Advertisement

A Systematic Approach to Implementing Complex Problem Solving in Engineering Curriculum

  • Chia Pao LiewEmail author
  • Siti Hawa Hamzah
  • Marlia Puteh
  • Shahrin Mohammad
  • Wan Hamidon Wan Badaruzzaman
Conference paper
  • 24 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1134)

Abstract

Over the years, there are various reports that confirmed the importance of complex problem solving in the workplace. Complex problem solving is the top identified skill to thrive in the 4th Industrial Revolution and emphasised in the Washington Accord’s 12 Graduate Attributes. However, in most cases, engineering educators often fail to design complex engineering problems to equip the students with the mastery of this skill in preparing them for the workforce. This paper attempts to present a systematic approach for engineering educators in designing assessments with complex engineering problems. Methods of qualitative analysis was employed namely field notes from accreditation site visits to the Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs); document analysis on the guidelines by accreditation bodies; and extensive literature review on various learning theories to support the implementation of complex problems. The results showed that engineering educators have poor understanding of the attributes of complex problems and often failed to construct complex problems for their courses. The proposed approach has outlined two strategies in addressing the problems. Firstly, it detailed out the attributes of complex engineering problem as guidance for the HLIs in implementing the engineering curriculum. Secondly, it identified the most appropriate learning theory, appropriate teaching and delivery methods, as well as suitable courses to address complex engineering problem solving. The approach is heuristic in nature with an iterative process in observing the attainment of this important skill.

Keywords

Complex engineering problem solving Ill-defined problem Washington accord 

References

  1. 1.
    World Economic Forum: The 10 Skills You Need to Thrive in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016). https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/the-10-skills-you-need-to-thrive-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/. Accessed 3 Mar 2018
  2. 2.
    IEA: Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies ver. 3: 21 June 2013 (2013).http://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/Documents/Policy/Graduate-Attributes-and-ProfessionalCompetencies.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2018
  3. 3.
    EAC: Engineering Programme Accreditation Manual 2017. Engineering Accreditation Council, Kuala Lumpur (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., Lee, C.B.: Everyday problem solving in engineering: lessons for engineering educators. J. Eng. Educ. 95, 139–151 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davidson, J., Sternberg, R.: The Psychology of Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Phang, F.A., Anuar, A.N., Aziz, A.A., Mohd Yusof, K., Syed Hassan, S.A.H., Ahmad, Y.: Perception of complex engineering problem solving among engineering educators. In: Auer M., Kim KS. (eds.) Engineering Education for a Smart Society, GEDC 2016, WEEF 2016. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 627, pp. 215–224 (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamisah Tapsir, S., Puteh, M.: Framing Malaysian Higher Education 4.0: Future-Proof Talents. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, Putrajaya (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liew, C.P., Puteh, M., Mohammad, S.: Best practices in Washington accord signatories: with reference to the accreditation criteria, systems and procedures. In: Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering, Kuching, Malaysia, pp. 278–282 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jonassen, D.H.: Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educ. Technol. 31(9), 28–33 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schon, D.A.: Educating The Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ertmer, P.A., Newby, T.J.: Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Spec. Issue Res. Update Key Train. Mentoring Top. 26(2), 43–71 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    CEAB: A Guide to Outcomes-Based Criteria (Draft). Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board, Ottawa (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engineering NZ: Requirements for Accreditation of Engineering Education Programmes (Rev. 3.1). Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) (2017). https://www.engineeringnz.org/…/123/Programme_Accreditation_Requirements.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2018
  14. 14.
    IEA: Glossary of Terms ver. 2: 15 September 2011 (2011). http://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/IEA-Extended-Glossary.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2018
  15. 15.
    Liew, C.P.: A Sustainable Framework for Assessing the Engineering Accreditation Council’s Programme Outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia (2019)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johri, A., Olds, B.: Situated engineering learning: bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. J. Eng. Educ. 100(1), 151–185 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lave, J.: Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press, New York (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blair, B.F., Millea, M., Hammer, J.: The impact of cooperative education on academic performance and compensation of engineering majors. J. Eng. Educ. 93(4), 333–338 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noyes, C.R., Gordon, J., Ludlum, J.: The academic effects of cooperative education experiences: does co-op make a difference in engineering coursework? In: Proceedings of 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, pp. 22.1428.1421–1422.1428.1414. American Society for Engineering Education, Vancouver (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cullin, M., Hailu, G., Kupilik, M., Petersen, T.: The effect of an open-ended design experience on student achievement in an engineering laboratory course. Int. J. Eng. Pedagogy 7(4), 102–116 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKinnon, M.M.: Core elements of student motivation in PBL. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 78, 49–58 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chia Pao Liew
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  • Siti Hawa Hamzah
    • 2
  • Marlia Puteh
    • 3
  • Shahrin Mohammad
    • 2
    • 4
  • Wan Hamidon Wan Badaruzzaman
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Tunku Abdul Rahman University CollegeKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Engineering Accreditation DepartmentBoard of EngineersKuala LumpurMalaysia
  3. 3.Centre for Engineering EducationUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohorMalaysia
  4. 4.Universiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohorMalaysia
  5. 5.Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaSelangorMalaysia

Personalised recommendations