Defining the capabilities required to teach engineering: Insights for achieving the Australian sector’s future vision

ABSTRACT

Professional engineering practice is being transformed by technological developments, globalisation, and changes in societal expectations. In response, approaches to engineering education must advance to better prepare graduates for the demands of industry. However, the criteria currently used by universities to appoint and promote academics do not appropriately prioritise teaching quality, which impedes educational quality enhancement. This study sought to refine the categories of teaching capability proposed in the Engineering 2035 Project (which reviewed the state of Australian engineering education), given these categories lacked the detail necessary to inform policy. Transcripts of interviews with 21 engineering educators were thematically analysed to identify the key skills required of engineering educators. Mapping of interview themes to the seven capabilities proposed in the Engineering 2035 Project revealed gaps in three pedagogically-driven areas related to communicating complex engineering concepts to actively engage students, creating empathetic learning environments, and subject management. New extended descriptors for ten teaching capabilities were developed. We argue that these capabilities must be valued within universities to drive improvement in engineering education quality. Thus, the proposed capability descriptors should be used to inform criteria for recruiting and promoting academics, guide professional development strategy, and evidence educator quality during accreditation processes.

KEYWORDS:

• Academics
• educators
• skills
• capability
• teaching quality

1. Introduction

Professional engineering practice is being transformed by technological developments, globalisation, and changes in societal expectations (Crosthwaite 2019; Felder, Brent, and Prince 2011; Hadgraft and Kolmos 2020). In response, approaches to educating engineers must advance to better prepare graduates for the demands of industry (Burnett et al. 2021).

The Australian Council of Engineering Deans recently commissioned the ‘Engineering 2035 Project’ to review engineering education in Australia with the goal of setting a direction for change (Burnett et al. 2021). Given the fundamental role engineering educators play in driving student outcomes (Felder, Brent, and Prince 2011; Reidsema, Cameron, and Hadgraft 2021; Borrego and Henderson 2014; Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013), one aspect of the project sought to identify developments required within the engineering educator workforce to deliver on the future vision. Through examination of existing literature and engagement with selected key stakeholders, the project highlighted academic teaching capabilities required in the year 2035 (Crosthwaite 2019; Burnett et al. 2021; Reidsema, Cameron, and Hadgraft 2021). The report also warned that the criteria currently used by universities to appoint and promote academics remains a ‘major inhibitor to educational excellence and capacity to reform’, given these structures do not appropriately prioritise teaching quality (Crosthwaite 2019).

Evolving academic recruitment and promotion criteria to better align with desired outcomes is critical to improving educational quality (Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013). Although the Engineering 2035 Project identified seven future-focused teaching capabilities that can form a starting point for this process, the capabilities lack the detail necessary to inform policy in practice. Therefore, the present study seeks to refine and validate these categories of teaching capability using the perspectives of current engineering educators solicited through interviews. This is conducted using the technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra and Koehler 2006) as theoretical grounding.

2. Background

2.1. Factors driving change in engineering education

Numerous factors are collectively driving change in engineering education practice. In this section we review the literature on the major future-focused developments, which in turn inform the skills required of educators. Although we focus on the Australian context, many of the identified developments are reflective of those occurring more broadly around the world.

The move away from traditional didactic lecturing to more active approaches to engaging students in learning is a significant trend (Hadgraft and Kolmos 2020; Borrego and Henderson 2014; Andrews et al. 2020). This is motivated by educational research demonstrating the positive impact of such approaches on learning outcomes and retention (Borrego and Henderson 2014; Andrews et al. 2020), especially for the growing cohort of students from diverse backgrounds (Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013). Although pedagogical strategies that capitalise on active learning have become more prevalent in engineering education globally (Hadgraft and Kolmos 2020), the rate of adoption requires acceleration (Borrego and Henderson 2014; Andrews et al. 2020).

Educators are increasingly relying on educational technologies to facilitate learning experiences, and this trend has been fast-tracked by the COVID-19 pandemic (Burnett et al. 2021; Reidsema, Cameron, and Hadgraft 2021). Digital learning technologies offer significant benefits including enhanced accessibility, learning flexibility, and student outcomes (Felder, Brent, and Prince 2011; Dart, Pickering, and Dawes 2020). Consequently, educators will be increasingly expected to integrate educational technologies into their teaching (Felder, Brent, and Prince 2011; Reidsema, Cameron, and Hadgraft 2021).

Educators must critically reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching approaches using a range of evidence including student engagement behaviours, student feedback, learning performance data, and peer review (Borrego and Henderson 2014). Developing responsive actions based on this data enables educators to continuously improve their teaching quality in line with their students’ needs (Dart and Cunningham 2023). This is likely to become increasingly critical as cohorts become more diverse with ongoing widening participation trends within the sector, and as students come to expect the tailoring of learning designs to their individual needs and interests (Wong, Li, and Cheung 2022).

Practicing engineers utilise technical problem solving skills in conjunction with professional skills like creativity, communication, negotiation, leadership, and teamwork (American Society of Civil Engineers 2019; Anderson et al. 2010). The diverse scope of professional competencies challenges traditional engineering education practice, which has historically been rooted in developing technical knowledge (Male, Bush, and Chapman 2011). Although the last decade has seen increased uptake of professional skill development within subject content globally, cohesive embedding across the entire learning experience remains rare (Crosthwaite 2019). Incorporating aspects of large-scale global challenges (such as sustainability and automation) into educational experiences has been proposed as a mechanism for developing diverse skillsets, given solutions to these challenges require creative problem-solving across traditional disciplinary boundaries (Hadgraft and Kolmos 2020). Tackling open-ended problems also pushes students to work with ambiguity (Aparicio and Ruiz-Teran 2007) and consider the human dimension of engineering design (Daniel and Mann 2017).

There is an increasing expectation for authentic learning experiences that provide preparation for future employment (Hadgraft and Kolmos 2020; Herrington 2015). How this is best infused into engineering curriculum is an ongoing dilemma, given traditional work placements and deep collaborations with industry professionals only tend to be feasible for small cohorts (Crosthwaite 2019). Thus, delivering highly authentic learning experiences at scale remains a significant challenge, especially for educators teaching into already large programs that must continue to grow to meet demand for qualified engineers (Kaspura 2019).

Professional development is critical to driving the aforementioned changes in engineering education practice by building capability within the educator workforce (Reidsema, Cameron, and Hadgraft 2021). This is particularly given most educators do not possess formal teaching qualifications and instead learn on the job (Felder, Brent, and Prince 2011; Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013; Pitt and Mewburn 2016). Moreover, professional skills are newer topics within engineering curricula, so many educators were not trained in these skills but must still facilitate their development for students (Felder, Brent, and Prince 2011). Professional development can improve teaching quality by supporting educators to build confidence, implement evidence-based teaching approaches, and learn strategies to engage diverse student cohorts (Felder, Brent, and Prince 2011; Borrego and Henderson 2014). However, there are currently few incentives for educators to engage (Reidsema, Cameron, and Hadgraft 2021), which contrasts against engineers in industry who are required to participate in continuing professional development to maintain chartered status (Engineers Australia 2022).

2.2. Lack of value for quality teaching

Although universities around the world have moved to introduce teaching-focused academic roles (Broadbent, Brown, and Goodman 2018; Simmons et al. 2021), in Australia – like most countries – the majority of full-time academics are still employed to both teach and research within their technical discipline (Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013; Broadbent, Brown, and Goodman 2018). Growing evidence shows that universities put limited value on the teaching quality of these academic staff, instead tending to reward research achievements (Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013; Dobele and Rundle‐theile 2015; Dart, Trad, and Blackmore 2021; Dart et al. 2022). This disincentivises academics from committing effort into the education side of their roles, significantly impeding implementation of best practice (Borrego and Streveler 2015). A recent survey found most Australian engineering academics felt they would not be rewarded for enhancing their educational approaches, while time taken away from research was the largest reported obstacle to innovating as an educator (Reidsema, Cameron, and Hadgraft 2021). Research-skewed reward structures also mean that the types of academics who succeed within the university environment are often not suited to developing the next generation of engineers (Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013; Dobele and Rundle‐theile 2015). This is because research-focused academics often have limited real-world experience, pursue research directions of little interest to practicing engineers, and develop students for research careers rather than success in industry (Aparicio and Ruiz-Teran 2007).

The teaching-research value discrepancy also impacts recruitment as universities are reportedly ‘placing an increasing emphasis on demonstration of research capability and potential in hiring decisions’ (Pitt and Mewburn 2016). Research by the present study’s authors (Dart et al. 2022) has shown that teaching capabilities aligned to the Engineering 2035 Report are typically only expressed in the selection criteria of academic job advertisements through general statements or in relation to research rather than in teaching-specific contexts. This contributes to a gap in the recruitment of staff with strong skills in translating engineering knowledge into educational practice. Moreover, the majority of teaching in Australian universities is actually delivered by casual academics (Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013), a situation that is reflective of many other countries’ contexts including the United States and Canada (Simmons et al. 2021). This group of educators hired on precarious short-term contracts typically facilitate tutorials and practical classes. The lack of job security, career progression opportunities, and professional development afforded to this group reaffirms the lack of investment in quality teaching within the sector (Dart, Trad, and Blackmore 2021).

2.3. Engineering educator capabilities

Educator capabilities can be considered through the lens of Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK framework (Figure 1). This captures the interconnected relationship between an educator’s subject matter expertise (content knowledge), capabilities in enabling students to learn that content (pedagogical knowledge), and skills in using technology to support learning (technological knowledge). To be effective, educators need to be operating at the intersection of the three knowledge areas. This requires educators to not only have deep knowledge of their discipline area, but also have skills in engaging students to learn in ways that are enriched by technology.

Figure 1. TPACK framework; adapted from Mishra and Koehler (Mishra and Koehler 2006).

The Engineering 2035 Project aimed to identify ‘significant drivers of change in professional engineering roles and anticipate the impacts on [sic] these changes on the expectations of graduates of professional engineering programs in the year 2035’ (Crosthwaite 2019). The project ultimately proposed seven categories of academic teaching capability aligned to the 2035 vision (Burnett et al. 2021; Reidsema, Cameron, and Hadgraft 2021). As summarised in Burnett, et al (Burnett et al. 2021), these were:

1. Change in teaching practice

2. Integrating real-world situations in teaching

3. Using digital technologies to model engineering problems

4. Increasing industry collaboration

5. Integrating human/social dimensions within technical contexts

6. Using e-learning

7. Professional development as an engineer educator

In this study we seek to refine and validate these categories to identify potential gaps and improve clarity, such that the descriptors may inform relevant university policy. We do this based on thematic analysis of interviews performed with current engineering educators.

3. Method

3.1. Positionality statement

Defining our positionality relative to the research is important for making visible how our backgrounds and experiences necessarily impacted our approach, including the research design and interpretation of data (Hampton, Reeping, and Ozkan 2021). The first and third authors both completed undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in mechanical engineering, before transitioning to engineering education research. The second and fourth authors completed undergraduate engineering qualifications (in electrical and civil majors respectively) before commencing doctoral qualifications in engineering education (which the fourth author continues to work towards). We each have extensive experience teaching into undergraduate engineering subjects aligned to our technical backgrounds at large Australian universities. This has been in a range of roles including coordinating, lecturing, tutoring, and practical demonstrating. The first three authors describe themselves as early-career academics and have spent most of their careers in academia in engineering academic roles. The first and second authors also have experience in a centralised learning and teaching department supporting others to develop their university teaching practice.

3.2. Data collection

Interviews were conducted with 21 engineering educators employed by 10 different Australian universities. Engineering educators were chosen as the key stakeholder group given their frontline and first-hand experience within the engineering education space, which lends itself to understanding what is required to perform an educator role and how the role may be expected to change into the future.

Participants were recruited through the researchers’ extended professional networks with snowballing to increase sample size (Longhurst 2003). We acknowledge a limitation of this approach is potential selection bias amongst the sample given those agreeing to participate were likely to value education more highly than the baseline population of engineering educators. We sought to recruit participants with diverse characteristics across key attributes – namely engineering discipline, teaching experience, and university. Key demographic information for the interview sample is presented in Table 1, which shows a spread in participants’ backgrounds across engineering discipline, length of teaching experience, appointment type, and role responsibilities. Our sample was 67% male, however, this is consistent with the engineering educator workforce being male-dominated (Dobson 2012). Our participants represented 10 of the 39 universities across Australia, with approximately a quarter of our sample employed by the traditionally research-intensive Group of Eight universities. Just over half of our participants were employed by the more recently established Australian Technology Network-aligned universities, which are typically considered to have a greater focus on students.

Table 1. Background characteristics of interview sample; *note that since multiple activities may be performed in a teaching role, the percentage of participants sums to greater than 100%.

Characteristic		Number of Participants	Percentage of Participants
Gender	Male	14	67%
	Female	6	28%
	Prefer not to say	1	5%
Engineering discipline	Mechanical	7	32%
	Electrical	6	29%
	Mechatronics	2	10%
	Civil	1	5%
	Other	5	24%
Teaching Experience	1–3 years	2	10%
	3–5 years	4	19%
	5–10 years	8	38%
	10+ years	7	33%
Appointment Type	Casual/Sessional Academic	5	24%
	Level B - Lecturer	5	24%
	Level C- Senior Lecturer	5	24%
	Level D - Associate Professor	2	9%
	Level E – Professor	3	14%
	Other	1	5%
Activities Performed in Role*	Marking	18	86%
	Running tutorials and/or practicals	17	81%
	Curriculum development	17	81%
	Subject coordination	15	71%
	Lecturing	15	71%
	Learning and teaching leadership	12	57%
University Grouping	Group of Eight	5	24%
	Australian Technology Network	9	43%
	Other	7	33%

The 45-minute interviews were designed to explore educators’ teaching experiences, including the skills they perceived as important, and their perceived supports and barriers to implementing high-quality educational practices. We used a semi-structured interview style as it allowed participants to give rich and expansive responses focused on aspects significant to them within the context of the research (Longhurst 2003). The interviews were conducted between December 2021 and May 2022, led by the second and third authors. All interviews were conducted over Zoom web-conferencing software using video recording, with only the audio component used to generate transcripts. The present study focuses on responses to two interview questions related to skills, as these questions support the refinement and validation of the Engineering 2035 Project capability categories (Burnett et al. 2021). These questions were ‘what skills do you think are needed for engineering educators now?’ and ‘what skills do you think an engineering educator in 10 to 15 years will need?’. Ethics approval was granted by Queensland University of Technology’s Human Research Ethics Committee.

3.3. Data analysis

The data analysis was undertaken in three stages. The first stage involved inductive analysis of the interview transcripts to identify key themes. The second stage involved assessing the alignment of the themes to the Engineering 2035 Project’s academic teaching capability categories (Burnett et al. 2021) to highlight any potential gaps and refine the descriptors. The third stage comprised mapping the newly proposed teaching capabilities to the TPACK framework. Each stage is discussed in more detail below.

Firstly, the thematic analysis of interview transcripts was performed in NVivo software (version 1.6.1). Structural coding was used to isolate the parts of the interview transcripts where participants discussed skills required of engineering educators (Guest, MacQueen, and Namey 2012). Open-ended thematic analysis was applied to enable patterns to naturally emerge within the data, rather than trying to fit ideas into a fixed framework (Guest, MacQueen, and Namey 2012). This promoted data validity as it meant codes were developed based on participants’ explicit skill descriptions, rather than immediately interpreting responses in the context of frameworks (like an existing list of teaching skills or TPACK) (Guest, MacQueen, and Namey 2012; Walther, Sochacka, and Kellam 2013). To further promote validity, two researchers (the first and second authors) independently engaged with the data and completed an initial coding round (Walther, Sochacka, and Kellam 2013). The researchers discussed their preliminary findings and collaboratively worked to group codes into larger themes over multiple iterations. This ongoing engagement with the data meant codes and themes were progressively revised as new insights arose (Walther, Sochacka, and Kellam 2013). The final themes that emerged from this process were learning facilitation, empathy towards students, technical knowledge, authentic contextualisation, adaptability, and subject management. These themes and the underpinning key factors are summarised in Table 2. Theme and factor frequency are also reported in Table 2 to provide the reader with an indication of how often the ideas were referenced by participants. However, we do not argue that the relative importance of the themes is directly captured by the observed frequencies.

Table 2. Summary of final themes from analysis of interview transcripts including frequency of occurrence.

Theme	Theme Frequency (out of 21 participants)	Key Factors	Factor Frequency (out of 21 participants)
Learning Facilitation	19	Creating engaging learning experiences	15
		Teaching with technology	15
Empathy Towards Students	17	Responsive to student needs	10
		Approachability	9
		Understanding of diversity	5
Technical Knowledge	15	Technical skills	13
		Communicating complex engineering concepts	10
Authentic Contextualisation	13	Understanding professional engineering practice	12
		Contextualising concepts	6
Adaptability	13	Flexibility	8
		Willingness to innovate using evidence	8
Subject Management	12	Subject coordination	11
		Subject structure and organisation	5

Secondly, the results of the thematic analysis were related to the academic teaching capability categories proposed in the Engineering 2035 Project report. This followed a similar process to the thematic analysis, with the same two researchers independently engaging with the data before coming together to reach consensus on alignments and gaps. This led to the newly proposed set of teaching capabilities.

In the third stage of the analysis, the teaching capabilities were mapped to the TPACK framework. This served to explicitly highlight where technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge were demonstrated. Again, the same two researchers performed the mapping individually before engaging in discussions to resolve conflicts.

4. Results

There was strong consensus among educators that the skills they perceived as important in the current context would remain so in the future: ‘I think they [current skills] will always be important because … they’re quite fundamental’. However, educators expected some skills related to learning facilitation and adaptability to become increasingly valuable over time. These outcomes are expanded upon in this section with the support of illustrative quotes. We present the themes in the order of learning facilitation, empathy towards students, technical knowledge, authentic contextualisation, adaptability, and subject management.

4.1. Learning facilitation

Educators most frequently mentioned facilitation skills. Fundamental to this was the need to create engaging learning experiences in variable environments: ‘The skill to engage your cohort … whatever size and through whatever medium it is’. Five educators discussed how this would become more valuable in the future as active learning experiences, such as those designed around problem-based learning, increasingly replace traditional lectures. Several educators spoke about how educator enthusiasm supported student interest in subject matter, and thus contributed to engagement: ‘When students see that you teach with passion, there’s a different level of learning … they get more engaged with the course and they learn better just because they reflect what they see in front of them’.

Teaching with technology was identified as a key factor in learning facilitation. Interestingly, this was specifically highlighted as a key future skill by 13 educators. Participants noted that teaching virtually required ‘quite a high level of digital dexterity … to facilitate online classes in a rich way for students’ and deliver ‘engaging’ experiences. The student population evolving to expect greater levels of technology integration was also reflected by multiple educators, such as: ‘we’re engaging with a … generation that’s been on the internet, spent their entire lives engaged in technology, and have gone through schooling with much more interactive … experiences with the technology they’re using’.

4.2. Empathy towards students

Educators frequently discussed the importance of being responsive to student needs. For example, educators emphasised the need to ‘empathise with students … to be able to try and actually help them as much as possible if they have issues,’ and being ‘able to really see the perspective of the students and put yourself in their shoes and be really in touch with their struggles and their perspectives’. The latter educator noted that this was an uncommon characteristic among current engineering educators because ‘as engineers, sometimes some of the[se] soft skills are missing’.

Approachability was considered significant in facilitating an empathetic relationship with students, especially towards those early in their degrees. Educators noted that skills in creating a ‘safe space’ and engaging in ‘open dialogue’ were key to supporting students to feel ‘comfortable in asking you questions, … sending you an email, and … approaching you to have those discussions because so often they’re too scared, or too embarrassed to actually reach out when they’re struggling’.

Some educators emphasised diversity when discussing how empathy should be shown. This was highlighted from several perspectives including gender, culture, disability, and competing priorities (such as caring and work). One educator gave a clear example of how an understanding of diversity could be demonstrated when facilitating online classes: ‘It’s very easy to get quite dismissive of students … [when they] don’t have their cameras on … [but] have you thought about the fact that maybe they have kids at home? … Maybe they’re experiencing near homelessness. Maybe they live in a two-bedroom apartment with their six siblings and their parents. It’s not our place to judge the mechanism by which they’re engaging. It’s our job to be open-minded and provide different avenues that they could engage with and hope that one of those avenues is useful.’

4.3. Technical knowledge

The technical skills factor focussed on educators possessing engineering knowledge fundamental to the subject they were teaching. Comments like, ‘they must have good knowledge in their domain’ and ‘I definitely see technical expertise as being key … you can’t speak with authority … if you don’t have some real specialisation behind you’ capture the main essence of the factor. Educators emphasised that technical knowledge could be developed through research or industry experience, and that the depth of knowledge required ‘depends upon which level of university you’re teaching’.

Comments grouped into the communicating complex engineering concepts factor discussed the importance of effectively explaining technical content to students: ‘it’s really important to be able to communicate the technical side of things in a manner that even someone who has no engineering background can understand’. Participants identified that educators needed to effectively deliver this knowledge in different modes and environments: ‘It could be one on one. It could be one to 600. It could be one to a small group’.

4.4. Authentic contextualisation

Understanding professional engineering practice was identified as key for engineering educators. Participants noted the value of industry experience and connections for embedding authenticity in learning experiences: ‘people who actually have a lot of industry experience and can bring that in is something which can be quite useful’. Participants felt that those with a strong understanding of professional practice recognised the importance of developing students’ professional skills for success in industry: ‘It’s all the professional skills … it’s very much what you need as an engineer to do your job, and that is everything from defining a problem or a project, it is consulting with stakeholders, it is understanding of standards, it is documentation of your work, it’s asking good questions, it’s report writing’.

Contextualising content by providing real-world links was identified as another factor. Educators noted the value to students of learning with context in mind: ‘you need to … contextualise the content for your students such that when you say the expression to them … [they] trust me it’s important’. Engaging students in authentic projects was highlighted as a practical approach to contextualisation. For example, one educator gave an example where students ‘were able to learn enough basic statics to do … the basic design of a Bunnings Warehouse.’

4.5. Adaptability

Educators noted the significance of being flexible in their teaching approaches, especially regarding educational technologies. Several educators felt that being flexible, especially to technological advances, would become increasingly important in the future: ‘the biggest skill we will need and do need is the capacity to adapt … How many years will it be before you’re sitting there, as you are now, but with an Oculus Rift on where you are sitting in a virtual classroom with the avatars of all your students around you’. Other educators noted the need to ‘adapt and change’ on a local classroom level. An example for how this could be demonstrated included: ‘interaction [between students] is perhaps contingent upon a bit of openness and fluidity to adapting that to the classroom environment … going well, that activity didn’t work so what am I going to do next week.’

Willingness to innovate educational practices guided by evidence was identified as a valuable skill. Educators noted the importance of ‘not [being] tied to what they teach now and what they taught last year or the year before’, and instead using evidence to continuously inform improvements. For example, one educator stated that ‘a willingness to learn and to keep learning’ was required. This relied on ‘critical reflection, which means to actually apply some of your deep thinking to the data in quite analytic ways … I don’t just mean student feedback, but all the forms of data that you could collect’. Willingness to engage in professional development was noted to contribute to innovation via formal ‘training and skill development’, as well as informally, such as through consulting the literature for ideas : ‘here’s something in the research that’s different to how I’ve approached it, so maybe there’s a better way than what I’ve tried’. However, willingness to innovate was related to resilience skills by some educators, given that innovations could fail.

4.6. Subject management

Subject coordination was regularly highlighted as crucial for educators in leadership positions. Educators frequently related this to ‘project management’ given the complexity of working with numerous ‘moving pieces’ including ‘a lot of staff, … venues, … equipment and laboratories’ as well as ‘planning, timetabling, approval of all these different sessionals [casual teaching academics], and budgets’. Coordination was noted as being particularly significant for large subjects: ‘there’s a million different systems that interface at all levels with the teaching and it’s a huge amount to manage, particularly for the bigger units where the level of student enquiries … just go through the roof.’ Skills in managing teaching teams were also raised, such as: ‘you need to be able to lead your team of demonstrators and co-teachers, so you need to be able to delegate, … select the right people and train them and empower them to be your eyes and ears in the class, which is not easy. It’s like running a little company’. Finally, some educators mentioned management of curriculum as a coordination skill. This related to understanding how a subject ‘fits in the bigger picture’ and adjusting content accordingly.

The need for structure and organisation in subject delivery was highlighted. This was tied to having a cohesively structured subject that effectively communicated how it would run. For example: ‘You’ve got to be on top of things because a poorly organised unit [subject] can undermine anything else you try and achieve … [you need] the ability to communicate’. Another educator described this from the student perspective as, ‘the notes are not well organised, the website’s not well organised, can’t find stuff … they changed the assessment date six times’, and subsequently emphasised the importance that ‘everything is delivered very well organised, so that they [students] don’t have to think about it’.

5. Discussion

5.1. Refined future-focused academic capabilities

We bring together the literature review, Engineering 2035 Project findings (Burnett et al. 2021), and results of the thematic analysis from educator interviews to propose a refined set of future-focused teaching capabilities. These are defined in Table 3 including explicit mapping between Burnett et al. (2021) and the interview themes.

Table 3. Proposed teaching capabilities including mapping of interview themes to Engineering 2035 Project capabilities in Burnett et al. (2021).

Teaching Capability		Related Capabilities from Burnett et al. (2021).	Related Themes from Analysis of Educator Interviews
1	Continuously improve teaching approaches based on evidence drawn from a range of sources including educational research, student and peer feedback, assessment outcomes, and observed cohort needs.	Change in teaching practice	Adaptability
2	Embed learning experiences authentic to professional engineering practice including collaboration with complementary disciplines to solve complex open-ended problems incorporating uncertainty.	Integrating real-world situations in teaching	Authentic Contextualisation, Technical Knowledge
3	Use contemporary digital technologies to interpret, manipulate, communicate, and solve engineering problems.	Using digital technologies to model engineering problems	Authentic Contextualisation, Technical Knowledge
4	Embed collaborations with industry and community organisations in teaching.	Increasing industry collaboration	Authentic Contextualisation
5	Integrate the human and social dimensions of engineering in learning designs to develop students’ professional skills.	Integrating human/social dimensions within technical contexts	Authentic Contextualisation
6	Incorporate educational technologies into teaching to effectively engage students in blended and online modes of learning.	Using e-learning	Learning Facilitation
7	Engage in and gain recognition for ongoing professional development as an engineering educator, while supporting the professional learning of others such as through mentoring and dissemination of effective practice.	Professional development as an engineer educator	Adaptability
8	Effectively communicate engineering concepts to actively engage students in learning.	Not applicable	Learning Facilitation, Technical Knowledge
9	Create an empathetic learning environment that responds to diverse student needs.	Not applicable	Empathy Towards Students
10	Provide subject management including of teaching teams, resources, budgets, curricula, structure, and organisation of students.	Not applicable	Subject Management

Figure 2 presents the alignment of each newly proposed teaching capability to the TPACK framework. This shows that the capabilities span the three core dimensions and that several capabilities require educators to combine multiple knowledge areas, aligning with expectations for effective practice (Mishra and Koehler 2006). No identified capabilities only required technological knowledge, consistent with Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) notion that technological knowledge must be situated in context. Our mapping reflects that this context may be engineering content (capability 3), educational pedagogies (capability 6), or both (capability 7). Capability 4 relates only to content knowledge as it focuses on leveraging external organisations. Three capabilities relate exclusively to pedagogy, while several capabilities combine pedagogical and content knowledge.

Figure 2. Alignment of academic teaching capabilities proposed in Table 3 to TPACK framework.

Table 3 shows that the Engineering 2035 Project (Burnett et al. 2021) and interview themes overlap for teaching capabilities 1 through 7. Therefore, our data supports the earlier findings, albeit with refinements in how each capability is expressed. However, there are three gaps in Burnett et al. (2021) compared to the educator interview outcomes – the newly introduced capabilities 8 through 10 – which each relate to a pedagogical aspect of teaching capability (Figure 2).

Firstly, approximately 70% of the educators in our study raised creating engaging learning experiences as a key skill, while about half of educators noted communication of complex engineering concepts. The intersection of these factors (capability 8) represents pedagogical content knowledge as it requires educators to bring together their understanding of the discipline and their ability to communicate that within an engaging learning design that accounts for students’ needs. Technical communication skills have long been recognised as critical for practicing engineers globally (Crosthwaite 2019; Anderson et al. 2010; Male, Bush, and Chapman 2011; Seniuk Cicek, Renaud, and Mann 2020), but were not explicitly acknowledged for engineering educators in Burnett et al. (2021).

Secondly, demonstrating empathy towards students (capability 9) was raised by about 80% of interviewed educators. This represents a key pedagogical skill as it is independent of engineering content and educational technology. Interestingly, the Engineering 2035 Project’s scoping study highlighted that ‘higher order soft skills such as empathy, professional ethics and emotional judgement are likely to be increasingly valued’ among the engineering workforce (Crosthwaite 2019). The follow-up report also discussed ‘empathic communication’ modules as an exemplar practice in developing these skills in students (Crosthwaite 2021). Thus, the growing importance of an empathetic skillset has been recognised for engineers, but the link to the educator workforce has not previously been made.

Thirdly, subject management skills (capability 10) were discussed by just over half our interviewed educators, but was not reflected in Burnett et al. (2021). Subject management relates to pedagogical knowledge given the ties to coordinating pedagogical approaches, managing curriculum, and the structure and organisation of subjects. Like the gap in technical communication highlighted above, leadership skills are accepted as important for practicing engineers (Crosthwaite 2019; Anderson et al. 2010; Male, Bush, and Chapman 2011), but equivalent skills for the engineering educator workforce were not recognised in Burnett et al. (2021).

5.2. Implications for practice

This research has implications for engineering education practice, and in particular the skills that universities should be valuing among their academic workforces. Each capability identified as a gap against the Engineering 2035 Project was related to the pedagogical aspect of teaching (Figure 2). This is consistent with previous research which has repeatedly found content knowledge, typically demonstrated through research expertise, is valued more greatly than pedagogical knowledge within universities (Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013; Pitt and Mewburn 2016; Dart, Trad, and Blackmore 2021; Borrego and Streveler 2015). This imbalance directly impacts the types of academics who are successful in gaining academic positions, as well as those rewarded with promotion (Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013; Aparicio and Ruiz-Teran 2007). Thus, our findings highlight the importance of defining what skills should be valued, introducing mechanisms to support educators to enhance these skills, and appropriately recognising educators who demonstrate them (such as through job security, awards, and further development or leadership opportunities).

The capability descriptors developed through our study could be used to inform criteria for recruiting and promoting academics. For example, recruitment selection criteria may be aligned to ensure that the ten teaching capabilities are appropriately captured. We argue that applicants should be asked to demonstrate these teaching capabilities in recruitment processes, just as applicants are expected to do with research skills. Similarly, promotion processes may be revised to ask applicants to reflect on how they demonstrate the ten teaching capabilities in their practice. These changes may encourage those with strong teaching skills to apply for academic roles or promotion, while influencing assessment panels to directly consider whether applicants possess the future-focused capabilities required for educational quality enhancement. Performance planning processes may also be leveraged by requiring educators to set goals for improving their teaching skills in line with our findings. These form tangible mechanisms for driving cultural change towards valuing and recognising quality teaching contributions (Crosthwaite 2019).

Our study may also inform professional development programs for upskilling educators to meet future-focused needs. This is important given most educators do not have formal teaching training (Felder, Brent, and Prince 2011; Norton, Sonnemann, and Cherastidtham 2013; Pitt and Mewburn 2016), contributing to lapses in the implementation of effective educational practice (Reidsema, Cameron, and Hadgraft 2021; Borrego and Henderson 2014; Dart and Cunningham 2023). Reidsema, Cameron, and Hadgraft (2021) have called for a national strategy of continuing professional development to build teaching capability of Australian engineering educators. Our findings could inform such a strategy by connecting the ten teaching capabilities to training and support. Similarly, as Australian universities tend to have in-house professional development offerings, our findings may be used to inform the strategic direction of these programs.

Finally, accreditation processes require universities to evidence the quality of their teaching staff. Current Australian guidance states that accreditors will assess ”individuals’ qualifications (both in engineering and in education), research and engineering practice, teaching experience, and contributions to the advancement of engineering knowledge, practice and education” (Australia 2019). Ensuring that the ten teaching capabilities are captured through this assessment embedded within accreditation processes would form a structural mechanism that could influence universities to value skills aligned to the sector’s future vision. Similarly, accreditation requires evidence of ‘appropriate policy and record of staff development – in both pedagogical and professional practice skills’ (Australia 2019). Signalling the ten capabilities as appropriate areas for this development may also influence institutions to focus their strategies on future-focused skills.

5.3. Limitations and future work

A limitation of this study is the sample used to collect the data which only included engineering educators. Broadening the sample, such as to those in high-level educational leadership positions, students, or recent graduates, may provide alternative perspectives on the key skills required of educators. Future work should focus on assessing the supports and barriers that engineering educators experience when they seek to implement educational practices aligned to the sector’s future vision. It would also be of value to analyse how educators’ views vary according to their background characteristics, such as those who are early versus later in their careers, or working in universities with a traditional research versus teaching focus.

6. Conclusion

This study sought to refine the categories of academic teaching capability initially proposed in the Engineering 2035 Project (Burnett et al. 2021), given they lacked the detail necessary to inform policy. Transcripts of interviews conducted with 21 engineering educators were thematically analysed to identify the key skills required of engineering educators. This resulted in six themes of learning facilitation, empathy towards students, technical knowledge, authentic contextualisation, adaptability, and subject management. Mapping of interview themes to the capabilities proposed in Burnett et al. (2021) revealed gaps in three pedagogically-driven areas. Extended descriptors for the final ten academic capabilities were developed. We argue that these must be valued within universities to drive improvement in engineering education quality aligned to the sector’s future vision. Thus, the proposed capability descriptors should be used to inform criteria for recruiting and promoting academics, guide professional development strategy, and evidence educator quality during accreditation processes.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by an Australasian Association for Engineering Education grant.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Australasian Association for Engineering Education .

Notes on contributors

Sarah Dart

Sarah Dart : Sarah Dart is a Senior Lecturer working across both Learning and Teaching Unit and Faculty of Engineering at the Queensland University of Technology. Her impact on student learning has been recognised with citations from the Australian Awards for University Teaching, Australasian Association for Engineering Education, and Australian Mathematical Society. Her research interests are in engineering education, educational technology, and academic development.

Sam Cunningham

Sam Cunningham : Sam is a Senior Lecturer in the QUT Academy of Learning and Teaching as well as the Faculty of Engineering. He teaches a range of professional development modules around student evaluation and various technologies, and he also teaches into engineering subjects. His research primarily involves machine learning and textual analysis techniques applied in educational contexts.

Alexander Gregg

Alexander Gregg : Alexander Gregg is a lecturer in mechanical engineering and director of the engineering student teams program at the University of Newcastle. His research interests are in engineering education, including the innovative application of technologies in educational settings.

Amy Young

Amy Young : Amy Young is a PhD Candidate within the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Queensland University of Technology. Her research interests are in professional identity, engineering education and student success.