Search

This paper aims to analyse to what extent the engineering curricula contribute to the development of visual literacy among engineering students. Communicating and thinking visually is a basic skill for all engineers, being a fundamental part of their educational stage. For this purpose, Engineering Graphics subjects from 30 engineering schools from Spain have been selected to review their content. The sample consists of 80 subjects of Engineering Graphics, mechanical design and computer-aided design. The curricula were analyzed using a quantitative and qualitative method. A database has been developed where keywords that identify the objectives of the analysis have been tabulated. Learning technical visual language and visualization skills as a means of developing visual literacy in engineering has been taken as the basis of the analysis. The results show that the curricula of the subjects contemplate the development of graphic skills around communication and technical representation and, to a lesser extent, visualization. On the other hand, the teaching activities contemplated do not dive into the cognitive aspects of graphics. We can also observe the pre-eminence of computer graphics as the main basis for teaching activities and marginal use of freehand drawing, which is basic for the development of Visual Literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Service-learning (SL) helps engineering students to be involved in community activities and to be motivated by their studies. Although several reviews and research studies have been published about SL, it is not widespread in sciences and engineering at the university level. The purpose of this research is to analyze the different community services or projects where SL is implemented by engineering students and faculty and to identify the procedures that were usually implemented to assess SL-based courses and activities. Assessment could be considered as the evaluation of a specific module and the engineering competencies, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the SL program, the assessment of the participation of the student in those programs, and the assessment of whether students have achieved certain outcomes or gained specific skills. We conducted a systematic review with a search in three scientific databases: Scopus, Science Direct, and ERIC educational database to analyze the assessment methods and what that assessment covers. From 14,107 publications related to SL, 120 documents were analyzed to inform the conclusions of this study. We found that SL is widely used in several universities as experiential education, and it is considered an academic activity. The most widely used assessment technique is a survey to evaluate the engagement and attitudes of students and, to a lesser extent, teamwork presentations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The digitalization of education is a continuously developing process, aimed at the use of information and communication technologies. However, engineering education utilizes several forms of learning, with laboratory experiments being one of them. The use of digital learning materials (DLM) in labs is still limited due to numerous existing factors. This study investigates students' acceptance of using DLM during laboratory exercises in three universities located in Turkey, Poland, and Bulgaria. A questionnaire was prepared, and a survey was conducted among 625 learners. They were divided into eight categories, based on their engineering area and country. The survey results demonstrate that there is a strong correlation between the students' opinion on DLM and the use of DLM by their lab instructors, which means that their acceptance could be increased if more DLM are integrated in lab courses. The analysis of the questionnaire results also showed that there is a significant difference in the students' opinion on DLM, depending on the engineering area. Students of Food, Chemistry, and Electrical engineering rated the use of DLM quite high (above 4.0 out of 5), followed by the Civil engineering students with average results between 3.5 and 4.0. Respondents involved in Textile, Bio, and Machine engineering were the most skeptical (<3.5). Furthermore, their opinions covered a wide range from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]