Nurturing Future Engineers

Abstract

Engineering education in Hong Kong is experiencing significant changes in response to several major forces: (1) an increasing demand for future engineers who possess technical competencies, professional skills, and knowledge of ethical awareness and responsibilities; (2) accreditation requirements; and (3) the system-wide education reform in the region. Curriculum changes have taken place in several universities in Hong Kong with engineering majors but there are few conceptual articles providing in-depth discussions about the impact of the changes. This article aims to provide insights into the engineering curriculum reform in a broader context for university management, program leaders, and coordinators who are involved in curriculum design and implementation. Using a newly revamped engineering curriculum in one of the research-intensive universities in Hong Kong as an example, this article highlights the features of the new four-year engineering curriculum and discusses how it may contribute to the nurturing of future engineers. While clear progress has been made in providing students with a broad perspective and support, the influences of the prevailing culture of teaching and learning, the local perceptions of the engineering profession, and the decision making patterns of Hong Kong Chinese students cast a complicated picture. To fully achieve the goals of the new curriculum, universities should proactively address the challenges by the following actions: acting consistently to the commitment of holistic education, supporting students’ personal and value development, establishing reward mechanisms for faculty members’ contributions in student development, and investing in pedagogical development and innovations.

Introduction

There is an increasing demand worldwide for future engineers with technical competencies, professional skills, and knowledge of ethical and social responsibilities. One important reason for this trend is that the problems facing engineers are more complex and the mode of working is more collaborative. Friedman frames the phenomenon vividly in his book The World is Flat. 1 The problems to be tackled, sometimes referred as “grand challenges”, are often multi-faceted and cut across country boundaries, situated in various interrelated social and cultural contexts. 2 Practically, this implies the competencies that should be more valued nowadays are the abilities to connect seemingly different things, to define and solve “wicked problems”, to work with people from different disciplines, and to tolerate ambiguities.

The engineering education community has shown awareness of the demand for such competencies and formulated strategies for coping with it. For example, abet, the engineering accreditation body in the us, has emphasized the development of professional skills as well as the foundational knowledge through its EC2000 accreditation criteria. 3 Some of the professional skills include: solving unstructured problems, communicating effectively, working in multidisciplinary teams, and being socially aware.

As a signatory member of the Washington Accord, Hong Kong follows the same criteria specified in EC2000. The Hong Kong Institute of Engineers, the local accreditation body formally recognized by abet, accredits all engineering degrees and sub-degrees in Hong Kong. The engineering education curriculum in Hong Kong has also subsequently been changed to align with the criteria. Additionally, Hong Kong is undertaking system-wide education reform in order to shift from an examination-focused education system to one fostering broad education and holistic development. As a result, one year in secondary school has been reduced and one year added to tertiary education, resulting in the new four-year structure for most degree programs. 4

These two major forces—the requirements of the accreditation body and the system-wide education reform—have significant impacts on the engineering education in Hong Kong. While these forces appear to be very positive in responding to the changing societies, what cannot be neglected are social and economic factors in the local Hong Kong society, the prevailing culture of teaching and learning, and the perceptions of the engineering profession. Hong Kong’s economy is highly oriented towards the finance industry, and talented students often do not aspire to be engineers. As one mechanical engineering professor said during a recent press interview, “engineering as a whole was not very attractive to young people in Hong Kong.” 5

These factors and the interplay among them present both opportunities and challenges to engineering educators. This article aims to provide insights and references for university senior management, program leaders and coordinators who are involved in the process of strategy formulation, curriculum planning, and implementation. It may also be of interest to some instructors who are considering redesigning a course or a component in a similar context of curriculum changes. The following sections of this article present the key features and components of the undergraduate engineering curriculum in one of the eight publicly-funded universities in Hong Kong, discuss how these features and components may affect students’ learning and ways they may facilitate the development of future engineers, and conclude by highlighting related opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. The discussion draws mostly on policy papers, prior literature, and institutional reports. News reports are occasionally included.

Factors Affecting Engineering Education in Hong Kong

The landscape of engineering education has changed substantially over the past several decades in most developed countries. These changes are inevitable since the production structure has evolved from agriculture to industry and then to services. The time when Hong Kong reached its peak in industrialization was 1980, or about 20 years later than the us. At the peak time, industry represented 50% of the labor force (versus 35% in the us in 1980). Among the us, uk, Sweden and other seven countries, Hong Kong has seen the greatest speed of de-industrialization over 20 years’ time, with the industrial percentage dropping dramatically from 50% in 1980 to 19.5% in 2001. 6 In the 2010s, the industrial percentage further dropped to 10.8%. 7

This background has deeply influenced engineering education in Hong Kong, in particular shaping its focus from strong technical competences to a broad range of professional skills that can enable its graduates to excel in the service sector. The following sub-sections outline three major factors that reflect Hong Kong’s unique financial, educational, and political position.

Engineering Identity

Concerns about the number and quality of students entering science and engineering disciplines have been raised in a number of countries. For instance, declining interest in engineering and other stem fields among us students has been repeatedly reported. 8 South Korea has additionally experienced a decline in the number and quality of students in science and engineering because bright young students are more attracted to business administration, law, medicine, and government jobs. 9 Similarly, Hong Kong has also seen a decline in the number of students pursuing careers in engineering. 10

According to the latest employment survey conducted by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (hkust) to all 2013/14 graduates, for instance, 47.4% of the 597 engineering graduates took a job in engineering and the remaining worked in other sectors, including government (3.5%), education (3.0%), commerce and business (44.1%), and community and social services (2.0%). 11 This shows that a significant portion of engineering graduates ultimately work in non-engineering positions. Engineering graduates also reported an average starting salary at hkd 17,341 while business graduates reported an average at hkd 19,437.

Prior research indicates that engineering identity is a key factor in determining whether a student will persist in an engineering major or switch to another discipline. 12 While Hong Kong does not suffer from retention problems within engineering, engineering identity can influence students’ decisions in pursuing an engineering degree or career. Engineering identity has been conceptualized as consisting of two broad constructs, the academic identity and the engineering aspirations. Academic identity indicates the extent to which students perceive themselves as performing well in their academic subjects. Engineering aspirations means the extent to which they see the work of engineers as desirable. 13 Identifying oneself with engineering and perceiving one’s career in the engineering field have been found as essential components that can reflect one’s engineering aspirations. 14 Career prospect has also been known to exert a significant influence on students’ engineering identity. Other influential factors include self-efficacy in engineering, interest in studying engineering, and involvement in engineering-related activities. 15

From a survey administered to 726 secondary school students in Hong Kong, factors including exposure to engineering in secondary school, learning approaches, parental and peer influences, and non-school-based engineering experiences (for example, university engineering department visit, engineering outreach, and company visits) have been found to have significant influences on students’ intention to study engineering majors. 16 It is further notable that the limited (or too late) exposure to engineering subjects in secondary schools (i.e., starting from age 15+), in contrast to the richer and earlier exposure to science and mathematics subjects, may also reduce the possibilities for students to feel interested in engineering. It also needs to be noted that parents and family members have a significant influence on Hong Kong students’ major selection and career choices. 17 Asian students typically believe that they have an obligation to achieve high academic scores as a return to the support provided by the parents for attending colleges. 18

Teaching and Learning Approaches

A comparative study on teaching and learning approaches between Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese students found that a “transferring” teaching approach was most common in both areas. 19 Transferring is a teacher-centered approach that regards teaching as simply a one-way transferring of knowledge from the teacher to students. The second most common teaching approach in Hong Kong was found to be the “travelling” approach, which is described as a student-centered approach through which teachers act as facilitators in enabling students to learn from their experiences. In the same study, Hong Kong construction engineering students were found to favor an achieving-oriented learning motivation and a surface learning approach, which means that students wanted to obtain high scores and cared less about having a thorough understanding of the subjects. 20

While these findings reflect a significant aspect of the prevailing teaching and learning approaches, it is also important to note that all Hong Kong higher institutions, through the system-wide education reform, have taken two initiatives that exert a great impact on teaching and learning approaches. One movement is the mandatory adoption of an outcome-based framework, which requires clearly written articulation in any program of three elements of course design: intended learning outcomes, assessment tasks, and teaching and learning tasks. 21 Another relevant initiative that has gradually shown its impact involves changes in assessment practices. Examinations were traditionally the dominant form of assessment, but this has started to change under the constructive alignment principle of the outcome-based framework. There is evidence of an increasing variety of assessment modes being used in higher education institutions in Hong Kong. 22

Influences from Mainland China

Though Hong Kong is part of China under the “One country, Two systems” principle, perceptions about engineering as a career in Hong Kong and Mainland China are quite different. In Mainland China, both the demand and the supply of engineering graduates have rapidly increased. Engineering is seen as one of the most popular majors. 23 This also explains why young immigrants from Mainland China to Hong Kong show more interest in studying engineering.

Due to the geographical proximity and political reasons, Hong Kong’s development is influenced by Mainland China. The collaboration between Hong Kong and China, following the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (cepa), opens up opportunities for engineering professionals in Hong Kong to seek jobs and establish businesses in Mainland China. These opportunities are valued by some Hong Kong engineering professions, but not all. A survey study coordinated by The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors shows that Hong Kong surveying professionals believe that there are precious opportunities in Mainland China while also serious concerns about different laws, regulations, and bureaucratic procedures, and difficulties associated with understanding different local work contexts. 24

The Revamped Undergraduate Engineering Curriculum at hkust

The revamped undergraduate engineering curriculum at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (hkust) is selected as a case example in this article. Changes in the engineering curriculum have taken place in most higher institutions in Hong Kong with engineering majors. hkust is selected due to its strong emphasis on engineering education, large number of engineering students, and global recognition. As of Sept. 2014, hkust has 3,170 engineering undergraduate students. 25 Among the eight publicly-funded universities in Hong Kong, hkust has the only teaching and learning center on engineering education, namely the Center for Engineering Education Innovation (E²I). The Center was established in 2010 with the aim of providing high quality learning and development programs to engineering students, faculty, and staff for the enhancement of human capacity. 26 This is different from the structure in other local universities where a central university unit typically provides pedagogical and teaching support to all faculties. In 2012, the Royal Academy of Engineering selected the School of Engineering in hkust as one of six case studies among its global counterparts, including University College London and Penn State University, to demonstrate excellence in the engineering curriculum reform. 27

Overall Structure of the New Engineering Curriculum

One major difference between the new four-year curriculum and the previous three-year curriculum is related to student admission. Before 2012, most students (except for a small pilot group of around 100 students) entered an engineering discipline directly. Since 2012, students are enrolled into the four schools in the University (i.e., school-based admission) and then supposed to declare their preferred majors at the end of the first year after an exploration of various disciplines and the university core education.

The first year in the new curriculum is exploratory with a relatively light program, which consists of engineering introductory courses, engineering fundamentals, university core education, and other co-curricular opportunities. Disciplinary core courses and specialty courses take place starting from the second year. The third year includes more in-depth specialty courses. The fourth year features final year capstone projects which aim to develop students’ abilities in integrating the knowledge and skills acquired during the preceding years while solving ill-defined problems. Figure 1 provides an overview of the curriculum.

figure 1

The new four-year engineering curriculum at hkust (adapted from seng Status Report). 28

New First Year Experiences

Under the new structure, students entering universities are in fact one year younger than their counterparts in the previous curriculum but they are expected to make more decisions about their academic and social life due to the increased flexibility and breadth of the new curriculum. To support students in making informed decisions, an academic advising system, designed as an inter-generational learning community, 29 has been introduced. The main component in the community is a peer-mentoring program, which enables senior students to design learning experiences for first-year students. 30

There are nine such local learning communities, each of which is named as a “clan” with its own features such as logos and color themes. The important roles in a clan include peer mentors, academic advisors, professional advisors, and senior academics (Figure 2). Peer mentors serve as “old timers” (i.e., a term used to describe people who have been in the community for a long time and possess a higher sense of belonging), 31 assisting the School in recruiting new students to the clan, providing guidance to them in first-year success, and offering help in adapting to university life. New students can choose one among the nine clans that suits their personalities and interests. Each new student will be assigned one senior student as a peer mentor from that clan. One special feature of these communities is that students are all called and addressed as “young engineers” rather than first-year students.

figure 2

The major stakeholders in one learning community.

Individual clans have flexibility to conduct different activities. There are also a number of inter-clan activities designed to foster peer interactions as well as a sense of belonging to the School of Engineering. A typical inter-clan activity is an annual competition in which teams from each clan compete with those from the others. Students in a team of four construct a raft using specified materials and ride on the raft to perform some competitive activities (for example, to catch as many floating balls as possible). During the raft construction process, engineering professors join as advisors to provide guidance on the structure of the raft and the use of materials.

To further support community building, a physical learning space named “engineering commons” was built for students to gather for clan activities as well as self-study and group projects. It has become the “home” for engineering students. The space has flexible tables and chairs, enabling discussions for groups of different sizes. It also contains various displays, such as books, engineering products, self-learning materials, and the latest engineering inventions.

Along with the building of an engineering learning community, a compulsory course on academic orientation (one hour per week during the first year; carrying no credits) has been launched to provide introduction on learning methods suitable in the university and develop key concepts and skills for first-year success. The modules include university education, time management, communication, and basic engineering design concepts. Designed and delivered by a number of senior professorial staff in the School of Engineering and supported by teaching associates in E2i, the course is regarded as important to facilitate students’ transition to university. Some simple conversations with students at the beginning of the semester can help reveal their misunderstandings of university study and life. As one student said, “if I continue to work very hard as what I did in my secondary school, I could get high scores too.” Another one said, “I know I need to improve my time management. I just do not have time for that.” The academic orientation course hence serves the purpose of providing an initial guide to new students, including by addressing these and other common misconceptions.

Capstone Experiences

Several lecture-based courses have been revamped through university teaching development grants to encourage inquiry-based learning. One example is a capstone course in civil engineering, which provides authentic learning experiences through simulations of real-life work situations in civil engineering consulting firms. Students are required to form multi-disciplinary teams. With the assistance of a team of practicing engineers as facilitators and professional advisors, these students visit a construction site, identify site information, collect design constraints from government departments, perform impact assessments to understand associated environmental and traffic issues, and finally come up with the foundation and structural design of the infrastructure. In one seminar during 2013-14, the main task for students was a housing project located in an area of approximately 67,000 m². This was a real civil project in the city. Students were required to visit the venue and develop their designs based on the actual constraints of the site. There were four assessment components, including attendance at the site visit, a scenario-based problem solving module, project reports, and a project presentation. External experts were invited to join the assessment panel with the instructor for grading the project presentations.

Common Core and School-Sponsored Courses

Under the university core education, there is a new common core program for all students in the university. This is also the trend of most universities in Hong Kong that are shifting from disciplinary specialization to a holistic education model. 32 Undergraduate students under the new curriculum should complete 36 credits in the common core program consisting of eight broad areas. Students must fulfill at least three credits from each of these three areas: humanities, social analysis, and science and technology. 33 A small number of courses in the area of science and technology were specially developed by the School of Engineering as pilot courses for experimenting with pedagogical innovations.

These pilot courses are broad enough for students from different disciplines and also illustrate the characteristics of science and engineering. For example, one course on engineering grand challenges adopts collaborative problem-based learning as the main pedagogy and requires students from different disciplines to work in teams to tackle one or two aspects of significant engineering challenges such as water pollution and energy crisis. Students need to identify the key issues, collect and analyze information, and finally present their solutions first to their peers and then to a panel consisting of instructors and engineering practitioners. Another course adopts project-based learning and requires students to design and construct airships using certain materials. Students form teams and enter a competition with other teams in the same class to complete a series of tasks using their airships. During the course, training is provided to students regarding teamwork skills and airship construction skills.

These two examples illustrate pedagogical innovations that aim to develop students’ competences in both technical abilities and professional skills. Professional skills such as teamwork and communication were typically perceived to be more relevant to extra-curricular activities in the previous curriculum. Embedding them in the formal curriculum such as these credit-bearing courses represents an effort to enhance holistic development among students. One important benefit for engineering students is that they get the chance to work with people from different backgrounds. The positive outcome for engineering students to collaborate with students in business, science and humanities is reported in the course described in the first example. 34 Students in focus groups after the course shared that they benefited from seeing others’ perspectives when tackling the problem together and balancing these diverse perspectives to generate feasible solutions. Since students are asked to solve real problems related to engineering in all of the school-sponsored courses, they are also able to see how engineering can apply to real-life situations.

Enhanced Community Engagement

In hkust, the Center for Global and Community Engagement was established within the School of Engineering in 2011 and led by an engineering faculty. The aims of the Center are to broaden students’ international exposure, engage them in making contributions to the community, and create educational and leadership opportunities.

Involving engineering students in community work is never an easy task. For some students, it is difficult to see the relevance and significance of community engagement, partly because of the strong belief held by many engineering students or even professors that technical competencies should be the core consideration while other skills are only supplementary. 35 In response, efforts have been made over many years to engage students in the community through a variety of initiatives: international and local competitions, community service projects, networking with professional bodies, and student enrichment grants.

In one of the service learning projects, a group of sixteen engineering students organized training workshops for students who are preparing to join robotics competitions. The challenge for these students was to design and deliver teaching materials at an appropriate level to workshop participants with various educational backgrounds. In another case, the trainees were visually impaired students in a secondary school who had traditionally been excluded from robotics competitions. The engineering students worked hard in developing a simple toolbox that could suit the needs of these students and served as mentors for them to prepare for the competition. The team of visually impaired students ultimately won second place in the competition among all other competing teams from conventional schools. 36

Focus groups were conducted with students who participated in these two activities. One key element found to promote higher levels of student engagement was students being able to apply their engineering knowledge and skills in these services. In this way, they not only saw the relevance of engineering but also had a sense about how engineering could contribute to society and help people in need. A number of students expressed that they would be willing to be more involved in the community using their engineering knowledge and skills. 37

Discussion

Great efforts have been made in the School of Engineering at hkust as a response to the needs of developing future engineers and also as a result of system-wide education reforms. The major changes in the curriculum include an extra year for students to explore various majors; a new academic advising system supporting students’ transition to university study and life; the revamped capstone projects focusing on the integration of skills and knowledge; the university core education introducing multi-disciplinary teamwork and broad perspectives; and enhanced community and global engagement.

Reflecting on such changes, two fundamental questions facing engineering educators are: (1) whether graduates from the new curriculum are likely to possess the necessary competencies required for future engineering work, and (2) how the new curriculum may specifically contribute to the achievement of this objective. Though it would be too early to draw a definite answer before the graduation of the first batch of students in the new curriculum, it would still be meaningful to reflect on the changes that have been made. Challenges in implementing the new curriculum are also discussed.

Opportunities

Building Engineering Identity

More important than the competency development is actually whether students are willing to enter into the engineering profession. Typically, less than half of the engineering graduates from hkust have pursued engineering careers. The new curriculum aims to develop engineering identity through the building of an engineering learning community.

From a theoretical perspective, many elements in the new curriculum are about building a community. The academic advising was designed based on the community of practice framework and operated with multiple stakeholders playing different roles. The enhanced community and global engagement is also about the community, in a much wider sense connecting the university to the society. In Lave and Wenger’s seminal work on communities of practice, learning is conceptualized as a situated activity with a process called “legitimate peripheral participation,” which implies that newcomers learn to become part of the community through talking and socializing with existing community members. 38 Learning involves the whole person, which not only means the activities that one performs, but also embeds the relation of that person and the community.

The impact of community of practices on its members described by Lave and Wenger is in fact the desirable outcomes for first-year engineering students. hkust has gained advantages in this aspect since a strong sense of community and close relationship between students and faculty members already existed. 39 To fully utilize the benefits from the community, there must be three fundamental elements: domain, community and practice. 40

• Domain is the common ground and a sense of common identity. An engineering learning community should therefore inspire students to know about the engineering discipline.

• Community is based on the interaction between its members. A successful community must facilitate its members to interact and share with one another meaningful topics or issues on a regular basis. An engineering learning community needs to provide a platform for students to interact regularly and work on meaningful engineering-related problems together.

• Practice denotes a socially defined way of doing things. An engineering learning community should promote a set of common approaches and languages among engineering students. Calling students “young engineers” is one example of such practices.

Given the concerns over student enrollment and engineering identity in Hong Kong, an engineering community seems to be the right solution. It is expected that through this community, first-year students can be more engaged in learning and practicing engineering through socialization with senior engineering students, engineering academics, and practitioners.

Developing Problem-Solving and Other Professional Skills

The changes in the capstone experiences and the introduction of school-sponsored courses denote a shift from lecture-based teaching to inquiry-based and problem-based learning. Inquiry-based and problem-based learning have been found effective in promoting higher-order thinking skills, which are highly related to other abilities like integrating different perspectives and solving ill-defined problems. 41

In those school-sponsored courses that are open for students from different disciplines, some evidence has already been collected regarding the positive learning outcomes such as the development of collaborative problem-solving skills from interdisciplinary teamwork in a school sponsored course. According to the literature, seeing the difference between one’s own profession and those of others can also help build professional identity. Therefore, these pedagogies would be seen as aiming for multiple purposes including the development of problem solving and other essential skills as well as the enhancement of engineering identity.

A Broad and Balanced Education Model

Flexibility and broadness is added to the curriculum. Students can have a wider choice of courses and combinations of them while still satisfying the graduation requirements. Though hkust is a research-intensive university, the introduction of the university core education is consistent with a renewed global trend of a liberal education model in arts and science, focusing on the whole-person education instead of narrow specialization. The broad education model is advocated as a suitable move in response to the defined criteria for excellence in undergraduate education, including the increasing needs for interdisciplinary collaboration, increasing demands for students with creative and problem-solving skills, and greater importance placed on social and ethical responsibilities. 42

Literature in engineering education affirms the benefits of a broad education model. Various forms of informal learning including competitions, service learning, and research experiences have all been found to contribute to the development of engineering graduate attributes such as multidisciplinary teamwork, problem solving abilities, and knowledge of ethical responsibilities. 43 Training in arts and humanities could largely benefit engineering and science students through developing their abilities in collecting and organizing facts and opinions, analyzing them, articulating a sound argument, and communicating with other people. 44 Another local study at hkust shows that being involved in community services helps engineering students rethink about the roles of the engineering profession. 45

Challenges and Recommendations

Tensions between the Prevailing Culture and the New Curriculum

Many features in the new curriculum promote a broader and more liberal education environment. Students are supposed to have a higher level of ownership and autonomy as the result of the changes. These ideas can be traced to theories originally found in Western societies such as self-directed learning and self-determination. However, questions about whether Chinese students will perceive and experience these new learning environments differently have been raised in the literature. 46 Although scholars point out that cultural aspects should not be over-emphasized and that Chinese students are changing under the new environment, it cannot be denied that significant differences in learning motivations and career explorations still exist between students in Hong Kong and elsewhere, including the us. 47

The intention of school-based admission is to allow students to explore different majors and thus make an informed decision. Likewise, the intention of a core university education is to provide broad perspectives. How students interpret and experience these arrangements, however, may be a completely different story. As suggested in the literature, Asian students often do not make study or career decisions based on personal interest; instead, they frequently select majors leading to the highest paying jobs or quickest completion of the degree program, which is mostly consistent with parental desires. 48 It is thus possible that some students under such pressure would find the common core program a waste of time as it to some extent delays pursuing and completing their major.

Inherent tensions may also originate from the dilemma between students’ desires to achieve high scores (i.e., Grade Point Average or gpa) versus pursuing interesting and challenging subjects. The tendency of students to be overly focused on academic achievement has been observed at hkust. 49 This tendency seems unlikely to change since the reward mechanism even in the revamped curriculum still reinforces the importance of scores. Students’ opportunities for exchange and internship are based on scores. gpas also largely determine students’ priority in selecting a preferred major at the end of their first year of study. 50 This leads to hesitations in exploring different engineering disciplines since it could be perceived as negatively affecting the chance to obtain high gpas.

For the new curriculum to achieve a transformative effect, that is, to develop qualitatively different students, these tensions should be acknowledged. 51 Though it could take a long time for the culture to change, the university can be proactive in acknowledging the issue by acting consistently from senior management to frontline staff and by providing all stakeholders, and in particular students and their parents, with a clear rationale for why the curriculum is designed in such a way. 52 Meanwhile, the assessment practices in the university should also be consistent with the goal of holistic development so as to acknowledge and reward non-academic achievements, the competencies developed in cross-disciplinary areas, and integrative problem-solving abilities.

Readiness of Students and Faculty Members

The change in the pedagogy is also accompanied by other challenges. For instance, one survey of 1,200 engineering students in the us shows first-year students are often unprepared for inquiry-based learning. 53 Likewise, a study on the learning approaches of Hong Kong tertiary engineering students showed that the teacher-centered transferring teaching approaches are common. Students have been used to the transferring approach and develop learning approaches aiming at scores rather than understanding. 54 An earlier study shows Hong Kong undergraduate science students’ unwillingness to take a personal responsibility needed for active learning pedagogies despite their greater academic gains through these pedagogies. 55

Even if these studies were conducted years ago, it is still reasonable to assume that inquiry-based learning is new to many students and teachers. Both students and teachers need time and effort to learn the new approaches. It cannot be denied that some faculty members may resist change because of doubts or unfamiliarity with the new approaches. Students could also be dissatisfied because their experiences may not match what they initially believe about studying at a university.

Challenges can also stem from students’ increased autonomy to choose among different courses and paths. Some students may not know what to do with the increased autonomy. They need advice for planning a meaningful learning path. The academic advising at hkust is therefore important in providing guidance through building a community in which a first-year student entering the university is immediately connected to one senior student as the mentor and a faculty member as the academic advisor. Meanwhile, the design of the ‘clan’ system also helps establish friendships among first-year students, who can offer peer support to one another.

The Global Competence of Hong Kong Engineering Students

It is further important to note that Hong Kong is in a post-industrial phase and the industrial sector is therefore limited. As a consequence, a large proportion of engineering graduates do not take an engineering-related job. On one hand, the Hong Kong government is urged to provide more opportunities for engineers and technologists. On the other hand, engineering graduates may have to be more open to opportunities elsewhere. Engineers are already expected to perform effectively across countries and cultures. 56 It would be especially true for Hong Kong engineering graduates given the highly multicultural environment in Hong Kong. In addition, Hong Kong engineers need to possess global competencies before they can leverage the opportunities provided by the close economic collaboration with Mainland China.

In the current curriculum, students have opportunities to participate in exchange and internship in overseas or Mainland Chinese institutions as well as collaborate with non-local students in the university (at around 20% of the student body), but whether students can acquire the global competence through these opportunities remains a question. Some studies have noted that Hong Kong students often prefer to interact with local students. 57 Efforts are still needed in the international dimension of the curriculum. Residential education and cultural diversity programs are possible ways to achieve this objective.

Development and Commitment of Faculty Members

Many elements in the new curriculum have inevitably added much workload to faculty members who are already occupied with research. hkust is a research-intensive university but the new curriculum demands a high commitment to teaching and student development. Studies have repeatedly shown that some faculty members feel that teaching takes their time away from research and is of low value to career advancement. 58 Moreover, the academic advising system requires faculty members to schedule one meeting with their advisees per semester. The nature of the engineering learning community also requires faculty members to actively participate in clan-based and inter-clan activities. Not all faculty members are willing or able to spend the time. Engineering faculty members play a significant role in nurturing future engineers, but their own learning process to become an educator is often overlooked. 59 The challenge to the University would be to establish rewards for teaching excellence and commitment to student development. Faculty evaluations and incentives need to better align with the goal of students’ holistic development. 60 The reward for teaching performance should therefore go beyond the existing annual teaching excellence awards and teaching development grants to the establishment of a direct link between the teaching performance and career advancement opportunities such as teaching positions and tenure opportunities.

Practical Implications and Future Steps

The new engineering curriculum at hkust is substantially different from the previous one in its aims, educational values, and designs. The implementation of the new curriculum in a broader context of the curriculum reform in Hong Kong leads to rising excitement and expectations, but also new concerns and confusions. This article offers an overview of the curriculum and discusses the opportunities and challenges situated in the interplay of political, social and cultural forces. It also provides rationales for the adoption of certain policies and methods along the curriculum development journey. One implication is that the success of the curriculum needs a consistent message in the education system, a full commitment of the institution, and supporting mechanisms including the assistance to students and faculty members. This is much easier said than done due to the social and cultural backgrounds such as students’ desire for high grades and the predominant teaching and learning approaches. This practically also means that it will take time for the new curriculum to exert a positive impact on the society and that there is foreseeable resistance from some faculty members, students, and parents.

The future development of the engineering curriculum in hkust, according to the Dean of Engineering, is to focus on tri-modal education. 61 Tri-modal education means that the support provided to students will allow them to achieve goals in different areas, whether in research, professional engineering, or entrepreneurship, according to their career aspirations. In line with this vision, a new co-curricular program on entrepreneurship will be jointly developed with the School of Business and Management. Other development plans include strengthening collaborations with industry and enhancing students’ participation in serving the community. 62 These future steps are consistent with the broadness and flexibility promoted in the new curriculum. Multiple paths for students’ success have been taken into consideration. The future plan also emphasizes interdisciplinary work and collaborative opportunities with various parties.

Furthermore, there are ongoing changes in the professional development for faculty members. In a recently published guideline on the appointment of teaching track positions, the impact on student learning and faculty contributions in academic advising are both included as the criteria for evaluating faculty members on a teaching track. 63

Conclusions

Engineering education in Hong Kong is experiencing significant and unprecedented changes linked to several larger forces and trends. In response, hkust has revamped its engineering curriculum to enhance its broadness and flexibility and align with the objectives for developing the new graduate attributes. In order to study the impact of the new curriculum, multiple measurements are being undertaken. External measurements include the quality assurance audit conducted every five years and the annual employer survey. Internal measurements include multiple student surveys such as Student Satisfaction and Engagement Questionnaire survey (sesq) and students’ self-assessment of their achievement of the graduate attributes. A comparison between the archived data collected from the previous three-year curriculum and those from the new four-year curriculum should provide objective evidence of the effect of the new curriculum. A further study documenting such a comparison would be expected after 2016-17 when the first batch of students graduate from the four-year curriculum.

To conclude, this article illustrates that the new curriculum has promoted inquiry-based and problem-based pedagogies and increased support for students’ transition to university life. It also points out that the impact of the prevailing culture and other social and economic factors cannot be neglected. Given the inherent tensions and issues discussed, the university is recommended to proactively address them in order to achieve the transformative effects of the new curriculum. Particular attention needs to be given to students’ learning approaches and motivations, as well as their decision-making patterns. The support for staff members’ development of pedagogical experimentations and the reward for their contributions in student development should also be established for the sustainability of the new curriculum.