Search

Contribution: This paper introduces the real-world limitations and non-technical aspects of power electronics (PEs) projects to students through innovative tutorial activities. Background: Many electrical engineering curricula offer a PE courses (PECs) for third- or fourth-year undergraduate students. Prior research on PEs education mainly focused on improving students’ experimental skills through developing practical experiments, laboratory activities, and problem/project-based learning. An instructional approach that instead employs real-world knowledge and skills is worth evaluating. Intended Outcomes: Students should be able to consider real-world technical and non-technical limitations when applying theory to design PE circuits and converters, and be able to select and carry out appropriate tests to troubleshoot circuits. Application Design: Prior research on engineering education emphasized the importance of introducing real-world limitations to the students as part of their curriculum. This paper suggests that the tutorial activities presented in a PEC can help students acquire skills in designing and troubleshooting a circuit or system according to desired technical aspects, real-world limitations, and available data. Findings: Evidence of the validity of this approach in a PEC at two Australian universities, over four academic years, is provided. Students receiving the new tutorial activities had percentage scores some 10–15 points higher than those who had traditional tutorials. Another evaluation reveals the students’ vibrant participation in the activities during the new tutorial sessions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contribution: This paper demonstrated on a large scale that explicit articulation of creativity-related learning goals on engineering syllabi is quite limited, and primarily limited to the first year of study. Engineering educators may need to do more to ensure creativity is explicitly addressed as an expected learning outcome within engineering syllabi. Background: Prior studies have shown inclusion of creativity within engineering syllabi and course activities are generally limited. Students may perceive educators do not value creativity, and their studies have limited influence on their creative skills. Studies conflict on whether creativity skills increase over completing an engineering degree. Creativity has been demonstrated to be an important skill for engineering professionals, but one not necessarily appropriately addressed in engineering programs. Few studies have attempted to quantify coverage of creativity material on a nation-wide scale, as opposed to in a single or select few institutions. Research Questions: 1) To what extent do engineering educators explicitly articulate creativity and innovation-related learning goals and material on their course syllabi? and 2) To what extent do engineering educators explicitly articulate exposure to, or instruction in the use of, creativity heuristics within their course syllabi? Methodology: The online publicly accessible course outlines of 1109 compulsory courses from 42 degree programs accredited by two national engineering accreditation bodies were qualitatively analyzed in a two-stage approach using document analysis. Findings: Approximately 2% of compulsory electrical engineering course outlines explicitly articulate creativity-related material; only one course articulated engaging students in using creativity heuristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]