability into their teaching. When external support is lacking, universities need to actively align their vision, culture, and resources with the principles of sustainable development to encourage consistent teaching of EESD. While individual faculty members can make a difference on their own, their impact is limited without strong external and internal support.

https://dc.etsu.edu/entc-2160-oer/1018/thumbnail.jpg

Recent studies suggest that the number of students pursuing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees has been generally decreasing. An extensive body of research cites the lack of motivation and engagement in the learning process as a major underlying reason of this decline. It has been discussed that if properly implemented, instructional technology can enhance student engagement and the quality of learning. Therefore, the main goal of this research is to implement and assess effectiveness of augmented reality (AR)-based pedagogical tools on student learning. For this purpose, two sets of experiments were designed and implemented in two different construction and civil engineering undergraduate level courses at the University of Central Florida (UCF). The first experiment was designed to systematically assess the effectiveness of a context-aware mobile AR tool (CAM-ART) in real classroom-scale environment. This tool was used to enhance traditional lecture-based instruction and information delivery by augmenting the contents of an ordinary textbook using computer-generated three-dimensional (3D) objects and other virtual multimedia (e.g. sound, video, graphs). The experiment conducted on two separate control and test groups and pre- and post- performance data as well as student perception of using CAM-ART was collected through several feedback questionnaires. In the second experiment, a building design and assembly task competition was designed and conducted using a mobile AR platform. The pedagogical value of mobile AR-based instruction and information delivery to student learning in a large-scale classroom setting was also assessed and investigated. Similar to the first experiment, students in this experiment were divided into two control and test groups. Students' performance data as well as their feedback, suggestions, and workload were systematically collected and analyzed. Data analysis showed that the mobile AR framework had a measurable and positive impact on students' learning. In particular, it was found that students in the test group (who used the AR tool) performed slightly better with respect to certain measures and spent more time on collaboration, communication, and exchanging ideas in both experiments. Overall, students ranked the effectiveness of the AR tool very high and stated that it has a good potential to reform traditional teaching methods.