Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe concluding article of this engineering leadership (EL) development sourcebook looks to the future of the field by exploring four key purposes of EL education: the pursuit of knowledge, personal growth, professional preparation and social transformation.

Work-integrated learning, particularly in the form of co-ops and internships, has long been an integral part of many engineering programs. While recent government interest in work-integrated learning has raised its profile, it is unclear how the three main actors—the workplace, the academic institution and students themselves—interact with each other to enhance students' learning experiences and outcomes. This paper attempts to fill this gap by examining engineering co-op and internship literature as well as programming practices at nineteen North American universities. In light of a conceptual framework foregrounding the triad that shapes co-op and internship experiences and the resulting learning outcomes, we identified four themes that respectively demonstrate the achieved learning outcomes and the roles of workplaces, academic institutions and students in the work-integrated learning process of engineering co-ops and internships. The paper contributes to the discussion on engineering education by developing a framework out of the findings for understanding the work-integrated learning process in engineering co-ops and internships.

Engineering leadership education has become increasingly popular over the past decade in response to national calls for educational change. Despite the growing popularity of the movement, however, reform efforts continue to be piecemeal in their delivery, driven largely by the priorities of program leaders who established them (Graham, 2012). If we as engineering educators wish to more systematically develop leadership skills in our students, we should begin by empirically examining and defining our phenomenon of interest: engineering leadership. Our article takes up this challenge by investigating how 82 engineers in five organizationally distinct roles define leadership and how their respective insights are shaped by their diverse organizational locations. After weaving together the perspectives of engineers in industry, human resource professionals, entrepreneurs, politicians and interns, we propose a poly-vocal definition of engineering leadership and identify practical implications for engineering leadership educators. ; This research was conducted with support from the Dean's Strategic Fund (Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, University of Toronto) and a consortium of industry partners.

Engineering leadership education has become increasingly popular over the past decade in response to national calls for educational change. Despite the growing popularity of the movement, however, reform efforts continue to be piecemeal in their delivery, driven largely by the priorities of program leaders who established them (Graham, 2012). If we as engineering educators wish to more systematically develop leadership skills in our students, we should begin by empirically examining and defining our phenomenon of interest: engineering leadership. Our article takes up this challenge by investigating how 82 engineers in five organizationally distinct roles define leadership and how their respective insights are shaped by their diverse organizational locations. After weaving together the perspectives of engineers in industry, human resource professionals, entrepreneurs, politicians and interns, we propose a poly-vocal definition of engineering leadership and identify practical implications for engineering leadership educators. ; En réponse aux appels à réformer le système de l'éducation, la formation de leaders en génie a gagné en popularité au cours des dix dernières années. Malgré la popularité croissante de ce mouvement, les réformes demeurent partiales et suivent largement les priorités des directeurs de programmes qui les mettent en place (Graham, 2012). Si, en tant que formateurs d'ingénieurs, nous souhaitons perfectionner systématiquement les compétences en leadership de nos étudiants, il nous faut commencer par une analyse empirique qui permette de définir précisément notre objet, soit le leadership en génie. Notre article relève le défi en analysant les façons dont 82 ingénieurs occupant cinq rôles distincts dans une organisation définissent le leadership, et les façons dont leurs positions institutionnelles établissent leurs perspectives. En tenant compte des perspectives d'ingénieurs de l'industrie, de professionnels des ressources humaines, d'entrepreneurs, de politiciens et de stagiaires, nous proposons une définition plurivoque du leadership en génie, et nous en identifions les implications pratiques pour les éducateurs du domaine.

Critical scholars view schooling as one piece of a larger struggle for democracy and social justice. We investigated 41 school administrators" perceptions about the role and importance of equity, diversity and social justice in new teacher induction in the province of Ontario. Interviews reveal that principals were interested in shaping teacher induction programming in their schools and school districts, but that they regularly prioritized technical issues like classroom management and pedagogy over systemic issues like equity and social justice. When asked directly about equity, principals spoke about learning styles, special needs and differentiated instruction, but they regularly ignored new teachers" abilities to counter systemic oppression—racism, sexism, and classism. Our findings suggest that without an explicit focus on equity and social justice in provincial policy documents, teacher induction programming runs the risk of reproducing a transmission model of new teacher education.

AbstractEngineering is developing extensive leadership education, supporting future professional engineers to engage with others in solving complex sociotechnical problems. A contemporary challenge is to integrate leadership learning into foundational coursework requirements.