Engineering Pedagogy as the Basis for Effective Teaching Competencies of Engineering Faculty

The article presents the philosophy and the basics of Engineering Pedagogy Science – the key to science-based, effective, interactive and motivating teaching engineering, shaping the ground of teaching competencies of engineering faculty, ensuring relevantly one of the prerequisites of the quality of engineering education in general. The foundational questions shaping the philosophy of Engineering Pedagogy Science, as an analytical ground for effective course design and further course development, based on informed decisions, are presented in this paper. The didactic pentagram and the basic didactical model of Engineering Pedagogy Science are discussed in this paper. Didactical pentagram of Engineering Pedagogy Science forms the ground of the essential pedagogical competencies of engineering faculty along with the speciality competencies, ensuring effective teaching engineering. The basic didactic model of Engineering Pedagogy Science follows the principles of an iterative process, being an effective tool for the design of a study program, curriculum, syllabus, course, or a lecture with the aim of effective teaching engineering. Integrated quadruple instructional model of Engineering Pedagogy Science as the foundation of integrated course design and one of the preconditions of effective teaching and learning is introduced as the basis of expected teaching competencies of engineering faculty. Pedagogical competences of the faculty are becoming more considerable in the quality assessment of higher education. The most effective ground of pedagogical continuing education of engineering faculty is Engineering Pedagogy Science, which offers suitable and relevant didactic models for insurance of effective teaching and learning and integrated course design based on informed decisions, learning analytics, reflection and metacognition.

1. Zafoschnig, A. (2018). Smart Ideas for Engineers – the Impact of Emerging Technologies on Modern Engineering Education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 66-70.

2. Melezinek, A. (1999). Ingenieurpädagogik – Praxis der Vermittlung technischen Wissens, Springer-Verlag, Wien New York, 4th edition.

3. Ivanov, V.G., Sazonova, Z.S., Sapunov, M.B. (2017). Engineering Pedagogy: Facing Typology Challenges. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 8/9 (215), pp. 32-42. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

4. Kubrushko, P.F., Eprikyan, D.O. (2018). Engineering Pedagogy in Vocational Education: Methodological Aspect. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 83-87. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

5. Rüütmann, T. (2019). Engineering Pedagogy Science as the Contemporary Basis for Effective Teaching of Science, Technology and Engineering. In: Science and Technology Education: Current challenges and possible solutions: Proceedings of the 3rd International Baltic Symposium on Science and Technology Education (BalticSTE2019), Ed. V. Lamanauskas, Šiauliai, Lithuania: Scientia Socialis Press, pp. 187-194.

6. Uljens, M. (Ed). (1997). Didaktik-teori, reflektion och praktik. Studentlitteratur. Lund. 267 p.

7. Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D.R., Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education. The CDIO Approach. Springer International Publishing. 311 p.

8. Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review. Vol. 16, no. 3, September, pp. 235-266.

9. Domin, D.S (1999). A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. Journal of Chemical Education. Vol. 76, no. 4, April, pp. 543-547.

10. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice. Vol. 41, no. 4, autumn, pp. 212-218.

11. Polyakova, T.Y. (2018). Peculiarities of the Modern Generation of Students and their Influence on the University Foreign Language Training Development. Vestnik Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Lingvisticheskogo Universiteta. Obrazovanie i Pedagogicheskie Nauki = Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University Education and Pedagogical Studies. No. 2 (796), pp. 43-54 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

12. Felder, R.M., Silverman, L.K. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engr. Education. Vol. 78, no. 7, pp. 674-681.

13. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 256 p.

14. Gardner, H. (2003). Frames of Mind. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

15. Fulton, S. (2016). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Handbook – Everything You Need to Know about Myers Briggs type indicator. Emereo Publishing.

16. Ching-Chung Guey, Ying-ying Cheng, Seiji Shibata. (2010). A Triarchal Instruction Model: Integration of Principles from Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Humanism. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. No. 9, pp. 105-118.