Undergraduate Engineering Student’s System Thinking of Their Teaching and Learning about Indian Accreditation

Education plays a vital role in the development of any nation. Therefore, there is a premium on both quantity and quality (relevance and excellence of academic programmes offered) of higher education. Like in any other domain, the method to improve quality remains the same that is, finding and recognizing new needs and satisfying them with products and services of international standards. Accreditation is a process of quality assurance and improvement, whereby a programme in an institution is critically appraised to verify that the institution or the programme continues to meet and exceed the norms and standards prescribed by the appropriate designated authorities. The Indian accreditation guidelines for all graduates of any higher education programs are expected to have identified technical/functional, generic and managerial competencies which signify Graduates as; ■ To make the institute/department aware of the weaknesses of the programme offered by it and act on suggestions for improvement. ■ To encourage the institute to move continuously towards the improvement of quality of its programme, and the pursuit of excellence. ■ To facilitate institutions for updating themselves in programme curriculum, teaching and learning processes, faculty achievements, and students’ skills/abilities/knowledge. ■ To excel among stakeholders. (Peers, students, employers, societies etc.) ■ To facilitate receiving of grants from Government regulatory bodies and institutions/agencies. ■ To attain international recognition of accredited degrees awarded. ■ To facilitate the mobility of graduated students and professionals. The Indian accreditation guidelines implicitly and explicitly mandate the teaching and learning of systems thinking relating to engineering design and operational environments as well as the broader context of engineering work. In brief graduates require: ■ To the solution of complex engineering problems. ■ Analyze complex engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions

■ Design system components or processes that meet the specified needs ■ Conduct investigations of complex problems ■ Prediction and modeling to complex engineering activities with an understanding of the limitations. ■ Consequent responsibilities relevant to the professional engineering practice. ■ Societal and environmental contexts for sustainable development. ■ Commit to professional ethics and responsibilities and norms of the engineering practice. ■ Function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader ■ In diverse teams, and in multidisciplinary settings. ■ Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with the engineering community ■ To manage projects and in multidisciplinary environments. ■ Ability to engage in independent and life-long learning in the broadest context of technological change.

The research reported here was part of a broader study which used qualitative and quantitative measures to evaluate students’ experiences of the teaching, learning and assessment of systems thinking in undergraduate engineering. In the broader study, we used different stakeholder’s (student, alumni, employer and parent) data collection mechanisms to triangulate the findings consideration of following twelve skill of system thinking; 1. Applying knowledge of basic mathematics, science, and engineering. 2. Conducting experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data. 3. Design & development of system and processes 5. Knowledge of uses of modern tools of engineering. 6. Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal environment. 7. Design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, manufacturability, health and safety. 8. Understanding of ethical responsibility in practice at all times in function on multi-disciplinary teams also. 9. Use of techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice individual as well as in team management. 10. Communicate effectively using oral, written and graphic forms. 11. Handling contemporary issues related to engineering management and related fields. 12. Engage in life-long learning to acquire other knowledge for continued education and learning in various elective streams.

A survey instrument with six basic questions followed the phenomenographic approach by using second order questions aimed at eliciting the lived experience of the individual, reported from the individual’s own perspective. A three point scale was used for student responses such as [Excellent-3 Good-2 Poor-1] as well as word description and short answer.

This paper primarily reports on the stakeholder’s survey research. We provide only a summary of the quantitative. We collected data from students in chemical engineering (strongly systems oriented) ■ We surveyed second year students (n=76), third year students (n= 76) final year students on possible development. ■ We surveyed second year students parents (n= 67), third year students parents (n= 75) final year students parents (n=61), providing some grounds for comment on possible development. ■ We surveyed final year students who completed graduation degree (n=82), providing some grounds for comment on possible development. ■ We surveyed employer who play also major in development of institutes (n= 27) providing some grounds for comment on possible development. A summary of the demographic data is shown following tables 5 to 8;

The learned and assessed scores were significantly different across all other stakeholders. As expected, final year students who indicated a positive response (proportion who answered 4 or 5) measured higher proportions on ‘learned’ and ‘assessed’ than second year and third year students with students normally being exposed to more of these skills by final year where design and capstone experiences feature more prominently. However, only in the case of chemical

Given the quantitative results showed that students’ perception of the usefulness of systems thinking match their experiences of being taught and assessed these skills, we now present the qualitative findings. These findings provide insights into how we might improve or increase students’ experiences and perceptions of learning systems thinking.

In summary, systems thinking skills are critical competencies for contemporary and future engineers for particular emphasis on Complex Engineering Problems and Complex Engineering Activities Surveyed students from Chemical saw the development of a range of professional skills as useful to their future careers. They also noted that they getting enough teaching of these skills, enough authentic assessment opportunities to fully demonstrate mastery of these skills. The study reported here addresses that assumption and begins to answer questions as to what the best teaching methods might be for developing this complex thinking skill.

Clive L. Dym, Alice M. Agogino,Ozgur Eris,Daniel D. Frey,Larry J. Leifer (2005). Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning, Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005, pp. 103-120 Jo Allan, Karen Clarke, and Michael Jopling (2009). Effective Teaching in Higher Education: Perceptions of First Year Undergraduate Students, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2009, Volume 21 Number 3, pp. 362-372 Krisztina Valter and Gerlese Akerlind (2010). Introducing Students to Ways of Thinking and Acting Like a Researcher: A Case Study of Research-led Education in the Sciences, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2010, Volume 22, Number 1, pp. 89-97

Framework for Using Action Research Principles to Improve Instruction, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2009, Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 284-291 Lysandra Cook, Phillip D. Rumrill and Melody Tankersley (2009). Priorities and Understanding of Faculty Members Regarding College Students with Disabilities, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2009, Volume 21, Number 1, pp. 84-96 Michel Faucheux, Joëlle Forest (2010). Thinking Technology in order to think engineering education, halshs-00486972, CRECOS conference, version 1 - 27 May 2010 National board of accreditation manual for UG engineering programmes (TIER-II), September 2015 Nikos J. Mourtos (2012). Defining, Teaching, and Assessing Engineering Design Skills, International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(1), pp. 14-30, January-March 2012 Richard E. Miller (2009). Student Performance: Conduct and Behavior Concerns, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2009, Volume 21, Number 2, pp. 248-251 Roger G Hadgraft, Dr Anna L Carew, Dr Sandrine A. Therese, Dr Daniel L Blundell (2008). Teaching and Assessing Systems Thinking in Engineering, Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2008, Davos, Switzerland, 7-10 July S. Chee Choy, Phaik Kin Cheah (2009). Teacher Perceptions of Critical Thinking Among Students and its Influence on Higher Education, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2009, Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 198-206 Sophia N. Karagiannis (2009). The Conflicts Between Science Research and Teaching in Higher Education:An Academic’s Perspective, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2009, Volume 21, Number 1, pp. 75-83

Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Bharati Vidyapeeth College of Engineering, Navi Mumbai, (MS) India