Drivers and Barriers to Industry Engaging in Engineering Education

Consistent with the CDIO approach, Engineers Australia, the accrediting body for engineering programs in Australia, stipulates that students of accredited formative engineering programs be exposed to engineering practice. Effective exposure to practice is considered to be important in closing the gap between education and practice, developing students’ capabilities and identities, motivating students, and easing the transition to practice. The level of recent industry experience among engineering academics in Australia has declined in recent decades, making it difficult for academics to expose students to contemporary practice within their teaching. Therefore, students are exposed to practice through industry placements or through other industry-linked mechanisms within their degrees. Until recent years, the majority of the 34 universities that offer formative engineering programs in Australia have required students to complete engineering–related employment of 12 weeks, and a handful of universities have included longer and more structured internships in industry as compulsory components of their programs. Changed patterns and recent downturns in engineering employment in Australia have made it more difficult for students to secure placements and universities are consequently becoming more flexible with compulsory placements. For example they are allowing some of the weeks to be work that is not related to engineering. Therefore, non-placement exposure to practice is now more important than ever, and universities must improve industry engagement in engineering education. In this context, we asked, “What are the drivers and barriers to industry engaging in engineering education?” This study is part of a national study led by the Australian Council of Engineering Deans (ACED), with 12 universities and 7 peak industry bodies as partners. Based on interviews, student focus groups, a student survey, we developed guidelines for effective industry engagement in Australian engineering education. We report here findings from interviews with industry members and industry-education forums. Interviewees included 25 representatives of engineering companies including senior engineers, human resource managers, and innovation managers, 6 individual engineers engaging with engineering education, 5 engineers teaching engineering, and 2 engineers interested in engaging. At five forums, 149 participants reviewed the draft guidelines. Identified benefits to industry of engagement included improved graduate recruitment, retention, and productivity; improved company profile; corporate citizenship; personal satisfaction; and contributing to developing future professional engineers. Barriers to engaging included not being approached and lack of awareness of opportunities to be involved, confusion about contact points in universities, time commitments, perceptions that academics have little awareness of engineering practice, and finding that there are large gaps between how universities and industry operate. Based on the findings we recommended that a stronger culture of industry engagement in engineering education is needed in Australia. Universities should develop processes and resources for establishing and maintaining relationships with industry, promoting successful examples of engagement, and providing industry with clear points of contact and examples of ways to engage including the benefits and commitment involved. Collaborative initiatives are being led by ACED. Engineers Australia responded to the recommendation to strengthen relationships between industry and universities by established a senior position to facilitate industry engagement in universities

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku, Finland, June 12-16 2016