Incorporating global skills within UK higher education of engineers

the norm. The RAEng study proposes an output competen-
cies approach which would ensure Bologna compatability
whilst preserving UK degrees in their current form. In the
absence of a funding increase to enable course expansion,
it is unlikely universities will support any extension to course
length and that space within the engineering curriculum will
continue to be pressured. The study further concludes:

‘Universities must continue to teach 'core engineering' and
not dilute course content with peripheral subject matter.
Industry's top priorities for engineering graduate skills are
practical application, theoretical understanding, creativity
and innovation. Whilst broader technological understanding
is also important it should not be at the expense of
understanding the fundamentals. It is important that courses
are not overloaded with technical content: the emphasis
should be on the ability to understand and apply theory to
real problems. There is a limited requirement for training in
key business skills, envisaged primarily as commercial aware-
ness - an understanding of how businesses work and the
importance of the customer - combined with the basic prin-
ciples of project management.’ (RAEng 2007)⁵⁰

This conclusion was echoed in the findings from this study’s
dialogue. Respondents felt this defense of ‘core engineering’
is in part driven:

■ By staff wishing to focus on teaching ‘core engineering’
topics of which they are familiar and confident with and
avoid teaching broader issues of which they are less
familiar.

■ By the tension between depth and breadth, with the
desire to cover topics in greater depth reducing opportu-
nities to include a greater breadth material within the
curriculum.

■ By resistance amongst senior staff and researchers whose
careers, funding and prestige are closely linked to excel-
lence in leading edge engineering research as opposed
to teaching the global dimension.

■ By the perception amongst senior teaching staff that proj-
ects addressing social and environmental dimensions of
engineering are less academically rigorous and favoured
by less able students as an easy option.

■ By silo or mono-disciplinary thinking, academic conser-
vatism and resistance to disruption that change inevitably
involves.

Whilst the need for a global dimension was universally
acknowledged, there would be strong resistance within fac-
ulties if additional content displaced ‘core engineering’
content. Following on from this, the consensus was not to
develop new modules, but to embed the global dimension
within existing courses through the use of globally relevant
case studies, research projects, dissertations and team proj-
ects.

Limited staff time, skills, knowledge and
capacity

Academic staff are recruited on a wide range of criteria:
research experience and interests, previous work experience,
the depth and range of knowledge, an ability to attract new
funding and business and teaching ability. As a result, it is
unusual to find engineering teaching staff who also have
practical experience of international development or of
working in developing countries. This lack of development
experience and knowledge may constrain the capacity of
engineering departments to teach and embed international
development within the curriculum and bring the global
dimension to life.

There are a range of strategies that departments could adopt
to compensate for this gap including:

1. Recognising the existence and implications of this gap.

2. Mapping and tapping into the expertise that does exist
both within engineering and in other faculties.

3. Building active, long-term relationships with international
development non-government organizations (NGOs)
especially those with expertise in development engi-
neering and development education. Such partnerships
could mirror initiatives with business and include NGO
staff sitting on course advisory boards, providing visiting
professors and ‘employer’ tutors, offering project topics
and teaching resources and offering student placements:
see partnership section.

4. Supporting the provision of appropriate professional
development for teaching staff, including linkages and
staff exchange programmes with developing country
universities.

5. Utilising the skills and experience that international staff
and visiting fellows bring.

Limited funding

‘Engineering courses at UK universities are now seriously
under-funded’ concludes the Royal Academy of Engineering.
‘Engineering is an intrinsically expensive subject to teach well
because of the demands it makes for small group work in
design and build projects, specialist laboratory equipment
and technician support. These elements of the learning
experience are cited as critical by both recent graduates and
employers in developing innovative, entrepreneurial gradu-
ates who can tackle open-ended problems. In the context of
the current funding formula this requires an increased level
of support of the order of 2.5 to three times the basic unit
of resource (compared to the current allocation of 1.7)’ (see
endnote 1)

Despite a considerable expansion of overall funding and
access to higher education over the past 10 years, funding
for teaching per student has fallen and engineering has
suffered disproportionately. This has led to a reduction in
opportunities for relatively expensive practical and project
work. It is one thing to identify the need for more participa-
tory, practical and active learning and greater investment in
course review and design processes, but without the
necessary funding, engineering education reform is likely to
be slow and inadequate.

Engineering faculties need to come together with profes-
sional engineering and education bodies to lobby the
government to increase funding for both course develop-
ment and delivery. In addition to this, universities should

Page 14 The Global Engineer

<<   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   >>

More intriguing information