AN INTEGRATED PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND EMPLOYABILITY INITIATIVE IN AN ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM

AN INTEGRATED PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND EMPLOYABILITY INITIATIVE IN AN ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM

S. Howell, G. Tansley, G. Jenkins, W. Hall (2008).  AN INTEGRATED PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND EMPLOYABILITY INITIATIVE IN AN ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM. 10.

To attain accreditation, Engineering programmes in Australia must meet Engineers Australia’s Stage 1 Competency Standards. In addition to the academic criteria, there is an expectation that students meet professional practice requirements. In the School of Engineering and Built Environment at Griffith University, the professional practice requirement is that students “must complete a minimum of 12 weeks (60 days) of approved experience in an engineering practice environment (or a satisfactory alternative) during their degree studies.” While there have been several opportunities for scaffolded student-industry interaction in earlier years of the programme, the opportunities were not integrated into the programme, were inconsistent across the disciplines, and not coherently articulated as professional practice and employability opportunities for students. The result was that some students entered the final year of the programme without sufficient industry internship experience, or exposure to industry professionals, or a lack of understanding of professional expectations and practice. The paper discusses the introduction and implementation of an integrated Professional Practice and Employability Skills stream within the programme to improve graduate employability and better support students as they develop into engineering professionals. The paper also describes a method for monitoring and assessing professional practice supported by a reflective ePortfolio. 

Authors (New): 
Simon Howell
Geoffrey Tansley
Graham Jenkins
Wayne Hall
Pages: 
10
Affiliations: 
Griffith University, Australia
Keywords: 
Professional Practice
employability
engineering curriculum
ePortfolio
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO standard 4
Year: 
2008
Reference: 
Campbell, D. A., Dawes, L. A., Beck, H., Wallace, S., Dansie, B., & Reidsema, C. (2009). An extended CDIO syllabus framework with preparatory engineering proficiencies. In Proceedings of the 5th International CDIO Conference, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore.: 
Christy, A. D., & Lima, M. (1998). The use of student portfolios in engineering instruction. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(2), 143-148.: 
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., & Brodeur, D. R. (2007). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO approach. Springer.: 
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO approach (2nd ed.). Springer.: 
Engineers Australia, (2011). Stage 1 Competency Standard for Professional Engineer. Retrieved from https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017- 03/Stage%201%20Competency%20Standards.pdf: 
Faulkner, M., Mahfuzul Aziz, S., Waye, V., & Smith, E. (2013). Exploring ways that ePortfolios can support the progressive development of graduate qualities and professional competencies. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6), 871-887.: 
Griffith University (2016). The Griffith Graduate, Retrieved from http://policies.griffith.edu.au/pdf/The%20Griffith%20Graduate.pdf: 
Hallam, G., & Creagh, T. (2010). ePortfolio use by university students in Australia: a review of the Australian ePortfolio Project. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 179-193.: 
Heinricher, A. C., Miller, J. E., Schachterle, L., Kildahl, N. K., Bluemel, V., & Crawford, V. (2002). Undergraduate Learning Portfolios for Institutional Assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(2), 249-253.: 
Male, S. A., Bush, M. B., & Chapman, E. S. (2009). Identification of competencies required by engineers graduating in Australia. In the 20th Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education: Engineering the Curriculum. The University of Adelaide.: 
Palmer, S., Holt, D., Hall, W., & Ferguson, C. (2011). An evaluation of an online student portfolio for the development of engineering graduate attributes. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19(3), 447-456.: 
PebblePad (2017). Home. Retrieved from http://www.pebblepad.co.uk: 
Popp, A. B., & Levy, D. C. (2009). A comparison and evaluation of the CDIO reference syllabus against the Engineers Australia competency standards and the development of a new compact framework. In 20th Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, University of Adelaide.: 
Rodgers, P. & Milton, A. (2011). Product Design. London: Laurence King.: 
Williams, J. M. (2002). The engineering portfolio: Communication, reflection, and student learning outcomes assessment. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(2), 199-207.: 
Go to top
randomness