The evolution of engineering education has come to focus its attention on learning-based education, moving aside, though not completely discarding, teaching-based education. In the first, the main focus is the student, in the second the teacher.
This paradigmatic shift presents an important challenge for engineering professors, who are generally used to focusing their attention in their teaching role. They center themselves mainly in the contents that must be transmitted to the students, and not so much in the learning outcomes that are sought after and how these should be achieved.
The distinction is clarified when it is highlighted, which is the object of educational intermediation: the contents or what is hoped to be obtained from it: the results of learning. Which is the medium? Which is the purpose? That is the matter.
The following document hopes to contribute with an answer to these questions focusing on the second one. In particular, an analysis of the attributes of the graduates is made, as expected learning outcomes of the engineering training process, and that the accreditation processes present as necessary requirements.
- What are the outcomes of learning?
By focusing on the students, the purpose is their learning and the medium, one among many, is the contents. The role of the teacher is still important, but from a different perspective, that of facilitating the learning process.
International tendencies in education show a shift from an approach “focused on the teacher” to an approach “focused on the student”. This alternative model is centralized in what the students must be capable of doing at the end of the module or program. Therefore, this approach is commonly known as an approach based on results/outcomes. Affirmations called expected / expected learning outcomes, abbreviated as learning outcomes, are used to express what students are expected to do at the end of a learning period. (Kennedy, 2007,p.16)
The design of the learning experiences, their materialization in the educational space – class, laboratory, workshop – and its evaluation is built from the students’ expected results and therefore what it does acquires great importance. Analyzing the concept, one could mistakenly affirm that the “how” is not relevant, as long as the task is achieved. But this is not the case. What is pointed out is that “there are a variety of roads that lead to Rome, but the important thing is to get there”, meaning that there is not only a single way to do things. This opens the opportunity for innovation and creative expression.
One definition of learning outcomes highlights the main aspects to consider:
“The results of learning are defined as statements about what is expected of a learner who knows, understands and/or is capable of demonstrating once the learning process is completed.” (ECTS, 2005, quoted by Kennedy, 2007.p.9).
This definition first emphasizes that they are statements, that is explicit declarations, usually expressed in writing and that have been deliberately selected to record what is expected of the student. What is expected of the student is that they “know”, “understand” and/or are “able to demonstrate”. The first aspect with a clear cognitive connotation, the latter with psychomotor implications, but in all cases with students’ actions.
Knowing, understanding and demonstrating are the points on which the outcomes of learning are based on. Each of these terms have a great conceptual charge, which is beyond the limitations of this document. Stating the results expected at the end of a training process is not a trivial matter, but rather the opposite, it involves a rigorous effort, informed and above all intentional, well-intentioned. This leaves aside any consideration that pretends to discard the teaching function. Ideal learning situations must be generated and statements must be set in advance indicating the courses to follow. The education work is even more decisive and requires a change in mentality:
“The move from primarily input based assessment to output based assessment requires the use of different methodologies to evaluate the efficacy of learning and more importantly a different mindset on the part of educators and assessors alike” (Owens, 2016, p.1)
Who proposes these statements? We will return to this later, but from now on we notice that at least two levels can be pointed out when it comes to establishing learning outcomes. A first level, of greater generality, establishes the particular aspects of the formation in question, that is the distinctive features that should characterize a person formed in a particular profession. The outcomes expected from someone who studied medicine, education, philosophy, engineering or architecture, for example, are not the same. Each profession has its own identity that is reflected in the inputs, means, processes and results of the formative process.
The second level, of greater concreteness, occurs when the enabler of the process, the teacher, adapts these general aspects to the particularities of his or her formative environment, anticipating the effective learning situations, proposing them to the apprentices, following up the process of building knowledge, and assessing whether the expected results have been achieved.
The strategy of focusing learning on the student involves not only a mentality change but also a “cultural change” in education. A change which has a theoretical basis in educational sciences, specifically those referred to constructivism, thus noted by the project entitled “Time for a new paradigm in education: student-centered learning” (T4SCL), implemented jointly between the European Union of students and the International Union for Education:
“Student – Centred Learning represents both a mindset and a culture within a given higher education institution and is a learning approach which is broadly related to, and supported by, constructivist theories of learning” (IE-ESU,2010,p.5).
To assume the constructivist position is to accept an epistemological option that assumes that knowledge is a construction of the subject, from which it cannot be separated, nor from the historical context and the “situation” in which the act of construction is carried out:
“The object of knowledge is constructed by the subject in a dialectical process in which the object and the subject are constructed reciprocally, from the activity of the subject (…) what we call reality, is a construction that is created through our coexistence in society, the elaboration of our knowledge and our history.” (Dobles et al, 1996, p.166).
In the formative process, the construction of knowledge is a joint effort, teachers and students work together. The teacher enabling the adequate learning conditions and the student actively appropriating him or herself of the situation with the purpose of developing and manifesting the skills expected to be achieved. This requires the teacher to adopt new methods of teaching, communicating with other teachers and students themselves, methods that transcend the transmission of knowledge through the teaching of lessons and that foster the development of problem-solving skills and critical and reflexive thinking.
“It is characterized by innovative methods of teaching which aim to promote learning in communication with teachers and other learners and which take students seriously as active participants in their own learning, fostering transferable skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking and reflective thinking” (ESU-EI, 2010,p.5)
- Importance of student-centered education
It is not unusual in our environment that the student who passes a test or even a course, is the one who manages to decipher the teacher’s strategy, in terms of the reproduction of the study contents. The dilemma is not whether this is right or wrong, but whether it is sufficient to ensure or not a correct apprehension of what is intended to be taught and the ability to perform what is expected. But, should we dispense with the contents or even the teacher? At the end of the day, the performance of engineering graduates in particular can be described as more than acceptable. What is the matter then? Rehearsing a pertinent answer to this question will allow us to elucidate the importance of focusing educational efforts on the student.
Today, more than ever, the reason for change for knowledge has the characteristic of a steep slope: in a few units of time, there are a lot of changes. This is so, to the point it seems there is not enough responsiveness in the classical processes of formation, in all levels, particularly in the higher level. What has worked so far is no longer working. It is not working because there is not an unlimited time for training, nor can you foresee all the options that the labor market will demand, complex, and changing and above all demanding, to introduce them all into the training process.
The effectives in training does not rely on cramming the students with contents or even exposing them to all possible situations in the work context, which is in fact materially impossible. The effectiveness lies in concentrating the efforts so that the students learn to learn by themselves, from very well selected situations, not only by their capacity of generalization, but also by their capacity of representation, or modelling. A suitable learning situation is one that provides the opportunity to acquire a skill which may be used in multiple contexts, one that offers the opportunity of transferring knowledge, abilities and attitudes to diverse situations, even unprecedented ones, in a world that is changing, open and contingent:
“(…) it is proposed that students be able to work and contribute to a world in permanent change and very open, from multidisciplinary and multicultural perspectives, for a future that today is uncertain.” (ANECA, 2014, p.5)
- Which learnings are we talking about? Relationship with competencies and attributes
Although it may seem unnecessary to say, it is necessary to insist that the learning or learning processes must be centered in the student, and it must be characterized by its pragmatic approach, as well as the possibility of its execution. Not less important is that it reports some benefit to the student, beyond the unavoidable increase of knowledge, as expressed in the project previously quoted, T4SCL: “Student centered learning must be practical, achievable and beneficial to those who learn.”
This same project, following Lea et al (2003), also points out other characteristic elements of student-centered learning:
- Trust in active learning rather than in passive learning. Learning by doing, not just listening or observing, even teaching others.
- Emphasis on deep and understanding learning. Leaving aside superficial memory repetition.
- Greater responsibility and accountability on behalf the students. The main artifice of the training is, the students themselves.
- A greater sense of autonomy in the student. Providing independent and interdependent work opportunities among the students themselves.
- Interdependence between teacher and student. Encouraging an enriching dialogue between those who propose deliberate situations of learning to who, in the end, accomplish them.
- Mutual respect within the teacher-student relationship without bias of power or of shared power.
- A reflexive approach to teaching and learning by the teacher and the student. A critical approach, based not only on the content under study, but also on the methods and strategies that stimulate learning.
In short, what is sought is that the student is capable of facing new situations, counting on the conceptual and operational tools that the training has provided. These capabilities are known in some contexts with the name of competences. Leaving aside the discussion of whether the term is appropriate or not, the truth is that what is important is that the student is capable and demonstrates the ability.
Now, we must distinguish between the abilities of a person trained in a particular profession and the abilities of a person in training, even at the end of it. This distinction establishes the difference between competencies and attributes. The first ones, for greater clarity, are usually qualified as professionals. The second without any additional qualification, labels the learning that the person must have at the end of his training and that is ready to venture into the practice of a professional discipline. Without fear of being mistaken, we could consider the attributes also as competences, only that they are competencies of completion of the trainning stage, or of the beginning of the capacities that will be consolidated during and through the professional practice.
Regarding the distinction between attributes and competencies, it can be pointed out that the best practice guide for program accreditation, established jointly between the ENAEE and the IEA, indicates that the program results or attributes of the graduates are:
“(…) evaluable learning outcomes that describe or exemplify the knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected of a graduate of an accredited program that provides the educational foundation for a particular purpose, including practice in a specific field of the profession of engineering.” (ENAEE-IEA, 2015, p. 3).
In this regard, knowledge means:
“The facts and concepts that are known and understood by skills: the skills to manage and apply knowledge, and by attitudes: the objectives that must lead the knowledge and skills.” (Rugarcía, 2000, quoted by ENAEE-IEA, 2015, p. 3).
As can be seen, the distinction between competences and attributes is not clear, and it can be considered, as already mentioned, that attributes are competences with which one culminates a training process, or they can be beginner competences for professional practice.
It is the attributes of the graduates, the statements of greater degree of generality that should guide the formative process and it is the teacher’s job to adapt them to the particular learning situations and the students’ to actively participate in its completion. Both must be aware that these are the expected results at the culmination of the training process.
Regarding a formal definition of attributes and which are those that must be encouraged in engineering, we will return later to this, after analyzing the evolution of the quality assurance systems of the engineering training programs.
- Results of learning and accreditation of programs
Since the year 2000, ABET, the US Accreditation Agency for Engineering, Applied Science and Technology programs, launched its evaluation model focused on “outcomes”. The world of the engineering training quality set a new course and with it assumed new challenges, both for the programs that are evaluated and for the accreditation agencies. Now it is no longer a matter of “prescribing” the elements that the programs must comply with, it is not an attempt to establish what. What is sought is to set a “horizon of realization” of what is considered desirable and leave the responsibility to the programs and their actors to establish how and where they want to reach. They must then determine the results that they want to obtain product of putting into play the resources owned and if they do not have, then they must start by obtaining them.
From a systematic view, the evaluative models, emphasize not so much in the inputs, but in the products. Internally, the processes can be multiple and varied, given the particularities of each institution and program. This is not questioned and to some extent the diversity of forms and methods is encouraged. What is relevant is that the results of these processes are clearly delineated from the outset and that there is consistency in efforts to achieve them.
In an enlightening metaphor, in learning outcomes the main actor is the student and the teacher a qualified enabler who takes into account the different possibilities of learning. In accreditation, today more than yesterday, the main actor is the training community and the agencies provide their services as qualified facilitators of the different ways in which they address and achieve the goals of the imposed challenges.
It is convenient to illustrate this with a concrete example. It was common in the evaluative models of engineering programs to indicate, by way of a mandatory compliance, the number of full time linked teachers with the program. This is what are usually called teachers of plant, whose main occupation deals with the efforts of training, research, social extensions of the program and attention of the students.
The “formulas” devised inside the accrediting agencies, to establish the unknown number considered as adequate, often borders on the anecdotal, when it was not an arbitrary value of difficult explanation. The truth is that it was presented as a requirement of mandatory compliance, an input to the process.
Criticisms to this approach have not been few, being the main one that it sets a single parameter which does not take into account the particularities of institutions and programs. On the other hand on its defense they claimed that it was a “standard of quality” and since you have to agree with quality, the discussion was over.
The current proposals focused on outcomes certainly suggest the need to have full time teachers that enrich the academy with their contributions, but they do it in a respectful and coherent way. The ultimate responsibility for the quality of the program is a matter of the academic community that supports it. How is it done? Well, a horizon of desired accomplishment is established. For example, that the number of professors of the program’s plan are sufficient to develop the irrevocable functions of teaching, research, social extension, answering the students’ questions, providing advice and academic guide for the achievement of the learning results that are intended. Here the actors of the program intervene and responsibly establish the minimum of the necessary academic staff in attention to what they want and the contextual conditions that they have.
The task now of the accrediting agency is, through its peer evaluators, to discern if indeed the program is coherent in its approaches and if the justifications that are used to argue a certain number, are valid since they achieve the expected results. As stated earlier, the challenge is not insignificant for some.
And what about the attributes? The shift in accreditation models towards an outcome-based approach has led to the need to present broader results than training processes are expected to allow, and that the evaluative efforts must take into account. These more general results are called “attributes” and are defined as:
“(…) set of individual evaluable results, which are the components that indicate the graduate’s potential to acquire competences for professional practice.”
The definition states first that they are a set, then we are not talking about a single result, but several of them. These results must be shown by the individual who has participated in a training process and has successfully completed it. They should be able to be evaluated and therefore should be able to be evidenced in some way. However, they are not an ultimate result, although for the training process somehow they are since they are indicative components of the possibility of achieving a later result: professional competence. Although there is also an inflection here, these components are only examples of the individual’s potential to access professional competence. If you want, the attributes are the requirements or conditions of entry, to start the professional practice, which will lead to the acquisition of professional skills.
The consensus of the engineering community, gathered in the International Engineering Alliance (IEA, for its acronym in English), is that the attributes that are sought to develop in the training process and that a program object of evaluation must demonstrate are:
- Engineering Knowledge: Ability to apply university-level knowledge of mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamentals and engineering expertise to solve complex engineering problems.
It highlights the necessary fundaments of mathematics and natural sciences, without which one could not speak of training in engineering. The contents or objects of study are not established, nevertheless, it is expected that in the training elements of differential and integral calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, numerical analysis, probability and statistics will be included. In natural sciences, with attention to the particular profession, elements of vector, kinematic, dynamic, static, work and energy analysis, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, fluid mechanics, wave and wave motion, inorganic chemistry and organic chemistry, biology and geology must be included.
On the fundamentals of engineering, creative ability (divergent and convergent thinking) must be emphasized as well as achievement orientation, the ability to analyze, the ability to synthesize, the ability to evaluate, proactivity, serendipity (referring to the ability to recognize that one has made an important discovery although this may not have any immediate relation to the object of the research), formal logic, information processing (search, capture, categorization and use), heuristics (referring to the ability to invent, find or generate solutions) and graphical representation. (see Grech, 2001, p.90 ff.)
The specialized knowledge for the solution of complex engineering problems is particular to each professional manifestation of the discipline and it obeys to formulations that are denoted as engineering sciences or applied engineering.
No less important is the observation that this knowledge, abilities and attitudes must be of university-level, meaning the highest formative level, inside the educational pyramid.
- Problem Analysis: The ability to use the appropriate knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, investigate in the literature, analyze and solve complex engineering problems, achieving substantial conclusions, using principles of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering sciences.
Although it is true that the ability to analyze and solve problems is at the basis of engineering training, the fact that it stands out as a differentiated attribute draws attention to its importance. Here we combine the skills to process information, aimed at achieving significant results, which are possible because of the ability to integrate fundaments of the natural sciences, using mathematics as a privileged tool.
The significance of the outcomes is given in terms in which they propose valid answers and solutions to the problems faced. It is not the simple exercise of offering alternative solutions. They must be relevant, appropriate, timely and effective. The answers are substantial and not merely formal.
§ Design / development of solutions: The ability to design solutions for complex engineering problems, as well as to design systems, components or processes that meet specific needs taking into account the appropriate considerations for public health, safety, relevant standards, as well as the cultural, social, economic and environmental aspects.
The significance of the solutions, referred to complex problems, is again highlighted, which leads to the question of the gradualness of training. The process of training in engineering, is not abstracted from the general principles of training in any discipline, principles such as: advance from the known to the unknown, from the concrete to the abstract, from the simple to the complex, or develop skills and abilities of deduction or induction. However, the goal is to reach the capacity to design solutions for complex problems, which establish the level of performance that is sought.
Design in engineering assumes particular variants to the conception of the term that can be found in other professions and disciplines. Engineering design is inextricably associated with the concept of a project, (see Gómez and Martínez, 2001, p.33 ff.) which implies a creative process that goes from the conception of an idea, to its materialization in a system, component or process, taking into account considerations of scope, cost, quality, risks, resources and time. In this development, it should be borne in mind that substantive solutions to the need or problem faced involves considerations of public health, the safety of people and other living beings, standards established by competent professional societies, all within a framework of sustainable and reasonable development, which considers the welfare of current and future generations.
- Investigation: The ability to conduct investigations of complex problems through the appropriate knowledge and methods, including the design of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data and synthesis of information in order to prove valid conclusions.
Being able to conduct investigations of complex problems, involves proposing, developing and evaluating learning situations that deliberately seek to encourage knowledge, skills and attitudes for research. An opportunity in this sense occurs when the teacher appropriates published research, to take as input to different learning situations. Another one is when in addition to confirmatory laboratory practices, problems are proposed to be solved, in which the essential aspects of the superfluous must be discerned, gathering the pertinent information: documentary, observational or experimental, which enables the formulation of possible answers to the problematic situation , which are put into practice in order to discriminate the best options from those that do not.
In the sense noted above, it must be recognized that it is usual in engineering training to have a considered logical orden between theory and practice. In this order, the first one precedes the second one, in a strict way. The laboratories are proof that the theory is already known. What is proposed here is to reverse the meaning: to “advance” experience to theory. To experiment with the variables involved in an unprecedented situation for the students, and from this experience, to discern the relation between variables. Then, one can “go to the theory” to record the obtained results. With this simple reversal of order, it is possible to develop the ability to face problems of which there is little or no prior knowledge, as well as analyze and interpret the information obtained to then contrast it with the theoretical heritage of the subject under study.
- Use of Modern Engineering Tools: the ability to appropriately create, select, apply, adapt and expand techniques, resources and modern tools of engineering and information technology, including the prospecting and modeling of complex engineering problems, with an understanding of the associated limitations.
What is established is not only to have the relevant engineering tools, but that these must be “modern”, which requires them to be at the “state of the art” level of the profession in question. They must also be used creatively, together with techniques, resources and information technology for the prospection and modelling of complex problems. It is further noted that one must be able to recognize the limitations of these tools, techniques and technologies. Part of the solutions is to establish the scope of the solutions, product of the constraints that impose resources and context.
The use is not exhausted by the selection, application or use of the tools. It is emphasized that the ability to create and adapt, which implies “seeing” beyond the current possibilities of the tools, must be encouraged in an effort to discover new uses and applications for these. It is not about taking for granted one unique function of the tools, techniques and resources, but rather to reveal new functions and uses in an innovative effort. An example taken from another context allows to illustrate this novel point. Until not long ago, aspirin, the acetylsalicylic acid tablet, was used exclusively as an analgesic to relieve pain. Today, its uses cover more than a dozen possibilities, of which its traditional use represents only a small percentage. Uses that have been developed by focusing attention on the search for new applications for the drug, in a successful sample of translational research (Parra, 2012). Similarly, engineering training should encourage the search for new options for tools, techniques and resources. Let us illustrate this principle with an example drawn from Electronics Engineering, specifically the linear integrated devices known as operational amplifiers. ( Franco, 2012). These devices were initially designed to implement mathematical operations, linked to the solution of differential equations. Their use was oriented to “analog computers”. What happened next exemplifies the point that we are trying to illustrate. The engineers began to identify and use these components in new and original ways, so that today we find them in active filters, voltage regulators, oscillators, comparators, limiters, rectifiers, wave generators, frequency controls, timers, and the list continues to grow.
- Engineering and Society: The ability to apply reasoning informed by knowledge of the context, which includes assessments of social, health, safety, legal and cultural aspects and the consequent responsibilities, relevant to the professional practice of engineering and the solutions of complex engineering problems.
As a profession oriented towards the service of society, engineering training should include the assessment of the impacts of the profession in the social context: how will people be benefited or harmed if the physical integrity of people is exposed and in what manner. If the legal system establishes rules that preclude the feasibility of the technical solution or, on the contrary favor it. If norms, behavior patterns or traditions are affected in any way and to what extent can the effects of the solutions proposed be mitigated in these areas:
“(…) The society clearly states that any professional activity developed by engineers must have as its essential goal the health and well-being of citizens, reducing the potential risks generated by those activities to manageable limits.” (Grech, 2001, p.54).
- Environment and Sustainability: The ability to comprehend and evaluate the sustainability and impact of professional engineering work in solving complex engineering problems in social and environmental contexts.
A good design in engineering is one that contemplates the technical solution to the problem or the necessity faced and that does not leave aside the social, economic and environmental implications. Therefore, training in this profession involves developing relevant skills in these four aspects. Limiting solutions to technical ones is to offer only partial solutions, which are disqualified due to their partiality. Placed into practice, these solutions might likely bring more harm than good. Particular attention should be paid to the impacts of engineering solutions on the natural environment when they are put into practice and in the historical course in which they will be in force so that the solution to today’s problem will not be the cause of tomorrow’s problem:
“(…) the most advanced engineering seeks to produce technologies, not only to anticipate and mitigate the environmental impacts, but also to offer guidance to the government, the private sector and the third sector, about the different alternatives that would allow to create a future that is more sustainable from an environmental perspective.” (Rodríguez, 2007).
- Ethics: The ability to apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics, responsibilities and standards of engineering practice.
Excellence (E) in professional performance is determined by three aspects: knowledge (K), skills (S) and attitudes (A). There are those who “quantify” the relationship between these aspects by means of an empirical formula: E = (K + S) A. Nobody can have a successful performance if they do not have the relevant competences. This is what the equation points out. Knowledge, skills and attitudes are needed. The first two variables are added, the last one is a product. This aspect highlights the importance of attitudes, since if the value of A is null, K and S can have the highest values but the result will be null. On the other hand, if A has a value greater than unity, the formula will be enhanced by the values that define K and S.
Now, when talking about attitudes, what is being referred to is the ultimate goals that must direct knowledge and skills, purposes that are included in deontological statements that govern any professional practice and that determine its duty to be.
It is intended to point out the principles that signify the professionalism of a particular practice:
“The general ethics of professions is stated in terms of principles: the principle of beneficence, the principle of autonomy, the principle of justice and the principle of non-maleficence.” (Mantilla, 2016).
Beneficence, understood as a virtue of doing good in the services and professional products that are provided. Autonomy, acting independently, being able to exercise rights and making decisions. Justice, acting in a reasonable and equitable manner in the face of multiple demands that need to be organized hierarchically and more or less limited resources that must be managed. Finally, non-maleficence, avoiding harm, not harming anyone who may be involved or affected by a professional performance.
The capacity to apply these principles, commit and be responsible with them is what this attribute is about.
- Individual and team work: The ability to work effectively individually or as a member and/or leader of diverse teams in multidisciplinary scenarios.
The current demands for engineering professionals require a balance between technical skills, called “hard”, and generic or social skills, called “soft”. The latter focused on facilitating teamwork with people trained in multiple disciplines. The corresponding attribute indicates two dimensions: the individual and the collective. It is necessary to encourage the knowledge, skills and attitudes that favor effective performance in both dimensions.
For individual performance, the development of skills such as adaptation to change, tolerance to uncertainty, discipline, optimization of time use, proactivity, self-evaluation, positive attitude, among others, should be encouraged. For performance in effective work teams it is necessary to encourage empathy, a spirit of collaboration, assertive communication, respect for opinions, listening skills, conflict resolution and leadership.
- Communication: The ability to communicate complex concepts of engineering within the profession and with society in general. These skills include: the ability to effectively understand and write reports, design documentation, make effective presentations, give and respond to clear instructions. It is advisable to encourage the ability to communicate in a second language.
The engineering professional is linked to heterogeneous audiences, from colleages who share the same professional culture, people trained in other fields or even with people with limited training. They should all be able to interact effectively to achieve the project´s goals. This justifies the necessity to address in the training process the skills that enable effective communication, both orally and in writing.
Mastering more than one language in an increasingly interdependent and connected world is a reality that cannot be overlooked in engineering education. Training spaces must be opened to enable them to acquire the basic linguistic skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking in at least one second language.
- Project and Finance Management: the ability to properly incorporate administrative, economic and business practices, such as project management, risk management and change management, into the practice of engineering as well as understanding its limitations. It is also desirable to understand the basic aspects of the generation and management of technology-based companies.
The usual engineering practice revolves around projects. This is the means by which the designs materialize, as Gómez and Martínez point out (2001), when they describe the way in which an engineering professional approaches a technological problem:
“(…) First it studies the problem as a whole, reaching a coherent global approach by defining the objectives and constraints that make up the problem. Secondly, if the whole is known, it divides it into subproblems that, duly bounded taking into account the global problem, become technological problems of easier-or at least, possible-resolution. Finally, once you have solved all the problems in which you have divided the project, you integrate the answers in a whole and check their goodness (p.31).
It should be noted that an important part of the project is the definition of restrictions, which are not only technical in nature, hence the need to consider aspects such as: administrative, economic and business.
All engineering projects involve risks and are products or generate changes, which is why this attribute highlights the need for training in risk management and change.
Finally, the convenience of understanding the basic aspects of generation and management of technology-based companies is pointed out. That is, preparing people who are trained in engineering with knowledge, skills and attitudes of entrepreneurship.
Lifelong Learning: The ability to recognize the need for continuing education and the ability to bond in a process of independent learning throughout life, identifying and conducting one´s own educational needs, in a broad context of technological change.
The last formulation of desirable attributes is to become aware of the need to continue training, which does not end when leaving the university classrooms.
The normal gap that exists between training and professional practice can only be solved if the person trained in engineering proposes for themselves an updating program, which may well consider the formal education offered by higher education institutions, as well as the multiple formative opportunities offered by the labor market and professional societies.
The graduation of a training program with the achievements reached, is a permit, an authorization to continue learning by itself in attention to the particular interests, but above all in response to the demands of a day by day changing professional practice.
These twelve traits that outline the graduates of a training process are the learning outcomes that are required and that synthesize the capacities needed to face the beginning of an increasingly demanding professional practice, marked by change as its main constant.
- Conclusion
Training in engineering nowadays highlights the student as the principal architect of his/her own formation. The role of the teacher is to facilitate this appropriation of knowledge; by the student.
The learning outcomes, typified by the attributes, set the goals to be achieved and therefore outline the formative courses to be followed. Not only are they important because they reflect the consensus of the international engineering community, but because the current models of quality assurance stand out as benchmarks for all efforts for continuous improvement.
The training strategies should focus on the attributes, integrate them into the didactic action setting the specific learning outcomes desired, outlining and implementing the appropriate educational intermediation actions and assessing the level of achievement reached.
In all of these aspects, the dialogue and the joint work between teachers and students is of utmost importance, so that the latter know, understand and demonstrate what has been learned.
- Bibliographic references
ANECA (2014). Guía de apoyo para la redacción, puesta en práctica y evaluación de los resultados del aprendizaje. Madrid: Cyan, proyectos editoriales.
Dobles et al. (1996). Investigación en educación: Procesos, interacciones, construcciones. San José: EUNED.
EI and ESU.(2010). Student- centred learning. Toolkit for students, staff and higher education institutions. Berlin: Education and Culture, DG. European Commission.
ENAEE-IEA (2015). Best practice in accreditation of engineering programmes: an exemplar. Consulted from http:// www.ieagreements.org/Best_Prct_Full_Doc.pdf?203). On November 2nd, 2016.
Franco, I (2012). Amplificadores operacionales y aplicaciones.
Facultad de ingeniería mecánica. Universidad de Michoacán. Consulted from http://www.fim.umich.mx/teach/ifranco/notas/C4-Amplificadores%20operacionales%20y%20aplicaciones_E.pdf. On Octorber 8th, 2016.
Gómez y Martínez. (2001). El proyecto: Diseño en Ingeniería. Valencia: Alfaomega.
Grech, P. (2001). Introducción a la ingeniería: un enfoque a través del diseño. Bogotá: Pearson Educación.
IEA-WA. (2015). Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies. Consulted from http://www.ieagreements.org/IEA-Grad-Attr-Prof-Competencies.pdf. On November 3rd, 2016.
Kennedy, D. (2017). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. Ireland: University College Cork.
Mantilla, A (2016). Deontología del Profesional – Ética profesional. Consulted from http://www.deontologia.org/deontologia-del-profesiona.html. On October 6th, 2016.
Owens, D. (2016). Outocome-based education and engineering education accreditation. CAST Innovation and Integration Engineering Education Accreditation. International Symposium. Beijing.
Parra, A (2012): Los múltiples usos de la aspirina. Consulted from http://blogs.hoy.es/lineaconsumo/2012/06/12/los-multiples-usos-de-la-aspirina/. On December 8th, 2016.
Rodriguez, M. (2007). Ingeniería y el medio ambiente. Revista de Ingeniería Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de los Andes No.26. Bogotá Jul./Dec. 2007. Consulted from http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0121-49932007000200008. On December 8th, 2016.