Engineering Education experiences turbulent changes, both from government pressures and from industry demands on readdressing the requirements of graduate capability. Despite vast amounts of engineering literature discussing ‘change’ within the field, engineering curricula still maintains its predominant pedagogic model of dissemination to students as it did in previous decades. Technology Enhanced Learning in education has created new and flexible options in the delivery and assessment of teaching and learning, but uptake is limited and approached with caution within Engineering Education. This mixed methods research introduces an inclusive and innovative approach to Engineering Education assessment techniques utilising an integrated blended learning strategy to the implementation of Technology Enhanced Learning within engineering curriculums. The research explores and assesses the effectiveness of Technology Enhanced Learning and educational pedagogies within Engineering Education frameworks to enhance and develop student learning, digital literacy and employability. Preliminary research positioned the research, utilising observation and interview techniques to baseline current pedagogic practices in undergraduate Engineering Education against current literature. An alternative method of video assessment was implemented and embedded following a two year cycle of action research within a cohort of two undergraduate engineering modules. A prototype ‘toolkit’ was created using Xerte Online Toolkits (XOT) to facilitate student learning and support for the assessment. Additional techniques inside the cycles gained further qualitative and quantitative data via a survey and focus groups. Student learning and assessment results showed significant improvement following the introduction of this approach and validated the transferability of this technique into other educational disciplines. An industry based survey validated chosen research methods and provided a comparison of viewpoints on key issues surrounding Engineering Education against existing stakeholders. The research introduces a new innovative approach to Engineering Education utilising Technology Enhanced Learning, validated through positive industry feedback and student academic achievement and satisfaction. Significant improvements on student employability and engineering ‘soft skills’ are evidenced.

No description available.

No / Context: Two-dimensional (2D) video analysis of frontal-plane dynamic knee valgus during common athletic screening tasks has been purported to identify individuals who may be at high risk of suffering knee injuries such as anterior cruciate ligament tear or patellofemoral pain syndrome. Although the validity of 2D video analysis has been studied, the associated reliability and measurement error have not. To assess the reliability and associated measurement error of a 2D video analysis of lower limb dynamic valgus. Design: Reliability study. Participants: 20 recreationally active university students (10 women age 21.5 ± 2.3 y, height 170.1 ± 6.1 cm, weight 66.2 ± 10.2 kg, and 10 men age 22.6 ± 3.1 y, height 177.9 ± 6.0 cm, weight 75.8 ± 7.9 kg). Main Outcome Measurement: Within-day and between-days reliability and measurement-error values of 2D frontal-plane projection angle (FPPA) during common screening tasks. Interventions: Participants performed single-leg squat and drop jump and single-leg landings from a standard 28-cm step with standard 2D digital video camera assessment. Results: Women demonstrated significantly higher FPPA in all tests except the left single-leg squat. Within-day ICCs showed good reliability and ranged from .59 to .88, and between-days ICCs were good to excellent, ranging from .72 to .91. Standard error of measurement and smallest detectable difference values ranged from 2.72° to 3.01° and 7.54° to 8.93°, respectively. Conclusions: 2D FPPA has previously been shown to be valid and has now also been shown to be a reliable measure of lower extremity dynamic knee valgus. Using the measurement error values presented along with previously published normative data, clinicians can now make informed judgments about individual performance and changes in performance resulting from interventions.