From opportunity to reality: transition into engineering education, trauma or transformation?

ABSTRACT

Transition into university can prove to be a challenging time for young people entering engineering education, irrespective of previous educational experience or demographic background. It is such challenges that this article considers. Commencing by looking at the pragmatic issues associated with transition, the question of whether starting university is a time of transformation or trauma for new engineering students is discussed. Following this, a conceptual framework grounded in the authors previous work depicts a tripartite approach to transition, identifying three interlinked phases that new students typically encounter. The conclusion suggests that through the introduction of realistic and socially relevant engineering activities, transition into engineering education is the ideal time to turn opportunity into reality for new students.

KEYWORDS:

• Transition
• engineering education
• disposition to learn
• transformation

Introduction

Engineering is a unique and constantly evolving discipline which increasingly offers young people across the globe a wide range of fulfilling career opportunities. This is reflected in the 14 Grand Challenges Scholarship Program proposed by the US National Academy of Engineering, (2019) which observes that Interest remains especially high among young people who are moved by the vision that articulates engineering as serving people and society (NAE 2019) (National Academy of Engineering 2019). With curiosity about engineering and global sustainability increasingly evident amongst young people (Lucas and Hanson 2016), there potentially has never been a better time for higher education institutions to attract and educate the next generation of future engineers. Yet despite this, engineering education appears to be at something of an impasse. At the centre of much discussion is the question of how to promote transition into higher level engineering education.

In focusing on the subject of transition in engineering education, this guest editorial provides an overview of a wide range of literature. Following this, a conceptual framework depicting three interlinked phases of transition into engineering education is proposed. This framework is grounded in the literature and also builds on research conducted by two of the authors.

Background: a paradigm of practical pragmatism

One of the key factors underpinning transition into higher education is an individual student’s attitude and disposition to learning (Pampaka, Williams, and Hutcheson 2012). An important body of work undertaken over a number of decades is that of Entwistle and colleagues who have developed and tested a series of inventory scales to analyse university students’ learning dispositions (Entwistle 2009; Entwistle and Brennan 1971; Entwistle and McCune 2009). Applying these scales to first-year students, Entwistle and McCune (2013) determined that individuals who are better attuned to their own academic ability are more likely to be motivated to succeed in the first year of their studies (Entwistle and McCune 2013). Whilst disposition to learn and self-motivation are important drivers underpinning first-year student success in all subject areas, work by Al-Sheeb, Hamouda, and Abdella (2019) recently examined the experiences of 320 first-year engineering students as they began their studies. This work identifies a positive link between engineering students’ attitudes and motivation and successful transition into higher education, argueing that it is extremely important to identify those engineering students who are at risk of struggling academically early-on in the transition period. Indeed, the earlier support mechanisms and interventions are in place, the more successful they are likely to be (Al-Sheeb, Hamouda, and Abdella 2019). In introducing students to first year engineering programmes, we are not simply dealing with the usual challenges of the transition into higher education and the need for students to get to grips with a new educational setting (Thurber and Walton 2012; Fisher and Hood 1987) engineering educators are also trying to cultivate learners who think and act like engineers.

When considering transition into university in general, and engineering in particular, it is important to first consider the wider socio-economic context in which prospective students reside. Higher education tends to be viewed through a functionalist lens, whereby students (future workers) are trained to meet the needs of the workplace (Archer 2005) The emergence of Industry 4.0 has resulted in an ongoing global debate about how higher education and the training of new engineers is conducted and experienced (Flynn, Dance, and Schaefer 2017; Benešová and Tupa 2017; Madsen et al. 2016) No longer viewed only as a rite of passage for elitist middle and upper class young people, the massification of tertiary level education that began in the 1990s has been accompanied by increased commodification of all areas of learning, including the awarding of qualifications (Shumar 2013; Davidson 2015; Caruana and Montgomery 2015; Tight 2019) This means that for many pre-university students, getting into, as opposed to graduating from university, is viewed as an important life-goal and a guarantee of success.

Within this complicated setting and underpinned by the principles of marketisation, it is not unreasonable to suggest that a trend towards practical pragmatism is emerging with regards to how young people and their parents view higher education, particularly in those countries where the cost of university is borne by the students as opposed to the State (Gibbs 2001; Jibeen and Khan 2015) Indeed, work commissioned by UNESCO over a decade ago found that across the globe, shifting the costs of higher education away from the government is linked to increasing student expectations in terms of social mobility and employment prospects (Johnstone and Marcucci 2007; UNESCO 2019). Whilst students still choose to go to university out of a genuine interest for their subject, other factors such as a desire to pursue a highly paid career and to gain life enhancing skills also come into play (Bharwha 2017). Consequently, university programmes worldwide are now attracting a greater number of consumer focused students than ever before (Tricker 2005; Arambewela 2010). The result of this is a highly pressurised learning environment, whereby university educators are expected to facilitate student success by producing work-ready graduates able to meet the diverse and often conflicting needs of industry and society (Boles and Whelan 2017; Smith 2012)

Alongside changes in how higher education is funded, there has been a significant growth in international student enrolment in high-income countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK and USA (Choudaham, Van, and Rest 2018). Meanwhile there is evidence that countries previously known for sending students are making decisive moves to become host countries for overseas students, with Singapore, South Korea China and Malaysia all making a concerted effort to attract more international students (Banks and Bhandari 2012). Some authors have suggested that current students have little awareness of the nature of the higher level study in terms of the amount of independent learning and academic rigour required (Murtagh 2010; Crisp et al. 2009). From an engineering education perspective, this issue is explored by Kangas, Rantanen, and Kettunen (2017), who suggest that at the point of transition, the majority of new engineering students arrive in higher education fully equipped with the ability to learn tactically and pass exams, although many lack the ability to study a problem deeply and broadly (Kangas, Rantanen, and Kettunen 2017)

Transition: transformational or traumatic?

A number of previous studies have sought to explore and explain the challenges of transition into higher level engineering education with the difficulties first-year students’ experience with tertiary level mathematics forming much of the debate. Heywood (2005), describes such difficulties as a perennial problem arguing that  … as long ago as 1963 [a large number of technology students in the Colleges of Advanced Technology had required help with mathematics (Heywood 2005, 448). Whilst concerns continue about students’ level of maths ability and understanding, Goold (2012) provides a wider perspective suggesting that just under two thirds of engineers use high level maths in their work (Goold 2012) Despite this, an early focus on what is often ‘pure maths’ means that for many engineering students, transition can quickly become traumatic. Many find themselves struggling within the first few weeks when faced with the reality of having to learn new mathematical concepts and ways of thinking (Hoyles, Newman, and Noss 2001; Newman-Ford, Lloyd, and Thomas 2007). Some evidence exists to suggest that pre-university maths bridging programmes can do much to enhance transition into university for engineering students by offering short ‘summer-school’ courses aimed at getting students’ applied maths knowledge and skills up to the level required before they enrol (Eleri et al. 2007; Gordon and Nicholas 2013; Brunhaver et al. 2018). A study in Sweden where 60 engineering students were interviewed about their experiences of starting university found that a successful transition was one in which students began to be more independent in their approach to learning mathematics and involved individuals … moving from a student position dependent on the pedagogic authority of the school teacher, with limited access to the principles, to a more autonomous position, based on recognition of the classificatory principles of the mathematical discourse, … (Bergsten, Jablonka and Ashjari 2016, 7).

Whilst the need for students to have a positive experience in early first year maths in higher education forms a considerable and distinctive contribution to the literature around transition for STEM students in general, and engineering students in particular, it is also important that students receive high levels of social support during the initial few weeks and months of the first year. A considerable body of evidence focuses on the need for Higher Education Institutions to take account of new students’ different educational experiences and socio-economic backgrounds during the transition period. Such work suggests that students from wider socio-economic or non-traditional backgrounds may need additional social and academic support from their institution as they start their university career (Shaw and Chin-Newman 2017; Bell, Wieling, and Watson 2007; Christie 2009; Watson et al. 2009)

Within an engineering education setting our research has found that some young women have little idea what engineering is or what studying engineering at college or university might entail (Andrews and Clark 2016). There is some suggestion that such a lack of understanding is also a factor influencing how many new engineering students’ experience transition into higher education, in that some have little or no understanding about what engineering is, or what studying for a degree in engineering will require academically (Becker 2010). Additionally, research analysing students autonomous motivation and academic self-awareness indicates that an individual’s self-efficacy, previous academic experiences, and achievement all combine to influence transition (Van, Soom, and Donche 2014). This perspective is widely supported, with a number of studies identifying a link between self-motivation, study autonomy, and positive transition into engineering education; the more motivated and qualified an engineering student is, the more likely they are to have a transformational transition into higher education (Zhang et al. 2004; Veenstra, Dey, and Herrin 2008; Tyson 2011; Jones et al. 2010). Conversely, qualitative work conducted in Denmark concluded that engineering students are more likely to drop out in the first year of their studies than those enrolled in other areas. The reasons for this are unclear, but it was suggested that a number of demographic variables, including gender, ethnicity and social class, all have a contributory role to play (Ulriksen, Madsen, and Holmegaard 2017)

The research focusing solely on transition into STEM and Engineering Education represents an important body of literature that should not be viewed in isolation. Pivotal work by Tinto (Tinto 1975) provides valuable insights into the wider contextual influences on transition and retention in the initial period of higher level study. Acknowledging the complex nature of transition and the impact of a number of educational and social variables, Tinto emphasises the importance of engendering a sense of belonging in new students. His work found that first-year students are more likely to have a successful transition into higher education the earlier they become embedded into discipline-specific narratives, cultures, and identities (Tinto 1993; Tinto 2006).

Tinto’s seminal work has been applied and extended globally. Subsequent studies have reinforced the importance of the link between career aspirations and identity in determining a successful transition into higher education (Bridges 2003). Notions of place and belonging are now universally recognised as integral to transition across all disciplines, as is the need for carefully managed and planned transition periods (Lawrence 2005; Tinto 2006; Tinto 2005). In taking this work a stage further so as to encapsulate academic belonging, work conducted by Nelson et al. (2006), developed a ‘blueprint for transition into higher education’. Reflecting on an organisational change strategy that was enacted over a five year period in which a series of interventions were put into place at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Nelson et al. (2006) provide useful insight into how to enhance the first term of students’ academic learning journey. Arguing that new students need to encounter curriculum that is sensitive to their realities, adequate and timely access to support services, and opportunities for them to become part of communities of learners (p. 1), the approach adopted at QUT is based on two fundamental beliefs: that students need to be engaged as learners, and students in the first year of university have distinctive learning needs (Nelson et al, 4). Suggesting that transition pedagogy needs to be built upon a constructivist philosophy, the work at QUT involved purposefully designing the first term in such a way as to meet students’ key learning needs in study skills and with regards to discipline focused knowledge. Emphasising the need for high levels of staff support and a good communication strategy, Nelson et al. (2006) put in place a series of student focused initiatives which centred upon the following:

1. Academic integrity: focusing ostensibly on issues of academic practice including plagiarism and referencing techniques.

2. Conflict resolution and teamwork: purposefully equipping students with the skills and competencies needed to work as part of a successful and productive team.

3. Attendance monitoring and early identification of non-attenders: aimed at quickly identifying students who may be finding university overwhelming or who are struggling to attend for other reasons.

4. Early identification of those students who struggle academically: to enable interventions to be put into place to deal with any issues.

5. Just in time information: assuring that all communications were relevant, necessary and engaging

6. Peer mentoring: providing new students with a more experienced student mentor to offer social and individual support during the transition period.

7. More focused use of the VLE: built upon a holistic presentation of academic and administrative information.

8. Understanding expectations: the completion of an ‘expectation’ survey at the beginning of the term to enable faculty and support staff to gain an insight into what students expect and to enable such expectations to be managed accordingly. (Nelson et al. 2006, 7–9).

Whilst the work conducted at QUT provides a thorough grounding for building a transition strategy it is important to note that it lacks academic evaluation in terms of research (Nelson et al. 2006; Nelson, Smith, and Clarke 2011).

In examining the literature about transition, both in engineering education and more widely, the need for a more holistic, yet focused approach to transition into tertiary level engineering education comes to the fore. The following section proposes a three-stage conceptual framework of the transition process, suggesting that rather than be a time-limited part of the early first year experience, transition is an reiterative process which begins in early-to-mid adolescence and continues into the first year of higher education.

Discussion: from opportunity to reality, a successful transition into engineering

University completion rates varying greatly across Europe (Bothwell 2016) from an average of 39.4% in France to 85.6% for public universities in Austria and in the UK, (Vossensteyn et al. 2015, 32–35). A recent Report by the Royal Academy of Engineering (2019) begins with a passionate plea for change in the UK,

… .we must ensure a constant and stable education system that produces many more engineers to meet our societal demands. There have been too many policy changes, and still too much fragmentation and complexity embedded into our education system. Let’s do more to join this up, working in partnership with government. And let’s be honest, our education system is chronically underinvested in too. We need to invest more in our young potential engineers, critically preparing them for the wave of economic disruption that digital technology will create’ (Maier 2019, 5).

This statement, which reflects the situation in many countries and contexts, calls for joined up thinking across education and government. We believe it is one that needs to be applied to transition into engineering education.

In looking holistically at transition, our previous work with colleagues (2013) involved a mixed-methods, longitudinal study in which the transition experiences of over 1000 students in eight UK and one Norwegian Higher Education Institutions were closely examined (Clark, Andrews, and Gorman 2013). Arguing that engendering a sense of ‘belonging’ is key to a successful transition, we found that the concept of belonging needs to be extended beyond the faculty, college, or university to encapsulate professional and vocational associations (Andrews 2013). Building on this work over a five-year period, we later analysed the transition experiences of engineering students within a School of Engineering at a UK university. This work found that individual student expectations play a key role in how transition is experienced, with prior exposure to engineering education activities being a particularly important factor (Clark and Andrews 2017b). Following this, and moving slightly away from focusing solely on the transition period, we analysed student attrition in the first year of engineering education. This two year study supported previous findings that belonging is key to student success in engineering education, whilst also drawing attention to the impact that student mental health can have on the early first-year student experience (Andrews and Clark 2017). Synthesising the key findings from all of our work on the first year experience up to that point, we developed a series of studies and support pathways which were then put in place to promote a smooth transition into and through the first year of engineering education (Clark and Andrews 2017a).

A Conceptual Framework grounded in our previous work and the relevant literature has been developed to depict the main stages of transition into engineering. Depicting a tripartite approach to transition, Figure 1 illustrates how new engineering students can be gradually guided towards developing an engineering identity. It should be noted that each phase of the student journey is intrinsically linked to the previous and may indeed be experienced in an iterative process.

Figure 1. From opportunity to reality: a conceptual framework depicting three interlinked phases of student transition into engineering education.

Induction phase: growing and nurturing engineering capital

Whilst some secondary school pupils may be able to access engineering education experiences during extra-curricular activities such as after school science clubs or summer camps (Hoyles, Newman, and Noss 2001; Newman-Ford, Lloyd, and Thomas 2007; Eleri et al. 2007), the majority will not. Likewise, very few children and young people have a family member who is an engineer. This means that many young people are not exposed to engineering during secondary education and so communication channels to potential future students are essential. Therefore, the Induction Phase into engineering should start early and occur iteratively over several years. On a national scale this may involve encouraging more young people to get involved in engineering activities that are aimed specifically at children and young people. Examples of these include Engineering is Elementary in the USA (Museum of Science 2019), Primary & Secondary Engineering in the UK (Primary Engineer 2019) and the Bio-Engineering Outreach Challenge in Australia (University of Sydney 2019).

Engineering Educators have an important role to play in the Induction Phase of Transition by acting as positive role models and mentors and by getting involved in local outreach and other engineering-focused activities in schools and colleges. Figure 1 suggests that during the Induction Phase a number of steps may need to be taken to promote a smooth transition into engineering. These include:

• Encouraging active engagement with engineering education from an early age:

  • o This is vital to spark young people’s interest in the subject and nurture engineering capital. It is not unreasonable to postulate that for many young people, transition into higher education starts some five or six years before they apply for university when the school system demands students select which subjects they intend to pursue through to the age of 16, 18 and beyond (Which? 2019; Strauss 2017). This in itself reinforces the need for engineering educators to offer outreach activities such as those offered by many universities across the globe (see for example the University of Durham in the UK, [University of Durham 2019], Boston University, USA [Boston University 2019] and Curtis University in Australia [Curtin University 2019]; each of which offers very different outreach activities that are aimed at specific groups of young people).

• Raising awareness and understanding of what engineering is amongst young people:

  • o The need to raise awareness of engineering is particularly important given that it tends not to be a secondary school subject commonly offered to young people (Clark 2011).

• Building young people’s confidence as independent learners:

  • o Work conducted at Stanford University found that even when opportunities do arise for school children to gain key transferable skills (including those related to communication or presentation), it is unlikely that they will see how these might be relevant to a career in engineering (Stanford University 2010; Winters et al. 2013). This reinforces the need for those engineering educators involved in outreach to actively inform young people of how those activities can lead to an exciting career in which they will develop and grow transferable life-skills, whilst becoming highly trained professionals.

• Benchmarking of prior learning:

  • o The different educational experiences and qualifications possessed by first-year students makes the need for benchmarking prior learning of particular importance in certain areas such as maths which it is a known predictor of success in STEM subjects (Nakakoji and Wilson 2014).

• Developing Spatial Skills:

  • o Research has shown that 3D spatial skills whereby students are able to visualise rotating objects in space are key to success in engineering. The introduction of spatial awareness training in the first year of engineering programmes could go some way to enabling new students develop key problem solving and other engineering specific skills whilst also positively impacting student persistence and success (Hungwe, Sorby, and Drummer 2007; Sorby 2007; Uttal and Cohen 2012).

The Induction Phase is undoubtedly the most lengthy, and arguably the most important phase of transition depicted in the conceptual fraemwork. It is a time when engineering educators can begin to reach out, engage, and influence young people in a way that allows them to make informed decisions about future career choices.

Familiarisation phase: situating student engineering as joining a distinctive profession

Bridging the entry and belonging phases, familiarisation with the complex academic environment and distinctive culture of engineering, represents a vital part of becoming an engineer. Stretching from engineering outreach activities offered at school to pre-university summer schools and first-year experiences, familiarisation with engineering represents what is very much an individual experience. When new students arrive in higher education, responsibility for a successful transition falls jointly upon the individual student and engineering faculty (particularly those with responsibility for tutoring and teaching). The role of institution-wide policies and practices, together with the amount of resources dedicated to promoting a positive transition into university, also come into play (Chow and Healey 2008). The most important factor in determining a positive transition into higher education in general, and engineering in particular, is undoubtedly the need to engender a sense of ‘belonging’ in students (Hoke, Smith, and Wilson 2018; Schar et al. 2017; Clark and Andrews 2017). Indeed, the literature suggests that the sooner students become familiar with their new environment and begin to identify with their discipline and faculty the more likely they are to succeed (Thomas 2013; Morrow and Ackermann 2012).

Our work studying various interventions put into place by higher education institutions to support students throughout the transition period found that an opt-out model of peer mentoring, whereby all first-year students are allocated a more senior student as a peer mentor, benefits both parties simultaneously. This approach to peer mentoring often results in a scholarly relationship that lasts well beyond the transition period (Clark, Andrews, and Gorman 2013; Andrews 2013; Clark and Andrews 2017) In addition to promoting a sense of belonging, the need to encourage students to situate themselves as belonging to an important and distinctive profession is particularly important in promoting a positive transition into engineering education. A number of interventions may be put into place by engineering educators to facilitate this. Such interventions include:

• Encouraging engagement with student societies:

  • o Introducing new students to engineering specific societies such as Engineers without Borders (EWB 2019) or the student chapter of national organisations such as the NSPE (NSPE. 2019) or IEEE (IEEE 2019) may do much to quickly engender a sense of belonging and identity.

• Raising awareness of the breadth of activities that engineering incorporates:

  • o The newness of engineering as a subject of study for many students makes it important that during the Familiarisation Phase the breadth and depth of engineering is fully explored. Introducing students to colleagues from professional bodies in the first few weeks of term is an ideal way to do this as is linking with a professional mentor already employed in engineering (Luo et al. 2015; Murray et al. 2015).

• Highlighting the social relevance of engineering whilst emphasising the benefits of studying the subject in terms of employability:

  • o Engaging students in socially relevant learning projects including service learning activities can make a significant impact in linking external communities with educational establishments. Involvement in such projects not only helps local communities, it can also promote student employability, providing them early-on with firsthand experience of the difference engineering can make to society (Woodruff and Campbell 2017; Kirsch 2018).

• Introduction of professional values:

  • o In effective engineering education nurturing belonging means more than the attainment of a personal affinity to an institution or academic department, it also includes making sure new student-engineers are aware of the professional standing, norms, and practices that are an integral part of the wider engineering profession (Holmegaard, Madsen, and Ulriksen 2014)

• Cross-disciplinary working:

  • o Much of the literature focusing on transition pedagogies highlights the value of engaging first-year students in group or team working activities. Within an engineering education setting, introducing new students to cross-disciplinary working can have a number of tangible benefits in enhancing transition. These include promoting a sense of identity, enhancing employability skills, and engendering a sense of belonging to a learning community (for wider reading in the area of transition pedagogies within higher education see McKenzie and Egea 2016 McKenzie and Egea 2016; Crisp, Letts, and Higgs 2019; Crisp, Letts, and Higgs 2019; Sambell, Brown, and Graham 2017; Sambell, Brown, and Graham 2017).

Familiarisation with the higher education institution, faculty, and the discipline of engineering represent an important milestone in a successful transition. Aligned with this is the need to engender a sense of belonging and self-identity as an engineer.

Belonging phase: self-identity as an engineer

The need to promote a sense of belonging in new students as they make the transition into engineering education is discussed in much of the literature mentioned in this review. Additionally, the importance of creating an engineering identity in undergraduate students is also extensively discussed within the extant literature (See for example, Eliot and Turns 2011; Denyszyn 2013; Meyers et al. 2012; Godwin 2016). In considering how to develop students’ sense of belonging and in doing so promote success beyond transition, a number of different approaches and actions may be taken:

• The early introduction of active learning:

  • o The final phase depicted by the framework reflects the fact that engineering education transition doesn’t merely relate to the first few days or week of university. It continues well into, and sometimes beyond the first term. Developing a sense of identity as an engineer takes time. Once in higher education, learning approaches such as project-based learning (Inchbold and Goldsmith 2017) and CDIO (Crawley et al. 2014) can do much to get engineering students involved with real-life engineering problems. Such activities not only help students make sense of their new environment, they also promote the development of high order cognitive and thinking skills, such as those described in Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) depicted by Anderson and Krathwohl (2016) (Bloom 1956; Anderson and Krathwohl 2016). These skills will undoubtedly grow and develop as students’ progress into the second year and beyond.

• The development of individual learning pathways:

  • o Our work looking at the issue of attrition identified the importance of developing bespoke learning pathways for individual students in the first year of their studies. Such pathways, whilst following the mandated curriculum, can also include additional learning support in study skills, maths, and academic writing (Andrews and Clark 2017; Clark and Andrews 2017).

• Adoption of pedagogical approaches that promote team building and in doing so allow for the development of engineering confidence, knowledge, and know-how:

  • o A depth of literature exists discussing the value of embedding innovative pedagogies into engineering education. Such literature ranges from discussions about the benefits of introducing flipped learning with regards to promoting independent learning and raising student confidence (Saterbak, Volz, and Wettergreen 2016), to the role that including ‘educational gaming’ into the engineering curriculum can play in encouraging students to build team-working skills (Perini et al. 2018). Additionally, recent work by Lucas and Hanson (2016) on Engineering Habits of Mind suggests that the use of signature pedagogies in engineering can do much to facilitate students thinking like an engineer (Lucas and Hanson 2016). Taken together, such approaches can encourage students to develop their engineering confidence, knowledge, and know-how.

• Encouraging students to identify aspirational goals for themselves:

  • o The final part of the conceptual framework relates to the importance of individual efficacy in engineering education (Aleta, 2016). Those students drawn to engineering need to be encouraged to believe in themselves and to aim high. Transition is the ideal time for engineering educators to reinforce the message that engineering offers a worthwhile and satisfying career. Students who hope to achieve highly must be encouraged and supported to set their own aspirational goals.

Concluding remarks

In undertaking a review of the literature and developing a conceptual framework depicting three interlinked phases of transition into engineering education, this paper has highlighted the importance of supporting engineering students into their programme of study. The conceptual model of engineering depicted in Figure 1 reflects the iterative process of transition and suggests that it is not simply confined to the first few days or weeks of term but rather begins when young people first start to consider their career options. Likewise, the support options outlined in the framework are not simply ‘add-ons’ for use in ‘welcome week’, but need to be embedded throughout the early first-year curriculum and beyond.

Prospective students are faced with a choice about what they study. We believe that for many, choices made in early to mid-adolescence are of vital importance. Whilst academic difficulties such as problems with maths and a lack of independent study skills are significant issues which need to be addressed during the transition stage, the need for engineering to become part and parcel of young people’s world view as they transition through their primary and secondary education into further and higher education is key to the choices they make and how they experience transition into higher education. The media, universities, engineering academics, employers, professional bodies, practising engineers, and student engineers, all have a role to play in making sure that engineering forms part of young people’s awareness of potential career options. An essential component of a seamless transition, a minimum level of knowledge about, and experience with engineering could potentially do much to solve the high attrition rates across the many different engineering programmes taught at the undergraduate level.

Notwithstanding new students’ level of knowledge and engineering experience, the importance of providing a high quality, academically relevant, and supportive transition into higher education needs to be a priority across the board. As mentioned in this paper, there is some evidence to suggest that pre-college or university bridging programmes do much to allay the trauma of transition; however, the feasibility of introducing such courses for all future engineering students may be limited.

The question of how to provide prospective engineers with a high-quality transition into university level engineering education is clearly a major challenge facing higher education engineering faculties. As engineering educators, we need to nurture new engineers, and ensure that, additional academic and practical support is provided at appropriate points in the student learning journey. At the same time, we must also work together to provide challenging engineering activities that bring learning to life.

In conclusion, transition into engineering education is the ideal time to turn opportunity into reality. The evidence discussed in this paper indicates that it’s time for a change in how engineering faculties manage the transition process. Further work needs to be done to assure transition is a time of transformation; when the ‘real-life’, active, and socially relevant nature of engineering is introduced and the fantastic opportunities a career in engineering can offer are extolled.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Dr Jane Andrews is a Senior Teaching Fellow at WMG. A Social Scientist, her research interests cover all areas of Engineering & Applied Science Education. Jane has a particular interest in student support and improving teaching through research.

Professor Robin Clark is the Executive Head of Education at WMG. A Chartered Engineer, Robin’s research interests include critically examining all areas of the student learning journey. He is particularly interested in student expectations and the application of innovative pedagogies to all areas of engineering and applied science education.

Associate Professor Graeme Knowles is Head of the Education Innovation Group at WMG. A Reader in Engineering Education, Graeme’s research interests include examining the potential of AR / VR in promoting high quality learning and evolving signature pedagogies. He is also interested in quality management in engineering and applied science research.