Academic Perspectives on Enhancing Graduates’ Readiness for Industry Employment
Faculty members in engineering have been asked about their agreement level that certain actions by engineering education institutions will help better prepare graduates for the work place in a scale-up with a scale ranged from 1 to 5 where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. A number of items were stated as shown in Table 7.25, and these items were deducted based on the previous in-depth interviews with selected faculty members. Faculty responses were positively skewed towards agreement above the “neutral” point for all items, and the highest mean of faculty responses was recorded the item on “increase collaboration with industry”. In general, the surveyed faculty supports further adaptation of the engineering curriculum for country needs, increasing internships, and rewarding of faculty members who conducts engineering education research.
Learning and Teaching Styles for Practice Readiness: Students/Junior Engineers Perspectives
Students and alumni were asked about the learning teaching styles/approaches that are useful in preparing/qualifying students for the engineering practice in a Likert scale-up question rated in a scale ranged from 1 to 5 where 1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “neutral”, 4 = “agree”, and 5 = “strongly agree”. Learning and teaching styles/approaches included 16 different methods and were spread over four dimensions:
• Classical methods (more passive oriented): lectures, tutorial sessions, individual assignment, and written examination;
- • Feedback and support methods: instructor office hours, instructor feedback on performance, and help and guidance from teaching assistants;
- • Constructivist methods (more active oriented): group study, research/design projects, group assignments, oral presentations, class discussions, and online resources; and
- • Practical methods: internships/practical experience, practical examinations, and laboratories.